Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001249

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I was recently in Great Britain, sometimes in England and sometimes in Scotland, and I heard a couple of different opinions about the upcoming vote.

What do the Shipmates from Scotland have to say?

(If there has been a thread on this before, I have not been able to find it.)

[ 08. January 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We have had threads on the subject before. I don't think we've had one recently - certainly not since the "official" start of campaigning for the referendum.

I'm still undecided.

I decided long ago that we're not voting on the question I would have wanted on the referendum. IMO, the Scottish Government has put the cart before the horse. We needed to start with a "Do you want the Scottish Government to explore options for Independence?" question - in our out of EU? keep the pound, Euro, own currency? in or out of NATO? university research funding through UK Research Councils or a Scottish funding option? Basically, what will Independence look like, and will it work. And then (if yes to that) get presented with one or more options for Independence and asked to vote "yes or no" on that - with that vote being UK wide (with some method to ensure fairness to Scotland, which would be part of the work conducted in advance about how independence would work).

But, we've got a question which doesn't define "Independence". We've got a Scottish Government document that paints big pictures of a vision for independence (plus a whole load of gumph that should be in the SNP manifesto for the next Scottish Parliamentary elections as they don't really depend on independence). It's actually a great vision, but as the "no" campaign have made clear there's no guarantee any of it can be made to happen - to stay in the EU, keep the pound etc will require negotiation with no guaranteed outcome.

That being said, the "Yes" campaign have presented a compelling vision of what an Independent Scotland could be. The "No" campaign was initially pretty negative - telling us that the "Yes" vision wasn't going to work. They seem to be getting their act together and are starting to present a positive side to the campaign and describe what Scotland gains by staying in the Union - a lot of it being devolution+ rather than just what the current arrangement is.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The problem the SNP faced was that there was no way that they could have the negotiations on independence before a referendum, and if they tried they'd have been accused of trying to pre-empt the vote.

I'm strongly considering voting in favour. I think there is more chance of trying to build a fairer society in Scotland than trying to counteract the English tory vote and build one across the UK.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
If there were to be three choices on the ballot paper (Yes / Full fiscal autonomy falling short of full independence / No ) I would definitely vote for the middle option, also known as Devo Max.

As that isn't a option, I'll be voting "Yes."

I'd agree with everything that Alan has said.

Part of the problem is that, whilst the SNP have produced a massive document detailing what they believe Independence would mean, the "No" campaign have been very vague, with threats that independence will be unpleasant, but few facts. They've been suggesting that a No vote might still produce greater devolution, but without any definite commitment.

Personally, I think it's still all to play for. The polls suggest that the majority are not in favour of Independence, but that the Yes voters, though fewer in numbers, are more committed to turning out and voting on the day.

I'm seeing a lot of "Yes" material - stickers on cars, posters in house windows, lapel badges. There's much less visible "No" material.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The arguments don't matter at the moment. The vote is in September so why should the No campaign spend any money on it now? Nobody wins anything in June!

It will be spent in the month leading up to the vote, and that is when the campaign will start. If the SNP have any money left by then of course.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The arguments do matter at the moment. This is our future we're talking about; it's our children's futures.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I strongly support the right of Scotland to make the decision, rather than whole UK (I'm English btw), but I am hoping for a No vote.

I would rather have a fully federated Britain, including proper representation for the remaining colonies and crown territories.

I seriously doubt Scotland will do as well independently - and I don't think the rest of us will either.

[ 05. June 2014, 19:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I'm a Londoner living in Edinburgh. Neither of my parents were born in the UK. My surname comes from Galloway. My wife was brought up in Scotland, but her ancestry is also mixed English and Scottish.
As far as the sentimental side of the argument goes, I'm all for the Union. That's who I am.

As for the practical side of it, I am really unconvinced by a proposal to keep the pound but leave the BBC. Keeping the pound is not independence in any way that I can understand. Immigration: I can't see an independent Scotland joining the Schengen area, nor can I see it running any immigration policy that the English government didn't find acceptable. If the proposal were to take most of northern England with us, I'd be more convinced by arguments for fairness.
(I saw a yes campaign advert yesterday, claiming that an independent Scotland wouldn't go into illegal wars, illustrated by a picture of Blair. Where was Blair born and brought up again?)
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.

I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.

I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.

I think it is fair to say that they wouldn't have gone into that illegal war.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Apologies, yes, Doublethink. Poor phrasing on my part.
 
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :
 
There may be much merit in the principle, but the current SNP proposal seems half-baked with too many unanswered questions. Personally I've only heard Scots speak against it, whilst everyone in my acquaintance in favour is English or Welsh.

I do find the Conservative position hard to understand, at both an ideological and a pragmatic level.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I'm an Englishman, living in England, and I'd like Scotland to vote no. I don't much fancy having my country torn apart.

What don't you understand about the Conservative position, Oddjob?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.

I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.

An independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be an SNP-run Scotland.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
And the yes campaign is not just about the SNP. Indeed there is an argument that says that only in a independent Scotland can the Tories re-gain any credibility north of the border.

I think,that the reason the yes stickers are obvious, as they are, and the no ones are not, is because there have been no "no" stickers made!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.

I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.

As pointed out, we're voting for independence not for the SNP. Tony Blair is Scottish. It is quite possible that had Scotland been independent at the time of the Second Iraq War Blair would have been the Scottish First Minister and taken Scotland into it.
(For that matter, it would be a semi-feasible proposition for Cameron to become head of Clan Cameron by strategically bumping off relatives a la Kind Hearts and Coronets.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would rather have a fully federated Britain, including proper representation for the remaining colonies and crown territories.

But, when the best isn't on offer we have to settle for second best.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
For me, the union is the second best. But then, I don't have a vote - unless, weirdly, I happen to get a job in Scotland and move. Then suddenly my opinion counts - I do find that odd.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
There may be much merit in the principle, but the current SNP proposal seems half-baked with too many unanswered questions. Personally I've only heard Scots speak against it, whilst everyone in my acquaintance in favour is English or Welsh.

I do find the Conservative position hard to understand, at both an ideological and a pragmatic level.

The SNP has been crystal-clear and forthright compared to the two failed referendums their siblings-in-spirit the Parti Québecois tried here in Canada. The PQ didn't have a position paper and couldn't bring itself to think about losing the Canadian Dollar.

With regards to Doublethink's position, is the UK a union or not? In Canada in 1995 the federalist "No" side ran a Quebec-only-matters campaign and nearly lost. It left federalists in Quebec on the point of tears at feeling abandoned and the rest of the country was pulling its hair out at being ignored.

So the rules were ripped up and there was a massive unity rally in Montreal a few days before the referendum. 50,000 turned out including four provincial premiers. Convoys of buses rolled down Highway 401 for that.

It was the boost the "No" campaign needed. They won by 0.5%. My greatest fear is the the Scottish "No" campaign's greatest weakness is people on both sides of the Tweed have stopped believing in the United Kingdom. Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As pointed out, we're voting for independence not for the SNP. Tony Blair is Scottish. It is quite possible that had Scotland been independent at the time of the Second Iraq War Blair would have been the Scottish First Minister and taken Scotland into it.
(For that matter, it would be a semi-feasible proposition for Cameron to become head of Clan Cameron by strategically bumping off relatives a la Kind Hearts and Coronets.)

The reason for Blair being elected disappears in an independent Scotland. Scottish Labour alone wouldn't have picked anyone so right wing without having to try to appeal to tories in the south east.

[code]

[ 06. June 2014, 05:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
Slightly amused but not at all surprised that the practical experience of another part of the United Kingdom leaving is hardly mentioned.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think having a war is something everyone would like to avoid. Along with community violence in the rest of the UK, and a state so poor at the outset it has to hand over its welfare state to the Catholic church.

[ 06. June 2014, 06:38: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I think Irish independence came up on the last Scottish independence thread.

Quite a big difference, presumably, is the size of the state in 2014 compared to 1922? The fundamentals might be similar, but in this respect I imagine life was somewhat simpler back then.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
After ninety three years we've better dole and pensions but means tested medical cards. Mustn't mention the means tested medical cards. Did I mention means tested medical cards?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
After ninety three years we've better dole and pensions but means tested medical cards. Mustn't mention the means tested medical cards. Did I mention means tested medical cards?

I was shocked to realize this. Does this mean that if you're reasonably well off, you have to pay for medicines, hospital treatment, and so on?

I think that is very unlikely in an independent Scotland; in some ways, the expectation would be the opposite, that the drive to privatize in the NHS would be resisted, and things like payment for GP visits would not happen. But of course, a right-wing govt in Scotland could happen one day.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I'm half English and I was never into the Britain thing. I still get vexed when people refer to me as half British. I always reply that I'm not British, I'm half English (and half Finnish).

I think the Scotts should go for independence. The only thing I would say is don't give that independence up to the EU.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The government have created this handy guide for those undecided which way to vote. They've made it nice and simple, using Lego, because they apparently think that Scottish voters are not very bright. They obviously know what appeals to Scottish voters, too, pointing out that we could eat fish and chips every day for ten weeks for the amount of money independence will cost us.

There is genuine puzzlement in Scotland at why the government thinks this sort of thing will appeal to Scots. It's as if the government is actively nudging us towards a "Yes" vote.

[ 06. June 2014, 09:07: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
You do wonder, NEQ. The tactics of the 'No' campaign have varied between bullying and patronising.

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.

Either way, I see an increase in the fracture between London and the SE and the Rest.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Are the Scottish government allowed to campaign for a Yes? I thought the Yes/No campaign groups were supposed to be independent?

Doublethink:
quote:
I don't have a vote - unless, weirdly, I happen to get a job in Scotland and move. Then suddenly my opinion counts - I do find that odd.
Not particularly odd. The Scottish Government has obviously done its calculations and decided that people born in Scotland who are currently living and working elsewhere in the UK are more likely to be in favour of the Union than people from the rest of the UK who are currently resident in Scotland.

FWIW I think they're right. The plural of anecdote is not data, but my Other Half was born in Edinburgh, has spent most of his life working in London and living in England and would vote No if he was allowed to.

If the proposal was independence for Northern England in a union with Scotland, I'd vote for it like a shot. Certainly the counties immediately south of the Border have more in common with Scotland than with London and the South-East.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
My greatest fear is the the Scottish "No" campaign's greatest weakness is people on both sides of the Tweed have stopped believing in the United Kingdom. Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.

I believe in self-determination. If the Scots want to be an independent country, deciding on everything for themselves without the rest of us getting in the way, then good luck to them.

I'd say the same of Wales. Or Cornwall. Or any other area that decides it would rather go its own way without having to kowtow to the rest of its current nation. If a majority of Catalans want to leave Spain, they should be allowed to do so. If a majority of Quebecois want to leave Canada, they should be allowed to do so. If the Flemish and Walloons want to split Belgium in two, they should be allowed to do so. If a majority of Texans want to leave the USA, they should be allowed to do so. Tibet. Taiwan. East Timor. South Sudan. Eritrea. Kosovo. Chechnya. Same story.

I see no good reason why any region that wants it should be prevented from gaining independence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Are the Scottish government allowed to campaign for a Yes? I thought the Yes/No campaign groups were supposed to be independent?

The Scottish Government produced Scotland's Future and other pro-Independence propoganda. I see no reason why the Westminster Government can't use Lego bricks to present an alternative position.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I suppose so, and if the Westminster government can't be bothered to find out how to present their arguments in a way that will appeal to *real* Scottish voters then it's their funeral.

They patronise us as well, by the way.
 
Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :
 
My big issue with the yes campaign winning is completely selfish and cares naught for Scotland's interests but Scottish independence will be the nail in the coffin for any devolution of power from Westminster to anywhere for a very long time.

I can't having lived outside the barrier of mattering to Westminster through Blair and Cameron see the North-South divide becoming less in trenched without some feeling of control for the north. Especially with the safety valve of Westminster blaming and harassing Scotland taken away.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Yes, that's why I'd like to see Northern England in a union with Scotland...

Some people have suggested that London (having looted the rest of the UK of everything it wants over the last thousand years or so) should become a city-state independent of the rest of the country, just as Singapore is independent of Malaysia.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm an Englishman, living in England, and I'd like Scotland to vote no. I don't much fancy having my country torn apart.

Do you think of England or the UK as your country? I worry more about the affect on England of losing Scotland and getting a permanent Tory majority in its place.

I'd be practising my Scots' but maybe in the SW we should be going for a renewed Wessex. Britain is our kingdom as founded by Brutus Aeneas in Totnes.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I consider the UK to be my country, so don't much fancy it being dismembered.

(I'd also like a permanent Tory majority, but that's proving more elusive...)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I consider the UK to be my country

Then why describe yourself as "an Englishman, living in England" rather than "British, living in the UK?" or even "an Englishman, living in the UK"?
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
While I advocate the right of the Scots to vote on their independence, I can't help but think that the way the referendum was set up was a bit wonky.

First of all, there was the fiasco regarding the wording of the question, which was ultimately ruled to be biased and had to be changed, though what gets me is the undemocratic nature of who gets to vote and who is affected by it.

For example, anyone who was born in Scotland and who lives in Scotland gets to vote. That's fine.

Anyone who wasn't born in Scotland but lives there gets to vote. Yet those who would have their nationality changed are those who were born in Scotland. So if, say, I was born in Scotland but currently lived in Carlise, I would not get a vote, but if the 'Yes' campaign won, then my nationality would be changed without me getting a say in it. Worse still, someone who wouldn't be affected by it (c.f. the West Lothian question) gets to vote. e.g. any Welshman who happens to live in Aberdeen.

This isn't argument for the 'Yes' or 'No' campaign, but rather the point is that the way the whole thing has been set up has been ill-thought out.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There needed to be some way of deciding who gets to vote, and who doesn't. What's been adopted is quite simple, anyone registered to vote in a Scottish constituency - extended to 16 year olds to reflect the stated wish of the Scottish Government to all 16 year olds to vote (but something they can't actually enact for elections as that isn't a power they have).

And, people born in Scotland will be able to claim Scottish citizenship, it won't be forced on them.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, people born in Scotland will be able to claim Scottish citizenship, it won't be forced on them.

I believe that anyone currently living in Scotland would also be able to apply for Scottish citizenship, regardless of their parentage or place of birth.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which is no different from the current situation (except for Scottish rather than UK citizenship). Though I'm not sure if the Scottish government is considering a test to correspond to the current one for UK citizenship.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I consider the UK to be my country

Then why describe yourself as "an Englishman, living in England" rather than "British, living in the UK?" or even "an Englishman, living in the UK"?
Because I thought it a more accurate description for the purposes of this discussion. Being an Englishman and being British aren’t mutually exclusive, even if one prioritises one description over another. Since the question in the OP was directed towards Scots, describing myself as an Englishman seemed to make more sense. Describing myself as living in England made more sense to me as it shows that I don’t have a vote in the referendum.

If this thread was discussing independence for Yorkshire, for example, I might describe myself in terms of my county of birth and not mention nationality at all.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though I'm not sure if the Scottish government is considering a test to correspond to the current one for UK citizenship.

That will be for them to decide if and when independence becomes a reality. Personally I think it would be a good idea, but it's not my call to make.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Are the Scottish government allowed to campaign for a Yes? I thought the Yes/No campaign groups were supposed to be independent?

If you think the government and the campaign are independent, you're kidding yourself. As an example, I present you the PQ Governments of Quebec and the Liberal Governments of Canada in 1980 and 1995.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
It is nice at any rate that this issue is being dealt with in a more civilized fashion than, for instance, the breakup of Yugoslavia.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:

Slightly amused but not at all surprised that the practical experience of another part of the United Kingdom leaving is hardly mentioned.

Indeed! Not entirely convinced that Ireland of the 1920's is comparable with Scotland of 2014 though. But I guess there must be disgruntled Presbyterians somewhere up there who are poor and trampled and ready to rise up against their British Anglican oppressors. The possibility of a United Celtic Nations forming slightly amuses me.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, people born in Scotland will be able to claim Scottish citizenship, it won't be forced on them.

Yes, that is what I have been told. I was very worried about that one as I am happy being an Englishman of Scottish birth and descent. If I had to choose I would choose English/rUK/not Scottish.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:

Slightly amused but not at all surprised that the practical experience of another part of the United Kingdom leaving is hardly mentioned.

Indeed! Not entirely convinced that Ireland of the 1920's is comparable with Scotland of 2014 though. But I guess there must be disgruntled Presbyterians somewhere up there who are poor and trampled and ready to rise up against their British Anglican oppressors. The possibility of a United Celtic Nations forming slightly amuses me.
Well I'd support that Fletcher Christian so that's you and me supporting a Celtic Union. Support for the concept doubled already!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Yay! Let's have a referendum. It might be better if we don't tell them it will include Wales and a bit of Cornwall.
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have to say I didn't know the UK treasury was apparently campaigning for a no vote using Lego figures on Buzzfeed [Paranoid]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by burlingtontiger (# 18069) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by burlingtontiger (# 18069) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Why would we want a UN security council seat? I would hope that Scottish independence might lead to some reform of that absurd system.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
I hope UKIP save is from the pro EU views of the London boozing community.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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 [Paranoid]

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 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Of course they are not legal tender, as Scottish law does not have this concept.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I confess my ignorance: legal tender versus legal currency. My dictionary indicates that legal tender can be offered and must be accepted as payment of a debt and that currency is simply paper money. If currency is not legal tender, what good is it?

Currency is just as good as people's willingness to accept it. As long as enough people think they'll be able to get goods that they want for it then it will be traded for goods.
Legal tender AIUI is only of relevance in a highly specific situation. If somebody wants to refuse your money in a shop they're allowed to refuse whether or not it's legal tender. It's only if they've already given you the goods and require payment later that legal tender becomes relevant.

[ 11. June 2014, 19:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
As I understand it (and I'm not an economist, nor a pedant who really cares about such things), the difference between legal currency and legal tender goes something like this:

If you go into a shop to buy something you enter into what is in effect a negotiation - the shopkeeper is offering to give you something in exchange for something of equal value. Legal currency is something with defined value that simplifies the transaction. That is legal currency. The shop keeper, however, is entitled to say he doesn't consider your currency to have the value claimed and refuse to see you the whatever it is. In the case of trying to use a banknote issued by a Scottish bank in England is that the shopkeeper can only make that claim if he also considers a note issued by the Bank of England to have less value than stated. Both notes have the same legal value.

On the other hand if you are issued with a bill for payment for something you have already received then the issue of legal tender comes into play. One part of the transaction has taken place, and the seller requires payment of something of equal value to the debt, and is entitled to take you to court for nonpayment if he doesn't receive it. You can offer anything to pay the debt, and he may take that as acceptable payment, or he may say "that's not enough" and take you to court. If what you offer to pay is legal tender of sufficient value then his court case doesn't have any basis - he has refused to take payment so can't sue you for refusing to pay.

[x-post with Dafyd]

[ 11. June 2014, 20:08: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

I guess my question would be about Salmond's ability to deliver what he's promising, when he clearly has no power to force the EU or the British government to do as he wishes. His argument seems to be that "it makes sense" to do it his way. It surely does make sense for Scotland, but it seems to me to be a very disputable matter whether any or all of his assumptions make sense for the people he is counting on to fulfil those assumptions as he hopes they will.

It isn't really in the interests of the rest of the UK for the Scottish economy to go to pot, so I suspect that if Scottish independence went ahead Westminster would be more compliant than its current rhetoric suggests.

The EU I think would be a tougher proposition. Spain in particular would like to send a message to Catalonia that secession is not easy ...
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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.

Yet again there is an effectively ignored precedent. The Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland's Saorstat/Irish Pound was convertible at an IR£ for Stg£ rate until 1979. No say on interest rates, and the Irish banks were obliged to keep moneys on deposit with the Bank of England. Consequently we had zero say on interest rates until then.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
When I said "cannot keep the pound" i was using shorthand for "will no longer recognise paper currency issued by Scots banks as valid in the remaining UK and will not accept it in exchange at parity". In other words, the Scots economy would be isolated.

After any independence, Bank of England and the UK Govt would be required to manage the UK economy regardless of the impact on Scotland - much the same as they now do so regardless of the impact on Australia. All of course, subject to any obligations should Scotland become a member of the EU.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
^ I would have thought it obvious that Scottish banks in an independent Scotland have no authority to issue bank notes for the UK. In exactly the same way that French banks have no authority to issue bank notes for the UK.

I think you have the issue backwards in practice. The issue is what currency Scotland will use, not what currency the UK will use.

The only transitional issue from a UK perspective is whether to keep using any 'Scottish-looking' money that was created while Scotland was still part of the UK. And I can't see why they wouldn't, because it's UK money, and any money issued by Scotland post-independence would not be UK money nor would it look like UK money.

[ 12. June 2014, 08:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Not sure that it's all that obvious. At present, paper currency issued by Scottish banks is generally recognised in the remainder of the UK, and Ronald Binge has pointed out the continued acceptance of the Irish pound at parity for decades after independence.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Define 'acceptance'. Because if you're talking about people accepting something in practice, then no amount of legal wrangling affects that. There are plenty of countries where people accept US dollars even though there's absolutely no legal basis for doing so.

Similarly, one can find New Zealand coins changing hands in Australia reasonably frequently. That doesn't mean that 'Australia', the country, accepts New Zealand coins. It just means that people who live in Australia generally don't create a fuss if they receive a New Zealand coin in their change.

[ 12. June 2014, 09:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not sure that it's all that obvious. At present, paper currency issued by Scottish banks is generally recognised in the remainder of the UK.

Scottish paper currency is not really relevant in this context. The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.

There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland from either continuing to use BoE issued/derived currency or from pegging their currency to the pound.

For the reasons Alan mentions it is unlikely that not having an independent monetary policy would cause issues - at least in the near to mid term.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The relevant part of the Banking Act 2009 authorising Scottish and Northern Irish notes says that the authorised banks are only authorised to issue notes "in the part of the United Kingdom in which it was authorised [under the old 1845 legislation] to issue banknotes before commencement [of the new legislation]".

Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.

And which I still think is obvious, anyway.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I don't agree that
quote:
The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.
If I'm going to England, I try to change my notes before going, to save hassle. I usually go to our nearest shop, and they riffle through their till for B of E notes, which are a small minority. I would say that 80% at least of the notes which pass through my hands are not B of E. At the moment I have a Clydesdale £20 and a Royal Bank £5 in my purse.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.

And which I still think is obvious, anyway.

Absolutely, but being able to issue currency is kind orthogonal to whether they are 'allowed to use the Pound as their currency'. Their situation would be more analogous to that of Panama or the Irish state in the era Ronald Binge mentions.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.

And which I still think is obvious, anyway.

Absolutely, but being able to issue currency is kind orthogonal to whether they are 'allowed to use the Pound as their currency'. Their situation would be more analogous to that of Panama or the Irish state in the era Ronald Binge mentions.
Yes, they are two separate issues.

The UK would have no power to stop an independent Scotland saying that it would use the British Pound as its currency. The whole point of being independent is that UK law wouldn't apply in Scotland. Scottish law would apply.

The only way that the UK could stop British pounds being used in Scotland in practice would be to implement laws and border controls to make it illegal to export UK money into Scotland. That way madness lies. In any case, it would be thoroughly ineffective because people would just export UK money into a third country, and then move it from the third country to Scotland.

EDIT: This is potentially instructive.

[ 12. June 2014, 10:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Scottish paper currency is not really relevant in this context. The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.

At the moment I have £50 in notes in my wallet, all in Clydesdale Bank notes. Occasionally someone gives me a Bank of England £5 as change. But cash machines are almost entirely loaded with Clydesdale Bank or Bank of Scotland.

I think people who are planning to visit England do hoard up English notes and take them south. So English notes that make it north over the border tend to go back south disproportionately. That said, I've never had any significant trouble spending a Scottish note south of the border.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relevant part of the Banking Act 2009 authorising Scottish and Northern Irish notes says that the authorised banks are only authorised to issue notes "in the part of the United Kingdom in which it was authorised [under the old 1845 legislation] to issue banknotes before commencement [of the new legislation]".

Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.

Unless something got written into the necessary Acts for Independence a continuation of the authorisation for Scottish banks to issue GBP notes.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We spent a week in Scotland for the May half term, a couple of weeks ago. The cash points meant that we were spending Scottish notes very quickly. And we spent them in Scotland, rather than have to discuss whether they were legal back in England. A lot of businesses won't take them south of the border, never have.

Not sure how true this is, but having carefully divested herself of all Scottish notes after we spent Christmas in Scotland, the Orcadian taxi driver my daughter booked to get home was annoyed she could only pay in English notes as he was heading home for Hogmanay and couldn't spend English notes in the Orkneys.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relevant part of the Banking Act 2009 authorising Scottish and Northern Irish notes says that the authorised banks are only authorised to issue notes "in the part of the United Kingdom in which it was authorised [under the old 1845 legislation] to issue banknotes before commencement [of the new legislation]".

Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.

Unless something got written into the necessary Acts for Independence a continuation of the authorisation for Scottish banks to issue GBP notes.
Correct. IF the law changed, it could be done. But I can't really conceive of any reason why the UK parliament would authorise a foreign bank to issue its currency. To my mind, only a country that lacks internal capacity to issue currency would consider such a move, and there are English banks to do the job. They're already doing it.

[ 13. June 2014, 11:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Good to see that you've come around to what I've been saying all the time, Orfeo.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Good to see that you've come around to what I've been saying all the time, Orfeo.

I don't see how. Scots banks being unable to print sterling has little or no bearing on whether an independent Scotland could use sterling as a currency.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And I don't see how I can make what I've been saying any clearer or simpler - sorry.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Good to see that you've come around to what I've been saying all the time, Orfeo.

I wasn't aware that you were talking about esoteric theoretical possibilities. I was coming at it from the realistic angle.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I thought that I was as well. I was addressing a point over which the Yes vote materials skate very quickly Unless the separation legislation makes specific provision, notes printed in Scotland would not be valid tender in the remaining UK.

Indeed, the UK govt and the Bank of England could do what the Reichsbank did to combat the rampant inflation in Germany in 1921 (or was it 22?), call in old notes and replace them with new - and then refuse to renew notes from citizens of Scotland. Now that may be a bit remote from reality.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?

As for currency de facto usage, in Laos only one third of the currency in actual use are the national currency Kip, the only legal tender. Another third is USD, the last third is Thai Baht. Laos is about the size of the UK, with about half of Scotland's population and the development level of the Hebrides. Should work for Scotland as well, one would think.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I thought that I was as well. I was addressing a point over which the Yes vote materials skate very quickly Unless the separation legislation makes specific provision, notes printed in Scotland would not be valid tender in the remaining UK.

Indeed, the UK govt and the Bank of England could do what the Reichsbank did to combat the rampant inflation in Germany in 1921 (or was it 22?), call in old notes and replace them with new - and then refuse to renew notes from citizens of Scotland. Now that may be a bit remote from reality.

No, you've gone and talked about a different issue again, in a thoroughly confused way. There won't BE any UK notes being printed outside the UK (in Scotland) to make invalid.

And if you're talking about notes that are already printed, that's a completely different issue. Have you not noticed people saying that Scottish notes aren't routinely accepted over the border now? How can that be a problem with the 'yes' vote if it's already happening before there's a vote?

As for the second part ...why on earth would citizens of Scotland be going to an English bank to get notes? They'll get them IN SCOTLAND. I've already pointed out the massive impracticalities of any attempt of the UK/'England' to stop their notes getting to Scotland. It can't be done unless you stop all currency from leaving the UK for any destination, and that simply won't happen.

As has been pointed out a number of times by me and by others, there are quite a few countries that use another country's currency. Many of them don't ask, because many of them don't do it in any official capacity anyway. It just happens because that's the way people operate. Stopping it in practice is deeply impractical. Stopping it in law is completely ineffective because the law of the issuing country only applies in the issuing country.

You say you can't make what you're saying any clearer, but what you're saying keeps interweaving three independent questions: the location in which a note is issued, the location in which a note is used, and whether a note was printed pre- or post- independence (all of this being predicated on the assumption of an independent Scotland). That makes 8 different permutations, and really to be clear you would need to address each of those 8 different permutations separately. In my view, many of those permutations have no practical relevance whatsoever.

And that's just dealing with a currency called a British Pound and assuming that an independent Scotland won't create its own currency.

[ 14. June 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh what the heck, let's go through 'em.

1. British pounds issued in England before split, used in England after split: perfectly fine.

2. British pounds issued in England after split, used in England after split: also perfectly fine.

3. British pounds issued in Scotland before split, used in England after split: well, there are already practical issues with use in England now, as residents have discussed. The practical issues will remain. I can't see a massive reason why the UK authorities would feel the need to legally cancel the currency that's been lawfully issued, though.

4. British pounds issued in Scotland after split, used in England after split: won't exist.

5. British pounds issued in England before split, used in Scotland after split: whether these are allowed will be up to Scotland, not the UK.

6. British pounds issued in England after split, used in Scotland after split: will be up to Scotland, not the UK. Anyone in the UK who thinks they can stop these notes getting to Scotland is living in a fantasy.

7. British pounds issued in Scotland before split, used in Scotland after split: will be up to Scotland, not the UK.

8. British pounds issued in Scotland after split, used in Scotland after split: won't exist.

[ 14. June 2014, 11:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?

Unlikely in the case of the Crown Dependencies as these get a large chunk of their income from expat British tax avoiders ...
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?

Unlikely in the case of the Crown Dependencies as these get a large chunk of their income from expat British tax avoiders ...
Expat British tax avoiders - I can't help but think that that would include American investments in Canada as well! [Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
but, when we get a Yes vote, the whole of Scotland joins the ex-Brit camp avoiding British taxes by paying Scottish taxes.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Orfeo, I regret that I am unable to convince you that what you and I are saying is identical. I can't put what I've said any other way, but it is the same.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, I regret that I am unable to convince you that what you and I are saying is identical. I can't put what I've said any other way, but it is the same.

I can't see how we can be saying the same thing, given that my point of view is that there is no possible practical difficulty with Scotland using British pounds if it chooses to.

You had a problem with the Yes case skating over the question. I don't have a problem with them not addressing it in detail, because I can't see that there is in fact any difficult problem to solve.

[ 15. June 2014, 05:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
On the 'on the ground' solutions, you can find plenty of places around the NI/Republic of Ireland that take both pounds and Euros.

Before that, I think the Punt was pegged to parity with the pound, so British and Irish notes circulated through the whole island - though you couldn't pass Irish notes in mainland Britain. But there again, I've had notes issued by Northern Irish banks refused in Scotland.

ISTM that ultimately 'real money' is whatever people are prepared to give you stuff in exchange for.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I don't know what to say which will convince you, except to pick up on what's in Firenze's post: the Scots can use the pound notes for whatever purpose they may wish. That's not to say that they are using the pound.

[ 15. June 2014, 07:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
When the Punt was around it was a good bit harder to pass them off as tender, even in the border areas where some places like garages did take them. It's become a lot easier with the Euro today and there are quite a number of places in the cities in the North that will accept Euro's. The Northern Ireland sterling banknotes are still a problem though, often not accepted in the rest of the UK despite being sterling.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You had a problem with the Yes case skating over the question. I don't have a problem with them not addressing it in detail, because I can't see that there is in fact any difficult problem to solve.

Agreed. There are some big questions that actually can't be answered right now that will have significant impact - membership of the EU, for example. Currency isn't a big issue. There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know what to say which will convince you, except to pick up on what's in Firenze's post: the Scots can use the pound notes for whatever purpose they may wish. That's not to say that they are using the pound.

Of course it means they're using the pound. What on earth do you think they'd be using?

Firenze talked about pegging two currencies at parity. That does not mean the same thing as them being one currency.

Nor is having two currencies circulating the same as having one, foreign currency circulating.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You had a problem with the Yes case skating over the question. I don't have a problem with them not addressing it in detail, because I can't see that there is in fact any difficult problem to solve.

Agreed. There are some big questions that actually can't be answered right now that will have significant impact - membership of the EU, for example. Currency isn't a big issue. There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
I'm not convinced about 'little practical difference'. My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably). Having said that, as someone with a vote in this referendum I do agree that, for me, currency isn't a big issue in my thinking. As Alan said, our membership of the EU is a much more important issue, to my mind, and one which seems to be being skirted over in the constant banging-on about the pound.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably).

Citation needed. This paper argues that perceived inflation far outstripped any acutal inflation. It observes a little inflation on some relatively low-priced (but commonly-purchased) goods, but nothing more.

I'm old enough to remember people making similar complaints about the transition to decimal currency. This paper suggests the problem is poor communication, which is also I think the biggest weakness of the EU on the whole.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably).

Citation needed. This paper argues that perceived inflation far outstripped any acutal inflation. It observes a little inflation on some relatively low-priced (but commonly-purchased) goods, but nothing more.
Oh sure, very probably, and of course I am doing the terrible thing of using a sample of 1, for which of course you can give whatever weight you choose - but given that perception (about many issues) can affect voting (just look at how successfully UKIP, the Daily Mail et al have managed to affect perceptions about Europe and immigration), a perceived loss in income/savings value or increase in prices as a result of independence/currency change could make a difference (a) to where people might choose to cast their vote and (b) how they react and vote in any future post-independence polity.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's what's depressing. When the debate even by national institutions is at the level of Lego figures about saving money on your gas bill, how can one expect anyone to make a properly informed decision about anything?
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.

Hey, what about joining the Swedish, Danish or Norwegian Krona? After all, our shared history is way older than those Southern Normands, right? (Also, Sweden's second city and main port, Gothenburg, is supposed to have gotten its distinct rolling r's in the local accent from the immense trade with Glasgow a century back or two.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think I mentioned that option upthread somewhere. Yes, it is an option - I would put it in with option 2 - join an existing currency eg: Euro, Krona etc

It certainly seems that from my (not perfect) knowledge of Scandinavian countries that the social and political soul of Scotland does align pretty well across the North Sea. An independent Scotland will probably relatively quickly adopt a form of social democracy that looks quite Scandinavian.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Presuming it can afford it. This would in large part be determined by whether the electorate were prepared to bear the substantially increased burden of tax required to fund such. [ETA: I have my doubts about that.]

[ 15. June 2014, 16:38: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
From over here most attempts from the Scots, those Brits, to pretend to be Scandinavians look pretty ridiculous. It's about culture, history, values, traditions, many more things. For example, how many wars have you fought against another Scandinavian nation? Remember, Swedes and Danes are actually world record holders in mutual wars. Or what about Christmas - on the 25th or the 24th? What traditions do you have regarding the summer solstice? How do your labour unions differ from the foolishly belligerent English/Welsh ones? What's your take on the Jante law?

Nah, from here we can tell you're nothing but pesky Brits, possibly with a slight trace of French influences during the enlightenment. We, on the other hand, belong to the Germanic protestant culture. Last but not least, we all understand this sketch - once you do, you can reapply for admission. [Razz]

ETA: I should probably link this too.

[ 15. June 2014, 16:48: Message edited by: JFH ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Not that what the pope says on this subject is in any way binding on Catholics (or anyone else, naturally), but here's one take on his recent comments on being cautious about splitting:
quote:
Speaking in an interview with a Spanish newspaper about Catalonia's conflict with Spain, the Pontiff said "all division" worried him and cited Scotland as another example of an independence movement. Pope Francis suggested the break-up of Yugoslavia was justifiable because the cultures that made up that country were so diverse they "couldn’t even be stuck together with glue". But he told the Barcelona-based La Vanguardia newspaper that in other cases, such as Scotland and Catalonia: "I ask myself if it is so clear" [...] While he said each case had to be judged on its own merits, he suggested he was more sceptical about independence campaigns that involved countries without a history of "mandatory unity" - forcing different peoples to live together.

 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
What's your take on the Jante law?
Jante? Ah kent his faither!

(Scroll down to ken)
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?

As for currency de facto usage, in Laos only one third of the currency in actual use are the national currency Kip, the only legal tender. Another third is USD, the last third is Thai Baht. Laos is about the size of the UK, with about half of Scotland's population and the development level of the Hebrides. Should work for Scotland as well, one would think.

Canada has shown less than zero interest in these proposals floating out of Iceland. Canada had a flexible exchange rate long before most of the world because of our large, open trade with the US. The Department of Finance and Bank of Canada are very, very keen supporters of an independent central bank.

The Dept. of Finance and the Bank of Canada have poured all kinds of cold water over these proposals and has clearly stated that there will be no policy changes or concessions whatsoever by the Bank of Canada, which will continue to focus on the interests of Canada only. And don't even think about asking for a seat on the Board of Governors.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Iceland has been muttering about this even before its multi-bank multi-collapse. Given the strong links between the two countries and Iceland's political distaste for the US, it's bound to come up every now and then. During WWII, Mackenzie King declined to take over the occupation of Iceland, fearing that we might get stuck with them permanently.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.

"Little practical difference"? I laugh.

Share the GBP = Scottish monetary policy will be based on what's best for rUK.

Share the Euro = Scottish monetary policy will be based on what's best for Germany and France.

Own currency = Scottish monetary policy will be based on what's best for Scotland.

If that's "little practical difference" then I don't know what constitutes a genuine one!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The "little practical difference" was that there isn't much difference in the economic needs of Scotland, the UK or most of the Euro-zone. Whichever form of currency we get we're not going to experience hyper-inflation, or collapse of financial institutions, nor are we going to experience substantial increases in costs for international trade because of currency exchange. Yes, having a national currency provides some minimal increase in sovereignty.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "little practical difference" was that there isn't much difference in the economic needs of Scotland, the UK or most of the Euro-zone.

When things are going well, sure. But when the next recession hits it could be the difference between how the UK coped with the last one and how Greece did.

The ability to devalue your currency in order to increase foreign investment and stimulate the export market, thus improving the local economy, may be a power that you never want to have to use, but it's one that no sane country should ever surrender.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Have to say I agree with Marvin here - at any rate it seems to me the question is important even if the answer is 'it doesn't make much difference'.

I very much doubt that most Scots think membership of the euro is a matter of indifference.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I wouldn't say it's a matter of indifference. Just that if we can't retain use of the GBP then that isn't a reason to reject independence. The Yes campaign wouldn't be significantly weakened if they'd put joining the Euro or having our own currency in their vision of independence.

To address Marvin's point.

There are significant differences between Scotland and Greece or Portugal. If Scotland were in the Euro before the recent economic crash it would be very unlikely that it would be in the economic difficulties that other nations have experienced. Other small countries, Belgium and Luxembourg for example, weathered the economic downturn at least as well as the UK even within the Eurozone. Ireland didn't do too badly either.

Of course, the global economic depression hit plenty of countries outwith the Eurozone. It's likely that Greece and Portugal would have had problems even if they hadn't adopted the Euro.

As an additional point, countries like Monaco have done very well with their currency tied to a powerful neighbour - initially the French Franc, and now the Euro (which is their official currency, even though they have no representation on the ECB). If it works for Monaco, why can't it work for Scotland (or, indeed the whole UK) with the added influence over policy of representation on the ECB.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it works for Monaco, why can't it work for Scotland (or, indeed the whole UK) with the added influence over policy of representation on the ECB.

It works for Monaco purely because Monaco is a tax haven for a lot of very, very wealthy people. Scotland can try to go down the "we do not collect income tax" route if it wants, but I doubt it could make it work quite as well.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

There are significant differences between Scotland and Greece or Portugal. If Scotland were in the Euro before the recent economic crash it would be very unlikely that it would be in the economic difficulties that other nations have experienced.

I am told Scotland has a (proportionally) very large financial services sector.

But I find the way the debate has concentrated on economics to be somewhat odd. This is, after all, about nationhood, not economics. Isn't it?

Perhaps the explanation is (as mentioned earlier by SPK) that the debate on nationhood has already been won by the nationalists. People regard themselves less and less as British and more and more as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. The shared British culture created over 300 years has been so neglected that the Better Together campaign has hardly bothered to make anything of it, as far as I can tell. Even when I lived in Scotland, back in the 90s, Britishness was deeply unfashionable, associated with Conservatism, and under attack, not just from the SNP but Labour too, as they played the nationalist card for votes. In consequence, Britishness came to mean the worst caricature southern English snobbishness and greed allied with Orangism and Rangers FC, and despite all that shared culture, Britishness remains associated with those specific things. The Unionists have surrendered the field without a fight. In consequence, the debate, or so it seems to me, is not why should Scotland leave, but why should Scotland - being a separate nation already - remain in union.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
It's not really about nationhood for me; the Act of Union in 1707 preserved Scotland's separate church, law and educational system. Most of my life is or has been bound up with education / law / church, and so I've always had a sense of being primarily Scottish first, British second.

It's not anti-British to be a member of the Church of Scotland, any more than it is anti-British to be a member of the Church of England. Similarly, it's no more anti-British to study Scots Law at University and become a Scottish solicitor, as I did, than it is to study English Law and become an English solicitor.


I'm sure this is true for a lot of Scots. Hence, the referendum is about economics / social expectations / politics, rather than nationhood.

[ 18. June 2014, 12:58: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
(missed edit window)

Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
In consequence, Britishness came to mean the worst caricature southern English snobbishness and greed allied with Orangism and Rangers FC, and despite all that shared culture, Britishness remains associated with those specific things.
I've never lived in an area in which Rangers FC or Orangism have been relevant, and I've never associated Britishness with them.

To be honest, I struggle to know what I associate "Britishness" with. When the Royal family are in this area (I'm not a million miles from Balmoral) they're often photographed in kilts, attending Highland games, and they use their Scottish titles - Duke of Rothesay etc. So they don't epitomise "Britishness" in particular, either.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I don't see how it is consistent to deny that for you it's about nationhood, and then mention certain things that are the indicia of nationhood. The reason why Scotland has an independence movement and (say) Wessex doesn't, is because there is no nationalist Wessexian sentiment of any significance (the Mercian movement looks fun though). An independent Wessex would be a wealthy state, particularly if it revived its ancient claims (or created a new one) to some of the home counties north of England.

In my politics and history studies north of the border, academics were keen to emphasise again and again that Scotland had always had a sense of national identity and indeed was a nation, and were very interested in the decline of Scots identifying as "Scottish but British", and the consequent reassertion of Scottish national identity. To be Scottish and British was never a big issue in the past. Now it seems Scots don't even know what it is, although from a distance I have to say it seems pretty obvious.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
FWIW, if my son has to write down his nationality he always puts "British" because, as he says, he knows one of them has one "t" and the other two, and if he writes "British" he still has the option to add a "t" if it looks wrong, whereas if he writes "Scottish" and then decides it looks wrong, it's harder to remove a "t".

Proof that national identity has layers of meaning known only to the individual. Or something.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Um, but Wessex does have a Wessex Regionalist Party and a Wessex Society
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
The Mercians look more fun.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The Mercians look more fun.

See, as a Mercian I'm quite on board with a lot of that, and then they go off on one about priestesses and paganism. Given that it's a real party (slightly unbelievably), and not a spoof, they might actually be on to something if they hadn't then gone totally off-piste.

But I do love a good horn dance.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Rather oddly, the paganism hasn't stopped them from adopting the St Alban's Cross for their flag. I wonder what King Penda would make of that.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
On a slightly different point, an interesting situation would arise if an independent Scotland were to be allowed to remain in the EU but a UKIP-minded England (dragging Wales and Northern Ireland with it) were to stomp grumpily out.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Strictly speaking, Scotland can't "remain" in the EU as it isn't currently a member. A newly-independent Scottish state could in theory become a member as soon as it came into existence, but that would require all EU member states (including the UK) to consent to a variation of the relevant treaties.

It is generally assumed by proponents of Scottish independence that an independent Scotland would be welcomed in. Speaking as a resident of a small country, I think this viewpoint overstates the importance an independent Scotland will have on the international scene, ie, virtually none.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
On a slightly different point, an interesting situation would arise if an independent Scotland were to be allowed to remain in the EU but a UKIP-minded England (dragging Wales and Northern Ireland with it) were to stomp grumpily out.

Assuming an independent Scotland is granted admission to the EU, then Scotland will have no more say on the continuing EU membership of the rest of the UK than any other EU nation.

It would be a major economic challenge if some form of open trade/border relationship with the rest of the UK wasn't negotiated. But, I can't see even UKIP being stupid enough to want to pull the rest of the UK out of open trade relationships with the rest of the EU.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
A Britain outside the EU would need to negotiate to retain open-market access, and any such access would be unlikely to be unconditional. There would be a price to pay.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Strictly speaking, Scotland can't "remain" in the EU as it isn't currently a member. A newly-independent Scottish state could in theory become a member as soon as it came into existence, but that would require all EU member states (including the UK) to consent to a variation of the relevant treaties.

It is generally assumed by proponents of Scottish independence that an independent Scotland would be welcomed in. Speaking as a resident of a small country, I think this viewpoint overstates the importance an independent Scotland will have on the international scene, ie, virtually none.

I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it". The only likely candidate is Spain and I think, when push comes to shove, they'll favour being able to fish in Scottish waters and maintain trade links over trying to get leverage over Catalonia (whose hypothetical membership they could block themselves if it ever came to it). They'll huff and puff about it before hand but it's not worth the trouble for them to refuse Scotland membership.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
In a 'Scotland-in, legacy-UK out' scenario, we could see some UK corporations finding it worth relocating to Scotland; and possibly Wales and (less plausibly) Northern Ireland might want to follow Scotland. The English Mail/Express/Sun reading public would probably be too pig-headed to draw the obvious conclusion.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
A number of EU states have separatist movements that their governments will presumably not wish to encourage. Spain is far from the only one. The question is whether these governments can dress up their real concerns in some other guise.

While one should not underestimate their powers of inventiveness, there is already an obvious one: the currency issue. It is perfectly possible to object to Scottish entry on the basis that Scotland is not an established country with its own, established, financial track record or institutions such as a reserve bank, or even currency, and as such it represents a potential threat to the good fiscal management of the EU. I am guessing this is why there are in fact rules requiring new entrants to the euro to have had their own reserve bank for a period of years.

The obvious way round this is a currency union with the UK, but that is not something an independent Scotland would be entitled to have, nor something that there is much political will in the UK to offer, so it seems.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In a 'Scotland-in, legacy-UK out' scenario, we could see some UK corporations finding it worth relocating to Scotland;

Some willl relocate south to protect their business, e.g. those in the pensions industry, who are already making contingency plans.

While I could imagine others moving north for tax reasons (I understand that Yes proponents are suggesting Scotland adopt an extremely low rate of corporate tax). The problem with this is that Ireland has already won this game of beggar-my-neighbour economics.

quote:
possibly Wales and (less plausibly) Northern Ireland might want to follow Scotland. The English Mail/Express/Sun reading public would probably be too pig-headed to draw the obvious conclusion.
I never really quite understand why remarks like this are acceptable. They bring nothing to the debate. As it is, the most pig-headed English nationalists would probably be glad to have the Welsh and the Northern Irish off their hands, as they are more clearly a drain on the exchequer than Scotland is likely to bein the future.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If I have caused offence by using the expression 'pig-headed', I apologise. Would 'dyed in the wool' be more acceptable?
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
The possibility of an in-out referendum on UK membership of the European Union has serious implications for the credibility of the “YES” campaign in Scotland, because it rests on the assumption that when the dust has settled Scotland will come to an amicable arrangement with the Bank of England to retain the pound and remain, or be quickly accepted, as a member of the European Union. While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK. In that case the separation between Scotland and rUK would be more unavoidably radical than envisaged or desired by either party to the cost and disadvantage of both.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Apology accepted, but what is the obvious conclusion? I'm not a Daily Mail reader.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.

This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.

The idea that 'and the next day everything stopped' is a brand of fear mongering. Each country would have far too much invested in both free movement and free trade to allow this. If the time came when they didn't, they *might* sleep walk into that position - but then it wouldn't matter anyway.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?

The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Chris Stiles
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.
This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.

The idea that 'and the next day everything stopped' is a brand of fear mongering. Each country would have far too much invested in both free movement and free trade to allow this. If the time came when they didn't, they *might* sleep walk into that position - but then it wouldn't matter anyway.

One is well aware that states have the capacity to create structures to support their mutual interests, so that Scotland and rUK could make arrangements for the easy flow of individuals between each other to continue more or less as at present in the event of rUK leaving the EU. Problems arise, however, when there are conflicts of interest. Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy. Scottish Nationalists, however, regard an increase in immigration as a solution to their country's need for greater growth. In any event rUK would not wish Scotland to become an open backdoor for European immigration. That is why border control would be necessary, for even if a Scottish passport allowed for automatic access other nationals would not be so fortunate. The sheep and goats will need to be distinguished at Carlisle and Berwick.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Orfeo:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?

The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.

...In other words it is possible to use a particular currency without there being a currency union. Scotland, therefore, could autonomously continue to use the pound without permission of rUK. The problem is that the Bank of England would cease to be a lender of last resort and guarantor of Scottish government borrowings, which would adversely affect interest rates on its bonds.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy.

Sentiment against the EU is equally schizophrenic. A majority of voters would be in favour of staying in the EU providing the terms of staying in could be 'renegotiated' along the lines of which Cameron proposes. Only one point of his seven is specifically connected to immigration, and even that is addressing an issue (EU immigrants seeking benefits) that the Germans already want addressing.

So again, for all practical purposes there would be little difference.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
...OK, Chris, but we were discussing what might be the case if the rUK electorate voted to leave the EU.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?

The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?

The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
I told you the first two did it without asking. That means all the others did ask. They have signed agreements with the EU.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
How is it significant that the others asked to use a freely-tradeable currency? Have these states entered into fiscal pact with EU member states, and are they entitled to rely upon a reserve bank of an EU member state as lender of last resort?

I note also that none of them have an economy of the size of Scotland's.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
OK, I'm guessing there is no "cross-border" currency union, as would be the case if the rUK (or more likely Scotland) found itself outside the EU with the other in. None of those examples are on point.

I will add that the insistence amongst the Yes camp that it is fair that iScotland is morally entitled to a currency union with the rUK shows a real sense of over-entitlement. The reasons why the rUK might be disinclined to share their currency, given the Euro's turmoils, are really very understandable.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it".
Judging by his recent performance during the Juncker fiasco, the possibility of looking foolish and petty is not something that is likely to deter Our Glorious Leader from doing something that he thinks will win him votes at the next election.

In a way I agree with him. The media has turned making politicians look stupid into a fine art; it is almost impossible to avoid doing something that they will claim is stupid, so you might as well just ignore them and do the things that you think are important. It's a pity he hardly ever does anything that I agree with, but as I didn't vote for him I suppose it is not surprising.

Cod:
quote:
I will add that the insistence amongst the Yes camp that it is fair that iScotland is morally entitled to a currency union with the rUK shows a real sense of over-entitlement.
It's also rather inconsistent, when they have been busily insisting that the voters of Scotland should be allowed to put Scotland's interests first (which I agree with). If they do vote Yes, then the voters of the rest of the UK should be allowed to put their own interests first - and as you say, it's not clear that a formal monetary union with an independent Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Cameron's ineptness is embarrasing. IMO, Juncker is quite the wrong person for the job. But it was criminal to let himself get isolated in the way that he has. He has failed to control his party, an in order to appease them he has chosen some rather odd company. Not only did he fail to get his way, he also failed to win himself (or the UK) any political capital out of the loss. However, it is on the public record that he would support iScotland's entry into the EU and, to be honest, I doubt many would be vindictive enough to want the rUK to veto it.

The irony is that history will probably treat Cameron kindly. Time is increasingly running out for the Yes campaign, and one would expect (touch wood) that the UK referendum vote will be to retain EU membership: the plain facts will recall that Cameron made two big calls and got them right. Seems to me though that he's being bloody reckless.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Yes, it is fairly clear that his tactic of:

a. Taking the Conservatives out of the largest European Parliamentary group;

b. Complaining when that group fails to take Conservative wishes into account -

is dictated by trying to appease his own backbenches, rather than any kind of principle or logic.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I think there was a sound logic in saying 'we're part of a European Parliamentary group which is federalist in outlook. We're not a federalist party - quite the opposite - so we're going to build our own group'.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Pity it came across as "if you don't do what I say I'm not going to be your friend any more," then.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
That's not how it came across to me. (Although are you talking about the Conservatives' withdrawal from the EPP or the disagreement over Juncker's appointment?)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Juncker - but Cameron's attitude to Europe generally comes across like that to me. I daresay it plays well to (some of) his own backbenchers and might win back some Conservative voters who have gone over to UKIP, but it's going down like a lead balloon with most of our fellow EU members. And getting back to the original subject of this thread for a moment, it may also be hurting the 'No' campaign in the Scottish referendum; Scotland has done rather well out of the EU and most Scottish voters probably do not want to be dragged out of it by the rest of the UK.

[ 10. July 2014, 10:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think there was a sound logic in saying 'we're part of a European Parliamentary group which is federalist in outlook. We're not a federalist party - quite the opposite - so we're going to build our own group'.

Sure, but one must then accept that one represents a fringe party. If the next general election delivers another hung parliament, the views of Plaid Cymru will count for rather less than those of Labour or the Conservatives, and that is the price they pay for ideological purity.

Of course one can argue that although the Tories' group is minor, the United Kingdom isn't a minor player by any means, but that contradicts Cameron's own insistence that the appointment should have reflected the composition of the European Parliament.

[ 10. July 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I hope I'm in the right thread; I couldn't resist posting this list. Not that I'm particularly bothered by what "celebs" think, but I can't imagine that I would ever agree with such a disparate group of people. I can see myself agreeing with Bamber Gascoigne, Sir Michael Parkinson and James May, but George Galloway, Simon Cowell and Tracey Emin?

[Eek!]

Sadly, having lived outside Scotland for the last 26 years because of my Better Half's work, I have no say in the matter, but it doesn't mean I don't care, and I really don't think that Scotland would benefit from cutting her ties with the U.K.

I was interested to see some of the people who agree.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I was thinking of starting a thread on the debate the other night. But since this thread is alive again ...

I know it wasn't broadcast live south of the border, but it was shown again last night in England. And, it's been reported on widely anyway.

I'm still in the undecided category, and the debate didn't convince me to swing either way. I found Salmond particularly disappointing, particularly as I generally find the arguments for independence attractive. Darling was, well just too much Darling. Better Together have got themselves a leader who just doesn't inspire anything. There were times when I felt they made a right balls up of the argument, and I felt that I could have made a better case than was presented. Two examples, one from each side.

First Salmond, repeatedly asked about "plan B" for currency. He was evasive, never answered the question and created a strong impression that there is no alternative to maintaining the pound in some form of currency union with the Bank of England. I would have answered something along the lines of "I believe the best option for Scotland and the rest of the UK is to maintain the pound, something which Darling himself recognised prior to the start of the campaign" (which is more or less all that Salmond said), I would continue "During the campaign period it is expected that the Better Together supporters would say that such a currency arrangeement is unworkable" (he did sort of say that), and "I believe that when Scotland has voted for independence then cool heads will prevail in Westminster and a mutually beneficial arrangement maintain a common currency for Scotland and the rest of the UK can be agreed" (which is, as I understand it what the Scottich Government actually believes). Finally, I would have put the political boot in a bit and said something like "Of course, after a vote for independence it is possible that the Westminster government in a fit of pique blocks an arrangement for maintaining a common currency, to the detriment of the economy of the rest of the UK. In that case we would have to adopt a second best solution, which will be [insert whatever it is]. Though not what we really want, if the Westminster government wants to take one last chance to take things out on the people of Scotland, we will take it. I believe that although not the best this option would still be good for the economy of Scotland". That would have been a far more convincing argument - especially if in follow-up questions he could have supported those statements.

Second, Darling dodged the question of whether Scotland would be viable as an independent nation. He dodged it because he didn't want to say that yes, we could be a viable independent nation. Whereas, the evidence from other small nations is that we could be, and I think most people recognise that. He could have had a very easy come back - something like "yes, Scotland can be a viable independent nation. But, that's not the important question. The important question is would Scotland, and the people of Scotland, be better off as an independent nation or as part of the UK? I would say that Scotland is better as part of the UK".

Poor marks for both of them. Especially when I could give better answers than they did, even without necessarily believing the answers.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
On the contrary, I found Darling (for the first time) to have some fire in his belly, some real passion. And Salmond really couldn't answer the currency question...er...because he can't.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Darling had fire in his belly for all the negative things he had to say, how independence couldn't work. But, he couldn't seem to raise any enthusiasm for anything positive about what staying in the UK would mean. He couldn't even be positive and enthusiastic about what additional powers are proposed for Holyrood that had recently been announced by the coalition - in fact, he gave the distinct impression that he didn't even know what those additional powers would be. But, negative campaigning, trying to scare people with the unknowns a yes vote would bring, has been a strong feature of the Better Together campaign from the start - which, I admit, is part of why I find the arguments for independence so attractive. They are arguments for something, I want to here the arguments for maintaining the union.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Satirical, but pertinent to the currency question: Alex Salmond claims he has every right to use gym he’s no longer member of
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Good point. [Big Grin]

It seems to me that Salmond is trying to pick and choose the bits of Britishness that he likes: he'd keep the pound, keep the Queen and have some elevated position of his own imagining in the EU.

Dream on ...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I'm not bothered about the Royal Family, but when they're up here, at Balmoral, they use their Scottish titles, attend the Church of Scotland, attend Highland games trigged out in full tartan fig etc etc. I don't see a problem post-Independence.

Pre-Independence - they have palaces at Holyrood and Balmoral. Post -independence - they have palaces at Holyrood and Balmoral. Pre-independence - the Scottish Royal honour is the Order of the Thistle. Post-independence - the Scottish Royal honour is the Order of the Thistle. Pre-independence - whilst in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland. Post-independence - whilst in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland and so on. What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?

The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?

The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Good point!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?

The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Surely it would be just as valid for England to have a Governor General when the monarch is in Scotland? The current royals are descended as much from the Scottish kings as the English.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I do not understand economics in general, or the currency question in particular. But I had understood that, until the latest wobble of the Euro, that new entrants to the EU were expected to adopt the Euro as their currency as soon as possible. Is that perhaps no longer the case?

But if it is, and as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant, why is nobody mentioning the Euro as the currency? Is it because the whole idea of the Euro is so toxic?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Pretty much. Plus I don't think any of the EU member states have much interest in forcing Scotland into the Euro, the consensus seems to be that, yes, new states must join the Euro, but in order to join the Euro you must first join ERM2, which is voluntary. A new Scottish currency is the almost inevitable outcome if whoever is in power in Westminster decides to do the diplomatic equivalent of holding their breath to get their own way. In many ways being able to control our own currency would be advantageous, considering the examples of Iceland and Ireland in the recent financial crisis. Iceland were ultimately able to cut their losses, endure a short while of imports being very pricey, and get back on track. Ireland have been pretty much stuck because they couldn't devalue the currency and export their way out. Being tied to rUK is not quite so bad for Scotland, at least in the short term, because it's what happens already. Over time a shared currency will be less helpful as the economies diverge, but I would anticipate Scotland being stronger then and able to confidently launch a new currency.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
That's like saying London is already part of the EU and so wouldn't need to apply to be a member state of the EU if it declared independence from the UK. Only states are members of the EU. Scotland isn't a member state of the EU - the UK is. Scotland isn't even a state. I could add, "Yet", but...
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject. The interesting question then becomes which, if any, EU member states would veto Scottish accession in order to discourage their own secessionist movements.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I thought that Alex Salmond's blithe assumption that Scotland would automatically be part of the EU had been blown out the water long ago. I know he thinks that his opinion is always superior to any inconvenient fact, but the fact is that an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership and not receive it as of right.

Like a lot of things Alex Salmond says, wishful thinking does not mean that something is going to happen.

I can't make up my mind whether Salmond is stupid or just plain dishonest. When it comes to things like EU membership or the currency question, he says things that are quite bizarre. Either he's so stupid he really believes what he is saying, or he knows what he is saying is incorrect but says it anyway (aka "lying").
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And as a quick aside, a newly independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the Commonwealth also - as would have Quebec in the 60s.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Such questions are far from settled - international law tends to be 'however states actually behave' rather than something written down as a hard and fast enforceable rule. When a 'new' state's territory corresponds in whole or in part with the territory of an old state, it can take a while to sort out to what extent it inherits the old state's rights and the old state's obligations.

Back in my law school days I vaguely recall studying some stuff about the Czech Republic and Slovakia, including a dispute between Slovakia and Hungary about the precise extent that Slovakia was a legal successor to Czechoslovakia. I can't remember the outcomes, though.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Orfeo, not a topic able to be discussed when some of us were at Law School, but my memory is that the Czechs and the Slovaks very quickly reached an agreement about that. I can't remember definitely any more than you, but think it was along the lines that neither was a successor state.

Alan Cresswell, could it be that the UK continues, and that Scotland alone is new? The present UK is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

[ 08. August 2014, 06:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... could it be that the UK continues, and that Scotland alone is new? ...

That would have been my understanding of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I can't make up my mind whether Salmond is stupid or just plain dishonest ...

Sadly, I suspect he's a dangerous blend of the two, with a bit of sly cunning thrown in for good measure.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Stupid or plain dishonest is the question for me too. Salmond said repeatedly in First Minister's Questions the other day that 'it's our pound and we're keeping it'. He seems to believe (or is outright lying in service of the Yes to Independence campaign) that it's within Scotland's power to insist on a currency union with the rest of the UK:
quote:
The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.
Newsflash for Mr Salmond - the other party in your proposed currency union might perhaps have some say in it too.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does. If the rest of the UK don't want a currency union after independence, then technically they're free to use a different currency and leave Scotland with sterling. In reality, a currency union will be one of many things on the table in the event of a yes vote. Westminster may try to extract a price for it, and it will be up to the negotiating team to decide whether it is worth it.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.

But I don't think this point does have any validity. IMO the pound is an institution or instrument of the UK, like the justice system, the trade agreements we have with various countries, and other things like that. Vote to leave the UK and you vote to leave those institutions.

The pounds the UK has are assets, on the other hand, and should be split according to some reasonable method (the details of which will be part of the negotiations after a Yes vote). Except of course, the UK doesn't have any pounds; it owes somewhere over £1,000,000,000,000 (with the exact amount depending on what you include in the definition of national debt).

I just don't see how it's remotely credible to secede from a country and insist on the right to carry on using that country's institutions. Of course, if an independent Scotland wanted to use the pound then it can; many small countries use the US Dollar, after all. But that's not currency union, and it would leave Scotland with no control over the exchange rate of its currency, arguably meaning it would be less independent than is currently the case.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Scotland doesn't share a justice system with the rest of the UK. Or an education system, healthcare system (thank goodness) or a number of other things.

Whether you agree about the "shared asset" point or not is largely irrelevant; it's a valid interpretation of the situation and to hold that view makes one neither stupid nor dishonest.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - the UK will continue pretty much as is under international law: with clearly defined borders (albeit with a different one in the north), the same governmental institutions (minus the Scottish Office and one or two other minor changes), the same diplomatic representation and, oh yes, the same currency.

On that last, critical point, Salmond seems to inhabit a Walter Mitty sort of world, being a complete ostrich about the fact that the Westminster parties have said it definitely won't be the pound, and failing to come up with a consequentially necessary Plan B to explain how any currency is going to be underwritten (by the Bank of ...er...England? By the European Central Bank (he hasn't asked them)? Scotland's own resources? The IMF?). Unless and until he can do that, he's very firmly in La-La Land.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Scotland doesn't share a justice system with the rest of the UK. Or an education system, healthcare system (thank goodness) or a number of other things.

Sorry, yes; Scotland's justice system is already separate so there'd be no problem in that area if the vote is for independence. But the point is that Scotland doesn't already have its own currency / monetary system. A vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave the currency system; I don't see how it can be anything else (without the agreement of both parties, I mean).

If the situation were like the dissolving of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, then Salmond might have a case. But Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK; the rest of the UK will not get to vote because we aren't doing anything. So we (the remaining UK) will surely get to keep the institutions of the UK and Scotland will have to negotiate its own arrangements and agreements with whoever it sees fit.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Mr Salmond is in a Walter Mitty world about everything.

In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.

In other words, for Scotland to pay for itself at its current level of services it is going to have to significantly increase taxation.

And bearing in mind that Scotland has a higher than average proportion of people entirely dependent on benefits that increased tax burden is going to fall onto a small number of the population.

Or, as a Scots accountant of my acquaintance puts it: if you're working in Scotland and the YES vote gets it find a job elsewhere fast.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
That, coupled with that fact that unless the currency point is sorted pdq its substantial financial services industry will head south of the border means it will almost certainly have to go cap in hand to the IMF in short order.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Don't forget its the Bank of ENGLAND that's been propping up RBS and HBOS...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.

The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!

If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland. The pound will continue to be an asset of the UK, just as it is now. Scotland will have no right or standing to demand that the UK enters into a currency union with it. It can, of course, use the pound if it so desires - but the value of that pound, inflation, interest and so forth will be decided by the Bank of England based on what is best for the UK, not Scotland. If those interests were to differ, Scotland would be the one getting the raw end of the deal- and rightly so as it wouldn't be their currency any more than the US Dollar belongs to any of the other nations that use it.

I'm all for Scottish independence, and I'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. But independence means independence, not clinging on to the institutions and services of the country you just left as if you've still got some kind of claim on them. Independence means making your own way, not expecting the ones you've just left to keep looking after you like some kind of feckless 20-year-old still bringing his washing back to mommy every weekend.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
This is typical of the fundamental dishonesty of so much of the Yes campaign. 'We want independence but...'

If they took a Braveheart type line and said 'We must be free or die, our nationhood means more to us than our comfort, we will claim our independence and if we have to live in turf shacks on oatmeal and herrings for a couple of generations, it's a price worth paying', I'd have some respect for them. But not this wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.

The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!

If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland. The pound will continue to be an asset of the UK, just as it is now. Scotland will have no right or standing to demand that the UK enters into a currency union with it. It can, of course, use the pound if it so desires - but the value of that pound, inflation, interest and so forth will be decided by the Bank of England based on what is best for the UK, not Scotland. If those interests were to differ, Scotland would be the one getting the raw end of the deal- and rightly so as it wouldn't be their currency any more than the US Dollar belongs to any of the other nations that use it.

I'm all for Scottish independence, and I'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. But independence means independence, not clinging on to the institutions and services of the country you just left as if you've still got some kind of claim on them. Independence means making your own way, not expecting the ones you've just left to keep looking after you like some kind of feckless 20-year-old still bringing his washing back to mommy every weekend.

[Overused]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by l'organist.
quote:
And bearing in mind that Scotland has a higher than average proportion of people entirely dependent on benefits that increased tax burden is going to fall onto a small number of the population.
Can you provide a link? These figures from the Office of National Statistics suggest otherwise, although they're referring to households, rather than individuals.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by l'organist:
quote:
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?

According to the BBC Scotland, with 8.3 of the UK population, pays 8.2% of the taxes, excluding Oil Revenue. If you include oil revenue, Scotland pays more in taxes.

Our public expenditure is higher, but, according to the linked figures, that still doesn't shift the balance if you're including oil revenues, as you say you are in your assertion.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by l'organist:
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.

Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?
I have no dog in this fight, but I think that's more or less what is said here:
quote:
Allocating a population-based share of North Sea revenues results in a position for Scottish public finances which (measured both by the current budget and by the net fiscal balance) has been weaker than that of the UK as a whole for the last 30 years, with the gap widening over time from around 2% of GDP in the early 1980s to around 5-7% by the mid-2000s. The gap exists because spending is higher in Scotland. It has widened largely because, as we saw in Section 1.3, tax revenues have risen more slowly in Scotland.
Source: Scottish independence: the fiscal context by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

[ETA from the briefest of scans of this document I gather there is some argument about who actually owns the North Sea Oil fields and things change a bit depending on whether you allocate oil revenue geographically or by population]

[ 08. August 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.

How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.

How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
The simple answer is: the one that's talking about leaving and becoming independent is the breakaway.

Czechoslovakia was different because both sides agreed to the split and agreed that they would each become new countries. That is manifestly not the case here. Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, not a topic able to be discussed when some of us were at Law School, but my memory is that the Czechs and the Slovaks very quickly reached an agreement about that. I can't remember definitely any more than you, but think it was along the lines that neither was a successor state.

I did a bit more hunting. I remembered it was to do with a dam. I haven't found the full text of the relevant decision, but it seems that Hungary tried to say it wasn't bound any more by a treaty that it signed with Czechoslovakia, and as far as I can work out the ICJ said that no, the treaty still survived and was now between Hungary and Slovakia.
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant

Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
For that matter it is generally agreed that Russia alone was the successor state to the USSR after the latter's collapse in the early 1990s. It was simply so much larger than any of the other post-Soviet states, both in terms of area and of population. Likewise, the remaning UK would be so much larger than Scotland that it would clearly be a sole successor state.

Edit: Even if the UK broke up completely England would probably be considered the sole successor state to the UK. It's not geographically too much larger than Scotland, but it has a much larger population.

[ 09. August 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: Try ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This is typical of the fundamental dishonesty of so much of the Yes campaign. 'We want independence but...'

If they took a Braveheart type line and said 'We must be free or die, our nationhood means more to us than our comfort, we will claim our independence and if we have to live in turf shacks on oatmeal and herrings for a couple of generations, it's a price worth paying', I'd have some respect for them. But not this wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.

I've seen it all before. All of this is standard rhetoric for the Parti Québecois and has been for 40 years. Pauline Marois recently mused about keeping the Canadian Dollar and getting a seat for an independent Québec on the board of the Bank of Canada. Her musing were greeted with more guffaws inside Québec than out.

Except in the recent Québec Election, the merest hint of a Referendum sent the PQ's vote into a tailspin. They lost power and received the lowest share of the popular vote in decades.

It was always going to be this way. Nobody wants "blood, tears, toil and sweat" without a gun pointed at their country. So Plan B is doubletalk and waffling.

If Scotland votes 60% for Union in September then you owe me a Poutine.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Theres a weird dynamic in the no campaign though, which is to respond to the independence campaign with the promise of more autonomy.

What is the long term logic of that ? Well, actually we do think independence is ultimately better but its going to practice at government and a few more generations of economic development until its viable ?

[ 09. August 2014, 12:06: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think it's just that they've discovered that Project Fear wasn't enough on its own and couldn't think of any positive reasons to want to be ruled from Westminster.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.

If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.

If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
Well, it clearly does affect the rest of the UK. That's not something I'm going to dispute.

My point was simply that Salmond and co. said, at the time that the referendum was proposed, that only Scotland should vote because only Scotland would be affected. That seems to indicate pretty strongly that they would consider the rUK to be the same country that it always was, and Scotland to be a completely new country. That, in turn, means anyone claiming that two new countries are being formed is simply wrong.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it's just that they've discovered that Project Fear wasn't enough on its own and couldn't think of any positive reasons to want to be ruled from Westminster.

Well, no, it might be that they think that quite a lot of Scots want more autonomy without going the whole hog of independence. This is a perfectly respectable position and it is possible that it may be quite widespread. I haven't looked the the Scottish polls but there has certainly been a trend here in Wales (where we have less autonomy than the Scots do at present), since devolution, towards more support for devolution and more support for more devolution- but the proportion of Welsh voters wanting independence has stayed remarkably constant at about IIRC 15%.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I agree with Albertus. If the referendum had given three options - No change, DevoMax (i.e. full fiscal autonomy, but shared defence, embassies and EU) and Independence, I don't think that there's any doubt that the majority would have voted for DevoMax.

David Cameron opposed the "third question" and the Edinburgh Agreement settled that there would be a clean Yes / No vote.

Presumably, at that time, the UK government assumed that the majority who wanted DevoMax wouldn't be prepared to vote "Yes" However, it started to look as though more of the DevoMaxers were moving towards "Yes" than "No" and now the No camp are trying to reclaim them.

FWIW, I would have voted for DevoMax in a three question referendum, but now intend to vote Yes. It's people like me - not totally committed to Independence, but definitely wanting to change the status quo - who are being wooed by offers of increased powers.

If David Cameron doesn't want Scottish Independence, then removing the "third question" was a serious miscalculation because personally, I don't think that Independence had much of a chance when DevoMax would have been enough for most Scots.

My guess is that if it had been a three question vote, it would have been 60% for DevoMax, 30% for Independence, 10% No change.

[ 11. August 2014, 10:55: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:


If David Cameron doesn't want Scottish Independence, then removing the "third question" was a serious miscalculation ....

I think (one of) the problems with Mr Cameron is that he's a much better politician than people give him credit for, and so he tends to wrong foot opponents and even sympathisers from time to time.

Apologies in advance for linking to the Mail, but the article does give a clear read of the latest polling figures over the weekend:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721796/Fresh-poll-blow-Salmond-six-10-Scottish-voters-reject-independence-amid-growi ng-fears-pound.html

Which looks remarkably like your assumed figures for a 3 question referendum but filtered thrugh a 2 question lens. Ie, the no vote is increasing now all the main parties are agreed on more devolution.

A cynic (perish the thought) would suggest that this was always the plan and that in fact Mr Cameron has called Mr Salmond's bluff, and (to mix metaphors) should the no vote come through sizeably the net result will be Scotland getting what it was going to get anyway, and Mr Salmond having his fox well and truly shot.

Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever AND delivered a kicking to an opponent (in terms of both Salmond personally and the SNP more widely) in allowing the people of Scotland to crush their principal dream in such a way it could take Scottish independence off the table for a generation.

If I were a politician I'd call that a pretty good day's work.

Of course, first there has to be a No vote otherwise DC is, as you say, going to look quite silly.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
That's a poll of 1,100 people, and the Mail has form for spinning an anti-Independence story.

YouGov were reporting 52% No and 34% Yes in January, 53% No and 36% Yes in June, and now they're reporting 55% No and 35% Yes in August, so their polls have been fairly consistent. The current YouGov poll doesn't indicate the "drop" in Yes votes which the Mail implies.

Ipso Mori tends to poll higher figures for yes, but they haven't released poll figures in the last week.

I'm not disputing the YouGov figures, but they have been the poll which consistently shows higher "No" votes, and hence are the poll favoured by the Daily Mail.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I've been googling, but rather frustratingly, the Scottish Daily Mail isn't online, so I can't link. On 9 Aug the Scottish Mail used Survation figures, rather than YouGov. This gave the poll figures as 50% No, 37% Yes. As Survation had been polling much lower votes votes for No before, this enabled the Scottish Daily Mail to have the front page headline "Surge in No vote after Salmond TV flop."

However, in the Daily Mail edition, they gave the YouGov figures, which show a higher No vote, and a much wider gap, but no dramatic surge since previous polls.

So, depending which side of the border you buy your Daily Mail, the latest polls show there is either a 13% gap or a 20% gap, and there's been a big change or a marginal change since the TV debate last Tuesday.

[ 11. August 2014, 12:56: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.

From where I'm sitting it looks as if Cameron has taken a huge gamble which is by no means certain to pay off. If that's what being a good politician is, you can have it. In this kind of situation someone who deals honestly with the electorate (instead of treating them like idiots or trying to hold them to ransom) would be preferable.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.

From where I'm sitting it looks as if Cameron has taken a huge gamble which is by no means certain to pay off.

I disagree. A vote for DevoMax is kicking the can down the road. Westminster will still be the bogeyman to be blamed for any problems north of the border. Future Salmonds will claim Scots didn't have a fair chance at independence because they were offered a compromise.

They should have a clear yes/no vote, and yes should mean full independence, no pound.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:
quote:
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove.

Indeed. I was rather hoping my use of such terms as:

"should the No vote come through"

"should that happen"

"in retrospect"

and

"of course, first there has to be a No vote otherwise..."

would make that clear, but apparently no, I'm just assuming it's a foregone conclusion.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In this kind of situation someone who deals honestly with the electorate (instead of treating them like idiots or trying to hold them to ransom) would be preferable.

Oh, and FWIW (speaking as someone broadly supportive of a Yes vote), Mr Salmond is asking us to believe that every other party leader is lying when they say there won't be a currency union, Scotland wouldn't be allowed to just join the EU straightaway, and divers and sundry other things.

From where I'm sitting the prime treator 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, but the SNP answer to that is

"no they aren't, they're lying. All of them. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, NATO and the EU. All of them. We, on the other hand, are telling it like it is."

In the immortal words of Danny in Withnail and I,

"Why trust one drug and not the other? Politics, innit?"
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Which is it - would we be foolish to vote for Independence because we might end up out of the EU, or would we be foolish to remain in the Union because there will be a referendum and we might end up out of the EU?

Cameron seems to be saying two different things, depending on whether his audience aspires to remain within, or leave the EU.

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.

And, at least in part, it all relates back to the currency question; if Cameron's reading of the EU membership situation is right, then independent Scotland (a) would be required to join the Euro if it wanted to join the EU, and (b) would need an interim currency solution in any case, because joining the EU would take some time.

The question needs asking again, I think; what is Salmond's plan B if he can't get a full-on currency union with the remaining UK? (A currency union which Cameron, Miliband and Clegg have all explicitly ruled out, AIUI.)
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
We could help pay for Scotland's share of the national debt out of ditching the Barnet Formula if Scotland does renege.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
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. .
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Yes, that makes sense, thank you!

[ 11. August 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
But that divergence already exists everywhere (at least everywhere within 100 miles of a border) in mainland Europe. What is so different?
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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)?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Luxembourg is a small state adjacent to Germany, Belgium and France. How does that work?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Luxembourg is a small state adjacent to Germany, Belgium and France. How does that work?

Since you ask, the wiki primer is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg

I think the answer would depend on who you ask. On the one hand, Luxembourg also recognised it's disadvantages vs it's larger neighbours with the signing of exchange and customs union with Belgium in 1921 (and the Netherlands, to create the Benelux, in 1944).

On the other hand, it manages to exist quite nicely as a place where the international elite can hide their money, and is ranked the second safest international tax haven after Switzerland. It's also on the G20 Grey List for nations with "questionable banking practices" (linked source from wiki page above) and famous in the UK for being the home and main centre (cough) of Amazon.

So basically, if it wasn't unfortunately on the way to France from Germany, it's the sort of place, like Switzerland, which it would probably have suited the global elites to leave alone.

In terms of how this works on the ground without upsetting the neighbours, well, it helps that there is a broad political consensus in Luxembourg in favour of political military and economic integration with the neighbours. In terms of what the neighbours think of it, and it's place viz a viz them in terms of tax and sharing a currency:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=criticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SVEE_enGB450GB451&q=cri ticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&gs_l=hp....0.0.1.385127...........0.jWmzrUV5Ovw

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/uk-eu-luxembourg-taxavoidance-idUKBREA2N0IR20140324

amogst others. Er, not good and worsening probably covers it.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Luxembourg is a small state adjacent to Germany, Belgium and France. How does that work?

Since you ask, the wiki primer is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg

I think the answer would depend on who you ask. On the one hand, Luxembourg also recognised it's disadvantages vs it's larger neighbours with the signing of exchange and customs union with Belgium in 1921 (and the Netherlands, to create the Benelux, in 1944).

On the other hand, it manages to exist quite nicely as a place where the international elite can hide their money, and is ranked the second safest international tax haven after Switzerland. It's also on the G20 Grey List for nations with "questionable banking practices" (linked source from wiki page above) and famous in the UK for being the home and main centre (cough) of Amazon.

So basically, if it wasn't unfortunately on the way to France from Germany, it's the sort of place, like Switzerland, which it would probably have suited the global elites to leave alone.

In terms of how this works on the ground without upsetting the neighbours, well, it helps that there is a broad political consensus in Luxembourg in favour of political military and economic integration with the neighbours. In terms of what the neighbours think of it, and it's place viz a viz them in terms of tax and sharing a currency:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=criticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SVEE_enGB450GB451&q=cri ticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&gs_l=hp....0.0.1.385127...........0.jWmzrUV5Ovw

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/uk-eu-luxembourg-taxavoidance-idUKBREA2N0IR20140324

amogst others. Er, not good and worsening probably covers it.

for the avoidance of doubt and any perceived ambiguity, having just read that back again, to clarify absolutely obviously Amazon and other companies operating in Luxembourg are doing so entirely legally and I meant no suggestion that they are doing anything wrong by fully complying with those regulations. The question is more with the government of Luxembourg about its tax arrangements vs those of other jurisdictions immediately adjacent.

Which probably goes even further in answering your question Angloid.
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
[QUOTE]There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.[code]

One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world, and that it could mean the end of the Kingdom. Swiss cross their borders to shop in Germany, and Germans head south to fill their tanks.
And here's a tip: If you find yourself travelling anywhere near Luxembourg, be sure to tank up. A litre of super goes at about €0.25 cheaper than any of its neighbours. Business has adapted to this by setting up huge filling stations along the motorways in order to cater for Germans, French and Belgians putting in a money-saving pitstop.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
When I'm in the Netherlands, I often fill my tank in Germany.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
What about Lulu?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I'm in the Netherlands, I often fill my tank in Germany.

Our local petrol stations have introduced "extra long hoses". But, to reach from Germany to the Netherlands definitely qualifies as "extra long"!
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Depends on how far from the border you are [Smile]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world, and that it could mean the end of the Kingdom. Swiss cross their borders to shop in Germany, and Germans head south to fill their tanks.
And here's a tip: If you find yourself travelling anywhere near Luxembourg, be sure to tank up. A litre of super goes at about €0.25 cheaper than any of its neighbours. Business has adapted to this by setting up huge filling stations along the motorways in order to cater for Germans, French and Belgians putting in a money-saving pitstop.

And I know of plenty of Canucks who live close enough to the border that it makes it worth their while to cross into the States to fill up on petrol and probably do a bit of shopping at the same time. Last time I looked, there wasn't much in the way of barbed wire and border guards to stop it happening.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Last time I looked, there wasn't much in the way of barbed wire and border guards to stop it happening.

Look harder! Where will you ever see a nastier looking bunch of armed thugs protecting their homeland from their allies? When they treat their friends like that, it's no wonder that bombing their enemies - real or imaginary - seems such a casual affair. Having a foot in each camp, I hope that Scotland and England can do better.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Honestly, I have no idea what my Prime Minister is doing.

I did like the response - that Australia seems to be quite happy having split off from the United Kingdom.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Honestly, I have no idea what my Prime Minister is doing.

I was quite bemused by his claim that "it is hard to see how the rest of the world would be helped by an independent Scotland."

What does that have to do with the price of fish? The people of Scotland are going to make a choice, quite rightly, based on what is right for the people of Scotland. The rest of the world really isn't relevant.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, apparently he believes that the enemies of freedom and justice and nasty countries will celebrate Scottish independence. Or something.

Quite why... North Korea?... would care one way or the other is beyond me.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I wonder whether he had the Russians in mind?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wonder whether he had the Russians in mind?

Given the current state of relations between Australia and Russia over the downing of flight MH17, that's not impossible.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
[QUOTE]There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.[code]

One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world...
betjemaniac's point is that it already has.

<sarcasm>"One thing which puzzles me about those pesky Continentals is how they think the English never pay attention to what goes on in the outside universe (by which they mean Europe)"</sarcasm>.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.

One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world...

betjemaniac's point is that it already has.

<sarcasm>"One thing which puzzles me about those pesky Continentals is how they think the English never pay attention to what goes on in the outside universe (by which they mean Europe)"</sarcasm>.


Um, no, that WASN'T the point at all. The point was a claim that it was only okay for this to happen if there was a body of water in the way. To which the response was that Continental Europe has been coping just fine without water barriers.

[UBB]

[ 18. August 2014, 05:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Anybody else think it's going to be yes? I'm beginning to think so, the polls have been moving that way, the no campaign looks dull and listless.

I was just discussing it with my wife, and we both feel terrified and excited (we are not Scottish).

Who knows what might happen if it's yes? Would Cameron resign? How would next year's election be affected? The economics of it are baffling really - I wonder if the pound will crash through the floor. And so on and so on. Help.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I have absolutely no dog in this race, ut I have to admit that I'd secretly like a 'yes'. Shake things up a bit!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I feel split really - the old codger in me has fear over it; but the youngster in me says, yes, go for it, shake things up, fuck the Westminster cabal. (Of course, they will end up their own cabal).

I think the UKIP defection (of a Tory MP) will increase the yes vote; as Scots will fear a Tory/UKIP coalition.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The "No" campaign is so poor, you might think that some parts of it actually want a "Yes" vote.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I will probably cry if the "Yes" side winds. I remember the 1995 Quebec vote. It went down the wire. I went to bed that night and didn't know if a recount would turn things over and we'd head over a cliff. For the first and only time in my life, I went to bed not knowing what would happen to my country in the morning. And I never want to feel that way again.

What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign. There was a huge rally for national unity in Montreal, completely against Quebec's referendum funding rules. The rest of the country had been tearing it hair out at being excluded from the debate; it wanted and needed a way to show it cared about Quebec.

No, it wasn't a totally cynical ploy, it was a palpable demonstration that this country did not want to die because people still believed in it.

I have said before and will say again, countries don't die when they split up, they die when people stop believing in them. People never stopped believing in Canada and never lost their will to fight tooth, nail and claw for it, and it carried up through two referendums. But I fear, I thoroughly fear that people have stopped believing in the United Kingdom. Not just the Scots, the English have not shown the least bit of drive to fight for the Union, to show Scotland that it's needed and wanted. And that, I fear, is the end.

It's a dreadful thing to watch your parents divorce.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.

The "Nos" are a muted majority; the "Yesses" are ebullient.

There is going to be a "No" rally, but it's by the (cringe) Orange Order and the majority of the No campaigners are actively disassociating themselves from it.

From where I sit, it's too close to call.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I'm sure it will be a 'no' but the debate will rummble on and on and on and on then eventually, maybe in five years, another vote.

[Snore]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think a lot of people in England have ignored it, as they were sure that no would win. But the momentum is running towards yes. Whether it's enough, who knows.

There's supposed to be a poll coming out tomorrow (Sunday) showing a yes lead, the first one.

It is scary, but I can see the appeal.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I hope the Scots vote yes. I grew up in the UK and I never bought into the whole Britain thing. I always identified myself as being half-English and to this day I still get annoyed when my Finnish friends refer to me as half-British. If the Scots want to be masters of their own destiny, then so be it. The whole "we're better off together" stuff is just sentimental claptrap. It's more likely to make me puke than anything else.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I genuinely don't understand why it's so scary to some. It's not as if Scotland are going to amass a military force or that England will plan an invasion. There will be an initial economic wobble followed by the most likely outcome: two strong economies that work in tandem and are linked by the pound, which will also have the effect of being and economic and political check on each other. You won't need a Visa to get into Scotland and they aren't rebuilding Hadrian's wall. Essentially it is Devo max with a new country in name that creates two politically diverse and politically interesting countries. All that said, I'm not sure they will get it. The word from those who live there is that the 'yes' vote in the polls is coming from those areas where traditionally the people haven't appeared at the polls to vote. I can only look at it all and wish that one hundred years ago we had the opportunity here to create a country in peace and without a drop of blood spilt - it is a beautiful and rare thing, and regardless of the outcome in Scotland, everyone should be rightly proud that the vote could even have been considered.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
I do wonder about delays at the border crossings. I can't see any permutation of EU membership and Schengen agreements on the part of England and Scotland that will permit complete freedom of movement.

(Delays at the road crossings between the USA and Canada south of Vancouver were running at 30 to 40 minutes recently, and the USA and Canada are considerably more amicable than England and Scotland are likely to be.)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Are there delays at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic? I don't know the current answer to this, but the only time I have set foot in NI was walking across a bridge past the border guards sans passport, over 40 years ago. Certainly there are no delays (not really any border controls) between countries in mainland Europe. Only at airports coming into the UK.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Yes, the Irish border ought to be, in part, a model for the England Scotland border. However, I suspect it might not be, mainly due to history.

Neither side cared to recognise the actuality of the Irish split for ages - maintaining a claim of sorts to the territory of the other side - and the border was a constructed assemblage of county boundaries, not a centuries old national boundary.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I do wonder about delays at the border crossings. I can't see any permutation of EU membership and Schengen agreements on the part of England and Scotland that will permit complete freedom of movement.

(Delays at the road crossings between the USA and Canada south of Vancouver were running at 30 to 40 minutes recently, and the USA and Canada are considerably more amicable than England and Scotland are likely to be.)

This could become a problem in the event of a yes. Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK. That puts a question mark over open borders for security as well as immigration.

Any opinions on what effect a yes vote will have on next General Election? This could be as damaging for Labour as it is for Conservatives on both sides of the border. The chances are that Scottish Labour MPs will have an undue influence on rUK negotiations with the Scots. This may make voters in the rest of the UK wary of voting Labour. Scottish voters may decide for similar reasons that voting Labour will not give them a strong separate negotiating position in the newly elected UK Parliament.

I suspect that David Cameron will be blamed and if he doesn't stand down (or indicate a timetable for his resignation ie after negotiations) the Tories could be punished. For better or worse we could have some breakthroughs for minority parties (UKIP, Greens).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.

The "Nos" are a muted majority; the "Yesses" are ebullient.

There is going to be a "No" rally, but it's by the (cringe) Orange Order and the majority of the No campaigners are actively disassociating themselves from it.

From where I sit, it's too close to call.

I think there are signs that people are waking up to it in England. I noticed Freedland's comments in the Guardian, but that was more to do with sadness.

But it's hard to imagine a huge rally in London asking Scots to stay. Maybe this is a factor as well, a lot of English people seem to feel bored or alright, fuck off then.

I mean, is there a lot of love for Scotland coming through in England? I don't see it.

[ 06. September 2014, 09:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Angloid:
quote:

Are there delays at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

In a word, no. Even at the height of the 'troubles' I don't remember delays of any kind. In fact, I don't even recall ever being stopped.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Spawn:
quote:

Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK

Salmond indicated he had a desire to see an immigration policy that attracted skilled workers to Scotland. Not sure how that can be read as a 'more relaxed' policy, although I'm sure the Daily Mail could spin a column out of it somehow.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well since Cameron is leading the UK into an immigration policy of "practically no one at all, even if they're skilled" ... that's a significant relaxation. Especially as "skills" in this sense includes things like ability to harvest fruit, lay bricks, fix plumbing etc. as well as all the doctors and nurses we don't seem to be able to recruit from within the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.

Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.

* in the event of a UKIP/Tory coalition
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I suspect that David Cameron will be blamed and if he doesn't stand down (or indicate a timetable for his resignation ie after negotiations) the Tories could be punished. For better or worse we could have some breakthroughs for minority parties (UKIP, Greens).

Except Westminster wont be burdened down leftwards by all those Scottish MP's.

I don't think there are any Conservative MP's from Scottish constituencies, so it would be no great loss to us.

In fact it may well push the balance of seats in Westminster more towards the Conservatives as England is where they are - in the main - voted in from.

Would an indifferent, more Conservative (big C) England care enough to want David Cameron to stand down if Scotland left the Union? I suspect not.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.

Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.

* in the event of a UKIP/Tory coalition

Cameron, May, Hague and Hammond would be firmly on the left of such a coalition. Osborne or Gove for PM?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Alan,
quote:

Well since Cameron is leading the UK into an immigration policy of "practically no one at all, even if they're skilled" ... that's a significant relaxation.

Lol; well, yes. You make a fair point.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think there are any Conservative MP's from Scottish constituencies, so it would be no great loss to us.

There is one.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Spawn:
quote:

Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK

Salmond indicated he had a desire to see an immigration policy that attracted skilled workers to Scotland. Not sure how that can be read as a 'more relaxed' policy, although I'm sure the Daily Mail could spin a column out of it somehow.
Well the SNP seem to think they want to have a different immigration policy to the English one according to their own website. Lazy reference to the Daily Mail doesn't cut it. If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.

[ 06. September 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
It seems that the Yes campaign, and the SNP, are confident that Scotland will remain part of the Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands).

That will depend on the attitude of the government of the rest of the UK. I wonder what that will be.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.

Why would there need to be border controls? If Mr X has a visa that allows him to work in Scotland an English employer would not be able to (legally) employ him unless he also gets a corresponding visa from the remaining UK. AIUI, border controls stop very few people entering any country intending to live and work there without the relevant visa/residence/work permits. Cracking down on criminals (in this case employers falsifying tax records etc to employ someone who doesn't have the relevant permission to work) happens inside the country, not at the borders.

Having an additional national border to the north of Cumbria and Northumberland is going to make very little difference. There would, presumably, be cooperation between Scottish and UK border officials such that if someone flies into Glasgow it will be noticed if they fail to leave within 90d (ie: on a tourist visa waiver), even if they leave from Manchester. Indeed, the majority of people would still enter Scotland via England anyway - there are few direct flights from outside Europe into Scottish airports, the majority of international travellers to Scotland use a major hub, often Heathrow.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.

Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.

* in the event of a UKIP/Tory coalition

Absolutely.

I see the poll has come out with a small yes lead. Some journalists are arguing that Labour voters are shifting towards yes, much to the frustration of Labour leaders! I think maybe the momentum is now unstoppable, unless we get a Quebec effect, that is, a last minute reversal.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.

Why would there need to be border controls? If Mr X has a visa that allows him to work in Scotland an English employer would not be able to (legally) employ him unless he also gets a corresponding visa from the remaining UK. AIUI, border controls stop very few people entering any country intending to live and work there without the relevant visa/residence/work permits. Cracking down on criminals (in this case employers falsifying tax records etc to employ someone who doesn't have the relevant permission to work) happens inside the country, not at the borders.

Having an additional national border to the north of Cumbria and Northumberland is going to make very little difference. There would, presumably, be cooperation between Scottish and UK border officials such that if someone flies into Glasgow it will be noticed if they fail to leave within 90d (ie: on a tourist visa waiver), even if they leave from Manchester. Indeed, the majority of people would still enter Scotland via England anyway - there are few direct flights from outside Europe into Scottish airports, the majority of international travellers to Scotland use a major hub, often Heathrow.

Yes, that was pretty much by reaction as well. Borders define whether you're allowed to step foot inside a country, but have very little bearing on what you're going to do or be allowed to do once inside there.

I don't think any country I've ever visited (which is basically in Europe and North America, with the briefest stopovers elsewhere) has wanted me to have a visa. The most onerous has been the USA where I had to have filled out some electronic stuff beforehand, and a border guard in Vermont insisted on me filling out some extra to come back in after a week in Canada (almost certainly wrongly, because my other Canada-US transit didn't require it). But otherwise, being a tourist staying for less than 90 days means it's a minimum of fuss, with possibly about 30 seconds of questioning to see whether I say anything that isn't consistent with being a tourist on a short stay. They basically multi-task it at the same time as checking that my passport is in order.

My history of entering the Schengen area from entirely outside doesn't exactly suggest to me that a Scotland-UK border crossing would be anything drastic.

[ 07. September 2014, 03:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
The problem with a border crossing is not the actual time taken to make the check, it is the queues that build up on roads and in airports waiting for the check to made.

But clearly my concerns are not shared here.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think border controls are a burning issue, are they?

Here is Will Hutton's assessment of some of the issues, which are fuelling the yes vote:

"All our utilities, five million council houses, many of our great companies and swaths of real estate in our cities have been cashed out in the name of market forces, of liberalisation, of being open for business and wealth generation. What has been created is predator capitalism, massive inequality and a society organised to benefit the top 1%. "
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if the national mood is a belligerent "Yes" in the open, and to pollsters, but once in the polling booth, pencil in hand and faced with a ballot paper, that the "No" will be selected. In those few seconds, the voter will reflect on what it means and the risks and the downsides.

Then they will vote with their wallets and purses, and what it will mean to their children, just like in all elections.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The problem with a border crossing is not the actual time taken to make the check, it is the queues that build up on roads and in airports waiting for the check to made.

But clearly my concerns are not shared here.

That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then they will vote with their wallets and purses, and what it will mean to their children, just like in all elections.

So, "Yes" then.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's hard to imagine a huge rally in London asking Scots to stay. Maybe this is a factor as well, a lot of English people seem to feel bored or alright, fuck off then.

In contrast to the reported large indifference to the vote in England, it seems a matter of considerable interest here. By far the most common reaction from people learning I'm from Scotland is to ask me about the referendum.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Isn't that at least partly because it feels more constructive than "Oh really ? I went to Edinburgh once, its a beautiful city isn't it ?"
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.

The "Nos" are a muted majority; the "Yesses" are ebullient.

There is going to be a "No" rally, but it's by the (cringe) Orange Order and the majority of the No campaigners are actively disassociating themselves from it.

From where I sit, it's too close to call.

I think there are signs that people are waking up to it in England. I noticed Freedland's comments in the Guardian, but that was more to do with sadness.

But it's hard to imagine a huge rally in London asking Scots to stay. Maybe this is a factor as well, a lot of English people seem to feel bored or alright, fuck off then.

I mean, is there a lot of love for Scotland coming through in England? I don't see it.

Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.

Which makes a rally somewhat problematic.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't that at least partly because it feels more constructive than "Oh really ? I went to Edinburgh once, its a beautiful city isn't it ?"

Possibly, although a willingness to engage in discussion of the issues beyond what is necessary for politeness implies a real interest.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.

Which makes a rally somewhat problematic.

But, a rally is an opportunity for all residents in England, not just those who are high profile, to have their say. Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).

I wonder whether the English will be less forgiving with David Cameron if he gives an independant Scotland anything. I mean, from our point of view you will have made it perfectly clear you don't care for us, so why should we let you have anything?

Someone upthread said that DC ought to resign if there was a "Yes" vote. I think it more likely that he will be voted out if he is lenient in the post-referendum negotiations.

If he takes a hard line on currency, borders etc. giving you nothing and really makes you stand on your own two feet, he may well be seen as doing exactly the right thing from an English perspective.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.

It's a Sunday so I shan't swear, but how on earth does the school one's parents decided to send one to affect the validity of one's views on the dismemberment of one's country?!

Besides which, is the vitriolic, hateful abuse that CyberNats spew out against their fellow Scots directed only at public-school educated Better Together campaigners or is it indiscriminate? I strongly suspect the latter.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:


What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign. There was a huge rally for national unity in Montreal, completely against Quebec's referendum funding rules. The rest of the country had been tearing it hair out at being excluded from the debate; it wanted and needed a way to show it cared about Quebec.

No, it wasn't a totally cynical ploy, it was a palpable demonstration that this country did not want to die because people still believed in it.

...

I'm not sure that rally did anything except make what we used to call the ROC feel better.

The other side of the "Its really close? Oh God what are we going to do!?!??!?!!" last two week efforts is the outright bribery now rearing its head from Westminster. "If you vote no, now we will give you x". Shoulda been there months ago. Now its just all looks so cynical.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.

It's a Sunday so I shan't swear, but how on earth does the school one's parents decided to send one to affect the validity of one's views on the dismemberment of one's country?!

Besides which, is the vitriolic, hateful abuse that CyberNats spew out against their fellow Scots directed only at public-school educated Better Together campaigners or is it indiscriminate? I strongly suspect the latter.

It shouldn't. That doesn't mean it isn't perceived as relevant in a campaign where one side has large grass roots support with spokespeople largely from working/lower middle class backgrounds, and the other side has mainly upper middle class spokespeople. If the Better Together campaign wants to appeal to the same people as those who strongly support the Yes campaign then getting a group of people perceived as "English Toffs" to do the talking isn't going to work very well. A display of support for the Better Together from people the audience can identify with, other working/lower middle class people, would be effective. Which is why a rally (or several in different cities) in support of Better Together might be a vote winner - if it wasn't predominantly Orange Order!

[added in what I was responding to following x-post]

[ 07. September 2014, 13:20: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
By way of an example I give you Exhibit A. David Cameron who gave an interview last week about his love of all things Scottish. He referred to his step-father-in-law, Lord Astor, who has a hunting / shooting / fishing estate in Jura, where DC enjoys holidays.

That is a PR disaster. No Scot will warm to DC when he aligns himself with absentee landlords and the extremely rich.

In fact it was such a stupid line to take, one might even suspect that David Cameron would welcome a "Yes" vote.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Og the Thread Killer:

quote:
The other side of the "Its really close? Oh God what are we going to do!?!??!?!!" last two week efforts is the outright bribery now rearing its head from Westminster. "If you vote no, now we will give you x". Shoulda been there months ago. Now its just all looks so cynical.
It should never have been taken off the table. Scots wanted a 3 question referendum - No, DevoMax, Yes. I read a recent poll which said that 71% of Scots would have voted for DevoMax.
The Westminster Government insisted on a 2 question referendum, Yes or No, assuming that the DevoMax voters wouldn't go as far as to vote Yes. That assumption now looks to have been very wrong.

I would bet a large sum of money that if the middle option had been left on the table that there would have been no chance of a vote for full independence. If there is a Yes vote, it's because the the Tories gambled with the future of the UK and lost.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
On another note, I hope this vote, however it goes, ends the cottage industry of consultancy about referendum that certain Canadians have built based on 2 events in a Canada that no longer exists.

[ 07. September 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
By way of an example I give you Exhibit A. David Cameron who gave an interview last week about his love of all things Scottish. He referred to his step-father-in-law, Lord Astor, who has a hunting / shooting / fishing estate in Jura, where DC enjoys holidays.

That is a PR disaster. No Scot will warm to DC when he aligns himself with absentee landlords and the extremely rich.

In fact it was such a stupid line to take, one might even suspect that David Cameron would welcome a "Yes" vote.

Well, it's become both ironic and farcical that Cameron is now relying on Miliband, Darling and Gordon Brown, so toxic has the Tory brand become north of the border. The leader of the Scottish Tories even helpfully suggested that the Tories would lose the next election, perhaps to assuage Scottish fears of Tory/UKIP!

People are also saying that many landowners have planted 'No' placards in their fields. You couldn't make it up.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Well, it's become both ironic and farcical that Cameron is now relying on Miliband, Darling and Gordon Brown
But I don't think anything has changed, has it? It was always going to be the case that David Cameron wasn't going to be front and centre in any campaign. Early on, Salmond challenged the Prime Minister to a TV debate and Cameron refused.

quote:
People are also saying that many landowners have planted 'No' placards in their fields. You couldn't make it up.
Why disbelief about this? I don't understand.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why disbelief about this? I don't understand.

Think The Clearances.

[ 07. September 2014, 14:59: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I wasn't disbelieving it. I mean that the big landowners of course don't want independence; I'm sure that the wealthy in general don't. The yes vote is surely in part a leftwards shift, and in fact, supposedly the Labour vote is shifting to yes.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wasn't disbelieving it. I mean that the big landowners of course don't want independence; I'm sure that the wealthy in general don't. The yes vote is surely in part a leftwards shift, and in fact, supposedly the Labour vote is shifting to yes.

Any yes vote in Scotland is likely to be motivated by the same factors that led to yes votes in the 1997 and 2011 referendums in Wales, namely to reduce London's say in how Wales is governed.

By London of course, most meant Conservative.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I'm just wondering how a 'yes' vote will impact on Wales. Should we stay with Westminster or join up with Edinburgh? We could even form the United Kingdom of Scotland and Wales..... [Two face]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Well, I think we should have federated the union, including the remaining none home nation territories, sometime ago.

Which would be devo-max for everyone.

The piecemeal nationalist movements and changes give us an incoherent overall system that really doesn't help any affected community.

[ 07. September 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
For a while I've been thinking that a federation would not be a bad thing.......the elephant in the room is England - the largest country with no devolution at all. Yet England itself is quite a complex fact .....

How would it work? An English Assembly/Parliament or further devolution of England's different regions?

I can't honestly say though that I'm enthusiastic about the UK dissolving.......
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.

Which makes a rally somewhat problematic.

But, a rally is an opportunity for all residents in England, not just those who are high profile, to have their say. Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
It would have be interesting to have held an rUK advisory vote two weeks before the actual referendum - that would have provided a fairly salient piece of information to the referendum voters.

(And frankly I think its weird that referendum voting rights are determined solely by residency - not, say, being born in Scotland and / or having parents born in Scotland.)
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
For a while I've been thinking that a federation would not be a bad thing.......the elephant in the room is England - the largest country with no devolution at all. Yet England itself is quite a complex fact .....

How would it work? An English Assembly/Parliament or further devolution of England's different regions?

I can't honestly say though that I'm enthusiastic about the UK dissolving.......

Well, either you do England as a unit, or county clusters based on population. I think Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland / Norway. I guess it would go by region, as a fair few public services and other national bits and pieces are organised that way.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
The regions have a long history .

North to south they are currently organised as:


Personally, I think I might prefer the ancient names.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
(And frankly I think its weird that referendum voting rights are determined solely by residency - not, say, being born in Scotland and / or having parents born in Scotland.)

Voting solely on the latter would presumably break shed loads of anti-discrimination legislation?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well, either you do England as a unit, or county clusters based on population. I think Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland / Norway. I guess it would go by region, as a fair few public services and other national bits and pieces are organised that way.

This has already been tried. The north-east was offered a regional assembly. They voted against one. The whole thing was shelved.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I thought residency plus birth might have been better.

I know the assembly was rejected - but at that point they were not talking devo-max or anything close, and therefore it looked pretty redundant.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Possibly. I just think it would've been an administrative nightmare.

At present, the Scottish authorities will just work from the current electoral role. Trying to issue a ballot paper to John Smith, who's never been to Scotland except for the time his English mother and English father happened to be in the country at the time of his birth, would be problematic and costly. It would at least give Sean Connery a vote, though.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think it is important enough to be worth it - we do have a register of births - it ought to have been doable. And in the event of a yes vote, would have simplified sorting out the issuing of citizenship.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I've no idea of the cost, but it sounds difficult.

I wouldn't agree with the citizenship point, as that would involve spending potentially millions of pounds on something that doesn't exist and might never exist.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
All jokes and jests aside, looking at it entirely from the outside of both sides with the luxury of objectivity there are a number of things that stand out very strongly. The 'yes' campaign has generally avoided the sort of regional slurs that can happen easily in campaigns like this. It understands the issues and seems to have responded with reasonably clear politically reasoned answers for the most part (regardless of whether anyone actually agrees with it). The 'no' campaign on the other hand has indulged in what appears to folk on the outside of it all as very silly scare mongering and alarmist stuff that has often been later revealled to be utter nonsense and unfounded, which hasn't really done them any favours in making their arguments look persuasive. There is also an element in what has already been hinted at - the rich poor divide, unfortunately divided the wrong way in the 'yes' and 'no' camps. I don't think the notion of Presbyterian equality should be underestimated as a cultural factor either.

There is also the momentum of the campaign itself. the 'yes' group seem to be excited, happy, positive while unfortunately the 'no' group appear negative, nervous and frightened. From the outside looking in, the sort of 'offers' (if that's what they can even be called) that have all of a sudden appeared on the table seem to be a little like telling a child that if it plays nice it will get sweets later.

There is a huge political risk for David Cameron. If the 'yes' get it, I can see no other option for him but to resign. It will demonstrate that he seriously underestimated the feeling of a nation of which he has charge. Even of they don't get it at this stage, his political position has been very seriously weakened. The risk is much the same for Salmond though. If there is a 'yes' vote then all well and good for him, but in the event of a 'no' vote I think he also would have to resign.

I honestly think that if England had engaged much earlier in the whole debate things might have been much better for the 'no' campaign, but the government in the 'no' camp really hasn't got a handle on the daft scare mongering stories. For instance, I was reading only tonight an article in a newspaper that was talking about setting up border posts to check crossings, mention of Visa'a and how it would be up to England to protect its borders because Scotland would be so loose and useless. It was even quoting Miliband as saying roughly the same things (although I have no idea if he really did). It is this sort of thing that feeds the wrong type of 'yes' vote and makes the government look thoroughly stupid and incompetent. They care so much about the border between Ireland and the Uk that it's not got a single real person manning it anymore. Sooner or later, someone in the press or the 'yes' campaign is going to point out this potentially embarrassing fact.

Overall it does appear that much of the 'no' campaign is actually working quite hard for the 'yes' campaign, which in turn makes the current UK government look a bit daft and disconnected. It's hard then to be quite so surprised when the 'yes' campaign seems to have made such serious gains. All that said, I still don't think the yes will get it.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.

Why would there need to be border controls?
There may be no need for border controls. It depends whether Scotland has Schengen opt-out and a markedly different immigration policy.

[ 07. September 2014, 21:19: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
For instance, I was reading only tonight an article in a newspaper that was talking about setting up border posts to check crossings, mention of Visa'a and how it would be up to England to protect its borders because Scotland would be so loose and useless. It was even quoting Miliband as saying roughly the same things (although I have no idea if he really did). It is this sort of thing that feeds the wrong type of 'yes' vote and makes the government look thoroughly stupid and incompetent. They care so much about the border between Ireland and the Uk that it's not got a single real person manning it anymore. Sooner or later, someone in the press or the 'yes' campaign is going to point out this potentially embarrassing fact.

It's not really embarrassing is it? The point Milliband is making is that if Scotland doesn't have an opt out from Schengen there'll have to be border checkpoints. That's why Ireland opted out when the UK did because it had a land border with UK. And that is why no-one is manning the border crossing because they have the same opt out.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[...] I don't think the notion of Presbyterian equality should be underestimated as a cultural factor either. [...]

Great observation, this, and something the Westminster elite just doesn't get. (If they even remember the Church of Scotland exists.)

Never having been conquered by the Normans, Scotland's class system is markedly different to England's. England's elite aren't just richer, they have a different culture (Francophile, cosmopolitan, segregated from childhood, first in their estates, now in private schools). As an extreme illustration, until its New Town was built, Edinburgh rich and poor shared the same tenement buildings.

Neo-liberalism, ironically driven by Margaret Thatcher's Methodist work ethic, has exacerbated England's Saxon-Norman fault-line beyond all reason. No wonder Scots feel alienated by events south of the border.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
And if Scotland remains in Europe - which let's be perfectly honest, is about 100% certain - and if Britain's government is in long (likely very long) talks with a new nation (if it comes to that), you honestly don't think it will work out some kind of border policy that will involve as little cost and manning as possible? I think so, and I'm not even a politician, yet embarrassingly a politician seems to be seeing quite a different picture; in fact, the least likely option that would likely be the outcome on the basis of gross mis-handling of a situation and crass political incompetence. I'd class that as embarrassing.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Easy access across the border will probably be demanded by local English MP's, in terms of what's good for business is good for being an MP. Whether Westminster listens to them is another matter - the insular backlash within England may be quite shocking, if this referendum goes Yes.

In this scenario, England might be ripe for a populist led party winning at the polls out of nowhere. From what I have read, UKIP ain't it. I would suggest parties who base their leadership on parliamentary power of the MP might be in trouble. People might actually want a say in who the leaders are, strangely enough.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Yup, the specter of a new Hadrian's Wall is scaremongering of the laziest kind. No rUK legislature is gonna vote through a bill to spend hundreds of millions on a border fence. Logistics aside, it'd be fantastically unpopular the length and breadth of the British Isles.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
From the outside looking in, the sort of 'offers' (if that's what they can even be called) that have all of a sudden appeared on the table seem to be a little like telling a child that if it plays nice it will get sweets later.

There has been a tendency for Better Together to create an impression that they (or Westminster government) are a parent who knows best telling a young child how to behave. Like any parent who has repeatedly failed to get children to behave by other means they resort to the exasperated "behave and you'll get a treat" method.

Of course, that doesn't come across very well to the people of Scotland. We may have needed a bail out after Darien, but feel we're grown up now and ready to go out and make our own place in the world. I guess like any young adult we're certain we know everything and are going to succeed at everything we set our mind to, and we're as certain as every young adult to quite quickly find we don't know everything and things rarely go the way we expect.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Never having been conquered by the Normans, Scotland's class system is markedly different to England's.

The reason Scotland was never conquered by the Normans is only because King David I of Scotland invited the Normans in and gave them lots of land in return for them defending his borders. The lowland Scots elite is just as Norman as the rest of the UK.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
If Scotland does go independent, I suspect, ideally, when the financial bits are worked out, it will be a parting as between the Czechs and Slovaks: both immensely decent people. If it happens it doesn't have to be painful. As someone with both English and Scottish ancestors, I think you two nations can still show the world how to do things if you put your minds to it.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason Scotland was never conquered by the Normans is only because King David I of Scotland invited the Normans in and gave them lots of land in return for them defending his borders. The lowland Scots elite is just as Norman as the rest of the UK.

David also had a habit of invading England with
quote:
an execrable army, more atrocious than the pagans, neither fearing God nor regarding man, spread desolation over the whole province and slaughtered everywhere people of either sex, of every age and rank, destroying, pillaging and burning towns, churches and houses.
His predecessor Malcolm was equally found of harrying northern England, and his eventual defeat by the Normans was far from crushing (he got lands in Cumbria in return for giving his loyalty to William the Bastard).

So yes, undoubtedly Norman influence in the Borders, but nothing comparable to the wholesale change of ruling class in England.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
If Scotland does go independent, I suspect, ideally, when the financial bits are worked out, it will be a parting as between the Czechs and Slovaks: both immensely decent people. If it happens it doesn't have to be painful. As someone with both English and Scottish ancestors, I think you two nations can still show the world how to do things if you put your minds to it.

I think it will probably be painful, and also there will be anger on both sides; in fact, I think this is already happening. However, I don't think that is a bar to it; separations are often painful, but may be still positive.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).

I wonder whether the English will be less forgiving with David Cameron if he gives an independant Scotland anything. I mean, from our point of view you will have made it perfectly clear you don't care for us, so why should we let you have anything?

I'm struck by the parallel between this and differing notions of divorce.

Some couples split fairly amicably, try to remain friends and sort everything out.

Some couples vow to bring in the lawyers and fight for every last scrap of property.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Some couples vow to bring in the lawyers and fight for every last scrap of property.

An some couples vow to bring in the lawyers and end up spending every last scrap on legal fees. Translate lawyers to politicians and there's a fair risk that more important things will be ignored in a mutual vendetta.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
A display of support for the Better Together from people the audience can identify with, other working/lower middle class people, would be effective.
Perhaps this has not happened because many working/lower middle class people would rather like to opt out of being governed from London themselves?

I see some of the papers are trying to whip up anti-republican sentiment by suggesting that the Queen (though officially neutral) is worried about the consequences of a Yes vote. I'd be surprised if it had much effect on the referendum result, though; I'm sure any Scots who care about the question of who gets to be Head of State are perfectly well aware that the Queen will go on being Queen of Scotland as long as they want her to, whether or not Scotland is politically united with the rest of the UK.

[ 08. September 2014, 08:13: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
So, the Irish frontier is lightly policed because both countries have opted out of an agreement to make frontiers more open.

It would, of course, be unpopular and almost insane to impose significant border controls, but with angry politicians who knows?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
So, the Irish frontier is lightly policed because both countries have opted out of an agreement to make frontiers more open.

It would, of course, be unpopular and almost insane to impose significant border controls, but with angry politicians who knows?

No it would be insane not to police the border if Scotland's immigration policy poses a security risk. That would be an issue of negotiation.

I think it is wrong to think of this as divorce. My view is that it will be a relatively amicable but tough set of negotiations. It is in the interests of both nations to have a decent future relationship. But let's not pretend it will be business as usual. Independence has considerable financial costs for both sides.

Having said that, I think the 'no' vote will prevail by a reasonable margin.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Perfect timing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Relevant how? Exactly?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.

Why would that make any difference?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.

Why would that make any difference?
Some may think this might make a few undecided voters to go all fluffy and vote 'No'.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.

Why would that make any difference?
Some may think this might make a few undecided voters to go all fluffy and vote 'No'.
Quite. My understanding (from reading the British press, anyway) was that the Australian republican movement suffered a bit of a setback when confronted with a bouncing baby Prince George. Spending the remainder of the campaign cooing over how delightful the Countess of Strathearn looks would I think, on balance, be beneficial to the Better Together campaign.

Of course, this won't wash with the right-on, leftie Scots Nats shipmates who like to discuss the finer points of the Schengen Agreement, but then we're not exactly typical voters, are we?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Of course, this won't wash with the right-on, leftie Scots Nats shipmates who like to discuss the finer points of the Schengen Agreement, but then we're not exactly typical voters, are we?

I think you underestimate massively the depth of feeling around this issue north of the border.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I guess we'll find out in just under a fortnight!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I guess we'll find out in just under a fortnight!

Suggesting that only some mythical species of 'leftie right-on scottish nat' is actually engaged in the intricacies of what independence means is fairly deluded.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If it was a referendum on a Scottish Republic then maybe a breaking positive royal story would make a difference.

Though maybe Better Together might find it helpful if they made sure that Kate has her titles properly used. If we only hear about the "Duchess of Cambridge" then we subconsciously hear something about an elite English university town. Make "Countess of Strathearn" a bit more obvious in reporting, especially north of the border, and the people of Scotland will hear something that's more of "one of us". A single line at the bottom of a BBC article doesn't really cut it.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Spending the remainder of the campaign cooing over how delightful the Countess of Strathearn looks would I think, on balance, be beneficial to the Better Together campaign.
I'm fairly sure that opportunities to buy Hello magazine will not be affected by a Yes vote.

Also, republicanism hasn't been a feature of this referendum.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Westminster politicians seem to be falling over themselves, offering 'new powers' to a Scottish government - but then why was devo-max ruled out on the ballot paper?

I see that J. K. Rowling is asking Labour to clarify if devo-max is now being offered, so maybe some wavering voters may be tempted by this. On the other hand, some people have already voted, so it is looking rather underhand.

Cynics are of course arguing that Cameron rejected devo-max, in order to crush Salmond with a large no vote - hmm.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
They're not offering new powers; they're offering a clear timetable to give powers they've already been vaguely offering.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
NEQ:
quote:
I'm fairly sure that opportunities to buy Hello magazine will not be affected by a Yes vote.
Indeed. And the Royals are very popular in the USA, despite the fact that the Americans fought a war to assert their independence from the British monarchy...

Interest in the latest chapter in the Windsor family saga will not necessarily translate into a surge of support for the 'No' campaign.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The Westminster politicians seem to be falling over themselves, offering 'new powers' to a Scottish government - but then why was devo-max ruled out on the ballot paper?

Because it would have won outright. Now that full independence might win, it's ruled back in.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Except that they can't re-introduce Devo Max at this stage, because people have already started sending in postal votes.

What they're doing it gathering together existing vague promises, polishing them up, and offering a clear timetable towards implementation. But there's nothing genuinely new on the table.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Of course, this won't wash with the right-on, leftie Scots Nats shipmates who like to discuss the finer points of the Schengen Agreement, but then we're not exactly typical voters, are we?

The irony is that 'right-on lefties' south of the border won't be so keen on a 'Yes' vote, since it will largely entrench a Conservative majority in Westminster.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Except that they can't re-introduce Devo Max at this stage, because people have already started sending in postal votes.

They can't change the question on the ballot; they can try and put forward the idea that voting No results in some form of Devo-Max. A variant of 'vote no and get more'.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Oh, just let the Scots go off and do their thing.

Yes, many of us suspect it will end in tears - while many (most?) Scots seem not to have learned about Darien some of the rest of us did.

But if they go off and do their own thing we need to ensure that we don't bail them out again - the economic value of bailing them out of the Darien fiasco would be £7.1 trillion today.

Too much then, definitely too much now.

And especially too much bearing in mind it was a Scots Chancellor (Brown) who laid the foundations for the failures of Scottish banks (RBS/BoS) under the regulatory framework of another Scots Chancellor (Darling).

But then I live in the South East where government spending per head is (at £7,638) 13% lower than the UK national average and an eye-wateriing £2,514 less than spending per head in Scotland for the same period (2012-13).

So I pay for prescriptions, eye tests, etc, and my children are racking up heavy debts thanks to university fees - brought in by a Labour PM (Blair), approved by a Scots Chancellor (Brown).

And if Salmond gets his YES vote partly thanks to the gerrymandering of allowing impressionable 16 and 17 year olds to vote - fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to pay for your antics and your hubris.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Except that they can't re-introduce Devo Max at this stage, because people have already started sending in postal votes.

They can't change the question on the ballot; they can try and put forward the idea that voting No results in some form of Devo-Max. A variant of 'vote no and get more'.
They've been doing that for quite some time; in fact Doublethink remarked on it on this thread on 9 Aug.
quote:
Theres a weird dynamic in the no campaign though, which is to respond to the independence campaign with the promise of more autonomy.
What they're doing now is putting more emphasis on this and trying to make it seem "new." The only thing which is new is the promise of a clear timeline.

These offers will only seem "new" to people who haven't been paying much attention up to now, and to journalists working for the Daily Fail.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I am really surprised by the number of English who are taking this line. I hope that there is a silent majority who would deeply regret the Scots leaving. Do we really dislike each other that much?

Personally I am worried by the effect a Yes vote would have on Northern Ireland. I think it could well start a new round of arguments there, perhaps with an added "Independent Ulster" movement (I don't think I'd like the look of that one).

[edit: reply to L'organist]

[ 08. September 2014, 14:40: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
They've been doing that for quite some time; in fact Doublethink remarked on it on this thread on 9 Aug.

Up to a point - I think the tone and emphasis has changed in recent days in the direction of inducements - you are welcome to disagree.

quote:

These offers will only seem "new" to people who haven't been paying much attention up to now

In the context of the history of scottish referendums, details are something new - because vague promises were previously tried.

Note to L'organist; all those decisions were supported by the neo-liberals on both sides of the house - regardless of accident of birth.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.

I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Up to a point - I think the tone and emphasis has changed in recent days in the direction of inducements - you are welcome to disagree.
I agree about the tone and emphasis having changed. However, I think they're just polishing up previous inducements.

Incidentally, a quote by Eddie Bone “If and when the Scots ‘bottle it’ on 18 September and vote no, they will see a stronger English voice because the people of England have had enough of Scottish self-indulgence" is circulating widely here.

I'd never heard of Eddie Bone. Is he a serious figure? The idea that Scots might be "punished" for voting No isn't much of an inducement to do so!
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.

Am I the only one who remembers that the Conservatives failed to win a majority in the last election, and that the Lib Dems made a surge because of Clegg's promises on tuition fees etc.? The fact that he broke those promises is not indicative of some English-led conspiracy but one of weak leadership on his part.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.

I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.

I'm not sure that Alex Salmond and the Tartan Tories are terribly different, in terms of economic policy, from that nice Mr Blair. For example, the Scottish Parliament has never used it's tax raising powers since devolution. Mr Salmond is currently offering Scots rUK levels of taxation with Nordic Social Democracy, despite the attendant loss of English subsidy that will follow from independence. (Not to mention the financial uncertainty which will follow from the loss of the currency.)

At the end of the day, I hope the Scots stay. But if they do vote to go because they think it will lead to greater Social Democracy then I predict the greatest outbreak of buyers remorse since, oh, the student body of the UK voted for that nice Mr Clegg on the grounds that he had sound views on tuition fees.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
Can you give examples of anti-English cybernatting? I thought their main target had been fellow Scots who support the "No" campaign?

By contrast, a lot of the cyberbrits are extremely anti-Scottish, depicting the Scots as a nation of ginger-haired benefit scroungers etc etc.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
There are elements of this that remind me of the pre-dissolution Austria-Hungary, which were 2 kingdoms united by the Hapsburg monarchy after approx 1870 to 1918. The difference being the Scotland has a small population base.

The other thing I wonder is whether this is really about the ongoing dissolution of the UK, which started with the departure of Ireland approx 1922.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.

Ha, I think we'll see the failure of that vision as we are witnessing in France. In the event of a yes vote there'll be bills to pay and tax rises. After the inevitable period of austerity, Scotland will probably reinvent Scottish conservatism in a different guise.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

I'd never heard of Eddie Bone. Is he a serious figure? The idea that Scots might be "punished" for voting No isn't much of an inducement to do so!

He appears to be the Chair of the Campaign for an English Parliament, which appears to be a kind of UKIP without the easy multiculturalism.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Incidentally, a quote by Eddie Bone “If and when the Scots ‘bottle it’ on 18 September and vote no, they will see a stronger English voice because the people of England have had enough of Scottish self-indulgence" is circulating widely here.

I'd never heard of Eddie Bone. Is he a serious figure? The idea that Scots might be "punished" for voting No isn't much of an inducement to do so!

I had heard that same quote last week credited to Paul Nuttall, who is apparently the UKIP MEP for North West England.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The Scotsman are attributing it to Eddie Bone, but I've seen it attributed to other people on Facebook.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, just let the Scots go off and do their thing.

Yes, many of us suspect it will end in tears - while many (most?) Scots seem not to have learned about Darien some of the rest of us did.

But if they go off and do their own thing we need to ensure that we don't bail them out again - the economic value of bailing them out of the Darien fiasco would be £7.1 trillion today.

Too much then, definitely too much now.


Just in case anyone is wondering:

The main proponent of the Darien scheme was William Paterson, a trader and banker born in Tinwald, Dumfries and Galloway. He drummed up support for the scheme and did the leg-work for it. Amongst other things he was one of the founders of the Bank of England.

These Scots get everywhere; England mostly.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
I'm English, live in England, and wish Scotland the best in making up it's mind for its future.

Personally I would want Scotland to remain part of the UK, in part because the country I grew up in and identify with has had Scotland as part of it, and I believe we are stronger and richer (economically and culturally) together. I also worry for family currently living in Scotland who are very dependent on state welfare, as my reading of the economics is that an independent Scotland will struggle far more that Salmond and Sturgeon are letting on.

That said, should Scotland decide to go independent then there might be a purely selfish silver lining for me. My children will probably end up in university in the future, and if Scotland is both independent and part of the EU then (as far as I understand it) they can study at Scottish universities without having to pay fees, as is currently the case for other EU nationals.

Presently Scottish universities can charge fees to rUK students because England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states in the EU, and neither is Scotland. But, post independence, Scotland will not be able to prevent rUK students from attending their universities on an equal basis with their own youngsters. I have looked at several articles and new reports online, and it appears that this is very probably how it would turn out for the Scottish HE sector, with some Scottish academics warning of an influx of rUK students wanting to avoid fees in their own country, and Scottish students finding it harder to gain access to Scottish universities. If that is the case I would encourage my children to look at the excellent universities north of the border, saving them £27k at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer.

I know that there are folk on the Ship involved in university admin, and working in Scottish universities, so will probably understand this much better than me. Is it the likely scenario that an independent Scotland (assuming it joins the EU) will have to offer free higher education to rUK students? Or is there some cunning get out clause that evades EU law? My children's future debts may depend on it, and I'd rather Scottish taxpayers footed the bill than me [Devil]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Fees for non-UK EU students may be paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. A non UK EU student would need to apply to SAAS for support in paying tuition fees. There are complex eligibility rules, and successful application just on the grounds of being an EU national is not certain. I can't see the qualifying criteria laid out clearly in a quick skim through the SAAS website.

Post independence the system would presumably be the same. So, students from the rest of the UK could apply to SAAS for support in paying fees, but they would also need to meet the additional qualifying criteria.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

Beyond the normal anti-English sentiment that is prevalent in Scotland you mean? I mean if you have normalised it...

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.

So to you the most important decision made by the Scottish people is nothing more that a prelude to an experiment you would like to run? Even given that mostly that experiment has failed given enough time?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A non UK EU student would need to apply to SAAS for support in paying tuition fees. There are complex eligibility rules, and successful application just on the grounds of being an EU national is not certain.

As far as I can tell (from here), the rules are the same as those applied to Scottish students, except the requirement of three years ordinary residence is "in the non-UK EU" rather than "in Scotland".

Foreigners don't seem to get loans or bursaries - just their fees paid.

There's a big pile of language for "what if I'm an asylum seeker / self-employed migrant worker / I've started my degree elsewhere and want to finish in Scotland", but the normal case seems fairly straightforward.

If you are a normal undergraduate from a non-UK EU country, you get your fees paid but no loans or grants. An independent EU-member Scotland would be obliged to offer the same deal to students from the UK.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.

I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.

Hmm....don't get your hope up. You're dealing with two smaller countries don't forget and the tax base will be less. The same will be true of the reminder of the UK of course.....and Alex Salmond wants to reduce Corporation Tax

There's also the question of the oil. I'm not thinking of now but further down the line. There is only a finite amount of oil in the North Sea. What happens when you reach peak oil isn't that you suddenly run out of oil but that it becomes more and more difficult to extract or at least it makes less sense from an economic point of view. I'm not sure we're not close to that situation now otherwise why is the government looking at fracking?

You could see a retrenchment in the field of public spending which will be rather more than it is now.

I don't think I'd want to risk it myself.......
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.

How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
Can you give examples of anti-English cybernatting? I thought their main target had been fellow Scots who support the "No" campaign?
For example I thought the use of 'Quisling' had an anti-English vibe to it.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I am really surprised by the number of English who are taking this line. I hope that there is a silent majority who would deeply regret the Scots leaving. Do we really dislike each other that much?

Personally I am worried by the effect a Yes vote would have on Northern Ireland. I think it could well start a new round of arguments there, perhaps with an added "Independent Ulster" movement (I don't think I'd like the look of that one).

[edit: reply to L'organist]

It would be interesting to see how the dissolution of the present Union would affect Ulster, right enough.

Quite apart from the political aspects of the collegiality between Scottish and Ulster Loyalism, there exists a huge overlap of cultural and genealogical identity, thanks to the Scots-Irish plantations covering some centuries. It is, arguably, understandable that the Scots might wish to thumb the nose at the Auld Enemy, but to make foreigners of their close kith and kin across the water might be less easy to adjust to. The 'yes' or 'no' vote isn't just about splitting with England. It's about splitting with Ulster (and Wales).

Politically, I imagine an already isolated and threatened Ulster Loyalism would feel perhaps quite dangerously insecure, should their Scottish brethren lose their own UK identity. But clearly this is no reason for Scots to vote 'no' if they are sure that independence will give them greater success for their future, and the future of their children, than remaining in a United Kingdom with the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the English.

Personally, I think it's a hell of a risk to take. Bannockburn was a long time ago, after all. And small islands divided against themselves make for uneasy neighbours as anyone living on the island of Ireland can testify - even leaving aside the unique exacerbating circumstances peculiar to Ireland.

But on the other hand, if there's a 'yes'. It's also all rather exciting, too! A new nation! A brand new creation! The anticipation of something completely innovative. It could come as almost an anti-climax should there be a 'no' after all!
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The word 'Cybernat' was coined by Labour's George Foulkes when nationalists began to challenge the monolithic pro-Union nature of the Scots newspapers by becoming early users of social media. It was way of attempting to delegitimise social media campaigning, which by its very nature is not done exclusively by trained journalists but mostly by ordinary people posting their thoughts online, much as you get here.

If you have posting with no intensive moderation, then as well as the sensible people, you get all the trolls, socks, crusaders etc. The Labour narrative was to pretend the worst posters were all nationalists and to ignore their own quotient of trolls from their thinner ranks - because more nationalists were active online, they pretended it was a nationalist problem not an online problem.

Anyone who peeks at the 'all' part of the indyref hashtag on twitter knows that there are some vile misogynist, racist and sectarian trolls from the No side.

To give an example there was the woman who Better Together accidentally put in their first telly advert (not the famous one) who was retweeting Nick Griffin and anti-Catholic material such as a joke about how Irish Catholics would look better hanging from trees. Or for another example, there was the very prolific pro-union troll who posted a drawing so obscene, of Alex Salmond defecating into Nicola Sturgeon's mouth who was defecating into somebody else's mouth, that I won't link it.

These people are rarely mentioned in the papers but anyone who follows the hashtag knows they are there and that some of them are very prolific and if they get banned just come back with a sock account. You won't see the Daily Mail running a breathless article any time soon about the peril of 'Cyberbrits' though - because it doesn't suit their narrative. Every on-line political cause has its bampots and trolls - just as every religion has people who make their co-religionists cringe.

If you want to attempt to turn the few numpties who throw about words like 'quisling' into an argument for Yes anti-Englishness then you'd have to brand your own side as dangerous anti-Irish racists and sectarians to account for your own unmoderated online numpty quota.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A non UK EU student would need to apply to SAAS for support in paying tuition fees. There are complex eligibility rules, and successful application just on the grounds of being an EU national is not certain.

As far as I can tell (from here), the rules are the same as those applied to Scottish students, except the requirement of three years ordinary residence is "in the non-UK EU" rather than "in Scotland".

Foreigners don't seem to get loans or bursaries - just their fees paid.

The main difference between non-Scottish UK students and other EU students is that the UK (well, England as Scotland, Wales and NI all have their own schemes) charges relatively high tuition fees - most of the rest of Europe have either no tuition fees or very much lower fees. The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation. If you're English and attend an English university you would pay a substantial tuition fee, therefore if you attend a Scottish university you pay a similar fee. If you're Austrian and attend an Austrian university you do not pay a tuition fee, therefore if you attend a Scottish university you do not pay a tuition fee. Independence will not, ISTM, change that.

It is, however, the case that an English student could go to an Austrian university and not pay fees. But, the number of British students choosing to study in other parts of Europe is very small (at least full time), so it isn't a substantial burden on universities or government budgets. If a large number of British students start to take advantage of low fees elsewhere in Europe it would not surprise me if other European countries start allowing universities to charge fees rather than fund the education of British people.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.

That is neither my understanding of the rules as expressed on the SAAS website nor my understanding of EU law. Clearly you work for a Scottish University and I don't, so none of my opinions here are first hand, but still:

My understanding was that EU law requires you to treat citizens of other EU countries on a par with (the most favourable category of) your own, so if Scots students don't pay fees, EU students don't pay either.

My understanding was that the only reason rUK students can be made to pay the high England + Wales fees is that these EU laws do not interfere in country-internal matters.

quote:

It is, however, the case that an English student could go to an Austrian university and not pay fees. But, the number of British students choosing to study in other parts of Europe is very small (at least full time), so it isn't a substantial burden on universities or government budgets.

The difference with Scotland, of course, is that English students all speak the language, more or less, and the current situation is that many / most students choose between the "big name" universities throughout the UK with little concern for which country the university happens to be in.

So it's easy to imagine that an independent Scotland compelled to treat English students on a par with Scots would face a significant number of education tourists.

[ 09. September 2014, 02:03: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, many of us suspect it will end in tears - while many (most?) Scots seem not to have learned about Darien some of the rest of us did.

I genuinely find it hard to understand what's supposed to have been "learnt" from Darien, beyond 'best not to sink too much money into a speculative colony in Panama'.

What else is supposed to have been learned that is relevant to the 21st century? I mean, look what happens to countries now that get into financial trouble. They have IMF plans and what have you, but they don't get taken over by a larger neighbour. No-one suggested that Greece or Cyprus ought to become a part of Germany.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And all is this stuff about Scotland's small size... it's got a larger population than a dozen other European countries, not counting the microstates. Did anyone say that the Baltics couldn't go it alone outside the Soviet Union? Scotland's population is almost as much as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia put together.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sorry to multi-post, but this is a different topic.

All this talk about border controls and Schengen doesn't seem to have addressed the existence of the Common Travel Area, which involves territories that aren't part of the European Union. There's doesn't seem any reason why an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the same arrangement.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's doesn't seem any reason why an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the same arrangement.

The UK and Ireland aren't in Schengen. The CTA isn't compatible with Schengen, except in the trivial case of all CTA members joining Schengen (as CTA members agree to maintain & cooperate on their outward border checks, and Schengen forbids border checks between members.)

New entrants to the EU are obliged to join Schengen. If Scotland were treated as a new EU member, it would have to join Schengen, and so couldn't join the CTA.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
With Gordon Brown offering what is effectively Home Rule to Scotland, supported by both David Cameron and Ed Miliband some reflection on the implications is in order. While I wish Ireland had gone down the Home Rule route, as proposed in the Government of Ireland Act 1914, instead of the militant republican road it took during WW1, I feel sure that, as the 20th century wore on, Home Rule would have morphed into a republic by itself, but hopefully without the awful bloodshed which ensued. While Scotland is a very different case, in that it's purely a democratic issue, without violence, once you concede the idea of devo max, it would only be a matter of a few years until that matures into independence anyway. Alex Salmond said, in 1998 when the Scottish parliament opened, that he saw it as a stepping stone to independence, and devo max is just a further step along that road.

As an Englishman of part Scottish(and Irish) descent, I am a passionate supporter of the union. I've always believed that the UK is bigger than the sum of its parts. Both in our history, and in our present influence in the world. I see our nation being perhaps fatally weakened by breaking our small island into different countries, because everything could start to unravel. Northern Ireland has a much closer ethnic and political link to Scotland than it has to England, and what about Wales. Certainly Scotland is in a much better position, with its oil and population size, to be a nation, than either Wales or Northern Ireland, who probably both need financed by their larger neighbours, but once the principal of the UK is broken, it could fragment entirely. Opponents of devolution such as Margaret Thatcher always took the view that if the UK is a nation, Scotland's complaints that it never elected a Tory government are no more relevent than saying London, with twice the population of Scotland, didn't either, or that rural Cambridgeshire never elected a Labour government. That's democracy.

Unfortunately a link was broken long ago. When I was born in the mid 1950's, half of Scotland's parliamentary seats were conservative. With it's industrial heartlands solidly Labour, there was little difference between politics North or South of the border. With the total collapse of the Tory vote and the rise of the SNP, especially during the long Tory rule of the 80's and 90's, politics in Scotland and England are now so radically different that separation may have become inevitable. I don't buy George Osborne's sabre rattling that Scotland can't keep the pound, nor Ed Miliband's vision of border guards. Many things will stay the same, and a Londoner will still be able to visit his granny in Glasgow. But where it will lead all the micro nations of the British Isles in terms of world trade and future prosperity for any of us is anyone's guess and it fills me with fear!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Scotland's complaints that it never elected a Tory government are no more relevent than saying London, with twice the population of Scotland, didn't either, or that rural Cambridgeshire never elected a Labour government. That's democracy.

Well, democracy just sucks. As it's been famously said, the worst possible form of government - except for all the others (paraphrase).

A democratically elected government is only ever going to represent a minority of the people, and then imperfectly. It is unusual for any one to find someone standing for election with whom they agree 100%, so we end up voting for the least bad of all the people who don't really stand for the things we believe in.

I do, however, think that with a smaller electorate there is an increased chance of a candidate being a reasonably close match to the views of a larger proportion of the people. And, by extension, that a government formed from elected representatives will be more representative of the local population. Democracy on a smaller scale is therefore, IMO, a better system than democracy on a larger scale. From which follows a belief that democratic government should be for the smallest possible population group.

In the UK, and practically everywhere else, we have things upside down. The national government is seen as the most important and holding all the reins of power. I believe it should be the other way around; local government is the most important, because it's at local government level that the will of the people is most clearly expressed. Ideally I don't want devolution, even devo-max, which is an acceptance of the power of central government to grant powers. I want local government, with power given up to larger scale political structures reluctantly and only as necessary.

But, I'm an idealist living on a fantasy island.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You could just adopt preferential voting. That'd help.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Many things will stay the same, and a Londoner will still be able to visit his granny in Glasgow. But where it will lead all the micro nations of the British Isles in terms of world trade and future prosperity for any of us is anyone's guess and it fills me with fear!

Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.

Alan, you need to come back to this point. I don't think it's true but given you're in the University system you may be able to defend it. You may be right about high fees in English Universities compared to the rest of Europe but that's irrelevant. If you have rules about equal access across the EU you can't discriminate.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

New entrants to the EU are obliged to join Schengen. If Scotland were treated as a new EU member, it would have to join Schengen, and so couldn't join the CTA.

EU membership is ultimately a matter of negotiation. It's not like the EU is just going to look at the terms Scotland asks for and say "computer says no". There will be some horse trading, a little media manipulation and probably a series of face-saving gestures which involve Scotland committing to all the "obligations" in the fullness of time just... not yet. The EU is not served be excluding Scotland and even the likes of Spain aren't going to want to embarrass themselves with too much of a flounce over the issue; knowing that if it ever comes to Catalan independence they can just veto anyway.

It's not certain, nothing is when you're talking about future events, but I'm not unduly worried about reaching an amicable arrangement with the EU. Our farmers (particularly the crofters) should do very well out of getting their fair share of the CAP as doesn't happen at the moment.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I've read on here theories that Scotland will do badly, and the remaining U.K. will be poorer for being smaller, or that Scotland will do poorly and the rUK will be fine.

After reading L'Organist post, I'm wondering if the result might be that both sides do better after a split. This happens on the stock market when a struggling conglomerate is broken into pieces and the sum of the individual valuations increases.

Is this even a remote possibility?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Yes voters are assuming that Scotland will do better after a split; you'd hardly expect people to vote Yes on the assumption they'd do badly.

If Scotland was independent, government policies would focus on Scottish needs. Immigration, for example, is one area where Westminster restrictions on immigration are unhelpful to many Scottish industries.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
North East Quine - how do Scots in favour of independence feel about having to pay the fees for English students at their universities? This seems like a potentially large bill resulting from independence, and would take a large chunk out of any hypothetically increased prosperity. Is it something that those considering Yes have in their minds, or is it a hidden cost that many are not factoring in?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
To be honest, Uriel, the aspect that interests me most is entrance requirement inflation. With a huge influx of English students, Scottish Universities would end up asking for very high entrance requirements, which could squeeze average Scots kids out of a place. My son wouldn't have got a Uni place if the entrance requirements had been higher. That worries me.

Scotland currently punches above her weight, University wise, and it could be a boost if we were cherry picking the best students from both Scotland and England.

On the other hand, we wouldn't want a situation where we were spending a lot of money providing a University education for English students, only for them to return there after graduation.

I'm not an economist, and I've no idea how the figures would work out, but personally, I'd let the English students study for free, but make some provision that they have to remain here for two years post-graduation?

Half of my son's university class are non Scots - Scandanavian, German, Greek. Most of my husband's students aren't Scottish either. In my area (Scottish history) there are quite a few Canadians! I'm all for diversity!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Also, am I right in thinking that some English Universities are concerned about losing students to a fee-free Scottish system? That it might result in some English universities lowering entrance requirements for some courses?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not an economist, and I've no idea how the figures would work out, but personally, I'd let the English students study for free, but make some provision that they have to remain here for two years post-graduation?

Which would break the law on free movement of people within the EU.

You can't have little bits here and little bits there that appeal to you. You either have the whole EU law or none of it (by staying out).
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
To be honest, Uriel, the aspect that interests me most is entrance requirement inflation. With a huge influx of English students, Scottish Universities would end up asking for very high entrance requirements, which could squeeze average Scots kids out of a place. My son wouldn't have got a Uni place if the entrance requirements had been higher. That worries me.

On the other hand, a lot of foreign students may be less interested in studying in Scotland, if they won't have any advantage in getting a job in one of the large English cities as a result of whatever visa rules come into play.

Apologies if it's been covered in this thread already, but how will visas work for non-EU students and workers? I'm wondering if an Asian/African/American who gets a job in Scotland will be "stuck" there.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
IME, which is limited, most foreign students are sponsored to come here, get their degree and return to their home country.

In Aberdeen, Shell sponsors most of the Nigerian students; they're already on a career pathway when they come here.

This is a win-win; Scottish Universities charge non-EU students full fees, so it's in their interests to encourage companies to sponsor students to come here for their degrees.

I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.

Alan, you need to come back to this point. I don't think it's true but given you're in the University system you may be able to defend it. You may be right about high fees in English Universities compared to the rest of Europe but that's irrelevant. If you have rules about equal access across the EU you can't discriminate.
I'm pretty sure that there are not specific EU regulations or legislation regarding charging of tuition fees. So, it's a question of secondary application of more general laws, the most commonly cited are laws against discrimination based on nationality - within the EU you can't have one law for the French and another for the Germans. Although there are various ways of allowing this in practice - the most common is discrimination in favour of home nationals on the basis of a period of residency - thus a nation could pass a law restrict access to a particular benefit to anyone who has been resident within that country for 5 years, this will clearly include all citizens of that country but exclude most other EU nationals. And, there are bases for allowing discriminatory practice on the basis of public interest - which could be security linked (eg: no foreign nationals allowed to work on military sites), or economic (some countries prioritise home students for strategically important university courses, medical courses being the most common).

Now, if an Independent Scotland passed a law that was simply "we'll charge English students tuition fees" then that will fall foul of EU discrimination laws, because it treats English students differently from French or German students, and unless a valid public interest case could be made then that law could not be enforced. If the law was "EU students will be charged tuition fees in line with fees charged at universities in their own country" then that will (probably) not fall foul of anti discrimination laws because all students are treated equally.

It is the second case that seems to be the proposal by the Scottish Government. At first glance it seems to be OK. Though, it will probably end up being settled by case law and precedent - ie: and English student charged fees will have to take the Scottish government to European Courts, and the Courts will decide.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
On the other hand, a lot of foreign students may be less interested in studying in Scotland, if they won't have any advantage in getting a job in one of the large English cities as a result of whatever visa rules come into play.

Apologies if it's been covered in this thread already, but how will visas work for non-EU students and workers? I'm wondering if an Asian/African/American who gets a job in Scotland will be "stuck" there.

As far as I'm aware, non-EU students enter the UK (or A.N.Other EU country) on a student visa. When they finish their studies they need to apply for a different visa to remain. That could, of course, be another student visa if they wish to continue studies on another course. If it was to work then they would need to have a specific job offer prior to applying. The majority of students, of course, finish their studies and return to work in their home country.

Anyone who has been (legally) in a country for a set minimum time (I'm not sure if it's 5 or 7 years) then they are entitled to apply for citizenship, which if granted will given them rights to work anywhere in the EU.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Many things will stay the same, and a Londoner will still be able to visit his granny in Glasgow. But where it will lead all the micro nations of the British Isles in terms of world trade and future prosperity for any of us is anyone's guess and it fills me with fear!

Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?
I can't speak for PaulTH*, of course, especially with regard to his particular points made here. And 'fear' might be too strong a word for what some Northern Irish people might feel about a 'yes' vote in Scotland. But the re-drawing of political and cultural identities for an already rather insecure and not very powerful population - divided as it is anyway - is surely rather obviously not going to be a comfortable or welcome experience?

For many of the Northern Irish - as Scots-Irish descendents with a still very real connection to and tradition of language, politics and culture in Scots-Irishness - their strongest alliance, in terms of national identity, is perhaps with the Scots. It is where, arguably, the seat of mainland Britishness resides for the Ulsterman, apart from the presence of the Queen herself - who is a British queen first and foremost, not merely an English monarch.

Losing that alliance will maybe seem to some Northern Irish to be like losing a very important and sympathetic member of the family. And 'home' may seem a lot less like 'home' without her.

I don't suppose the English feel the same way about the Scots as the Northern Irish do? So I accept it is probably difficult for some folks on the English side of the question to imagine how the implications of the referendum might strike non-English British Unionists.

One thing I can imagine, is that national identities, on whichever side of the line they settle, will be very starkly drawn should there be a 'yes' vote in Scotland. An Ulsterman without his Unionist brother in Scotland to make him feel at home on the mainland is likely to become a very, very Loyal Unionist indeed! (More bloody flags on the lamposts, I suppose.)
[Roll Eyes]

Personally, I have no particular wish either way for a yes or no verdict. As I say, with the possibility of making history coming up, a 'no' vote might actually be a bit of a let-down!
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.

I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
It depends to a certain extent as to whether or not Scotland is fast tracked into EU membership. If it is waved through then, I think Scottish Universities will be appealing. If the Spanish insist that the Scots join the back of the queue in order to whatever the Spanish is for "pour encourager les autres", then not so much.

On the plus side whilst the Scots cool their heels outside the EU waiting for the likes of Serbia and so forth they will be able to charge English whatever they want.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As far as I'm aware, non-EU students enter the UK (or A.N.Other EU country) on a student visa. When they finish their studies they need to apply for a different visa to remain. That could, of course, be another student visa if they wish to continue studies on another course. If it was to work then they would need to have a specific job offer prior to applying. The majority of students, of course, finish their studies and return to work in their home country.

For reference, I'm an American who came to the UK as a student, stayed on a work visa, and now have indefinite leave to remain. We don't all go back.

For those who stay, they usually get recruited by UK firms who apply for work visas for them. A lot of these jobs in some industries are in London. Will those firms recruit from Scottish universities if Scotland is independent? They will probably focus on recruiting Scottish students into their Scottish offices, if they have them. Do international students want to pay high fees for access to a smaller job market in an independent Scotland, than they have now as part of the UK?

It will certainly make a sizable number hesitate or even change their preferred university in the first few years until it's clear what the impact will be.

[ 09. September 2014, 09:59: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gildas: whatever the Spanish is for "pour encourager les autres"
Para alentar a los demás.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Anselmina:
quote:

For many of the Northern Irish - as Scots-Irish descendents with a still very real connection to and tradition of language, politics and culture in Scots-Irishness - their strongest alliance, in terms of national identity, is perhaps with the Scots. It is where, arguably, the seat of mainland Britishness resides for the Ulsterman, apart from the presence of the Queen herself - who is a British queen first and foremost, not merely an English monarch.

I think it is true that there is a perceived connection, but 'perceived' is the precise term here, as is the 'perceived' connection with Britain as a whole, which is more aligned to the BNP and UKIP than with what Britain and Scotland actually is today. Part of the problem is that Northern Ireland has often been ignored. When the recent flag protests were ongoing, David Cameron appeared to have veered too close to a cat that ate his tongue. Even more recently the first minister uttered disgusting racism publicly that would have resulted in instant dismissal anywhere else in the UK. They have been allowed to play political games like Enoch Powell is still alive in Britain and represents mainline views and opinion. In the event of a 'yes' vote (even in the face of a 'no' vote) Northern Ireland has to wake up to the fact that the Britain it espouses no longer bears any relation to what Britain is today, which to be honest, I think can only be a good thing. If a 'yes' vote goes through, suddenly a lot of Ulster Scot's makey upey language signs (that really have only been erected to intimidate certain locals - in much the same way Irish signs were erected among a non-Irish speaking community) will rapidly disappear, which will be enough to indicate to anyone with half a brain that there was no original interest in a made up language like Ulster Scots and that the whole thing was a ridiculous political game. This, and the disappearance of other similar things in this regard, can only be good.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The thing that struck me yesterday, when the Unionist parties announced that they were going to shovel new powers north of the border in the event of a 'No' vote was this:

Eighteen months ago, Cameron deliberately ruled out a 3rd option - Devo Max - on the ballot paper, preferring a straight Independence / Status Quo choice.

As of yesterday, the choice is Independence / Devo Max.

Where do the people who wanted the Status Quo maintained put their marks? Are these folk essentially disenfranchised? If so, how many of them will stay at home rather than voting 'No'?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Is there not an understanding that this is Devo Max but only if the powers that will be bother to give it afterwards, so if you don't want independence or Devo Max, then just vote No...nudge nudge wink wink?

And for the Yes side, wouldn't the easiest response be, "What! You trust that lot?"
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
They're disenfranchised. But the majority of Scots (one poll said 71%) wanted DevoMax originally, and Cameron knew that when he took DevoMax out of the equation.

Cameron and co are just playing politics here. If they'd taken this seriously, Scotland would be voting en masse for DevoMax next week, and there would have been little enthusiasm for full independence.

I think the current talk of DevoMax in the event of a No vote is shutting the stable door after a horse which galloped out of sight some time ago.

[ 09. September 2014, 11:25: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The thing that struck me yesterday, when the Unionist parties announced that they were going to shovel new powers north of the border in the event of a 'No' vote was this:

Eighteen months ago, Cameron deliberately ruled out a 3rd option - Devo Max - on the ballot paper, preferring a straight Independence / Status Quo choice.

As of yesterday, the choice is Independence / Devo Max.

Where do the people who wanted the Status Quo maintained put their marks? Are these folk essentially disenfranchised? If so, how many of them will stay at home rather than voting 'No'?

Does anyone really think "No" will be translated to "DevoMax"? No will mean no, not DevoMax, not even DevoJustALittleBitToKeepThemHappy. It'll be jam tomorrow at the very best.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.

I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.

I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
At present the UK policy is such that they'd be lucky to get a student visa, let alone a post-study work visa. So, post independence the people you know might not have very much choice, there simply won't be as many visas available to take up a job in London. Being more sensible about such things, in an Independent Scotland they'd be welcome to contribute their skills to the common good. Edinburgh, or other Scottish location, can become a thriving cosmopolitan financial and cultural centre while London is starved of the international talent by immigration policies fuelled by fear of UKIP.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.

If we accept that London is some kind of horrible black hole for a moment, why would Scottish independence stop activity being sucked into it? Borders would be open so people would be free to move to London if they so wished, and if Scots continue to use the pound there will presumably still be a great deal of economic interdependence.

France hasn't been ruled from London for a very long time but that hasn't stopped Parisian bankers fleeing away from President Hollande's socialism to the City.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Indeed, a vote for independence may very well result in businesses based in Scotland relocating to England, which will probably mean...er...London. It could easily cut both ways.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.

If we accept that London is some kind of horrible black hole for a moment, why would Scottish independence stop activity being sucked into it? Borders would be open so people would be free to move to London if they so wished, and if Scots continue to use the pound there will presumably still be a great deal of economic interdependence.

France hasn't been ruled from London for a very long time but that hasn't stopped Parisian bankers fleeing away from President Hollande's socialism to the City.

An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound.

At the moment people don't so much move to London "if they so wish", except for a few super-rich financial types; they move there because that's the only place some industries exist in the UK. An independent Scotland is surely in a better position to have its own home grown versions of these industries. Hopefully it'll be able to nip any of the ridiculous runaway house price inflation that London is suffering from in the bud.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Indeed, a vote for independence may very well result in businesses based in Scotland relocating to England, which will probably mean...er...London. It could easily cut both ways.

The fuckers do that anyway, sucking the life out of most of England, never mind Scotland; that's why I refer to that London as a black hole. Where's the HQ of the Halifax for example? It's not in the West Riding - there's a clue.

I'm personally for anything that might reverse London-centricism.

[ 09. September 2014, 12:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Being more sensible about such things, in an Independent Scotland they'd be welcome to contribute their skills to the common good. Edinburgh, or other Scottish location, can become a thriving cosmopolitan financial and cultural centre while London is starved of the international talent by immigration policies fuelled by fear of UKIP.

England population: 53 million
Scotland population: 5 million

Scotland can compete with England only through very capital (as in financial) friendly policies. Singapore of Britain or something like that.

Global media, finance, corporates will never be more interested in Scotland than England just based on the numbers.

I thought Scotland wanted to become a small Scandi-lite nation in which case "cosmopolitan" and "attracting international talent" are not likely to be priorities or even realistic goals.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Orfeo
quote:
I genuinely find it hard to understand what's supposed to have been "learnt" from Darien, beyond 'best not to sink too much money into a speculative colony in Panama'.
Well, how about the useful lesson that putting all your eggs into one speculative basket can be catastrophic?

The figures quoted by the YES campaign for future income from north sea oil and gas are projections only, and they rely heavily on outside companies, many based a long way from the rest of the UK, being prepared to invest substantial resources into a country the founders of which are avowedly high tax-and-spend merchants.

Mr Salmond Ms Sturgeon propose policies on health and social care that, if carried out, are likely to bring the economy of an independent Scotland to its knees. Many of their costings are based on having available a greatly increased per capita sum than at present for such items and ignore that the per capita sum received from Westminster at the moment is already way above that for the rest of the UK: where is the money going to come from? All it will need is for oil companies to decide that the tax demanded by an independent Scotland either too high and/or too unpredictable and they'll go elsewhere.

quote:
What else is supposed to have been learned that is relevant to the 21st century? I mean, look what happens to countries now that get into financial trouble. They have IMF plans and what have you, but they don't get taken over by a larger neighbour. No-one suggested that Greece or Cyprus ought to become a part of Germany.
There are many people in Greece and Cyprus who wish they could become part of Germany! Since 1951 the German economy has been well-run, disciplined and able to sustain such shocks as absorbing a region that increased its land area by more than 30% with an infrastructure either untouched since 1945 or so badly built that it was crumbling to dust, and with little modern manufacturing capability.

The effects of economic meltdown in Greece and Cyprus will continue to be devastating for decades. Industrial output in Greece has continued to decrease, there is widespread corruption, social policies, particularly in relation to state pensions and benefits, are still largely unreformed, and the tax system remains chaotic, haphazard and corrupt.

Property values in southern Cyprus have sunk by between 50 and 75% - yes, you are reading that correctly - and the prospect of any return to pre 2008 values within the next 25 years is viewed by economists as non-existent.

Meanwhile, almost the only money flowing into Cyprus is so-called grey money from the former Eastern bloc and Russia - much helped by Cyprus having withdrawn from EU anti-money laundering rules; the result is that Cyprus now has levels of financial corruption that equal or even surpass mainland Greece.

Scotland could emulate this. The value of stocks in Scottish based companies fell by more than 3% yesterday: the decision to sell these stocks is not one that will have been based on pique or mis-placed romanticism, but a hard-headed economic decision based on what is known - from their own words - of the financial planning and stability (or lack) of the people who seem increasingly likely to be heading up the government of an indepdent Scotland.

The housing market in Scotland has also started to see an increase in 'foreigners' wishing to sell-up while the number of buyers is still falling.

But you don't have to look at the eastern end of the mediterranean to see what an independent Scotland ruled by Mr Salmond might look like: you only have to cast your eyes to Aberdeenshire.

The good faith and reliability of Mr Salmond is available for anyone to see, if they wish. The film A Dangerous Game adds to the evidence produced in the TV documentary You've been Trumped of Mr Salmond's collusion in the hounding and bullying of his own constituents by a foreign businessman whose record for unsavoury behaviour was well known long before he arrived in Scotland. How does Mr Salmond's rhetoric about being a proud Scot square with his ignoring the plight of a 91 year old woman forced to get her water from a stream for 4 years? How proud is he of the private 'security' staff who intimidate and bully local residents? What value the beauties of the Scotland he professes to love when he pushed through permission for the wholesale destruction of an internationally important SSSI and bullying out of existence a centuries old fishing tradition?

Most of the promised '6,000' jobs have failed to materialise and plans for a second golf course at Menie have been scrapped: Mr Salmond is strangely silent about this.

Mr Salmond is a rogue and a stranger to the truth. Scotland alone faces a bleak economic future in his hands and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the rest of the UK to stand idly by while it happens and then pick up the tab to bail them out when it all ends in tears.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Well said L'organist.

Your post highlights why we will need a strong border in the event of a Yes vote. We get enough illegal economic immigrants trying to get into England via Calais without having them try to get in from an economically failed Scotland as well.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound...An independent Scotland is surely in a better position to have its own home grown versions of these industries.

But she already does, doesn't she?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
At the moment people don't so much move to London "if they so wish", except for a few super-rich financial types; they move there because that's the only place some industries exist in the UK.

I'm sure I'm wasn't alone in moving to London because it's a great place to live (exhorbitant rents and house prices aside).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound...An independent Scotland is surely in a better position to have its own home grown versions of these industries.

But she already does, doesn't she?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
At the moment people don't so much move to London "if they so wish", except for a few super-rich financial types; they move there because that's the only place some industries exist in the UK.

I'm sure I'm wasn't alone in moving to London because it's a great place to live (exhorbitant rents and house prices aside).

In what way is it "great"? Every time I've visited it I've been glad to get away; noise, crowds, prices - the only good things I've ever found there are the NHM and the London Aquarium. I've known several people have to live there and move out when they got the chance.

[ 09. September 2014, 13:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way is it "great"?

It is, I think, the greatest city in the world. But if you hate the place so much I suspect no words on the internet will persuade you otherwise.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way is it "great"?

It is, I think, the greatest city in the world. But if you hate the place so much I suspect no words on the internet will persuade you otherwise.
Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.

[ 09. September 2014, 13:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.

There's a huge amount of culture available - you can see a wide variety of live music, dance, theater any day of the week. You can try nearly every major cuisine (and a great number of minor ones) at restaurants in the city. Your friends and colleagues are from all over the world. There are amazing career opportunities. People who influence the world in business, politics, academia and the arts come through here regularly to give talks and presentations.

London is in a league with New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong - major global cities that attract the world's best and brightest.

It's OK not to like cities but as cities go London is one of the best if you also take the amount of green space (I'm from outside NYC, London is an oasis in comparison), work/life balance (in Tokyo they leave the office at 10 PM as standard), and accessibility to outsiders (Parisians are not the most welcoming bunch).

Edinburgh is lovely - honestly I think it's a fantastic place - but it will never be London, not in a million years. It will be more like Oslo, or Seattle. That's not a bad thing but people need to have realistic expectations.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
I had always assumed that the option of 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper was ruled out because of the danger of splitting the No vote.
If there had been three questions on the ballot paper and the result had been:
No change 30%
Devo Max 30%
Independence 40%
would independance have been deemed to have won despite being the wish of less than half of the population? If this was the case I can understand why that option was vetoed.

Would this have been the case? Is that why the nationalists wanted the three questions so as to split the no vote? Or am I missing something here?

I realise in asking this question that in the UK we frequently end up with a majority government that has been voted for by less than half the people! But somehow a vote for something as hugely changing long term and difficult to reverse as independence would seem a different matter! One where there needs to be a really clear line between yes and no.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Ah. That'll be it then. I don't much enjoy theatre, live music etc,; I much prefer watching my own choice of material off t'internet or telly or listening to CDs of stuff I know I like. It's hard enough for me being several hours from the Lake District; being unable to even get out to the Peak at will would be torture. Restaurants can only be afforded once every few months so a wide variety is of little value. From what you've said, I could enjoy London if I was young, single, wealthy, and a lot less introverted.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.

There's a huge amount of culture available - you can see a wide variety of live music, dance, theater any day of the week. You can try nearly every major cuisine (and a great number of minor ones) at restaurants in the city. Your friends and colleagues are from all over the world. There are amazing career opportunities. People who influence the world in business, politics, academia and the arts come through here regularly to give talks and presentations.

London is in a league with New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong - major global cities that attract the world's best and brightest.

It's OK not to like cities but as cities go London is one of the best if you also take the amount of green space (I'm from outside NYC, London is an oasis in comparison), work/life balance (in Tokyo they leave the office at 10 PM as standard), and accessibility to outsiders (Parisians are not the most welcoming bunch).

Edinburgh is lovely - honestly I think it's a fantastic place - but it will never be London, not in a million years. It will be more like Oslo, or Seattle. That's not a bad thing but people need to have realistic expectations.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the older I get the less appealing most of what you describe becomes to me. I'm quite happy to trade off the quantity of what you describe for living on the edge of the Peak District. We get the quality in that I can see shows, films etc. or eat a variety of cuisines etc. but I will happily give up a restaurant specialising in ethnic Borneo cuisine for a stroll along Stanedge Edge.

London is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Oh shit I'm agreeing with Deano! I mean, I went down to That London a few years back to see We Will Rock You (sad old aging rocker as I am) but it cost a fortune and I can't imagine doing that very often even if I lived there. Indeed, given the housing costs, especially if I actually had to live there.

[ 09. September 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I thought Scotland wanted to become a small Scandi-lite nation in which case "cosmopolitan" and "attracting international talent" are not likely to be priorities or even realistic goals.

A quick look at the Global Competitiveness Report reveals that the Scandinavian nations are just as competitive as the UK, if not more. Scandinavian research is cutting edge in most high-tech industries and Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world. But pride and prejudice remains the essence of Englishness, no?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
London is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

The question wasn't "Why is London the greatest place to live" but "Why is London the greatest city in the world."

If you don't enjoy cities then it doesn't matter if it's good or bad one. Many prefer the country and that is fine. But it's important not to confuse "I don't like cities" with "London is not a good city."
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
JFH: Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world.
Barring the Dutch [Smile]


I like London but I find it expensive, even for a visit.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I don't like London either for all the reasons others have said here. But an independent Scotland won't reverse its pull; as I said, I think it will in all probability have the reverse effect for some Scotland-based businesses.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
A quick look at the Global Competitiveness Report reveals that the Scandinavian nations are just as competitive as the UK, if not more. Scandinavian research is cutting edge in most high-tech industries and Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world. But pride and prejudice remains the essence of Englishness, no?

1. I'm American! I happen to live in England but I am not nor ever will be English!

2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to. If you are a young Chinese person seeking opportunities to leave your country, are you going to study Norwegian? No of course not, you'd study English, French, Japanese, Spanish.

And Scandinavians have some fantastic companies and innovations but none of that is because they are small. According to the SNP if Scotland becomes independent, being small and socialist-oriented it will naturally become more like Finland. There are a few steps in between that no one seems interested in explaining.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.

Eh?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Seriously, Scotland is NOT going to become like Sweden or Finland!

When 24 hour drinking was introduced did Scotland suddenly become a bastion of European Cafe Culture, sipping a couple of glasses of wine whilst discussing the novels of A S Byatt?

No.

Nowhere in the UK did, so why are people imagining that an independent Scotland would suddenly shed the culture it has right now, in order to reach out for one that is alien to it?

An independent Scotland is going to be the same as it is now but without the English to blame!
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.

Eh?
quote:
Several factors correlate with English ability. Wealthy countries do better overall. But smaller wealthy countries do better still: the larger the number of speakers of a country's main language, the worse that country tends to be at English. This is one reason Scandinavians do so well: what use is Swedish outside Sweden? It may also explain why Spain was the worst performer in western Europe, and why Latin America was the worst-performing region: Spanish's role as an international language in a big region dampens incentives to learn English.

The Economist
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of these jobs in some industries are in London. Will those firms recruit from Scottish universities if Scotland is independent?

Alan's comment about visas is relevant in the big picture - a Scotland that welcomed smart foreigners might well look more attractive than an England that excluded them in some kind of misdirected kneejerk animus against Romanian labourers.

But as far as recruiters from big London firms go, I am certain that in the event of independence, they would still do the round of the big Scottish universities. The scheme that automatically allowed graduates of UK universities to work in the UK for a year or two no longer exists - non-EU graduates of UK universities need a work visa under the normal scheme, so (under current rules) there would be no reason related to visas to prefer graduates from English universities over Scottish ones, and if there's a pool of talented graduates sitting around, it would be a foolish employer who didn't attempt to catch a few prime fish.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The comparisons with Scandanavia are political and economic - similar positions on the political spectrum, similar sized populations etc. Cultural issues like drinking are not the forefront of the comparisons.

Besides, if you think Scandanavians don't drink you've obviously failed to actually know any. I've seen a group of Swedish scientists drink a Scottish pub dry (well, dry of single malt whisky) and get up bright and early to put in a full day of field work.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
An independent Scotland is going to be the same as it is now but without the English to blame!

Isn't that a bit optimisitc?

Some commentators are happy to blame Mrs Thatcher (who left office nearly 25 years ago) for the current state of affairs in Scotland. Why would they stop?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.

Eh?
quote:
Several factors correlate with English ability. Wealthy countries do better overall. But smaller wealthy countries do better still: the larger the number of speakers of a country's main language, the worse that country tends to be at English. This is one reason Scandinavians do so well: what use is Swedish outside Sweden? It may also explain why Spain was the worst performer in western Europe, and why Latin America was the worst-performing region: Spanish's role as an international language in a big region dampens incentives to learn English.

The Economist

Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing. I know why they speak 2 languages rather than 1, but people in lots of countries speak English as a second language for the same reason.

[ 09. September 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing.

Because they might want to work in any of the many other countries in the world where no one speaks Swedish.

I'm not sure if you are just interested in debating this point, or if you are suggesting that Scotland being independent means its residents will also become polyglots like their Scandinavian heroes?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing.

Because they might want to work in any of the many other countries in the world where no one speaks Swedish.

I'm not sure if you are just interested in debating this point, or if you are suggesting that Scotland being independent means its residents will also become polyglots like their Scandinavian heroes?

I just thought it an odd comment, and I still find it odd, because exactly the same rationale would apply to the Dutch, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc etc. There are plenty of other countries, and communities within countries, that have the same basic issue of a language that's only useful within their own relatively small population. That's clearly an incentive to learn at least one other language, with English being a common one. But out of all of those, Scandinavia still ends up speaking more languages. More than anyone else.

Anyway, it isn't relevant to Scotland given the vast majority of the population speak English as their first language anyway.

[ 09. September 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Perhaps it's time to bring up this again?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I had always assumed that the option of 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper was ruled out because of the danger of splitting the No vote.
If there had been three questions on the ballot paper and the result had been:
No change 30%
Devo Max 30%
Independence 40%
would independance have been deemed to have won despite being the wish of less than half of the population? If this was the case I can understand why that option was vetoed.

Would this have been the case? Is that why the nationalists wanted the three questions so as to split the no vote? Or am I missing something here?

I realise in asking this question that in the UK we frequently end up with a majority government that has been voted for by less than half the people! But somehow a vote for something as hugely changing long term and difficult to reverse as independence would seem a different matter! One where there needs to be a really clear line between yes and no.

That's a fair point; the cynics are saying that Cameron wanted to bury Salmond, since he assumed that no would win handsomely. Well, that worked well.

I had to laugh at the sight of Gordon Brown proposing Home Rule, while Cameron skulks in London.

How amazing is it that the Prime Minister of the UK is a toxic presence in part of the kingdom?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at the sight of Gordon Brown proposing Home Rule, while Cameron skulks in London.

The Prime Minister is heading to Scotland, along with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I had always assumed that the option of 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper was ruled out because of the danger of splitting the No vote.
If there had been three questions on the ballot paper and the result had been:
No change 30%
Devo Max 30%
Independence 40%
would independance have been deemed to have won despite being the wish of less than half of the population? If this was the case I can understand why that option was vetoed.

Would this have been the case? Is that why the nationalists wanted the three questions so as to split the no vote? Or am I missing something here?

I realise in asking this question that in the UK we frequently end up with a majority government that has been voted for by less than half the people! But somehow a vote for something as hugely changing long term and difficult to reverse as independence would seem a different matter! One where there needs to be a really clear line between yes and no.

The nationalists wanted a Yes / No vote too. But they recognised that the people of Scotland didn't really want full independence. So they proposed a 3 question vote as being the most democratic option. I really don't think that in a three question referendum, there would have been a 40% Yes vote.

Cameron also recognised that the Scots didn't really want full independence. But he thought that if the middle ground was removed, voters would vote no. It was a calculated risk.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at the sight of Gordon Brown proposing Home Rule, while Cameron skulks in London.

The Prime Minister is heading to Scotland, along with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
Well, I look forward to the cheering crowds, and Cameron outlining his position on Home Rule. Maybe too little too late?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientam:
Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?

This survey from last year predicts that the UK could surpass Germany as Europe's largest economy by 2030, especially if Germany remains tied to the plug hole known as the Eurozone. Factors which could adversely affect that outcome are Britain's leaving the EU and Scottish independence. Although all human societies are flawed, I believe that living in a prosperous country which is democratically governed is the best place to be in this world. The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence, and that the stock market and sterling value has reacted so negatively to the prospect of independence tells its own story. It's not about running out of food, but about losing credibility in a very competitive world.

quote:
Originally posted by L'Organist:
Mr Salmond is a rogue and a stranger to the truth. Scotland alone faces a bleak economic future in his hands and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the rest of the UK to stand idly by while it happens and then pick up the tab to bail them out when it all ends in tears.

I entirely agree with L'Organist's assessment of Mr Salmond's competance and integrity to run the Scottish economy well.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
One thing I can imagine, is that national identities, on whichever side of the line they settle, will be very starkly drawn should there be a 'yes' vote in Scotland. An Ulsterman without his Unionist brother in Scotland to make him feel at home on the mainland is likely to become a very, very Loyal Unionist indeed!

If the Loyalists feel more insecure, they're likely to become more extreme, which could further polarise opinion in NI. That would be a pity, because according to this survey carried out in 2011, a majority of the province's Catholics now favour remaining in the UK. But I have wondered if the loss of Scotland from the equation would push NI more in the direction of a united Ireland. We all know that Dublin couldn't afford Northern Ireland. It's hardly Germany reuniting! They would probably expect England to pay the bills for many decades. Like I say, it's the uncertainty which does the damage. Let's hold our breath for ten days and we can reassess the situation in light of the vote.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I keep thinking that something is going on under the surface, apart from 'Scots are fed up with Tories'. For example, globalization is an acid which eats into mass identities, although there is a paradoxical result from that, which is both smaller countries splitting, and also joining in larger groups, such as the EU.

Thus, I'm not sure what 'Britain' or 'UK' signify today.

I agree with some comments on N. Ireland - they may well start feeling lost and abandoned, although I suppose a united Ireland still seems traumatic to many.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Paul TH:
quote:
The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence,
Is it?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Some of the business communities support for remaining in the UK seems a little lukewarm.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence, and that the stock market and sterling value has reacted so negatively to the prospect of independence tells its own story. It's not about running out of food, but about losing credibility in a very competitive world.

Markets react to a lack of clarity. Things will calm down once the decision is made and the major questions, like currency and debt, are resolved one way or the other. Markets react to short term disruption, they're lousy predictors of long term performance.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But remember folks, we have a royal and unionist foetus! We are saved from disunity!
 
Posted by Adam Zero (# 17693) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet, the major questions like currency and debt will not be resolved quickly.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Adam Zero, congratulations on stepping out and posting!

Since you've been registered for a while, you're probably familiar with out Ten Commandments and board posting Guidelines; if not, please take time to check them out.

Eutychus
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The nationalists wanted a Yes / No vote too. But they recognised that the people of Scotland didn't really want full independence. So they proposed a 3 question vote as being the most democratic option. I really don't think that in a three question referendum, there would have been a 40% Yes vote.

But my question is still whether a less than 50% yes vote could have led to independence if the no vote was split? They couldn't have been sure how the split between no change and devo max would pan out before the vote. So framing it as a three way split could potentially have led to independence without a majority wanting it? What would have been the reaction in Scotland to being led into independence with less than 50% support? it's hard to see how that could have been viable.

I could understand the desire for a simple two way vote to avoid such a scenario but I can also see the frustration for those who would have choosen that option. But why not go for it now? It seems that devo max is now on the table anyway. I think it would be very hard for Westminster to back down on the promises being made so why risk independence just to snub the current incumbents who could well be gone come next election. And certainly will be gone within a generation. Independence is a decision for the next hundreds of years. My fear is that the decision is influenced by an understandable dislike of the current administration in the UK.

I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes. Despite being English I love the variety of cultures within the UK, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish alongside the English, who in many ways lack something of cultural distinctives . And I am depressed by the increasing insularity of those who think leaving the EU and erecting as many barriers to other cultures and peoples as possible is the way to go. Sadly I think Scotland leaving may make that scenario more likely in what remains of the UK.

I really hope Scotland stay. Despite the anti-English sentiment sometimes expressed by some Scots (yes, I'm afraid I find the 'anyone but England' joke winds me up a bit actually) I feel we will all lose something by separating. There are so many links in the UK which cross the country borders and even the different political views in Scotland give a counter balance to some of the pull in England. I fear for where things will go politically in rUK without that counterbalance.

Scotland, please stay with us!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
But my question is still whether a less than 50% yes vote could have led to independence if the no vote was split? They couldn't have been sure how the split between no change and devo max would pan out before the vote. So framing it as a three way split could potentially have led to independence without a majority wanting it? What would have been the reaction in Scotland to being led into independence with less than 50% support? it's hard to see how that could have been viable.
It's possible that DevoMax might have split the No vote, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that. We could still get Independence without the majority wanting it, as DevoMax voters like myself vote Yes.

quote:
But why not go for it now? It seems that devo max is now on the table anyway.
It's 11 days to go. Many people have already posted their postal votes. I don't think 11 days is long enough to answer every question about the current DevoMax offer. People are confused as to what exactly is on offer now. People would need some sort of published document, preferably with some sort of official Westminster sanction. There just isn't time left.

There are an estimated 500,000 Wee Blue books in circulation. The No campaign need to get 500,000 copies of a DevoMax book in circulation to match it.

I still think it's too close to call. But the No campaign is a shambles.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes.

And yet I am not convinced of this. I don't believe England will be disadvantaged in any way by Scotland leaving the Union.

We won't have to care what they think anymore (or even to pretend to care).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Lucia:
quote:

I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes

Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was just watching TV news, and the question of these late proposals of Home Rule, or devo-max, was put to a few people, and most of them sounded very scornful, and said they would not trust them as far as you could spit (loosely paraphrased). This is probably the result of bitter experience.

I think the no campaign is on the run, searching desperately for a way out. Well, Quebec pulled it out of the bag, so it's possible.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep thinking that something is going on under the surface, apart from 'Scots are fed up with Tories'. For example, globalization is an acid which eats into mass identities, although there is a paradoxical result from that, which is both smaller countries splitting, and also joining in larger groups, such as the EU.

Thus, I'm not sure what 'Britain' or 'UK' signify today.

I agree with some comments on N. Ireland - they may well start feeling lost and abandoned, although I suppose a united Ireland still seems traumatic to many.

I hope so, because it strikes me voting for independence because ypu don't like the tories is very short sighted (says she speaking as a labour supporter).
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lucia:
quote:

I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes

Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It reminds me of having one's mind wonderfully concentrated by an impending execution - this is the position of the 3 stooges, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep thinking that something is going on under the surface, apart from 'Scots are fed up with Tories'. For example, globalization is an acid which eats into mass identities, although there is a paradoxical result from that, which is both smaller countries splitting, and also joining in larger groups, such as the EU.

Thus, I'm not sure what 'Britain' or 'UK' signify today.

I agree with some comments on N. Ireland - they may well start feeling lost and abandoned, although I suppose a united Ireland still seems traumatic to many.

I hope so, because it strikes me voting for independence because ypu don't like the tories is very short sighted (says she speaking as a labour supporter).
I think it goes a bit deeper than that, doesn't it? There is a knot of feelings and ideas involved, including resentment at Tories and Labour, and just the simple old formula, found in Boston Harbour, of taxation and representation, plus, as I said, possibly a global movement of centrifugal forces.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
I was under the impression that Mr Cameron et. al. were supporting the 'Better Together' campaign.

Clearly a misapprehension - today the Scottish Saltire was flown over No 10 Downing Street!!

The last time I checked No 10 was the office and tied accommodation for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - if any flag is flown over that building it should be the Union flag.

Tomorrow, no doubt, we'll see the Saltire flying over the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace.


[Mad] Yes, it really does annoy me!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suspect it will be flying over many town halls as well, and no doubt, scout huts.

You have to remember, the no campaign are desperate, and they have left it very late.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
The last time I checked No 10 was the office and tied accommodation for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - if any flag is flown over that building it should be the Union flag.

There are two poles on Downing Street. When I walked by today it appeared that the Saltire was flying beside the Union Jack.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
This is all a bit rich, isn't it? I hope they'll vote No, partly because I don't like erecting divisions where they didn't previously exist and partly because I don't want that smug slippery chancer Salmond to get a win. But I'm blowed if I'll suddenly start telling the Scots that I'd be heartbroken if they left. My concern is that if they do get independence, the rest of us wouldn't get the full advantage of it- we'd still be stuck with Gove, Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson, and the like.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[W]e'd still be stuck with Gove, Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson, and the like.

Or as I call them, the 'Dream Team'. [Biased]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thought you might [Smile] . AFAIK they are the ones that the old crack about haemorrhoids refers to.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Go on, remind me.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
It's about a certain type of Scot (or I suppose Yorkshireman, or Gog [North Walian], or anyone else living to the north of you)- when they come down and go back up again, you can live with them. When they come down and stay down they're a pain in the arse.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Thanks Anglican't

Needless to say the BBC didn't report that fact.

I 'll turn it down to a simmer...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Ah, hadn't heard that one, Albertus.

quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
I 'll turn it down to a simmer...

Well, if you'd like to turn it up again, HM Treasury around the corner was flying the Saltire. The Treasury is, I think, part of the same network of buildings as DCMS and something else (though they have separate entrances). At the DCMS end, the Union flag was flying.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
My concern is that if they do get independence, the rest of us wouldn't get the full advantage of it- we'd still be stuck with Gove, Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson, and the like.
We'd have oil, and whisky, and renewable energy, and tatties - it would seem greedy to take Gove et al as well. Please, keep them, with our best wishes. [Smile]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, all of this is provoking my friends to talk about what Britishness is, and some seem to think that this has been considerably hollowed out. Deindustrialization, globalization, privatization - more and more companies, institutions, pieces of land and property, are owned by private companies, which may be multi-national, and not even British.

So in some ways Britain has been emptied out already.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just watching TV news, and the question of these late proposals of Home Rule, or devo-max, was put to a few people, and most of them sounded very scornful, and said they would not trust them as far as you could spit (loosely paraphrased). This is probably the result of bitter experience.

I think the no campaign is on the run, searching desperately for a way out. Well, Quebec pulled it out of the bag, so it's possible.

There is a very good book that just came out, The Morning After: The 1995 Québec Referendum and the The Day that Almost Was. In it Chantal Hébert interviews all the key players from that campaign, including Jacques Parizeau, the Premier. Amazingly he didn't write a speech for the event that the "Yes" side lost, he expected to win. He didn't. He made the most tasteless speech possible that night, and it was clear he was "tired and emotional" (euphemism intentional).

Québec is a very divided place, it has Montréal (the most bohemian and left-leaning city in North America, San Francisco included) while the rest of the province is very conservative (in the sense of being traditional and frankly provincial). Montréal is what put the "No" side over the top.

But for all their bluster, Québec's sovereignty movement has never had the guts to ask a cut-and-dried clear question about independence. They themselves thought they would lose that contest. And the separatists, for all they have tried, have never been able to dissolve the bonds of affection between Québec and the rest of Canada. This country is like a family: we argue a lot, but deep down there is still love there.

But then again Québec has had most of what "Devo Max" is since 1867, every Canadian province does.

Unfortunately in Scotland I believed the love dissolved a long time ago. The English don't seem to care about Scotland like English Canada does about Québec. It's a question of emotion, and without that emotional foundation, there can be no political deal.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But remember folks, we have a royal and unionist foetus! We are saved from disunity!

It is, of course, perfectly possible to have the same royal family without being part of the same nation.

Posting from one of Elizabeth's other realms...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lucia:
quote:

I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes

Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.
I've been to a Scottish wedding in England. It already was the culture of a foreign country. There was a certain amout of oohing and ahing by the English guests at the exoticness of it all.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Exactly. I feel towards Scotland as I do towards the Republic of Ireland. They are people we have a certain amount in common with and I don't want to have to show a passport when I go there. But they are a different people with a different culture or cultures. Johnsonian posturing aside, I'm as well disposed to Scotland as I am to any other country (well, except perhaps for Canada, for which I have an ill-informed regard which verges on the idolatrous, but then Canada is basically Scotland-over-the-sea, isn't it?). But I have no cultural attachment to the place whatsoever.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
If it goes
It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.

I think that this attitude isn't actually helpful. A lot of people in England's "vassals"* find this sort of talk deeply patronising, like English people who say this seem to think that they own somehow Scotland (and Wales, but that's by the by) and have a right to a culture that isn't strictly theirs. No matter how benevolently it is meant, it speaks of appropriation and actually can foster more resentment.

*I don't actually think Scotland and Wales are vassals anymore, but I think people here in Wales and up in Scotland often feel they are, and saying what amounts to "but if they're independent,we don't have a claim to their cultural capital anymore" is not going to win hearts.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Scotland never has been a vassal. Wales was conquered by the Norman kings of England: Scotland's King inherited the English crown from a distant cousin. That's why Scotland has a separate legal and educational system.

You might even say that England is a vassal of Scotland, since James VI and I was crowned King of Scotland several decades before he inherited the English crown; but England has always been treated as the senior partner in the relationship because it's bigger and richer.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
And you don't have to go very far in England to find people who will think of you as an outsider. Just pop over to the next town or village and tell them where you're from.

Xenophobia* is alive and well and living on the other side of the parish boundary; who needs nation states?

*Fear and hatred of guests, as Flanders and Swann would say
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Well it is certainly not meant with any sense of ownership on my part. And I'm not particularly trying to win hearts, just to express how I feel. As I said I have a sense of something shared as we are all part of this entity called the UK and I suppose I find it a bit sad when the other side says 'we don't want to share with you'. But I don't think the English have such a separate sense of identity as those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and hence there is a cultural misunderstanding. It is hard for me as an English person to identify with the animosity that seems to emanate from some people from other countries of the UK when I don't feel such animosity in the other direction. I would hope that there could be mutual respect and support but I'm probably living in cloud cuckoo land. Of course all this has its roots in history which affects the present more than we realise at times.

It's odd. Having lived outside of the UK and Europe for a number of years now, in some ways I recognise more the bigger bonds we are part of. I feel more European and more British but also I see my own cultural background as English more clearly. I suppose its the contrast with all those around me. There are not many other Brits around!

[ 10. September 2014, 08:41: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?

If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Someone in Australia has claimed we could actually have a slightly tricky consitutional problem if Scotland achieves independence... I don't think he's right, though.

Our Constitution refers to "the Queen" a lot, originally meaning Queen Victoria. Section 2 says that these provisions extend "to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".

Now, the argument seems to be that you have to be monarch 'of the United Kingdom' for this to work, and that before 1707 personal union meant that a person was monarch 'of Scotland' and monarch 'of England'... and that if we go back to personal union that's what it would revert to.

I'm not so sure. First off, there will still be a country called 'United Kingdom', and that term dates from 1801 not 1707. The "expert" running this argument seems to ignore that 1707 created the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922) or the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I can't see why you can't have a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Technically you might have to make a United Kingdom of England (psst: Wales included) and Northern Ireland, but that would look ugly.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?

If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.

How old does something have to be before you call it culture? Is Buddhism 'more' of a culture than Christiantity because it's (about) 500 years older?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Scottish culture is whatever the people of Scotland say it is. Just as English culture includes (Indian) chicken tikka masala, (French) wine and haute couture and (German) Christmas trees.

[ 10. September 2014, 09:12: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?

If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.

Indeed, but regardless of its origins it is associated specifically with Scotland, not with the United Kingdom.

The fact that South Africa isn't the original home of annoying plastic horns at football stadiums doesn't prevent the vuvuzela from being seen as part of that specific country's culture.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Something that would worry me about an independent Scotland is globalization. Will a Scottish government accept the overtures of an American firm which wants to build 50 golf courses along the coast? Or another one, which wants to build industrial parks on nature reserves?

I'm sure there are solutions to these things, but I don't think that Scotland would be free from such commercial pressures, any more than Essex.

Well, OK, I hear the solution winging my way - that is what government is for, but this time, it would be decided by Scots, for Scots. Fair enough.

I remember James Connolly issuing a warning to Irish Republicans - be careful that you don't end up being exploited by an Irish boss instead of an English one.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Scotland never has been a vassal. Wales was conquered by the Norman kings of England: Scotland's King inherited the English crown from a distant cousin. That's why Scotland has a separate legal and educational system.

This is true, and I was unclear in my post for the sake of making a point, for which I apologise.

However in my experience, a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal, to which the natural response from the English I know who engage on this is "no, we don't," which misses the point in a profound way.

Scottish culture is, as was said before, what the Scottish say it is. Scotland has an identity and culture of its own that goes far beyond cliches of Rabbie Burns and kilts and bagpipes and berets with pompoms on them, and that identity is not a thing the English have a claim on.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?

If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.

For me, living in area rich in Pictish carvings, my sense of culture goes back to approx C7th; my avatar is of a Pictish carving I pass on an almost daily basis. I worship in a parish church which has been the site of Christian worship for over a thousand years. Although my church building is post-1707, it incorporates elements of an earlier church, including some C16th carving. Walking into church, I pass the grave stones of people born before 1707. Yesterday I went for a walk to the ruins of a medieval castle which Mary Queen of Scots visited. Within a three mile radius of my home are places raided by Vikings, visited by Montrose, tramped past by Jacobites, ridden over by Robert the Bruce and Jamie IV.

The map of my immediate surroundings are a palimpset of cultural layers, place names from the ancient Celtic tongue, from Gaelic, from Scots, from English.

My sense of culture as something I live and breathe just by walking home from the bus stop is intense.


This is my country / The land that begat me / These windy spaces /Are surely my own
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Someone in Australia has claimed we could actually have a slightly tricky consitutional problem if Scotland achieves independence... I don't think he's right, though.

Our Constitution refers to "the Queen" a lot, originally meaning Queen Victoria. Section 2 says that these provisions extend "to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".

Now, the argument seems to be that you have to be monarch 'of the United Kingdom' for this to work, and that before 1707 personal union meant that a person was monarch 'of Scotland' and monarch 'of England'... and that if we go back to personal union that's what it would revert to.

I'm not so sure. First off, there will still be a country called 'United Kingdom', and that term dates from 1801 not 1707. The "expert" running this argument seems to ignore that 1707 created the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922) or the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I can't see why you can't have a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Technically you might have to make a United Kingdom of England (psst: Wales included) and Northern Ireland, but that would look ugly.

I don't think anything changed re the UK-Oz constitutional relationship when the Republic of Ireland was formed so I don't see why Scotland leaving the UK would make any difference either.

And Wales is a Principality so it would be incorrect to include it in a "United Kingdom of..." title.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Doesn't this cut both ways? Some chippy Scots complain about being an English vassal, for various reasons. Some chippy Englishmen complain about a disproportionate Scottish influence on British (and sometimes English) affairs.

While I'm sure there is a Scottish culture beyond Burns and Bagpipes, I just wish the organisers of the opening ceremony of Glasgow 2014 had recognised that.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Can I add (and hi Wood! Didn't know you were still around) that if you think Scottish Culture is bagpipes and clan tartans, then it's probably best to just admit to yourself that you don't know what it is and you'll probably offend actual Scots by pretending that you do. It's a bit like equating Chinese culture with a 5, a 36 and a bag of prawn crackers, and the plinky-plonk music any Ealing comedy would use if a Chinese character came on.

Not that I know what it is any more than any other Sassenach, but it's a question for Scots, not us.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
But I don't think the English have such a separate sense of identity as those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and hence there is a cultural misunderstanding. It is hard for me as an English person to identify with the animosity that seems to emanate from some people from other countries of the UK when I don't feel such animosity in the other direction.

Well, like most people born into a nation like England, you didn't ask to be saddled with a history of injustice, colonisation and land theft (as many people in Wales and Scotland would see it), but England does have a cultural identity. You don't see it because England is the central signifier for the UK (there's a reason Americans so often get England and the UK confused). It's unconsciously considered the default. Like when an English person talks, for instance, assuming they don't talk with an accent, they're mistaken, because they are talking with an English accent. They don't have neutral baseline attitudes. They have English attitudes. They don't have a neutral identity; they have an English identity.

I'll grant that the reception individual English people get in parts of Scotland and Wales can be horribly unjust, because it's not their fault. English people didn't ask to be born English, and should not ever feel guilty for being born English, because that gets no one anywhere. But recognising that Englishness as something that is not neutral, not the default, and understanding why is a good start.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I add (and hi Wood! Didn't know you were still around) that if you think Scottish Culture is bagpipes and clan tartans, then it's probably best to just admit to yourself that you don't know what it is and you'll probably offend actual Scots by pretending that you do. It's a bit like equating Chinese culture with a 5, a 36 and a bag of prawn crackers, and the plinky-plonk music any Ealing comedy would use if a Chinese character came on.

Not that I know what it is any more than any other Sassenach, but it's a question for Scots, not us.

Exactly.

And hi Karl! Long time, no see, old chap.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Double posting - I'm voting Yes for the future, not for the past, but my sense of cultural identity goes back way before 1707, indeed before 1603 and therefore includes elements which were not, at the time, British.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Double posting - I'm voting Yes for the future, not for the past, but my sense of cultural identity goes back way before 1707, indeed before 1603 and therefore includes elements which were not, at the time, British.

This makes sense to me as a reason to vote Yes. It should be because philosophically the voter believes that Scotland should be independent.

Voting Yes because you believe Scotland will be better off economically, or for improved social welfare, or because you think you can keep the pound, is a bad idea because they are really policy matters that can change over time.

It would be a shame if the Yes vote won for the second set of reasons, and the none of those expectations were actually met. It would be one serious case of buyers' remorse.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
As an inhabitant of Wales, I'm only really rooting for Scotland to say Yes as a kind of if-they-can-do-it-maybe-one-day vicarious thrill [Smile] while at the same time being terrified of the consequences for England and Wales if it happens vis a vis the near-certainty of eternal Tory rule... [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And if that's what makes sense to you, good for you. If the Yes camp wins next week, I- like I suspect a lot of people in the rest of the UK, will probably just shrug my shoulders, say that I don't think it's a good idea but that's what you want, and wish you luck. This crazy idea from people like Cameron that the rest of us will somehow feel bereft and incomplete if Scotland goes has, IME, no empirical foundation whatsover. In fact if I were a wavering Scottish voter the whole hysteria that is coming from London this week might well push me to vote Yes.
BTW neq, are you sure we can't tempt you to take Govey back? He is from your part of Scotland, after all- no, got it, you're just so proud of him you'll sacrifice the sheer joy of having him around in order to show him off on as wide a stage as possible, no?

Oh, and Wood, the idea that we'd have permanent Tory rule without Scotland is a myth. look at the figures- there has been I think one election, 1964 IIRC, which Labour won which would have gone the other way without Scottish MPs. Labour can win without Scotland, albeit of course with smaller majorities.

[ 10. September 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This flurry of party leader activity seems doomed to backfire.

I think what they are trying to say is something like;

"Don't, please don't, do this bloody silly thing, it really is a very expensive short term "bad" for you, which will really be bad for all of us in the UK, both short term and long term".

What will probably come across in Scotland is;

"Don't, please don't do this thing. It may be good for you but it's really bad for the rest of us."

Being a near Geordie (i.e. a Scotsman with my brains kicked out, 'cos that's what the borderers did to my ancestors), I think the evidence points much more to the truth of the first explanation than the second, but I don't think too many Scots will believe it now.

Like the French say, "Cherchez l'argent". But we're not much good in listening to truth from the French either. Distrust is poisonous to the truth of things.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
A question that's just occurred to me:

I think I'm right in saying that most believe that a lot of a newly-independent Scotland's wealth would come from oil and/or that oil money is required to fund the lavish public services that Yes Campaigners think will follow independence.

And yet I thought groups like the Scottish Greens were generally pro-independence? And I would've thought that left-leaning Yes campaigners (and I presume most do lean left) might be more concerned about things like Global Warming, etc.

How do people square that circle?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Oh I'm sure they'd like Govey back...
http://quickhitflix.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I expect some English people will shrug their shoulders, but I am encountering quite a lot of negativity about it. It ranges from fear to scorn, and all points between. Some of it is so abusive towards Scotland, that I would not repeat it here. I wonder if it's envy.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Albertus, not only is he from my neck of the woods, he attended the same primary school as my kids, before getting the scholarship which took him out of state education!

I think his last comment on the primary school was along the lines that its pupils were poor but honest, the offspring of salt-of-the-earth working class people.

[Roll Eyes]

Seriously, you can keep him.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, and Wood, the idea that we'd have permanent Tory rule without Scotland is a myth. look at the figures- there has been I think one election, 1964 IIRC, which Labour won which would have gone the other way without Scottish MPs. Labour can win without Scotland, albeit of course with smaller majorities.

If you take out the Scottish seats, we'd have a proper Tory government at the moment with a 20-seat majority.

The Conservatives won more votes than Labour in England in 2005, but I'm not sure that was reflected in the number of seats.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A question that's just occurred to me:

I think I'm right in saying that most believe that a lot of a newly-independent Scotland's wealth would come from oil and/or that oil money is required to fund the lavish public services that Yes Campaigners think will follow independence.

And yet I thought groups like the Scottish Greens were generally pro-independence? And I would've thought that left-leaning Yes campaigners (and I presume most do lean left) might be more concerned about things like Global Warming, etc.

How do people square that circle?

My impression is that the yes campaign is palpably downplaying the question of oil. I don't think they are saying, 'we will have all this wealth from oil, and we will be scattering largesse'. This strikes me as quite sensible.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
England does have a cultural identity. You don't see it because England is the central signifier for the UK (there's a reason Americans so often get England and the UK confused). It's unconsciously considered the default. Like when an English person talks, for instance, assuming they don't talk with an accent, they're mistaken, because they are talking with an English accent. They don't have neutral baseline attitudes. They have English attitudes. They don't have a neutral identity; they have an English identity.


As I said in my previous post I think that when you are outside of something you become more aware of it. Living overseas I feel in many ways more aware of my Englishness. I know that I have an accent, many of our American friends think our kids' English accents are cute. I know that I am culturally different to the Americans, that our kids are culturally different to their peers in the French school and that we as foreigners are culturally significantly different to the locals who surround us here in North Africa.

But I agree that many in England can be very short sighted about this and I guess our own experiences of being 'the other' in a foreign country give us a bit more awareness of our own culture.

To be honest there are even cultural differences within England. I'm originally from the south of England but lived in Manchester and Liverpool for 4 years in early adulthood and certainly it felt significantly different to the rural south where I hail from!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, and Wood, the idea that we'd have permanent Tory rule without Scotland is a myth. look at the figures- there has been I think one election, 1964 IIRC, which Labour won which would have gone the other way without Scottish MPs. Labour can win without Scotland, albeit of course with smaller majorities.

I'm sort of rooting for UKIP to split the Tory vote.

Which is sort of a dangerous wish... [Paranoid]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This crazy idea from people like Cameron that the rest of us will somehow feel bereft and incomplete if Scotland goes has, IME, no empirical foundation whatsover. In fact if I were a wavering Scottish voter the whole hysteria that is coming from London this week might well push me to vote Yes.

I had the same thought, it both makes the UK look desperate and conveys the idea that the country will be dramatically damaged by Scotland's exit. In my opinion neither is true and I find the grovelling pathetic. If they want to go let them go.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A question that's just occurred to me:

I think I'm right in saying that most believe that a lot of a newly-independent Scotland's wealth would come from oil and/or that oil money is required to fund the lavish public services that Yes Campaigners think will follow independence.

And yet I thought groups like the Scottish Greens were generally pro-independence? And I would've thought that left-leaning Yes campaigners (and I presume most do lean left) might be more concerned about things like Global Warming, etc.

How do people square that circle?

Scottish Greens are very pro-independence. They want to get rid of Trident, and they want to increase the use of renewable energy.

The media are suggesting this is all about Alex Salmond and the SNP, but the Greens have been campaigning strongly.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Scottish Greens are very pro-independence. They want to get rid of Trident, and they want to increase the use of renewable energy.

The media are suggesting this is all about Alex Salmond and the SNP, but the Greens have been campaigning strongly.

But sadly the media don't believe actual Greens exist. They might as well be Bigfoot, the way that the mainstream news organs treat them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, not just the Greens. Also support from Scottish Socialists, some Labour supporters, CND (though mainly because of shipping Trident south), Scottish branches of many union. But, the media don't see them either.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think that when you are outside of something you become more aware of it. Living overseas I feel in many ways more aware of my Englishness.

Mainly, I'm aware of not speaking Japanese. So, anyone who speaks English is a treasure, someone I can can have a conversation with (and, that doesn't matter much if they're British, American, Japanese or Russian). Perhaps once I've learnt Japanese I can afford to be more picky about who I talk with and will feel more at home with the very small local British community (I sometimes think I might have just doubled it!).
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I think this is one of the big problems of the "No" campaign. They are focussing on Alex Salmond and the SNP. But for many voters, A.S. and the SNP are an irrelevance. There are dozens of groups - Green Yes, Women for Indy, Academics for Yes, Italians for Yes, Christians for Independence, Yes LGBT etc etc. who won't be swayed by anti-SNP rhetoric.

If we do become independent, then the SNP won't necessarily be the main political party after the first Holyrood election, and people know that. So focussing on the SNP leaves lots of pro-Yes groups with no opposition from the pro-Union side.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There are dozens of groups - Green Yes, Women for Indy, Academics for Yes, Italians for Yes, Christians for Independence, Yes LGBT etc etc. who won't be swayed by anti-SNP rhetoric.

If we add all these people together, do we get to anything like a significant group of people? What you've described there sounds to me like a smattering of small, left-wing groups.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I think Green Yes is a big group - if they're small, they're punching above their weight.

There are currently about 50 registered Yes groups, of which I think Green Yes is the largest.
Some of them are bound to be very small. But cumulatively they're significant.

Apparently Women for Indy have produced a "Quines for Yes" badge; I'd wear that! [Biased]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Mainly, I'm aware of not speaking Japanese. So, anyone who speaks English is a treasure, someone I can can have a conversation with (and, that doesn't matter much if they're British, American, Japanese or Russian). Perhaps once I've learnt Japanese I can afford to be more picky about who I talk with and will feel more at home with the very small local British community (I sometimes think I might have just doubled it!).
Identity can be a strange thing. I've lived in Brazil for 13–14 years (with intervals) and I'm fluent in Portuguese. There are very few non-Brazilians in my social circle here (and I mostly speak Portuguese with them). Sometimes I almost forget that I'm a foreigner, sometimes it gets more to the foreground. It depends. I never had a strong Dutch identity, I feel more closely linked to my specific region within the Netherlands.

[ 10. September 2014, 10:53: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There are dozens of groups - Green Yes, Women for Indy, Academics for Yes, Italians for Yes, Christians for Independence, Yes LGBT etc etc. who won't be swayed by anti-SNP rhetoric.

If we add all these people together, do we get to anything like a significant group of people? What you've described there sounds to me like a smattering of small, left-wing groups.
If you look at a group such as National Collective there may only be 100 of them, but they include some big names - Alasdair Gray, The Proclaimers, Dougie McLean, Irvine Welsh, Liz Lochhead.

(This might also answer l'organist's point about Scottish culture being just tartan and bagpipes)

This is a group entirely separate from the SNP.

[ 10. September 2014, 11:09: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If you look at a group such as National Collective there may only be 100 of them, but they include some big names - Alasdair Gray, The Proclaimers, Dougie McLean, Irvine Welsh, Liz Lochhead.

(This might also answer l'organist's point about Scottish culture being just tartan and bagpipes)

This is a group entirely separate from the SNP.

That's all well and good but it does remind me somewhat of the AV referendum campaign. The Yes to AV group had a lot of vocal supporters and a number of high-profile celeb backers from various fields. They all made a lot of noise but, when it came down to it, it transpired there weren't a lot of them (or not enough, anyway). I wonder whether the same might be true of the Yes campaign here (in spite of what the polls say)?
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I'm English and hope that Scotland will vote to stay in the Union.

I was listening last night on Channel 4 to the reactions of some English people in a charming village somewhere. Some were sanguine: "good luck to the Scots if that's what they want." Others were sad and very apprehensive.

I always expected the 'Yes' vote to gain in confidence and numbers as the summer went by. I thought the margin would get pretty narrow, thanks to the less than impressive efforts of the 'Better Together' campaign from Westminster. I won't deny that I'm now feeling quite shell-shocked by the very real prospect of our nation breaking up.

This hard-hitting article about the economics spells out my deepest fears:

http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/are-we-really-about-to-split-up-our-country/

And an anonymous text in this morning's Metro also paints a worst-case scenario: ‘SNP policy was always modelled on Ireland – independent and in Europe using the euro. That turned sour, so the model became Norway. But Scotland can’t afford its own currency, so the SNP has assumed it will be able to use the pound. Salmond’s attempt at clarity is “an independent country, possibly in Europe, maybe able to use another country’s currency.”’

I'm no economist. It all might work out brilliantly for all concerned. But I have concerns.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
As a brief aside, the point I raised about British fears that Scottish independence being the cause of the Torypocalypse received a rebuttal from George Monbiot this morning.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
AIUI, you can use the pound, or indeed Flanian Pobble Beads.

The problem is not whatever currency you care to deal in, the problem is whether you have any say in the monetary policy for the central bank that issues it.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Floating their own currency or joining the Euro, I guess.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I don't know. I'm in a part of Scotland which is more pro-Yes than other parts. I can only reflect on what my perceptions are. I'm sure it won't be a landslide No; I think it could go either way. The over-70s are an "invisible" group and reckoned to be mostly No voters.

Westminster is clearly rattled, and the impression they are giving is that they haven't been paying attention.

ETA - replying to Anglican't.

[ 10. September 2014, 11:31: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
As a brief aside, the point I raised about British fears that Scottish independence being the cause of the Torypocalypse received a rebuttal from George Monbiot this morning.

I think Monbiot is on a 24 hour work schedule at the moment, he is churning stuff out. He has used that interesting argument, if Scotland had always been independent, would she want to be united with England? Err, doubtful.

For that matter, would many Irish people welcome a new union with England? Err, very doubtful.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

That makes me wonder how we have ever managed to accomodate Jersey and Guernsey, which use the pound. They have entirely different economies, commerial law and taxation schemes.

I believe that Carney, like others, is playing hardball for political rather than economic reasons.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Of course they can use the pound. But then they are in a weird kind of independence, where monetary policy is decided in another state, and no doubt other financial decisions.

Maybe this is workable as an interim measure though, just as Ireland had many interim measures for a while, including the actual Free State.

It's messy of course, but then birth often is.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I realise I'm coming to this very late, but I'm worried by the tone of debate among politicians over the past few days. In particular, Salmond seems to be responding to everything that comes from the No campaign with what are virtually jeers that can be summed up as "Nyah, nyah, nyah, we hate Westminster".

Is that really how he wants to conduct the debate? Does he really want to spin this referendum to the Scottish people as something no more serious than a chance to stick two fingers up at the English?

To my mind, there's a significant potential for political and economic disaster for Scotland if it becomes independent. They say they'll go straight into the EU, but will countries like Spain really want give such a green light to Catalonia and the Basques to go down the same route? They say they'll keep the pound, but any currency union requires two consenting parties, and the UK just won't do it. They say if they can't have the pound, they won't accept any debt - but this means that on day one of the new nation, their credit rating on the international markets will be "junk". They say they'll join Nato, but what's Nato going to think of a nation that has jeopardised Trident and hasn't even got a significant army to contribute to their share of the work?

Salmond and his gang are driving very fast towards an economical and political brick wall.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Salmond and his gang are driving very fast towards an economical and political brick wall.

I'm starting to think that if Scotland does vote 'Yes' next week, the Scottish government will be begging to be re-admitted to the UK within a decade.
 
Posted by Adam Zero (# 17693) on :
 
Carney may be saying what he has said for political reasons, but Paul Krugman has made the same point in rather stronger terms ("Spain without the sunshine")

(Eutychus, thank you for your welcome)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Identity can be a strange thing ... Sometimes I almost forget that I'm a foreigner, sometimes it gets more to the foreground. It depends.

Yes, identity can be a strange thing.

In my life I've lived a bit under 20y near London, almost as long in Scotland, a long spell in NW England. And, now starting a decent length of time the other side of the world. The identity that I seem to be most at home with is "Christian", and feel at home in church even when the service is in Japanese.

I'll probably always be a foreigner here. First I look different. Also, even if I get to speak fluently with decades more to learn kanji the locals will always make me seem semi-literate.

But, I'm not sure national or cultural identity is really all that important, at least to me. I'm British, European, English, adopted Scots, Anglo-phone - and, I'm also not really any of those either.

Very strange thing this national identity thing.

As you can imagine my decision to vote Yes is not based on any feeling of Scottish identity. Likewise, appeals to a sense of "Britishness" didn't do anything to sway my decision the other way. I'm swayed more by considering democracy being stronger for being smaller, which has included an appreciation of how much better Holyrood has been than Westminster in representing the people who vote. I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It's my hope that the leaders of the Yes and No campaigns are being badly reported, because whichever way the vote goes, they appear to be a bitter and twisted bunch, lacking pinciple and composure.

Come the day after the referendum (which is International Talk Like a Pirate Day, IIRC) there will be such a lack of trust and goodwill that whether Scotland remains in the UK or goes it alone, the situation will be no more certain than it is now.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Salmond and his gang are driving very fast towards an economical and political brick wall.

I'm starting to think that if Scotland does vote 'Yes' next week, the Scottish government will be begging to be re-admitted to the UK within a decade.
Salmond and his gang? Gordon Bennett (was he a Scot?), who's using negative rhetoric now?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Double posting - I'm voting Yes for the future, not for the past, but my sense of cultural identity goes back way before 1707, indeed before 1603 and therefore includes elements which were not, at the time, British.

This makes sense to me as a reason to vote Yes. It should be because philosophically the voter believes that Scotland should be independent.

Voting Yes because you believe Scotland will be better off economically, or for improved social welfare, or because you think you can keep the pound, is a bad idea because they are really policy matters that can change over time.

It would be a shame if the Yes vote won for the second set of reasons, and the none of those expectations were actually met. It would be one serious case of buyers' remorse.

Having had conversations with Scottish friends’ who are part of the London based Diaspora, they say it’s a combination of both …

A philosophical belief that Scotland should be independent that all goes a bit Braveheart and slightly irrational coupled with the belief that an independent Scotland will manage to pull off the trick of being a low taxation, highly socialised country with a booming economy. It’s the latter belief that may lead to disappointment if it doesn’t come to pass.

Being deeply cynical, it’s obvious that the SNP knows full well that it’s not going to be all marvellous. If Scotland wants to join the EU then they have to join the Euro – it’s one of the T&Cs. So no pound. Some companies will relocate – and have already said so. That will have an impact on the economy. Scotland already runs its own NHS so the “save the NHS” rhetoric is a bit dishonest.

Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.

If they’d offered a three way vote – yes, no, Devo Max – then Devo Max would have won it. Now it’s too little, too late. We may be just about to see the ugliest divorce fight in history.

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

That makes me wonder how we have ever managed to accomodate Jersey and Guernsey, which use the pound. They have entirely different economies, commerial law and taxation schemes.


Yes, but their monetary policy is not autonomous and they do not claim to be fully independent as Salmond wants to do.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?

AIUI the overall level of government funding is linked to overall funding in England, but money is not hypothecated within the general settlement. So the Westminster government could- and I think has- cut the overall funding settlement but within that settlement the Scottish Government can allocate the money as it wishes. Of course, the Scots do have powers to vary income tax rates, but have not used them. The Conservatives are I think keen to get the devolved administrations to take taxation powers, because that then pushes responsibility for taxation and overall spending levels in Scotland and Wales onto their own governments, with the potential for unpopularity, and the removal of the 'blame Westminster' excuse, that that implies. For AFAICS precisely that reason, Carwyn Jones, out First Minister, has said that he doesn't want Wales to have taxation powers, which I think is rather a shameful cop-out.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The situation in the Channel Islands is quite different. They are a Crown Dependency. They have fully autonomous government, but the benefit of the Crown for defence and immigration, notably.

Channel Islanders are on the whole very attached to the Crown, not least because of having been occupied during WW2.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
You mean Labour Party politics singularised by corruption, bullying and nepotism?

You surely mean a situation where a small constituent part of the whole is able, through over-representation, to skew the results of elections.

You mean a view that 'spend now, pay whenever' is a responsible and legitimate way to run an economy?

For some reason my mind's eye is seeing those ridiculous road signs such as 'Brent - a nuclear free zone'... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?

It wouldn't. That's one of the issues.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?

The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland. At present the Scottish government decides (within some boundaries defined under devolution) how to spend that money. So, on the NHS we don't pay prescription charges, have free eye tests etc. Without independence the Westminster government could impose restrictions on how tax payers money is to spent - the "he who pays the piper" principal. Of course it would be a political stink of the highest order if Westminster made, say, introducing prescription charges a requirement on receiving money from the UK treasury. But, they hold the purse strings.

Independence, or at the very least full control over tax revenue, would enable Scotland to spend tax revenue as we see fit without standing at the beck and call of a distant government that happens to hold the purse strings.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.

There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).

In the case of total failure, the vast majority of the RBS retail customers were still south of the border, so bailing them out would have still been up to the British tax payer via deposit insurance (as it would be if say the British bit of Santander was in the same situation).

Finally, there is the assumption that RBS would stay nominally headquartered in Edinburgh - this is by no means certain, and in the case of a yes vote, they'd at the very least set up a separate rUK arm in the manner of most international banks operating in the UK (and quite unlike the Icelandic Banks - which were in most cases operating over here as branches of their home banks).

In all cases, if a future crisis meant that the risk of contagion was high in the rUK, we would still bail them out.

[ 10. September 2014, 12:19: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
You mean Labour Party politics singularised by corruption, bullying and nepotism?

You surely mean a situation where a small constituent part of the whole is able, through over-representation, to skew the results of elections.

You mean a view that 'spend now, pay whenever' is a responsible and legitimate way to run an economy?

For some reason my mind's eye is seeing those ridiculous road signs such as 'Brent - a nuclear free zone'... [Ultra confused]

I'm not quite sure where you get that picture from. Well, other than Brent that is ... which is not exactly a stunning reference to Scottish politics.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, I think there would probably be a messy transition period for any government in an independent Scotland. Thus, the transition in Ireland was very messy; for example, the Free State was not a republic, causing some Irish people to say it was a sell-out to England. There was in fact, an oath of allegiance to the Crown, which was hard to swallow for some.

Anyway, my point is that there are bound to be lots of problems, and incoherent policies, in such a separation. It is not an immaculate conception!
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The main issue for me is whether we in England will have to pay more or less in tax if Scotland votes Yes.

Hopefully it will be less, which is a win-win as far as I can see.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?

AIUI the overall level of government funding is linked to overall funding in England, but money is not hypothecated within the general settlement. So the Westminster government could- and I think has- cut the overall funding settlement but within that settlement the Scottish Government can allocate the money as it wishes. Of course, the Scots do have powers to vary income tax rates, but have not used them. The Conservatives are I think keen to get the devolved administrations to take taxation powers, because that then pushes responsibility for taxation and overall spending levels in Scotland and Wales onto their own governments, with the potential for unpopularity, and the removal of the 'blame Westminster' excuse, that that implies. For AFAICS precisely that reason, Carwyn Jones, out First Minister, has said that he doesn't want Wales to have taxation powers, which I think is rather a shameful cop-out.
Didn't the Scottish also turn down the NHS supplement that they were offered? (This could be a Metro lie though).

If the Yes vote does win the day, it will be interesting to see just how much of a pickle they get themselves in once they no longer have Westminster to blame for unpopular / stupid decisions. Although I imagine they've already got, "We wouldn't have to do this [terrible thing], if it wasn't for years of mis-management from Westminister" taped and on a loop.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Wood:
quote:
However in my experience, a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal, to which the natural response from the English I know who engage on this is "no, we don't," which misses the point in a profound way.
Well, I understand your point - and also the more general one you made about English identity. But I come from a little village that you've probably never heard of that owed allegiance to the Scottish Crown back in the 11th century and is about 30 miles south of the current border (we have a local stone circle too - older than the Picts). I don't identify with the Home Counties is-there-honey-still-for-tea Englishness any more than you do.

Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals. With luck, if there is a Yes vote it will result in more power being devolved to Wales and the English regions and more investment outside the South-East.

NEQ, on Michael Gove:
quote:
Seriously, you can keep him.
One of the advantages of a 'Yes' vote (from a rUK point of view) is that we could deport him...

The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.

Agreed [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

We've all been lectured by Mr Salmond about 'Scottish' money being used to underwrite the UK before and its simply not true.

But if Mr Salmond - and by extension anyone foolhardy enough to vote for this second-rate snake oil salesman - wishes to run an independent Scotland based on his view that 'Scottish' money should stay north of the border, then fine: and we'll take him at his word and insist that 'non-Scottish' money stays south.

So, Scotland will have to live within its means - from the word go, because no sensible investors will be prepared to sink funds into an untried government so credit will be virtually unobtainable.

And the first thing that will be to be budgeted for is the Scottish contribution to those functions it will still be relying on the rest of the UK for - cheap things like defence.

Of course, he could turn to the EU for help - oh no, wait, the position of the EU is that by opting out of being part of the UK it will also be opting out of the UK's EU membership: so no bailouts (sorry, loans) from the European Bank.

Never mind the people of South-East England, towards whom you seem to have a particular animus, I think you'll find the 'hard-working families' (to quote a Scottish politician) of Wales and Northern Ireland won't be at the front of the queue to cut Scotland any slack either - after all, they too have their own needs and wants which probably come a fair bit ahead of propping up a spendthrift experiment in Scotland.

Just for openers, do you think at that point Scots politicians might want to re-visit the idea of occupying their Parliament building - you know, looks fantastic, cost more than ten (10 !) times the forecast so-called budget cost, has running costs seven times higher than that same forecast?

A YES vote may make you feel all warm, cosy and sentimental - appealing to your inner Dave Spart, if you like - but its unlikely to lead to some tartan nirvana, far more likely to lead to Scotland being something like Detroit.

There's also an interesting point whether any majority for YES should be regarded as valid since Mr Salmond is only likely to achieve this with the votes of the 16 and 17 year olds he has enfranchised specially for the occasion: can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.

Yes. So much yes.

quote:
With luck, if there is a Yes vote it will result in more power being devolved to Wales and the English regions and more investment outside the South-East.

Fingers crossed.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think a lot of stuff done by the no campaign has been a recruiting sergeant for yes. I suppose it's difficult to campaign on no, but there seems to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm, whereas the yes campaign, understandably, seems full of youthful energy and idealism. Of course, that doesn't mean that they're right, but it's infectious.

Somehow the sight of Darling, Brown, Cameron and Miliband is a mournful one, and also a ridiculous one. Should that count in one's decision? I don't know, but it might.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Jane R
quote:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Childish.

Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The main issue for me is whether we in England will have to pay more or less in tax if Scotland votes Yes.

Hopefully it will be less, which is a win-win as far as I can see.

Maybe not in the short term. Independence would most likely be the cause of a serious financial upheaval for both Scotland and the UK - look at what happened to the pound and the London stock market the other day, just on one queasy opinion poll result. Between "Yes" and independence you'd get companies undertaking all sorts of financial gymnastics, hedging their bets on which side of the border they'd rather be based on, come the Great Day.

(The likelihood is, most would want to be based in the UK for tax purposes. UK governments of all colours have at least a track record that companies to look at, whereas Salmond just seems to be wanting to go on a spending spree.)
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Following on from L'Organist above...

Americans warn Scotland about ‘hope-change bullshit’
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jane R
quote:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Childish.

Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.

Whereas comments about Salmond being a snake-oil salesman, are oh, so mature.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.

There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).

In the case of total failure, the vast majority of the RBS retail customers were still south of the border, so bailing them out would have still been up to the British tax payer via deposit insurance (as it would be if say the British bit of Santander was in the same situation).

Finally, there is the assumption that RBS would stay nominally headquartered in Edinburgh - this is by no means certain, and in the case of a yes vote, they'd at the very least set up a separate rUK arm in the manner of most international banks operating in the UK (and quite unlike the Icelandic Banks - which were in most cases operating over here as branches of their home banks).

In all cases, if a future crisis meant that the risk of contagion was high in the rUK, we would still bail them out.

True that, but it's still likely that Scotland would have had to pay something towards the bailout of RBS as some of it was triggered by the activities of their commercial arm and the purchase of ABN AMRO. The UK government would have been liable for the retail deposits of people located here, but not necessarily all the other stuff. Then there's the HBOS ...

Scotland would have ended up bailing out their dysfunctional banks in the same way as everyone else. Might not have been as much, but if they're truely trying to pretend that 2008 wouldn't have impacted an independent Scotland in someway, then they are fibbing.

Tubbs

[ 10. September 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
L'organist:
quote:
Childish.

Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.

You haven't been shy about commenting on your own emotional reaction to Alex Salmond. Emotions do play a part in politics; why do you think the Big Four traipsed all the way up to Edinburgh? Their mistake is in thinking that an emotional appeal along the lines of 'we'll be heartbroken if you leave' is likely to swing the election in their favour. Most people don't care about hurting politicians' feelings.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of 16 and 17 year olds. Perhaps older people are more likely to vote for the status quo (as they may feel they have more to lose) but I doubt they are less likely to be taken in by snake oil salesmen - from either campaign.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.

Agreed [Roll Eyes]
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Because there wasn't a referendum then.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
Are we sure a two-vote one will?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
There's never been any doubt, surely, that David Cameron is an ardent Unionist? Or are we talking at cross-purposes?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Anglican't:
quote:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?

As Boogie says, why didn't they say all this earlier in the campaign? A lot of people have already voted.

On the other hand, I am sure they are very sincere in their support for the 'No' campaign. If 'Yes' wins it will create a huge amount of extra work for all of them.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Are we sure a two-vote one will?
No. But it's close enough to be scaring Cameron. He gambled on a No vote, and I'm guessing he's starting to regret that gamble.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?

So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Because they are idiots and because they probably thought it was never going to be this close ... This is their own stupid fault. They underestimated the strength of feeling there is about this; insisted on a straight yes or no vote and mis-managed the whole campaign.

What happens next is going to be fascinating ...

The SNP probably never thought it would happen and now have lots to make good on. They've promised beer, skittles and endless sun-shine.

The Tories - some of whom probably want Scotland to leave as they hope it means they'll be in power for ever - may implode in a mass of recriminations. The 1922 Committee have already said that there will be a leadership re-do and some of the Tories will bugger off to UKIP. Labour will be able to blame them and the Lib-Dems for yet another thing.

Ho hum.

Tubbs

[ 10. September 2014, 13:23: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:
quote:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?


I do accept that. But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Of course they can use the pound. But then they are in a weird kind of independence, where monetary policy is decided in another state, and no doubt other financial decisions.

Maybe this is workable as an interim measure though, just as Ireland had many interim measures for a while, including the actual Free State.

It's messy of course, but then birth often is.

Yes, but as you've pointed out, the whole Irish Free State concept was an interim measure: between 1922 and 1949 there was this entity in the southern 26 counties of what had been 'Ireland' in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' called 'Eire'. That lasted a generation, with significant tweaking in 1937, which enabled matters such as monetary independence and other 'messy unresolved issues' being discussed here plus foreign policy to be adequately thrashed out (someone referenced Norman Davies' Vanished Kingdoms earlier, and there's a whole chapter of that book devoted to this transitional entity). Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
Whereas most Scots hoped for DevoMax, but once Cameron had taken that off the table, we were left with all-or-nothing, either stop or move at high speed.

Salmond did want a Yes/ No vote, but wouldn't have pushed for it, knowing that it wasn't what the electorate wanted.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Of course, at present. And, at present tax paid by people in Scotland pay for obscenities like Trident. It's swings and roundabouts.

quote:
So, Scotland will have to live within its means - from the word go, because no sensible investors will be prepared to sink funds into an untried government so credit will be virtually unobtainable.
Scotlans has had a government, albeit with some key powers held by another government, for 15 years. That's hardly "untried".

quote:
And the first thing that will be to be budgeted for is the Scottish contribution to those functions it will still be relying on the rest of the UK for - cheap things like defence.
Well, part of that's going to depend upon what part of the current defence budget Scotland would pick up. If we decide to not fund obscene white elephants like Trident or engage in wars over oil under sand in the Middle East that wouldn't be so expensive. To actually defend Scotland against potential aggressors would cost virtually nothing, it's hardly likely the Norwegians are going to return to their Viking roots any time soon.

quote:
There's also an interesting point whether any majority for YES should be regarded as valid since Mr Salmond is only likely to achieve this with the votes of the 16 and 17 year olds he has enfranchised specially for the occasion:
Which shows how little you know of Scottish politics. 16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.

Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Anglican't:
quote:
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.

Wood's earlier comment may be relevant again here:
quote:
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.

I think actually it's more that (and this is true in my experience at least, which I appreciate is a shaky ground on which to build a theory) Londoners, particularly those in positions of privilege, which immigrant Londoners rarely are, don't actually think about the rest of the country at all.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.

A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.

[ 10. September 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:
quote:
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.

Wood's earlier comment may be relevant again here:
quote:
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.

Frankly, is there anything that any English Conservative MP could say that wouldn't be dismissed by the Scottish people?

I suspect that if an English Conservative MP said "It's nice weather for the time of year isn't it?", the Scottish would argue that the MP was out of touch and harking back to a feudal aristocracy that wanted to bleed Scotland dry.

Anyway, you haven't got devolution, you have independence, yes or no. If that wasn't the choice you wanted then you shouldn't have voted for the SNP. Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.

I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.

Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was
quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.

(BTW my 20 year olds are horrified that 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote because they say people of that age are too immature and easily led...)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.

Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
This precisely. It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
[Edit] What Karl said.

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.

I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
No, you're missing the point.

Even if Londoners don't think we are their vassals, they tend to be so blind to their privilege - yes, I said it, privilege - that they behave, not even consciously, as if they are lording it over us.

Of the ten poorest regions in Northern Europe, the UK has nine; whereas the richest community in Europe is... London. We are an unequal nation. This is not about "victimhood" (which term is usually used by people to deny that actual victims of injustice and inequality are actually, y'know, victims). This is about a not wholly inaccurate perception of an inequity that is daily perpetrated across the United Kingdom.

People in a position of privilege don't ask to be in that position of privilege; they shouldn't feel bad about their privilege either. But to deny its existence and to do nothing about it is to perpetuate the kyriarchy.

[ 10. September 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.

If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The 16 and 17 year olds I know are bright, articulate and generally well-informed. My two are 20 and 18, and they don't think their younger peers are incompetent.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was
quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.

(BTW my 20 year olds are horrified that 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote because they say people of that age are too immature and easily led...)

And the answer is of course it bloody well can be because the minimum voting age for the referendum was a part of the legislation that was passed to enable it. What are you going to do anyway? Storm Holyrood with troops and impose direct rule from Westminster?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.

A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.
Or, a long winded way of saying that occasion has provided an opportunity to (perhaps temporarily) enfranchise those disenfranchised by the Westminster government. A "Yes" vote will mean that 16-17 year olds will be able to vote, a "no" that they'll continue to be denied a chance to have say in the election of the government that will be deciding policy as they enter university, start their first job etc.

As for the "they're too immature". Well, a load of tosh that is. They're old enough to join the army, start a university course, under some circumstances get married. Why not vote? Besides, some of the antics of people older than 18 can hardly be called mature ...
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.

Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
London and the southeast are spectacularly successful and that success has its own costs for those who live there. We all share the wealth generated by London. But you don't make other parts of the UK successful by impoverishing or punishing London.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was
quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.
And, as I've said several times before I think it's an injustice that there is no UK-wide second referendum by which the people of the entire UK can have their say on a major constitutional change. But, that decision was made by the government of representatives elected by the people of the UK.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
This thread is getting rather too excited. Cool it people. This is understandably a topic people care about, but It needs to edge further from insults.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.

Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
London and the southeast are spectacularly successful and that success has its own costs for those who live there. We all share the wealth generated by London. But you don't make other parts of the UK successful by impoverishing or punishing London.

Nor do you do it by failing to invest in them, which is rather the point. It's not "stop eating the pie" so much as "stop eating all the pie and let us have some you greedy bastards". If "we all share in the wealth generated by London" why, as Wood points out, is London the richest region of Northern Europe whilst nine of the poorest are in the rest of the UK? That's "sharing"?

[ 10. September 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.

If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"

Can you provide a link to this manifesto pledge for a yes / no question?

I agree with this article's assertion that Cameron forced Salmond to accept the removal of the DevoMax option.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
No, you're missing the point.

Even if Londoners don't think we are their vassals, they tend to be so blind to their privilege - yes, I said it, privilege - that they behave, not even consciously, as if they are lording it over us.

I work in London and know many Londoners, ordinary people trying to make a living like everyone else. I'm not seeing this magical privilege of which you speak. Unless you're referring to the super-rich of Kensington or the trendy-leftie set of NW London (as examples).

quote:
Of the ten poorest regions in Northern Europe, the UK has nine; whereas the richest community in Europe is... London.
Yes, that is true. And many ordinary Londoners do not benefit from that wealth either. There are big areas of poverty.

quote:
This is about a not wholly inaccurate perception of an inequity that is daily perpetrated across the United Kingdom.
Your ordinary Londoner is not actually responsible for this inequity.

quote:
People in a position of privilege don't ask to be in that position of privilege; they shouldn't feel bad about their privilege either. But to deny its existence and to do nothing about it is to perpetuate the kyriarchy.
What do you suggest ordinary Londoners 'do' besides getting involved in politics and voting just like everybody else?

Of course, if you're not actually talking about ordinary Londoners but about the Westminster political elite (who infuriate me), by all means carry on. [Smile]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
Whereas most Scots hoped for DevoMax, but once Cameron had taken that off the table, we were left with all-or-nothing, either stop or move at high speed.

Salmond did want a Yes/ No vote, but wouldn't have pushed for it, knowing that it wasn't what the electorate wanted.

DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.

If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"

Can you provide a link to this manifesto pledge for a yes / no question?
The 2011 SNP Manifesto simply says
quote:
Independence will only happen when people in Scotland vote for it. That is why independence is your choice.

We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament.

A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation and we can then begin the job of delivering the better country we all know Scotland can be. Independence is enjoyed by nations around the world. That same independence can be enjoyed by Scotland too, with the benefits felt by each and everyone of us

Which is a commitment to a referendum with a "yes" option, but nothing concrete about the wording of the question or number of options available.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Agreed, Karl. I'm a Londoner by birth and for much of my life by choice, but I don't want to live there as it is at present, even if I could afford to. It's becomne a freeport, a Dubai, where poor immigrants are exploited in the interest of rich immigrants.

[ 10. September 2014, 14:19: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I work in London and know many Londoners, ordinary people trying to make a living like everyone else. I'm not seeing this magical privilege of which you speak. Unless you're referring to the super-rich of Kensington or the trendy-leftie set of NW London (as examples).

Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.

London has poor people in vast numbers, areas that do not get the investment that central London gets. As one old Londoner I met a couple of years ago put it: "There's no Boris Bikes in Brixton," which statement might not be factually true, since I last went to Brixton in 2008, but illustrates the inequity.

So yeah, at the risk of sounding like Lenin or something, I mostly mean the bourgeoisie and the political class it buoys up. But also that this control of the country extends beyond simple politics and economics and transcends party boundaries.

[code]

[ 10. September 2014, 14:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The point about Salmond offering snake oil seems ironic to me, since here we have the Westminster politicians offering Home Rule, or whatever they are calling it, a few days before the vote, and in fact, after thousands of people have already voted. Plus now of course, we get the rhetoric of loving the United Kingdom, loving Scotland, and so on, pass the hankies.

I would forgive the electorate, if they're a tiny bit skeptical and mirthful about this late conversion.

I suppose it's like an execution - a late poll swing concentrates the mind wonderfully!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The point about Salmond offering snake oil seems ironic to me, since here we have the Westminster politicians offering Home Rule, or whatever they are calling it, a few days before the vote, and in fact, after thousands of people have already voted.

Despite the fact that they're not strictly supposed to offer incentives so soon before the vote. is that right? I believe there have been complaints about this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The point about Salmond offering snake oil seems ironic to me, since here we have the Westminster politicians offering Home Rule, or whatever they are calling it, a few days before the vote, and in fact, after thousands of people have already voted.

Despite the fact that they're not strictly supposed to offer incentives so soon before the vote. is that right? I believe there have been complaints about this.
I think there is a wriggle around that, that they are not actually offering a new set of proposals, but a new timetable. It still looks like 'don't panic, don't panic, OK let's panic, think of something'.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
They're pulling various previous vague promises into something that looks like a coherent policy. However, what's being offered is a timetable for change, not specific changes. Decisions to be made on 25 Jan 2015, Burns night, because we all know that Scots come over all sentimental at the name of Burns and lose their ability to think. Ooooh! there's a Saltire!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there is a wriggle around that, that they are not actually offering a new set of proposals, but a new timetable. It still looks like 'don't panic, don't panic, OK let's panic, think of something'.

Yeah, I thought it wasn't as simple as that. I mean if it really had been as cut and dried illegal as my Scots friends were saying, surely more would have happened.

(All of my facebook friends who live in Scotland bar one are solidly in the YES camp. I am not naive enough to think that this reflects anything other than the sort of folks who make it onto my facebook friends list.)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
This is understandably a topic people feel strongly on, but it's getting a bit heated. Let's veer away from the personal insults.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
They're pulling various previous vague promises into something that looks like a coherent policy. However, what's being offered is a timetable for change, not specific changes. Decisions to be made on 25 Jan 2015, Burns night, because we all know that Scots come over all sentimental at the name of Burns and lose their ability to think. Ooooh! there's a Saltire!

Yes, it's reminding me of Pavlov. Give them a mention of Burns, a quick flash of a Saltire, and any Scot will start salivating, roll over on his back, and ask a Tory minister to tickle his tummy. Hey, this politics stuff is easy!
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.

There is some truth in the cultural hegemony, certainly - I get annoyed with fellow townies who seem utterly clueless about the rules of the countryside, for example - but I would counterbalance that cultural hegemony with the very strong sense of identity of the Celtic nations - or even, heck, the North of England.

And the Islington set aren't actually oppressing anyone! [Razz] (Cue Monty Python joke ...)

As for the political elite - I think that the English and Scots alike are equally screwed. [Help]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
Yes, I agree that this ship has sailed but, in the words of Mr Knightley, it has been 'badly done'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.

There is some truth in the cultural hegemony, certainly - I get annoyed with fellow townies who seem utterly clueless about the rules of the countryside, for example - but I would counterbalance that cultural hegemony with the very strong sense of identity of the Celtic nations - or even, heck, the North of England.

And the Islington set aren't actually oppressing anyone! [Razz] (Cue Monty Python joke ...)

As for the political elite - I think that the English and Scots alike are equally screwed. [Help]

I think there is a strong sense of alienation throughout the UK, not so much about a London elite, but about globalization. Many areas of life are not only privatized, but sold to multi-national companies, which may not be British.

The NHS itself is probably threatened with this before long, and the BBC.

I suppose the right-wing are saying TINA - there is no alternative, and Thatcherism is the only viable economics today.

Well, I suppose that might be true, but in various ways, people are reacting strongly to it, and I would place the drive for Scottish independence as part of that.

Of course, arguably TINA in Scotland as well; I guess a yes vote will test that before long.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
Yes, I agree that this ship has sailed but, in the words of Mr Knightley, it has been 'badly done'.
You and I are in total agreement, Matt!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But Mr Knightley did in fact, in the end, win his fair bride. Is Cameron about to clasp an adoring Scottish public to his bosom? Sorry about that image.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Does that mean [Yipee] or that the Apocalypse is nigh [Eek!] ?

[cp]

[ 10. September 2014, 15:16: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Mr Knightley did in fact, in the end, win his fair bride. Is Cameron about to clasp an adoring Scottish public to his bosom? Sorry about that image.

Well I for one am comforted by that thought. [Smile]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...and I need brain bleach!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Mr Knightley was criticising Emma for her thoughtless behaviour. His comment was entirely truthful, albeit painful for Emma to hear.

David Cameron is not criticising us. Indeed, we are his dearest friends. We are entirely wonderful. No doubt he is as honest and sincere as Mr Knightley. But we are feeling no pain, no remorse as we listen to him.

David Cameron is no Mr Knightley.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Not wanting to push the analogy too far (but just far enough), Cameron reminds me of Mr Elton, unctuous, unconvincing, hypocritical, oh well, lots of other things.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not wanting to push the analogy too far (but just far enough), Cameron reminds me of Mr Elton, unctuous, unconvincing, hypocritical, oh well, lots of other things.

Yep

I am with the 'better together' camp in a big way. But all this 'impassioned plea' stuff is too little, far too late. Cameron has read the mood completely wrongly (again)

I still believe the people of Scotland will see sense and say NO.

[ 10. September 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think there may be a late swing back to no, as in Quebec. I am hoping for yes, but fear may win the day.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Is all the buzz about the poll results more likely to scare more Scots to show up at the polls to vote no, or to encourage more to show up and vote yes?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is all the buzz about the poll results more likely to scare more Scots to show up at the polls to vote no, or to encourage more to show up and vote yes?

Or will both surges cancel each other out and just mean loads of people vote?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Or will both surges cancel each other out and just mean loads of people vote?

The more people that vote, the better. About the worst possible result would be a narrow victory for one side or the other with a small turnout.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Just had a look at the BBC site - the 'no' is leading by 1%

There are a lot of 'don't knows' though - 23%


It really could go either way

BBC
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Give John Prescott some credit, he seems to have gone into the street, to face the angry multitudes, whereas Cameron and Miliband had carefully choreographed meetings, with nice polite people. Mind you, Prescott said something daft about football teams.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Just had a look at the BBC site - the 'no' is leading by 1%

There are a lot of 'don't knows' though - 23%


It really could go either way

BBC

New poll (Daily Record), has a 6% lead for no; I think Salmond will relish this actually.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Just had a look at the BBC site - the 'no' is leading by 1%

There are a lot of 'don't knows' though - 23%


It really could go either way

BBC

New poll (Daily Record), has a 6% lead for no; I think Salmond will relish this actually.
Apparently the Survation poll in the Daily Record has (excluding don't knows) the 16-24 age group on NO at 61%. So maybe younger voters don't favour Yes, though I guess this age group are also thinking about job prospects and tend to be more mobile.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
That's interesting because their methodology says they only phone Iandlines and that they try to make up for the consequent 'under sampling of younger respondents' by 'the use of targeted lifestyle data'-whatever that is. I wouldn't count as one of their 'younger' respondents these days but I no longer use my landline due to volume of spam and better deal on mobile anyway. So if their results for younger voters look like outliers compared to others, it may be because they are. The strongest group for No are the over-60s, so anything that skews a sample older will put No up. For comparison You Gov uses an online panel and TNS uses face to face (if I have it right I'm not an expert)

They could also be correct -the weekend panelbase poll said 48% Yes but that youth figure with their not calling mobile phones gives me pause.

[ 10. September 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Yes, I'd forgotten they use landlines, which would obviously favour older members of their panel and require more weighting for less represented groups. And, of course, weighting is difficult in an unknown territory such as a referendum.
(I am also on several polling panels, though I tend to do more YouGov and opinium ones, as they suit my ipad as the panelbase ones usually need flash).
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think missing out the don't knows is probably rather misleading.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Salmond seems to have his work cut out, with several banks saying today that they would move to London, plus Standard Life. I am interested to see how he tackles this one, as you would think it would drive some people back to no.

Also many questions about currency, if they keep the pound, but without the backing of the Bank of England, so no lender of last resort. Of course, the UK helped bail out Ireland but you can't guarantee it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Louise: That's interesting because their methodology says they only phone Iandlines and that they try to make up for the consequent 'under sampling of younger respondents' by 'the use of targeted lifestyle data'-whatever that is.
The wording is a weird bit of marketing-speak but this is in fact standard statistical practice. They call only landlines and apply some model about what percentage of people from different age groups have cell phones, and correct their result from this model. Of course it would be better to call both landlines and cell phones (in this case they'd still need a model about the proportion between the two), but every poll includes a correction factor of some sort.

How good their prediction will be depends on how good their model is and on luck, but when a polling company covers a large set of elections, those with good models on average will have better results than those that have poor models.

I agree with Heavenly Anarchist that it is more difficult to build and correct your models in the case of a referendum (which presumably don't happen often.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
 
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.

 
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
That is true, but Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are very small countries (total population less than 200,000, compared with 23 million in Australia, so less than 1% of the Australian population), and their economies are a lot smaller than that. So what they do or don't do economically has very little or no impact on Australia. If an independent Scotland kept with the Pound Sterling, then the situation is far more analogous to the Euro than the Australian Dollar, because poor economic management in Scotland (or England) could derail the currency and therefore both countries.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
That is true, but Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are very small countries (total population less than 200,000, compared with 23 million in Australia, so less than 1% of the Australian population), and their economies are a lot smaller than that. So what they do or don't do economically has very little or no impact on Australia. If an independent Scotland kept with the Pound Sterling, then the situation is far more analogous to the Euro than the Australian Dollar, because poor economic management in Scotland (or England) could derail the currency and therefore both countries.
Wrong way around. The point isn't the impact they have on Australia, the point is the impact that Australia has on them.

It's entirely correct that Tuvalu has no control of its exchange rate. It's also correct that Australian monetary policies can impact on Tuvalu because of this.

But the idea that not having your own currency is "incompatible with independence" is simply wrong. We don't make any laws for Tuvalu. It's Tuvalu's own choice to use our dollar.
 
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
It should also be said that I do not have a particular horse in this race; there has been limited coverage of the referendum here in Australia, and we work on the assumption that our tourist visa entry to Scotland would be unchanged from current arrangements.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think a lot of stuff done by the no campaign has been a recruiting sergeant for yes.

When I saw on the news that Call me Dave, Red Ed and Oily Nick had gone north yesterday, the first thing I thought is that this means more votes in the bag for Alex! Although no one will be happier than me if the union survives, I think the No campaign has been badly run, focussing only on negative issues. The suggestion that Scotland couldn't keep the pound is total bollocks. There may be disadvantages to using a currency without the backing of a central bank, but it happens in many countries. And Ed's daft comments about border guards are ludicrous.

If Scotland votes Yes, it will remain in the EU with a rubber stamped approval. After all, it's already in the EU. It will keep the UK's opt out to the Euro and Schengen if it chooses, because nobody in Europe is going to make life impossible for Scotland. It will remain in Nato, though I could see some members, especially the US being pissed off with the SNP's attitude the the nuclear deterrant.

Alex Salmond would have loved nothing more than a head to head debate with an Old Etonian Tory toff like David Cameron to demonstrate how different we are, but the No campaign should have concentrated on our shared history and shared prosperity which the union brings. We've all heard of "Little Englanders" who think we could survive free of Europe, in "splendid isolation." "Little Scotlanders" are missing the point in exactly the same way. This is about national prosperity. How the prosperity is divided up afterwards is a matter in internal politics. The whole of Britain will become less properous in the long term as a result of fragmentation.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Sorry, I meant to add that the UK, while not the power it once was, still has influence in the world, such as it's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It has every chance of becoming the largest European economy within 15 years. These things translate into inward investment, jobs and national prosperity. Although Scotland has only 8% of the UK population, the fragmentation of the UK nation state cannot but affect all the things which contribute to our world position. This is the point that "Little Scotlanders" like Salmond either fail to grasp, or don't care about in their ideological bubble.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I do think allowing the disenfranchisement of the 700,000 Scots born folk who live elsewhere in the UK was a tactical error on the part of the No campaign.

Which would have been about 8% of the total, and presumably a group with quite strong union ties. Also a group entitled to citizenship if independence were to happen.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond seems to have his work cut out, with several banks saying today that they would move to London, plus Standard Life. I am interested to see how he tackles this one, as you would think it would drive some people back to no.

Also many questions about currency, if they keep the pound, but without the backing of the Bank of England, so no lender of last resort. Of course, the UK helped bail out Ireland but you can't guarantee it.

Perhaps- I don't know- RBS has some symbolic significance for Scots. But I think that after the events of the last six years, if I were voting in Scotland the prospect of getting shot of RBS would, quite seriously, be an argument in favour of voting Yes.

[ 11. September 2014, 07:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Although no one will be happier than me if the union survives, I think the No campaign has been badly run, focussing only on negative issues. The suggestion that Scotland couldn't keep the pound is total bollocks. There may be disadvantages to using a currency without the backing of a central bank, but it happens in many countries. And Ed's daft comments about border guards are ludicrous.

If Scotland votes Yes, it will remain in the EU with a rubber stamped approval. After all, it's already in the EU. It will keep the UK's opt out to the Euro and Schengen if it chooses, because nobody in Europe is going to make life impossible for Scotland. It will remain in Nato, though I could see some members, especially the US being pissed off with the SNP's attitude the the nuclear deterrant.

The 'No' campaign is simply being realistic and inevitably negative. It is all up for negotiation. If Scotland has to join Schengen then there will be some form of border control. Scotland will eventually join the EU but not automatically because Spain will not allow it. There will only be a currency union if Scotland trades back economic sovereignty. Sterlingisation will in the short and medium term impoverish Scotland, as will reneging on debt. NATO membership will probably happen but will entail greater defence spending than the SNP have promised.

The whole point is that it is stupid to vote for independence when you don't know basic things about your currency. Scottish people are not stupid so they won't vote for independence.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.

Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Yes, but they're not in a currency union, are they?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond seems to have his work cut out, with several banks saying today that they would move to London, plus Standard Life. I am interested to see how he tackles this one, as you would think it would drive some people back to no.

Also many questions about currency, if they keep the pound, but without the backing of the Bank of England, so no lender of last resort. Of course, the UK helped bail out Ireland but you can't guarantee it.

Perhaps- I don't know- RBS has some symbolic significance for Scots. But I think that after the events of the last six years, if I were voting in Scotland the prospect of getting shot of RBS would, quite seriously, be an argument in favour of voting Yes.
...unless you're employed by RBS
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
My understanding is that the Gov of the Bank of England was talking about a formal currency union. As has been said ad nauseam, there is a world of difference between a formal and informal currency union - both regarding political union, and the support given by the Bank of England in the event of another financial collapse.

I was getting very frustrated with SNP this morning when listening to Radio 4. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it - a sort of protected independence.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.

Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I think that a lot of big employers would vote with their feet in the event of a 'yes' vote; John Lewis chap was saying on the news this morning that their prices in Scotland would almost certainly go up because of the currency uncertainty and likely fluctuations.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.

Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
]Yes, but they're not in a currency union, are they?

but the point is that they don't have to in a currency union to do so.

The other thing people are forgetting is that the Yes camp is not necessarily tied to the policies of the SNP. There will be an election following independence, and at that point presumably the Scots can elect a government with the policies which they actually want to see.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One possible tactic for Salmond now would be to launch an attack on the banks - whose gambling debts we are all still paying - for interfering in the debate. It's probably very risky, but it could pay off, in a populist sort of way.

If I was paranoid, I would feel suspicious that yesterday there was a concerted onslaught from effing banks, Bank of England, politicians, other companies - against the yes vote, all on the same day.

It makes me wonder if the Tories have been putting the word out among their banker chums - do the dirty on independence. And of course, it may well work.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.

Well, one argument is that it could wreck the economy of the rump UK not to support the pound in Scotland.

But this is high stakes poker. Salmond thinks that the Bank of England and English politicians are bluffing. But would you gamble your life savings on a pair of eights?

Project fear may well win.

I forgot to say that this is one reason that the UK helped Ireland in the economic crash; it wasn't being noble and friendly, but quite calculating - if the Irish economy had seriously crashed, it could drag UK down with it.

[ 11. September 2014, 08:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.

Well, one argument is that it could wreck the economy of the rump UK not to support the pound in Scotland.

But this is high stakes poker. Salmond thinks that the Bank of England and English politicians are bluffing. But would you gamble your life savings on a pair of eights?


There are only two players. As they are playing Brag, a pair is good and a middle pair very good indeed.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now, the best of both worlds, and then 'do an Eire' over the next decade or so to move to full independence with these unresolved issues being sorted out in the interim.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.

RBS' CEO is based in Edinburgh. If the HQ moved to London so would he. Whoever supports him and works with him in Edinburgh would likely move as well (or at least the roles would).

I'm not saying it's thousands but realistically if the HQ of the bank moves, some staff will also move with it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now

Except no wasn't equivalent to DevoMax until the last few days. The entire thing is a fiasco - who offers a referendum and then doesn't think through all the scenarios.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...and that's before you factor in the job losses that would result from the closure of the naval bases...
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If I was paranoid, I would feel suspicious that yesterday there was a concerted onslaught from effing banks, Bank of England, politicians, other companies - against the yes vote, all on the same day.

The paranoia is unnecessary in this case, as the global markets spoke a few days ago when the GBP hit a 10-month low and the UK stocks started to drop. No conspiracy, just basic reality that investors (who are you and me via our pension funds etc.) don't like the uncertainty that would come with an independent Scotland when there is still no clear plan on the economic structure of that new country a week before the vote is due.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now, the best of both worlds, and then 'do an Eire' over the next decade or so to move to full independence with these unresolved issues being sorted out in the interim.

Good point. I suspect that Salmond has this at the back of his mind - he has already won really. And yes, the Irish situation is an interesting parallel, I mean, for heaven's sake, the Irish accepted allegiance to the Crown for a period! Of course, this caused a civil war, but the Free Staters judged that it was a compromise they had to make. They didn't get a republic by immaculate conception, but a long and agonizing birth process.

And maybe Home Rule will satisfy the Scots after all.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.

RBS' CEO is based in Edinburgh. If the HQ moved to London so would he. Whoever supports him and works with him in Edinburgh would likely move as well (or at least the roles would).

I'm not saying it's thousands but realistically if the HQ of the bank moves, some staff will also move with it.

There are an awful lot of companies registered in e.g. the British Virgin Islands. Do you really think their CEOs all work there?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
We're not talking about registered offices but headquarters.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are an awful lot of companies registered in e.g. the British Virgin Islands. Do you really think their CEOs all work there?

I'm unclear as to why you wish to speak in the abstract.

Why would RBS or Standard Life move HQ to London because of political and economic uncertainty in Scotland, but leave their chief executives in Scotland? What would be the point?

Just think about it logically for a second - we are not talking about DE or BVI as tax shelters but a fundamental concern about their ongoing ability to do business in Alex Salmond's socialist paradise.

BBC is saying that there are likely to be jobs moving south of the border, regardless of what the companies are claiming publicly.

ETA: Alex Salmond is claiming he has a letter from RBS boss saying no jobs will move, but the letter actually says "It is not our intention to move operations or jobs" which for those of us who speak English means something slightly (and significantly) different.
The Guardian

[ 11. September 2014, 09:32: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now

Except no wasn't equivalent to DevoMax until the last few days. The entire thing is a fiasco - who offers a referendum and then doesn't think through all the scenarios.
I don't think the London politicians dreamed that the yes vote would climb so much. It did, and they had to come up with something, hence, 'Home Rule' or whatever name it has now.

Salmond has skinned them alive already. How many of them will survive this, I mean Cameron, Miliband and Clegg?

I also wonder what impact this will have on British politics - nobody has a clue of course. May you live in interesting times!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Tax, largely. The UK is becoming a shabby tax haven and this would expedite the process.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
We're not talking about registered offices but headquarters.

Exactly, the last time I checked the definition of a headquarters is where the core corporate functions including the CEO are based.

My company's registered office and HQ were in different places for many years.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.

I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

Why would RBS or Standard Life move HQ to London because of political and economic uncertainty in Scotland, but leave their chief executives in Scotland? What would be the point?

Just think about it logically for a second - we are not talking about DE or BVI as tax shelters but a fundamental concern about their ongoing ability to do business in Alex Salmond's socialist paradise.

[Roll Eyes] It's far more likely that the reason they are would be planning a move is so that they retain confidence that they would be bailed out by the BoE should a further crisis occur. Which isn't to say that Salmond's plans are coherent - but perhaps you should ask yourself exactly who wants 'socialism' in all of this.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.

Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.

I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!

You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:

- cut taxes
- increase social welfare spending
- export oil
- work with the Green party
- use the pound
- join the EU but not the Euro (neither a given)

Have I missed anything?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.

Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign [Paranoid]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.

Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign [Paranoid]
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Of course they have to try, and be seen trying, to save the union. But after the vote, in the event of a Yes majority, they will have to do what is best for the union, not Scotland, and within the context of an England that will have very little goodwill towards Scotland.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.

I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!

You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:

- cut taxes
- increase social welfare spending
- export oil
- work with the Green party
- use the pound
- join the EU but not the Euro (neither a given)

Have I missed anything?

Well, specifically, they intend to cut corporation tax, no doubt hoping to attract big business investments.

If yes wins, I expect a huge falling-out with the left, as they realize that Salmond is aiming for a business paradise in Scotland. However, plenty of people on the left already know this, so it's intriguing that they have aligned with him, temporarily, I suppose.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.

Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign [Paranoid]
Yes, it was pure farce, with Prescott as the court jester. I thought Cameron did OK, actually, although no doubt the 'effing' was a calculated ploy, you know those Scots, they're all potty-mouths.

Miliband looked as if he was doing am-dram, and I admired Clegg and Prescott for actually going in the street.

Was it Black Wednesday for Salmond? Too early to tell; I expect him to come out fighting - but he has already won.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:


Just think about it logically for a second - we are not talking about DE or BVI as tax shelters but a fundamental concern about their ongoing ability to do business in Alex Salmond's socialist paradise.

Alex Salmond and the SNP are about a socialist as the Lib Dems pre-coalistion. Then again, if "Socialist Paradise" means "Not leaping in the air when the Square Mile/Wall St says jump" you may have a point. That fter all is whre the scaremongering comes from and I am sick of man serving the economy rather than the economy serving man.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think I was wrong to say 'Salmond has won', in the light of Paul Mason's new tweets, that in fact, devo-max has not been offered. No doubt Salmond will pounce on this, as it looks as if London is offering smoke and mirrors.

Salmond is also saying that the Treasury has been leaking sensitive market information - this might be trivia, or nuclear.

I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?

I mean, it could backfire, as many things are backfiring. Threats make bad politics.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Or they could have started taking it seriously months ago, and made a positive presentation of the virtues of staying part of the union, rather than endlessly fear mongering.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Or they could have started taking it seriously months ago, and made a positive presentation of the virtues of staying part of the union, rather than endlessly fear mongering.
I think this is the point. London basically has ignored the whole thing, no doubt reinforcing the view of many Scots that Scotland is seen as a kind of peripheral nuisance.

Then they started 'project fear' which may well backfire.

Even the banks' threats to pull out could backfire. Of course, it could also produce a shift back to no.

I am waiting to see how the yes campaign progresses now. So far, they have been very skillful - will they now be blown off course?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.

I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?


I think it would be economically myopic if they took that view.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.

I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!

You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:

- cut taxes
- increase social welfare spending
- export oil
- work with the Green party
- use the pound
- join the EU but not the Euro (neither a given)

Have I missed anything?

Basically ...

Retain all the jobs, services and benefits they like that they get because they're part of the UK.

Get rid of all the things they don't like about being part of the UK. (Like Cameron).

Voting because you believe Scotland should be independent - fair play. Voting because you believe everything will be wonderful and there won't be any negative consquences - good luck with that!

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.

I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?


I think it would be economically myopic if they took that view.
But these are political questions, through and through. I think the yes campaign has cleverly played on that sense that a super-rich elite in London has been controlling things, and asking us to pay their gambling debts. Well, the Scots are not the only people saying this of course.

Of course, the weak spot in this, is the currency and the question of running a deficit, which requires a large reserve, which Scotland won't have. And modern states only work by running a deficit.

So I wonder if there will be a tilt back to no, because of this.

Well, Irish independence was won through blood, sweat and tears, and decades of compromise with London; I don't how much the Scottish electorate are serious about it.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think I was wrong to say 'Salmond has won', in the light of Paul Mason's new tweets, that in fact, devo-max has not been offered. No doubt Salmond will pounce on this, as it looks as if London is offering smoke and mirrors.

Salmond is also saying that the Treasury has been leaking sensitive market information - this might be trivia, or nuclear.

I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?

I mean, it could backfire, as many things are backfiring. Threats make bad politics.

It's not a threat, it's a reality. It has always been a reality and is nothing to do with Westminster. Salmond's podgy fist needs to be shaken in the direction of Brussels.

Many financial institutions operating in the EU are based in one country and operate in others under Freedom of Services. Scotland isn't part of the EU so they have to move somewhere that is to continue to be able to do that. (London is the logical place, but you could have a situation where they then all bugger off back to Scotland if they enter the EU as the UK votes to leave).

RBS is in a double bind as it also needs to be HQ'ed in the country where it has most of it's customers under EU law. And that would be England. Standard Life may have to relocate for the same reason.

That's before you address the fact that Salmond's idea of currency union with an unwilling UK has been described as "madness on silts". Surely an independent country would want to be in charge of their own economic destiny?

Tubbs

[ 11. September 2014, 12:14: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, sure, an independent country wants to control its own economy. But this is not the immaculate conception; you have to get there first, starting from here.

There is going to be a difficult transition, that's for sure.

I think Salmond is partly gambling that the rump UK would also need Scotland, and dare not pull the drawbridge up.

Well, I think it shows how much conventional politics has failed, if a whole country are willing to go down this road. Isn't this the big shock for London politicians? They were lazily assuming, oh, let's toss the jocks a few crumbs, and carry on as normal. Oops.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, sure, an independent country wants to control its own economy. But this is not the immaculate conception; you have to get there first, starting from here.

There is going to be a difficult transition, that's for sure.

I think Salmond is partly gambling that the rump UK would also need Scotland, and dare not pull the drawbridge up.

Well, I think it shows how much conventional politics has failed, if a whole country are willing to go down this road. Isn't this the big shock for London politicians? They were lazily assuming, oh, let's toss the jocks a few crumbs, and carry on as normal. Oops.

You're last paragaph is bang on the money. But, given that the SNP has been campaigning for indendence for ever and a vote was part of their election promises, putting some thought into how this might all actually work in practice might be been helpful! It reminds of the bride who puts all the thought into the big day and none into what happens afterwards.

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
People are saying that Miliband is currently in Glasgow campaigning; credit to him, if he is actually in the streets.

But will Birnam wood now move to Dunsinane? Have the horses in their stables eaten each other? Foul is fair, and fair is foul!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, sure, an independent country wants to control its own economy. But this is not the immaculate conception; you have to get there first, starting from here.

There is going to be a difficult transition, that's for sure.

I think Salmond is partly gambling that the rump UK would also need Scotland, and dare not pull the drawbridge up.

Well, I think it shows how much conventional politics has failed, if a whole country are willing to go down this road. Isn't this the big shock for London politicians? They were lazily assuming, oh, let's toss the jocks a few crumbs, and carry on as normal. Oops.

You're last paragaph is bang on the money. But, given that the SNP has been campaigning for indendence for ever and a vote was part of their election promises, putting some thought into how this might all actually work in practice might be been helpful! It reminds of the bride who puts all the thought into the big day and none into what happens afterwards.

Tubbs

I think this often happens. Hell, the Irish were making it up day by day, as were the Brits. They sort of fell into a Free State idea, with allegiance to the Crown, what a barmy idea to sell to Irish Republicans. As Michael Collins said, that was his death warrant, all very badly planned really!
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
I suspect that Scotland will get more out of the so called Devo Max after a narrow No vote than from the antagonistic negotiations after a Yes vote.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I suspect that Scotland will get more out of the so called Devo Max after a narrow No vote than from the antagonistic negotiations after a Yes vote.

Possibly, but would you trust London to really deliver on devo-max or Home Rule, as Brown rather nostalgically called it?

But yes, overall, I would say it has been a triumph for Salmond. Nobody knows how this will effect British politics from now on; maybe not at all, or maybe the 3 political parties will be in chaos.

What did you do in the independence debate, daddy?

[ 11. September 2014, 12:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
BBC coming under attack now for failing to report material favourable to the yes campaign, e.g. companies reporting that they would not move jobs out of Scotland, also the Treasury release of sensitive information.

Salmond definitely on the counter-attack - but will it work?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
BBC coming under attack now for failing to report material favourable to the yes campaign, e.g. companies reporting that they would not move jobs out of Scotland, also the Treasury release of sensitive information.

Salmond definitely on the counter-attack - but will it work?

Who does report good news?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Are we making predictions as to the result yet? Is punditry allowed?


(I reckon it'll narrowly be no, although if my Facebook feed were representative, it'd be a landslide for yes)

[ 11. September 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.

Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
I've worked for companies that were registered in Delaware but were headquartered in California. There is no need to base any staff in Delaware. Don't know what the rules are over there.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Wood, here you go.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.

I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!

To be fair, although it was Salmond who called the Trump application in and ultimately got him the go-ahead for the Menie estate golf course, it was the previous (Labour) First Minister Jack McConnell who first started courting Trump. If Labour had won the Scottish election in 2007 I'm sad to say I'm not sure the outcome would have been any different in that particular shabby and shameful case.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Are we making predictions as to the result yet? Is punditry allowed?


(I reckon it'll narrowly be no, although if my Facebook feed were representative, it'd be a landslide for yes)

[Disappointed] Have actually read this thread?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.

So... All the countries using the Euro are no longer independent????
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So... All the countries using the Euro are no longer independent????

They do not have independent monetary policy. Carney is of the opinion (as are many economists) that it's impossible in the long-term to have supranational monetary policy without supranational fiscal policy that can work in sync. Which would lead eventually to something that is not independence.

[ 11. September 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes, the Euro countries ceded a great deal of independence when they joined the Euro. It cost them dearly. Paul Krugman has been especially vocal on this.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I just think it's wrong to take a particular thing of that kind and treat it as the indicator of independence.

The fact is almost every country in the world has given up some of its independence by signing international treaties and conventions and committing to certain action to implement them. I've drafted laws that are designed specifically to show the rest of the world that we've done what we said we'd do when signing a treaty.

We've signed trade deals with the US, Korea and some other countries, agreeing to treat their products much like our own. We've changed our own laws accordingly. No-one seems to suggest that the extensive agreements we have with the US mean we're not 'independent'.

It's still France, Italy, Germany etc that are given a seat at the table at the United Nations and recognised as nation-states, not the EU.

[ 11. September 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Orfeo, the point is that the UK didn't join the Eurozone. The view is that a shared currency doesn't work without political union. That is what is wrong with the Euro and that is why having a currency union with Scotland would need to be backed by political union which is what the referendum is about.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One thing that's been striking me is how desperate London seems, both politicians and media. Some people are even suggesting that England without Scotland would face real difficulties.

I don't know if that's true economically, but politically, it would probably set off an earthquake.

So all the warnings about Scotland are fair enough, but what about a rump UK? How would it fare? Is there a fear factor here?
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
It's not just political union - the fact that Germany is gaining wealth so fast rel other EU states shows quite clearly that money has different value in different places. Separation of value by separation of currency is one way to buffer the effect on local economy. The Euro is not a sensible answer to whatever the question was supposed to be.

Re previous post by Quetzal coatl

You could say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts

[ 11. September 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It's not just political union - the fact that Germany is gaining wealth so fast rel other EU states shows quite clearly that money has different value in different places. Separation of value by separation of currency is one way to buffer the effect on local economy. The Euro is not a sensible answer to whatever the question was supposed to be.

Re previous post by Quetzal coatl

You could say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts

Well, the specific suggestion is that the English economy will crash, if severed from Scotland. I have no idea if that's correct, but I can imagine that banks and companies don't want to find out.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I feel that the admission of an independent Scotland into the EU will be much more of a political than a juridical decision, since legislation isn't clear on this point. I have no doubt that within this process, one of the conditions the other members will pose is a quick adoption of the euro.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So all the warnings about Scotland are fair enough, but what about a rump UK? How would it fare? Is there a fear factor here?

Well, I think continental Europe would pretty much stop caring what the UK thinks about anything, at least for a while. It's not just the actual loss of economic power and size of population, it's also the prestige loss. If you can't even keep your own nation together, then why listen to you internationally?

And if this becomes a trend (Brittany? Catalonia? Lombardy? Basque Country? Wallonia? ...), we might end up with the historically most fractured nation, a recently reunified Germany, completely dominating a splintered Europe of regions rather than nations. It would be a self-inflicted "Divide and Conquer" of Europe, a supreme irony of history.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just think it's wrong to take a particular thing of that kind and treat it as the indicator of independence.

It's not an indicator of independence. It's a criterion of independence.

Here's a simple example: let's say Scotland votes yes and cuts corporation tax to a minimum to attract companies. Loads of companies set up shop in Scotland and want to export to Europe, which given the tiny size of the Scottish market they will certainly wish to do. They are going to want a cheap pound to make their goods more competitive internationally.

But the Bank of England thinks for the UK, which it is responsible for, it's best to raise interest rates, which tend to move in the same direction as exchange rates. That is, higher interest rates and a stronger pound. (It's not always perfect but this is broadly the way it works).

What is Scotland going to do about that? It will be sitting with a fiscal policy on taxation to attract exporters but a monetary policy that achieves the opposite.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So all the warnings about Scotland are fair enough, but what about a rump UK? How would it fare? Is there a fear factor here?

Well, I think continental Europe would pretty much stop caring what the UK thinks about anything, at least for a while. It's not just the actual loss of economic power and size of population, it's also the prestige loss. If you can't even keep your own nation together, then why listen to you internationally?

And if this becomes a trend (Brittany? Catalonia? Lombardy? Basque Country? Wallonia? ...), we might end up with the historically most fractured nation, a recently reunified Germany, completely dominating a splintered Europe of regions rather than nations. It would be a self-inflicted "Divide and Conquer" of Europe, a supreme irony of history.

A bit like Putin, isn't it? He wants the prestige of the Baltic states and others, such as Ukraine, being attached to Russia in some way, rather than the actual well-being of those states, although no doubt, he would argue that their well-being is best served by being connected to Russia.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The thing that would bother me most about losing Scotland would be the loss of the left wing MPs in Westminter.

Would we end up as the rUK living in Toryland? [Frown]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Every cloud, Boogie...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing that would bother me most about losing Scotland would be the loss of the left wing MPs in Westminter.

Would we end up as the rUK living in Toryland? [Frown]

I think 'a right-wing rump' has a nice ring to it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Every cloud, Boogie...

[Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing that would bother me most about losing Scotland would be the loss of the left wing MPs in Westminter.

Would we end up as the rUK living in Toryland? [Frown]

Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It's not just political union - the fact that Germany is gaining wealth so fast rel other EU states shows quite clearly that money has different value in different places. Separation of value by separation of currency is one way to buffer the effect on local economy. The Euro is not a sensible answer to whatever the question was supposed to be.

Of course, by that logic, any place where money has a "different value", as you put it, should be separated by currency so the local economy is buffered. So, let's forget about the different economies of Scotland and England retaining a common currency (whether that's the Pound, or both adopting the Euro). What we need is different currencies. And, because the biggest regional economic disparity isn't across that arbitrary line just north of the defensive structure under the orders of Hadrian but the glorified car park called the M25 it's clear that London needs a different currency to the rest of the UK.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Could and should are quite different - it is arguable that most places outside the M4 corridor have a different economic pace, but separate currency implies separate national identity....

Maybe the City should be declared a separate state in its own right, rather like a small concrete and glass version of the Vatican - it already operates under its own rules.

[ 11. September 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.

All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just think it's wrong to take a particular thing of that kind and treat it as the indicator of independence.

It's not an indicator of independence. It's a criterion of independence.

Here's a simple example: let's say Scotland votes yes and cuts corporation tax to a minimum to attract companies. Loads of companies set up shop in Scotland and want to export to Europe, which given the tiny size of the Scottish market they will certainly wish to do. They are going to want a cheap pound to make their goods more competitive internationally.

But the Bank of England thinks for the UK, which it is responsible for, it's best to raise interest rates, which tend to move in the same direction as exchange rates. That is, higher interest rates and a stronger pound. (It's not always perfect but this is broadly the way it works).

What is Scotland going to do about that? It will be sitting with a fiscal policy on taxation to attract exporters but a monetary policy that achieves the opposite.

And it can then end the currency union.

That's the criterion of independence: the ability to choose to be in union or to pull out of it. There may well be serious consequences to pulling out (same as there'd be huge consequences for pulling out of the Euro, or even the EU), but a national government/parliament retains the power to do so.

An independent Scotland would have that power. Those parts of England outside the M25 do not.

[ 12. September 2014, 02:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.

All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.

All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
Simple. By taking an aggressive, pro-English, anti-Scottish line in any negotiations.

He can say "the Scottish have made their own choice, now England must take priority".
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
That shows a fair amount of contempt for Wales and Northern Ireland - do you think that political leaders taking that attitude in general might be how we got to this position ?

I take it you are not a unionist.

[ 12. September 2014, 07:01: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It also assumes that playing hardball with Scotland, will just give the English economy, and the English political landscape, an easy ride. However, there are arguments that neither would be the case, that in fact, England (or rump UK) would have to genuinely negotiate with an independent Scotland, so as to not cook its own goose.

Of course, there is also much that is uncertain here; all the more reason not to go in hard ball.

For one thing, I'm not sure that a Tory govt would be in a particularly strong place, if Scotland becomes independent, or indeed a Labour govt. The political fall-out could be spectacular - expect lots of blame, for one thing.

It's possible that both the Tory and Labour parties would be in considerable disarray. This might also happen with a small no majority.

[ 12. September 2014, 07:34: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
I'm not sure that anyone has shown what the downside for England would be. Lots of hope about possible problems for the Conservatives, but no hard evidence backed up with good quality polling data.

Most of what I'm reading on this thread is a wish list of what people want to happen to the Conservative Party.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Cameron would immediately be blamed as the PM who lost the Union; whether or not he would resign, I have no idea. Labour would be blamed for allowing their supporters in Scotland to flirt with Salmond, again, I have no idea what Miliband's position would be.

Nobody really knows what the implications of independence would be; the markets might freak out; international opinion might be very negative; the rump UK might be advised to leave the security council; Europe would be sniggering about it, and so on.

I think the London politicians don't really want to contemplate it; but as I said, even a small no majority may have big consequences.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it can then end the currency union.

You're right - but then what would they do? An independent central bank is a requirement for membership into the EMU, which all new EU countries have to join.

Their best options are either staying with GBP (in which case not fully independent over economic policies) or going it alone without the EU for several years (perhaps pegged to the GBP or Euro) until qualifying for EU membership. I'm not convinced that they can successfully convince rUK to create a Sterling currency union.

Again - this is why I say voting for independence must be on a philosophical desire and not on the claims that there will be economic benefits as a result.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I should think voting for independence has complex motives; for one thing, the yes campaign is a coalition of SNP, lefts, greens, and also probably some right-wing people.

I see a deep dissatisfaction with the old politics, that is, both Labour and Tory. Of course, one can argue that independence would not change this, and there would still be old politics; after all, Salmond is something of a Thatcherite also.

But I've found the various discussions very interesting, and actually a breath of fresh air. British politics is so stultified (and stultifying) normally.

I am hoping that there will be some spin-off later in the rest of UK.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Is it possible that even in the event of a yes vote, complete independence will not be enacted? If there is a currency union we will need an extreme version of devo max rather than full independence. A narrow 'yes' vote and an evenly divided Scotland may cause Scottish leaders to take a more gradual approach to the separation. There may also need to be further referenda in both Scotland and rUK to vote on the terms of separation. Scotland could change its mind.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think that's true, since total fiscal autonomy seems a long way off. And in the first place, there would be complex negotiations about a whole range of things.

Some people are arguing in fact that Salmond won't be displeased with a small no majority, as it still gives him a kind of moral victory, and (he hopes) devo-max in the future. I would not count on that actually, as London may rat on it, especially if English MPs are feeling vindictive.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Scotland could change its mind.

This did occur to me. There is a timetable for independence. If, during any transition, Scots find that the rUK government is resolute in standing up for British taxpayers, if businesses start relocating or cancelling investment plans, if the new Scottish Broadcasting Corporations realises it can't afford to run both BBC Alba and buy EastEnders, a lot of people might soon think 'actually, this independence lark isn't all what it cracked up to be'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A lot of people wanted devo-max, or as Brown is rather quaintly calling it, Home Rule. Whether they will get this, in the event of a no majority, is open to question, as London may then kick it into the long grass.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
if the new Scottish Broadcasting Corporations realises it can't afford to run both BBC Alba and buy EastEnders, a lot of people might soon think 'actually, this independence lark isn't all what it cracked up to be'.

They won't need "EastEnders" as they'll be creating the next "Borgen"! [Roll Eyes]

quote:
The examples of Borgen and the Killing from Denmark, The Bridge from Sweden and Denmark, Lilyhammer from Norway show the possibilities for selling quality content beyond your own shores are real and also highlight the opportunities for co-productions between broadcasters. The popular "Mrs Brown’s boys" is a good example of this, a co-production between the BBC and Ireland’s public service broadcaster RTE.
Yes Scotland
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And if the Scots are really lucky they'll have a public broadcaster as exciting, original and innovative as, er, S4C... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
And now on SBC1, yet another chance to see a classic episode of Take the High Road from 1983.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Followed by highlights from last year's Braemar Gathering... Would that S4C did live on 80s repeats: they made some pretty good stuff then.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Perhaps they'll keep repeating the episode of toddler programme Dotoman, in which the young female presenter dressed as a circus ringmaster in thigh high boots, carrying a whip. For some unknown reason, viewing figures always peaked when that one was repeated.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'm afraid my imagination is rather poor. You don't happen to have a link to this on YouTube so that I can, ahem, understand why it was so popular?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I would like that too, for research purposes.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
A brief interlude... in the discussion. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The Daily Mash - as ever - gets it spot on...

quote:
The Scottish economy will continue to be based on anti-poverty taskforces

 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
A brief interlude... in the discussion. [Big Grin]

Good, but not what I'd been hoping for...

[ 12. September 2014, 10:47: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.

All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
Simple. By taking an aggressive, pro-English, anti-Scottish line in any negotiations.

He can say "the Scottish have made their own choice, now England must take priority".

I'm not sure how, as the man who granted the referendum in the first place, Cameron would be particularly well placed to recast himself as the voice of resentful England. That said, there isn't an obvious replacement on the Conservative front bench. Boris isn't an MP, Gove is Scottish, Osborne is too implicated in project Cameron.

Teresa May might work in that context but she would have to declare her hand and make an actual challenge, which might not go well for her. Her initial backers would be the usual suspects and she probably remembers how the Redwood campaign in 1995 was torpedoed by a press conference in which the anointed saviour of the Tory Party was flanked by Teresa Gorman and Tony Von Marlow. On the other hand, ex-future Prime Ministers who have failed to strike (Portillo, David Miliband) have seen the crown pass to their rivals. So she might be tempted to do a Thatcher.

Interesting conundrum for Labour, too. Do they send their people out to make a tour of the television stations saying that the man who presided over the end of the UK is damaged goods or do they take the view that a damaged Cameron is better for their chances next year than a resurgent Teresa May (or, whoever)?

An interesting set of variables and no real precedent. People who claim to be certain about such matters are kidding themselves.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
I'm curious now! What were you hoping for??

xp - Reply to Albertus

[ 12. September 2014, 10:49: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
See my reply to North East Quine about 6 posts up. Your link is great but it's not what I thought it might be!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Gildas

Yes, spot on. I'm not convinced that a fierce pro-English line will serve Cameron well, although he might take it up, in order to neutralize UKIP.

He may seem like a lame duck; on the other hand, they may stick with him as the lesser of many evils.

I doubt if Miliband will be challenged, unless the vote is yes. The Scottish Labour movement has been in ruins for years.

Salmond will probably be triumphant, even no wins, and I expect his stock to rise.

Watch London backtrack on devo-max also, perfidious Albion?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
An interesting set of variables and no real precedent. People who claim to be certain about such matters are kidding themselves.

That's why speculation is so interesting. If it's a yes, then the pressure will be on Cameron to set a timetable for his resignation but I can't see who he hands over to in the short term.

In any case in the event of a 'yes' nothing is necessarily settled. There are precedents in Denmark, Ireland and France for further referenda when establishments don't like what the people have voted for.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I'm finding this debate fascinating as a Scot living in deepest darkest England who doesn't have a vote. I was up in Scotland a couple of weekends ago and only spoke to one person who wanted to vote no. But then her knowledge of politics is such that she once asked me if Obama was the president of South America.

I don't think anybody believes that a yes vote is going to lead to halcyon days of beauty, joyfulness and everything perfect forever. I don't think people are that stupid. I do think that for the length of time I've had any interest in politics, Scottish people have felt very disenfranchised from Westminster. The political culture in Scotland is very different from other parts of the UK. I now live in Kent and I was genuinely surprised how differently people down here discussed and thought about politics. (And please remember that not all parts of the south-east are well off. Where I live certainly isn't.)

The no campaign has been a disaster. It has come across as horribly patronising in a 'we know best' fashion which underlies many of the reasons a lot of Scots find UK politics irrelevant and irritating. It reminds me of the Thatcherist attitude to Scotland I saw as I grew up.

If there is a yes vote then I think it's going to lead to enormously difficult negotiations but then politics is about enormously difficult negotiations and if the Scottish people want these negotiations to go ahead they should.

Talking about it with friends and colleagues down here the only people who have said they want a no vote are a) a Spanish lass who is concerned as to the impact on Catalan and the Basque country, b)a French lass concerned about the impact on Brittany and Corsica and c) a Nigerian man concerned about the impact on northern Nigeria. Now these are all legitimate concerns but Scottish people have to vote for what is best for their country not anyone elses.

Yes if Scotland is independent the government will make mistakes and do stupid things but that will at least be a government that is representative of the Scottish people. At the moment there is a government doing stupid (and highly immoral) things which doesn't represent political opinion in Scotland.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I do think that for the length of time I've had any interest in politics, Scottish people have felt very disenfranchised from Westminster. The political culture in Scotland is very different from other parts of the UK. I now live in Kent and I was genuinely surprised how differently people down here discussed and thought about politics.

The no campaign has been a disaster. It has come across as horribly patronising in a 'we know best' fashion which underlies many of the reasons a lot of Scots find UK politics irrelevant and irritating. It reminds me of the Thatcherist attitude to Scotland I saw as I grew up.

If there is a yes vote then I think it's going to lead to enormously difficult negotiations but then politics is about enormously difficult negotiations and if the Scottish people want these negotiations to go ahead they should.

My wife - also a Scot living in southern England - would say exactly the same thing.

And she feels that the desperate last-minute ploys of the "No" politicians will actually play into the hands of the pro-independence folk.

[ 12. September 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gildas

Yes, spot on. I'm not convinced that a fierce pro-English line will serve Cameron well, although he might take it up, in order to neutralize UKIP.

He may seem like a lame duck; on the other hand, they may stick with him as the lesser of many evils.

I doubt if Miliband will be challenged, unless the vote is yes. The Scottish Labour movement has been in ruins for years.

Salmond will probably be triumphant, even no wins, and I expect his stock to rise.

Watch London backtrack on devo-max also, perfidious Albion?

Labour can't push too hard against Cameron, because, aside from the usual suspects, the Tories are busy rowing in behind the line here:

http://order-order.com/2014/09/10/labour-in-scotland-dont-believe-the-hype/

according to this it's very much

"Dear Ed, the deal was, we promised our cash for your manpower and strategy, because we recognised it would be a difficult sell coming from us. We came up with all the cash as promised, where's your manpower and why are you cocking it up?"

Aside from the swivel eyed brigade who've wanted him gone since he beat David Davis, he's safe enough unless he chooses to go. This is going to blow up in everypne's faces, but I suspect it might end up doing more damage to Labour than Tories in the medium term.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And if the Scots are really lucky they'll have a public broadcaster as exciting, original and innovative as, er, S4C... [Disappointed]

There's BBC Alba, a Gaelic language channel and if they get a sports presenter like Amanda Protheroe-Thomas, who used to present S4C's Sgorio years ago, they will get some viewers.

There's always Pobol y Cwm. Just as every actor who can do a London voice appears in The Bill and East enders, so everyone who can sound Welsh has had a part in Pobol y Cwm.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, indeed! But the serious point here is that anyone who's any good- not just presenters, producers and directors and so on too- clears off the the bigger audiences and bigger money of London as soon as they can, unless they have a specific reason for staying in Wales.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
betjemaniac

That's very good, Tory cash and Labour troops. What a cock-up really.

I watched Darling last night on Newsnight, quite a decent man apparently, but so stuck in the old politics. But there is no new politics really, as Salmond is another Thatcherite.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
See my reply to North East Quine about 6 posts up. Your link is great but it's not what I thought it might be!

Ah ha! Now I understand your disappointment!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just realized Farage is on his way; will there be a riot, or maybe it's unimportant?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just realized Farage is on his way; will there be a riot, or maybe it's unimportant?

Which campaign has invited him? I can't help but feel he will be good for the others.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I think Farage has invited himself - he must realise that his presence will be a boost for the Yes campaign, so I'd love to know what his motivation is.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Isn't he out to mess up both Cameron and Miliband, by saying, that it's all meaningless if they stay in Europe? So Scots independence isn't independence at all, since it is still a lickspittle of the Brussels commissars.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I wonder if Paisley's death will affect any votes; probably not, since most Orangemen will be voting no anyway.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Albertus: And if the Scots are really lucky they'll have a public broadcaster as exciting, original and innovative as, er, S4C... [Disappointed]
What's not exciting about this? When I was living in Wales, I could watch this for hours when I got home from the pub.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
The BBC has learned that key retailers are planning a joint warning of higher business costs should Scotland vote "Yes" as the war of words heats up.

A letter written by the head of the Kingfisher* group is expected to be published in the next 48 hours.

It is thought further signatories will include the heads of John Lewis, Asda and Marks and Spencer.

BBC News

*Kingfisher Group owns B&Q
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.

quote:
On the other side of the argument, the boss of JD Wetherspoon, the UK pub chain, has accused business leaders and politicians of talking "nonsense" over independence worries.

Speaking on Friday, Tim Martin said: "Scotland could do very well on its own".


 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think it could backfire also. OK, some people will be put off, but I think some will say, oh fuck it, I'm not going to be cowed into a decision by arse-licking shop-keepers, getting their orders from the organ-grinder Cameron (rough paraphrase).
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.

A likely outcome is hardly punishment. No one is saying they will shut down stores in Scotland, but it is true that every additional jurisdiction a company does business in brings additional costs. Both Kingfisher and Asda (owned by Walmart) have enough international businesses to speak with some confidence on how they would react to an independent Scotland.

If people want independence enough they will endure the uncertainty that comes with it. The facts can only help if anything to prepare people for what might be coming.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.

Well, yes. It will be prosperous, compared to say El Salvador or Rwanda. It's all relative.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.

The Scandinavian countries Salmond dreams of emulating are all known for having ridiculously high consumer prices. That doesn't mean they aren't prosperous. I'm not getting the link Peston is trying to make here.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Scotland's GDP per capita is quite high up in the league tables, in the top 20, anyway.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.

The Scandinavian countries Salmond dreams of emulating are all known for having ridiculously high consumer prices. That doesn't mean they aren't prosperous. I'm not getting the link Peston is trying to make here.
I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.

Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.

If Asda raise prices and Morrisons don't, then people will shop in Morrisons instead of Asda.

Also, one thing everyone agrees will push prices up is an increase in the minimum wage. Saying "Vote no, and ensure the minimum wage doesn't rise. Keep the poor poor!" isn't playing particularly well as a vote winner here.

[ 12. September 2014, 15:37: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.

Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.

If Asda raise prices and Morrisons don't, then people will shop in Morrisons instead of Asda.

I think the take home message is that no-one knows the effects of a yes vote. Business people don't like this sort of unnecessary change because it will change the costs and undoubtedly add to them throughout the
UK.

Will the Scots be better off than of they stayed in the UK. in the short term, 'no' but after an inevitable period of austerity 'maybe'. Will the rest of the UK be better off? It'll make less difference but there will be costs associated with dividing our jointly held assets.

[ 12. September 2014, 15:43: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.

Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.

If Asda raise prices and Morrisons don't, then people will shop in Morrisons instead of Asda.

Also, one thing everyone agrees will push prices up is an increase in the minimum wage. Saying "Vote no, and ensure the minimum wage doesn't rise. Keep the poor poor!" isn't playing particularly well as a vote winner here.

How about, 'vote no, and look forward to a Tory government with real teeth'.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.

They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.

Oh of course. Which is why any suggestion that these are bullying tactics is ridiculous. They retailers are simply covering their backs by saying prices might rise. That is, they are not going to pay for Scotland's independence and any additional costs that come with doing business their out of their own pockets. They will make the consumers pay for it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Guardian poll: 51% no; 49% yes. Squeaky bum time.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.

Oh of course. Which is why any suggestion that these are bullying tactics is ridiculous. They retailers are simply covering their backs by saying prices might rise. That is, they are not going to pay for Scotland's independence and any additional costs that come with doing business their out of their own pockets. They will make the consumers pay for it.
I think it's the suggestion that this is being orchestrated by Cameron that is raising eyebrows. Of course, he has the perfect right to do that, I'm sure; but I wonder how it will play amongst voters, who are, let's say, less than enamoured with Cameron.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Is it possible that even in the event of a yes vote, complete independence will not be enacted?

A yes vote will give the Scottish government a mandate from the Scottish people to enter negotiations with Westminster, and others, for independence broadly in line with the desires of the Scottish government outlined in the white paper - keeping the pound, remaining in Europe, scrapping the wast of money that is Trident etc.

Here's an interesting question, if Salmond is offered independence for Scotland, but on radically different terms than those outlined by his government will he take it? Will he take independence at any cost, or will he cut his losses and not take independence if the terms aren't right?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
So long as Scotland is independent, Salmond can claim 'father of the nation' status, regardles of terms. I think his ego would go for it.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Donald Dewar is already referred to as the "father of the nation" We can't have two fathers!!
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Donald Dewar is already referred to as the "father of the nation" We can't have two fathers!!

Not yet - just wait til they change the laws on birth certificates though and it'll be fine...
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I remember at various elections people saying they'd leave the country if x party won. Funnily enough they're still here.

I think all these pronouncements will have to be taken with a significantly sized grain of salt until a) the results are in and b) the negotiations have finished and people know what the end product is going to look like.

And finally a big 'fuck you' to whoever told my 5 year old nephew that if people voted yes there would be a war. The poor thing is terrified about the whole thing now. [Mad]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Donald Dewar is already referred to as the "father of the nation" We can't have two fathers!!

If we're going to have this gay parenting stuff, you have to accept the consequences... [Biased]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I wonder if there's an element of crying wolf about these warnings. It's quite likely that many people will become inured to them, or even cynical - well, they would say that, especially with Cameron breathing down their neck.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Donald Dewar, eh?

The same Donald Dewar who announced the cost of the new Parliament building as being 'reasonable' at £109m (double the cost projected by the architect).

And the eventual cost? £412m
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Donald Dewar, eh?

The same Donald Dewar who announced the cost of the new Parliament building as being 'reasonable' at £109m (double the cost projected by the architect).

And the eventual cost? £412m

Indeed. Fortunately, Westminster never embarks on a
costly project without having the costs nailed down.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but you know the Scots, never happier than looking down into a bottle, bought with English subsidies.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Is it possible that even in the event of a yes vote, complete independence will not be enacted?

A yes vote will give the Scottish government a mandate from the Scottish people to enter negotiations with Westminster, and others, for independence broadly in line with the desires of the Scottish government outlined in the white paper - keeping the pound, remaining in Europe, scrapping the wast of money that is Trident etc.
If Scotland were no longer part of the UK, would it have its own military? Would it be a NATO member? What kind of relationship would it want with the US? I'm guessing as the political trend is more liberal there than in England (not to mention the US), Scotland wouldn't want the "special relationship" with the US that the UK has, but that's really just a guess.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.

They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
That's what the Telegraph says, but it's not what the poster says. Besides, isn't it going to be a secret ballot?
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:
posted by chive:
I'm finding this debate fascinating as a Scot living in deepest darkest England who doesn't have a vote. I was up in Scotland a couple of weekends ago and only spoke to one person who wanted to vote no. But then her knowledge of politics is such that she once asked me if Obama was the president

And as if to re-emphasise that it's going to be very close, probably most of my acquaintance (leastways those I know well enough to know how they'll vote) are "No" voters.

[ 12. September 2014, 18:05: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not sure that anyone has shown what the downside for England would be. Lots of hope about possible problems for the Conservatives, but no hard evidence backed up with good quality polling data.

Most of what I'm reading on this thread is a wish list of what people want to happen to the Conservative Party.

As a British citizen, why are you only interested in the effect on England ?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I would strongly recommend having a listen to More Or Less on radio iplayer - on the statistics in the referendum debate and polls.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would strongly recommend having a listen to More Or Less on radio iplayer - on the statistics in the referendum debate and polls.

Thanks for the suggestion. Confirms my view that the 'no' campaign will win by a bigger margin than the polls predict.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not sure that anyone has shown what the downside for England would be. Lots of hope about possible problems for the Conservatives, but no hard evidence backed up with good quality polling data.

Most of what I'm reading on this thread is a wish list of what people want to happen to the Conservative Party.

As a British citizen, why are you only interested in the effect on England ?
Because I am English, I live in England, I work in England and I am raising my family in England.

Why do I need to bother about the Scottish or Welsh or Irish?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
[Why do I need to bother about the Scottish or Welsh or Irish?

Because they're part of the same nation? It's the same attitude as the SNP: "The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need for you?"
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I'm English. I don't want to be a Little Englander.

I wear a kilt. I look good wearing it. As a UK citizen, I am wearing a UK man's attire.

I hope the Union survives.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Its odd how little people have talked about blood ties, how many folk living elsewhere in the UK do you think have at least one Scottish born grandparent or a relative they know in Scotland ?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?

Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.

We'll just rename The UK as England and job done.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.

I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.

They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
That's what the Telegraph says, but it's not what the poster says. Besides, isn't it going to be a secret ballot?
Yes, it is a secret ballot. But in what way do you think Iain Martin is wrong?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I wonder if there's an element of crying wolf about these warnings. It's quite likely that many people will become inured to them, or even cynical - well, they would say that, especially with Cameron breathing down their neck.

Yes, all these banks announcing they'll move south. Probably just crying wolf, besides which won't matter much. But, Nessie! Please, No!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, Nessie! Please, No!

She's just goin a donner 'fore the borders change.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I haven't noticed much discussion of future cuts; this seems odd to me, since Osborne is currently saying that the cuts have only just started, as the deficit is still large.

The question then is: will independence enable a Scottish government to avoid such swingeing cuts? I have no idea, and it's possible that the yes campaign don't want to go into this.

Possible also, that the no campaign don't either: vote no, and look forward to further cuts, is not exactly an exciting slogan.

The Labour lot are currently bigging up solidarity and social justice - how about future cuts to welfare under Labour then?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

The question then is: will independence enable a Scottish government to avoid such swingeing cuts? I have no idea, and it's possible that the yes campaign don't want to go into this.

Depends what you mean by swingeing. Scotland will need to cut spending, but for different longer term reasons - demographic trends aren't favourable, and North Sea oil revenues are on a decline.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.

I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
That has been mildly debunked.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.

I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
But why would you want to wear a skirt anyway?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?

Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.

We'll just rename The UK as England and job done.

Man, and people wonder why English holiday homes in Wales got firebombed so much.

Not that I'm condoning such actions, militant pacifist and all, but root causes.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Deano isn't exactly an exemplar of a unionist tory.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Oh, if he's just trolling, that's ok. I've been away for a fair few years (I think I hit 7500 posts or so in 2005, if that gives you some idea), so I'm not familiar with some of the relatively newer faces.

[ 13. September 2014, 09:51: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.

I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
But why would you want to wear a skirt anyway?
You wouldn't. You're a happily married man whose wife finds you irresistible as you are. But for men who want to create a frisson with the opposite sex, or for men whose wives like to see their husbands looking sexy, kilts are unbeatable.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Farage is going to Scotland to campaign for the No vote, despite pleas not to as he'll damage their cause. Last year he ended up barricaded in a pub.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, if he's just trolling, that's ok. I've been away for a fair few years (I think I hit 7500 posts or so in 2005, if that gives you some idea), so I'm not familiar with some of the relatively newer faces.

Ahem. Long-term absence is no excuse for ignoring the 10 Commandments; accusing other posters of trolling breaches them. Please refrain outside Hell.

/hosting
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
There isn't a direct connection, but everything like that is a reminder of eight, nine centuries, easy of violent repression that continued into the twentieth century. Also, gentrification pisses people off.

Firebombing homes is never ever going to be OK, and a crime is a crime, and a victim, a victim, and I'd never say, you shouldn't have bought a house there, but accounting for the reasons and causes for these actions is not victim blaming.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, if he's just trolling, that's ok. I've been away for a fair few years (I think I hit 7500 posts or so in 2005, if that gives you some idea), so I'm not familiar with some of the relatively newer faces.

Ahem. Long-term absence is no excuse for ignoring the 10 Commandments; accusing other posters of trolling breaches them. Please refrain outside Hell.

/hosting

oops, sorry, Eutychus. I honestly forgot how loaded the T-word is here, and should have phrased my comment more like, "If he's just having a laugh" or something. Won't happen again.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
There isn't a direct connection, but everything like that is a reminder of eight, nine centuries, easy of violent repression that continued into the twentieth century. Also, gentrification pisses people off.

Firebombing homes is never ever going to be OK, and a crime is a crime, and a victim, a victim, and I'd never say, you shouldn't have bought a house there, but accounting for the reasons and causes for these actions is not victim blaming.

Not much violent repression here in Wales since the later middle ages, or not much based on nationality rather than class or economic interests, anyway. Cultural and linguistic repression is perhaps a different story but even that didn't AIUI really get going until the age of mass education and literacy- which also produced a flowering of (a particular kind of ) indigenous Welsh culture. Gentrification and holiday homes are a real problem for many rural communities in Wales as elsewhere in the UK, although here there is often the languaage question too: but actually questions about affordability and incomers are affecting London too. If I were still living in london I would quite seriously be thinking about attacking some of those big foreign owned investment blocks of luxury flats, if I could be sure of doing so without endangering life.

Still, FWA and Meibion Glyndwr were pretty marginal overall. BTW Joke for Welsh-speaking shipmates (it's a 'what do you call..' joke but I can't really translate it because it depends on a pun which doesn't work at all in English);

Q: Beth ydych chi'n galw un o ferched Meibion Glyndwr?
A: Tania!

[ 13. September 2014, 10:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Albertus, the rules say you have to at least attempt a translation - thanks in advance.

/hosting
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
OK, happy to try.
What do you call one of the girls/ daughters of Meibion Glyndwr (the group that used to burn holiday homes)?

Tania! (Which, apart from being a girl's name, means 'light up/ fire up' in Welsh).
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Problem is, it's untranslatable.

What did the Meibion Glyndwr activist call his daughter?

TANIA.

Because Tania sounds like the Welsh for burning, or fire.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Crossposted! Sorry.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thanks, though!

[ 13. September 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
This doesn't really do the no campaign any favours either.

It is to be hoped that there would not be a loyalist paramilitary campaign if Scotland does become Independent.

(No one has talked about possible terrorism, I think that it is unlikely - though I know there was sectarian vote rigging in Scotland in the recent past.)

[ 13. September 2014, 10:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
There's one thing - for some time if you're English speaking, the best passports to have are Eire and NZ. Everyone who loves the English also loves the Irish and Kiwis. Anyone who hates the English tends to love the Irish (and in this case the Kiwis are neutral). A Scottish passport would also be good for travelling :-)
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?

Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.

We'll just rename The UK as England and job done.

You are displaying a remarkable - though sadly rather typical - ignorance of your own national history. 'Pandering' is an interesting word to use for the several hundreds' years worth of oppression, conflict and exploitation practiced upon the provincial nations by their 'big brother', in the Union.

Arguably, this is, of course, part of the very reason why - for many centuries - the celtic nations (that is, the original Britons) have been trying their best to 'bugger off' from the influence of the Franco-Norman-Anglo incomers.

However, having provided the English nation with the basis of its wealth, international reputation and erstwhile empire, it can be well understood why former vassals, such as Scotland, would like to strike out on their own. Your convenient amnesia regarding your own historical and political heritage rather demonstrates why the 'yes' vote becomes ever more attractive to Scotland.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You are displaying a remarkable - though sadly rather typical - ignorance of your own national history. 'Pandering' is an interesting word to use for the several hundreds' years worth of oppression, conflict and exploitation practiced upon the provincial nations by their 'big brother', in the Union.

If you think this is reasonable summary of British history then I have to say that you are displaying an equal, though opposite ignorance.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Do enlighten us.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ETA: response to Spawn
Calumnia , conflictus et immitis*
Would be an honest British motto. Though in fairness, same could be said for any powerful nation.


*Oppression, Conflict and Exploitation

[ 13. September 2014, 14:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The English queen imprisoning her Scottish cousin wasn't that friendly...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.

Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).

Anselmina's summary of British history is absurd because it is so partial.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.

The SNP were willing to go ahead with the vote on that basis. They could have told Westminster where to stick it as they also knew full well that most Scots would have preferred the middle way.

No doubt if there is a yes vote and it doesn't deliver the moon on a stick that some Scots expect, that will be Westminster's fault as well.

Did the agreement actually set out what would be seen as "decisive expression" and a "result everyone will respect"?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The English queen imprisoning her Scottish cousin wasn't that friendly...

Admittedly said Scottish queen trying to steal Liz's throne and/or have her killed wasn't that friendly either.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.

Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).

Anselmina's summary of British history is absurd because it is so partial.

So what you're saying is that because there are good bits of history, the bad bits of history don't count?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Or to put it another way, Anselmina's summary of the ways in which England has historically wronged her neighbours is somehow lacking because it's only a summary of the way England has historically wronged her neighbours?

No, not buying it.

Lazy, argument-losing terms like "victimhood" are not adequate responses.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.

Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).

Anselmina's summary of British history is absurd because it is so partial.

So what you're saying is that because there are good bits of history, the bad bits of history don't count?
No, they both count. But I'm arguing against the idea that history is best seen as goodies and baddies or simplistically retold as such.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
No, of course not, but we're not talking about objective history here. We're talking about systems of oppression, and, more importantly, resentments that come from an historical imbalance of privilege.

And those resentments do come from oppressive acts done by a more powerful nation. Good or bad, this happened.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
No, of course not, but we're not talking about objective history here. We're talking about systems of oppression, and, more importantly, resentments that come from an historical imbalance of privilege.

And those resentments do come from oppressive acts done by a more powerful nation. Good or bad, this happened.

No I'd be more likely to buy a narrative of the oppression of the Irish by the British government. But to my mind, the oppression of the Scots by the English is not the dominant theme of the history of the Union.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Granted, of the three neighbour nation the Scots have probably had it the least unpleasant.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Well there were the Highland Clearances, though I guess the Lowland Scots were complicit in that.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well there were the Highland Clearances, though I guess the Lowland Scots were complicit in that.

This makes my point for me. It makes as much sense to say the South 'oppressed' the north, except that people in the South were also 'oppressed'. We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners. Yet poor people in London are as desperate as anywhere else and often more isolated in a place where everything is so expensive. Blaming a geographical location or an entire nation for poverty and injustice is pointless.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.

This is disingenuous and you know it.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well there were the Highland Clearances, though I guess the Lowland Scots were complicit in that.

The first Duchess of Sutherland, a Scot, was rather more than complicit in the Clearances; and IIRC from John Prebble's book in the subject, there were clan chiefs who went into exile with their dispossessed people and chiefs who more or less sold their people into exile. I suspect that the Scots upper- and up-and-coming- classes, whether Highland or Lowland, were perfectly capable of giving their own poorer countrymen a hard time withou needing any help or encouragement from south of the Tweed.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Granted, of the three neighbour nation the Scots have probably had it the least unpleasant.

So, I'm Da's favourite 'cause he beats me less?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.

This is disingenuous and you know it.
No it isn't. For a start Jane R and Anselmina used the term vassals. The former in terms of the relationship between Londoners and people in the rest of the UK and the latter to characterise the relationship between England and Scotland. I thought both claims were utter bullshit.

Just don't make sweeping statements against whole classes of people and whole nations and I'll very happily shut up.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Granted, of the three neighbour nation the Scots have probably had it the least unpleasant.

So, I'm Da's favourite 'cause he beats me less?
Well, quite. I would never suggest that Scotland has had it easy.

[ 13. September 2014, 21:49: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.

This is disingenuous and you know it.
No it isn't. For a start Jane R and Anselmina used the term vassals. The former in terms of the relationship between Londoners and people in the rest of the UK and the latter to characterise the relationship between England and Scotland. I thought both claims were utter bullshit.


Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.

[ 13. September 2014, 21:58: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Out of curiosity - what impression are shipmates furth of Scotland getting of the campaign? There is a lot of comment on Facebook / Twitter etc that the media simply aren't reporting Yes gatherings, preferring to focus on statements by business people and politicians.

For example, this was Inverness yesterday, and this was Glasgow - note the chanting of"We still love you even if you're No"

Is this being reported south of the border?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Out of curiosity - what impression are shipmates furth of Scotland getting of the campaign? There is a lot of comment on Facebook / Twitter etc that the media simply aren't reporting Yes gatherings, preferring to focus on statements by business people and politicians.

For example, this was Inverness yesterday, and this was Glasgow - note the chanting of"We still love you even if you're No"

Is this being reported south of the border?

We're getting reports of flash mobs (and the fact that much of the campaigning is good natured and energetic) but we don't really know how how much significance should be attached to this? Probably not much as it's a group of true believers. My prediction is still for a fairly comfortable win for the UK.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.

The historical summary from Anselmina was mixed up and vague in the details. It's for her to stand it up. But you can't just characterise the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the UK as one of perpetual domination and oppression particularly during the history of the Union. Two examples were offered by Orfeo and by someone else of the Highland Clearances and they both fall apart under examination. To take one example, the character of the relationship between England and Scotland as far as imperialism goes is one of partnership.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I think it's going to be close. A lot of the No voters - the over 65s for example - aren't going to be visible on the streets, so I agree that this is not representative of the electorate as a whole and certainly isn't indicative of a Yes vote.

One massive positive is the number of Scots who have registered to vote. .There's an energy and enthusiasm for engaging with the political process which I don't think I've ever known before.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.

The historical summary from Anselmina was mixed up and vague in the details. It's for her to stand it up. But you can't just characterise the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the UK as one of perpetual domination and oppression particularly during the history of the Union. Two examples were offered by Orfeo and by someone else of the Highland Clearances and they both fall apart under examination. To take one example, the character of the relationship between England and Scotland as far as imperialism goes is one of partnership.
I don't think you're being any less vague than she is. You seem to think that your argument is based on self evident patent facts. "That's bullshit." Great, tell us why. "Here's an example." OK, good, but it doesn't invalidate the other points made."Scotland and the UK have had a partnership vis imperialism." Ok, now back that up.

Part of the problem is that your posts seem to be engaging in a nation-scale instance of the #notallmen fallacy here. It hasn't always been that way, so it therefore isn't bad? It doesn't work like that.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think you're being any less vague than she is.

I don't need to be specific because I'm making no claims beyond 'it's a lot more complicated than that' (the 'shit happens' school of history). It is Anselmina who is making grandiose historical claims that the relationships amongst the constituent parts of the UK can all be characterised as one of oppression and domination by England. Yes British governments and aristocracies and elites and bureaucracies and establishments did bad things. 'Shit happens' but that shouldn't contribute to perceived grievances today.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think you're being any less vague than she is.

I don't need to be specific because I'm making no claims beyond 'it's a lot more complicated than that' (the 'shit happens' school of history). It is Anselmina who is making grandiose historical claims that the relationships amongst the constituent parts of the UK can all be characterised as one of oppression and domination by England. Yes British governments and aristocracies and elites and bureaucracies and establishments did bad things. 'Shit happens' but that shouldn't contribute to perceived grievances today.
No, it shouldn't but it does. And the statement "it's a lot more complicated", while it may be demonstrably true, doesn't address that.

[ 14. September 2014, 09:42: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.

I'm Scottish, Irish and English by ancestry. Who did what to whom? My English grandparents had much greater experience of poverty than my Scottish grandparents. Please make a case for the seriousness of these historical, institutional wrongs with regard to the English-Scottish relationship. I don't buy it that the Glaswegian Dock worker had it any worse than his counterpart in Liverpool, a miner in Durham, or the women and children who worked in the mills in Lancashire.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Man, this is frustrating. It's not about having it worse. It's not a.competition. That isn't the point
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.

I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I don't see what's so extraordinary about noticing that England has generally been the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. It successfully took over Wales. It conquered Ireland. It generally had a lot more success in attacking Scotland than Scotland did in attacking it.

I mean, the capital is London for goodness sake.

Also, the very existence of legislative assemblies in the other countries is an acknowledgement that England is the central power. You know why there isn't a legislative assembly for England? Because it's never been felt that strongly that it needed one. The contrast with genuinely federal nations composed of equal units is fairly obvious.

[ 14. September 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Man, this is frustrating. It's not about having it worse. It's not a.competition. That isn't the point

Wood, what then are the particular historical grievances of the Scots? You seem to be suggesting that because there is the perception of a grievance then it is real. My view is that perceived grievances are in some cases unreal and in other cases cannot be explained in relation to national boundaries but are shared across boundaries.
 
Posted by vw man (# 13951) on :
 
I don't take every word of knowledge or prophecy as from God,but I have read an interesting prophecy regarding Scotland.if you goggle prophecy's about Scotland and read the one on the Scotland ablaze web site .food for thought
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know why there isn't a legislative assembly for England? Because it's never been felt that strongly that it needed one. The contrast with genuinely federal nations composed of equal units is fairly obvious.

It's interesting how docile the English have been about this. Since devolution - and with the West Lothian question still unresolved - there have been times when sometimes unpopular legislation for England has been passed with Scottish votes. There was disquiet about this but it kind of fizzled out.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote next week, will the sleeping English lion awake?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know why there isn't a legislative assembly for England? Because it's never been felt that strongly that it needed one. The contrast with genuinely federal nations composed of equal units is fairly obvious.

It's interesting how docile the English have been about this. Since devolution - and with the West Lothian question still unresolved - there have been times when sometimes unpopular legislation for England has been passed with Scottish votes. There was disquiet about this but it kind of fizzled out.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote next week, will the sleeping English lion awake?

I'd say that if Scotland became independent, there'd probably be less need to resolve the West Lothian question because English constituencies would dominate Parliament even more than they do now.

(And the truth is, they already do - the only reason West Lothian can have a deciding vote is because the English MPs are rather evenly divided.)
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see what's so extraordinary about noticing that England has generally been the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. It successfully took over Wales. It conquered Ireland. It generally had a lot more success in attacking Scotland than Scotland did in attacking it.

Yes, but you don't necessarily get from noticing that to proving that the dominant historical narrative of the union is one of institutional wrongdoing by the English to the others. My view is that 'British' 'elites' screwed everybody including English people.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see what's so extraordinary about noticing that England has generally been the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. It successfully took over Wales. It conquered Ireland. It generally had a lot more success in attacking Scotland than Scotland did in attacking it.

Yes, but you don't necessarily get from noticing that to proving that the dominant historical narrative of the union is one of institutional wrongdoing by the English to the others. My view is that 'British' 'elites' screwed everybody including English people.
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

You might focus on the fact that they are elites. I can well understand, though, that someone from Scotland, Wales or Ireland might focus on the fact that they are English.

PS This has the potential to dovetail rather nicely with the discussion of the No True Scotsman fallacy in another thread. Different methods of identifying the people who did you wrong as 'other'.

[ 14. September 2014, 10:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.

I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean? Yeah, your ancestor was wronged by two empires. Well done.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by vw man:
I don't take every word of knowledge or prophecy as from God,but I have read an interesting prophecy regarding Scotland.if you goggle prophecy's about Scotland and read the one on the Scotland ablaze web site .food for thought

Why should any of this take this at all seriously?


[Confused]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Here's one of the prophecies.

Pray tell me where there's any 'food for thought' in this?

It's just the same old jargon-riddled prophetic twaddle that has been current in certain charismatic circles for years.

You don't need a degree in spiritual discernment to recognise it as complete bollocks.

http://scotlandablaze.com/prophetic-words-for-scotland/
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by vw man:
I don't take every word of knowledge or prophecy as from God,but I have read an interesting prophecy regarding Scotland.if you goggle prophecy's about Scotland and read the one on the Scotland ablaze web site .food for thought

Why should any of this take this at all seriously?


[Confused]

You mean you actually looked it up instead of treating it with indifference?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair point, deano. I nearly didn't look it up for the reason you've cited, but then I thought, 'Nah, let's have a look.'

It took me all of about 2 seconds to clock what I was dealing with - complete and utter twaddle.

I should have known better, of course, any website that regularly posts so-called prophetic words has to be suspect and you'll notice, of course, that these prophetic words are always couched in such vague generalities that no-one can ever 'call them' on it ...

They can always wiggle out of it by finding something that appears to 'fit'.

'Scotland and Wales will be thorns in the side of England ...' well, how the heck do you define that? They seem to be suggesting that Scotland and Wales will jolt England out of its spiritual complacency. Eh? Scotland and Wales are probably even more secularised than England is.

It's complete baloney and wishful thinking.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Just be grateful the referendum result hasn't been explicitly prophesied. One of Australia's more prominent right-wing Pentecostal groups did that one time, and got it wrong.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles. In many ways, Scotland flourished in the Union and Scottish people dominated the world scientifically and intellectually. Another country, I have lots of connections to - Canada - was opened up, explored and led by Scots.

I think, the grievances which Wood claims are real, are to be found in any country where power is concentrated unhealthily in the capital city. In the case of Scotland, devo max may work, but in regions like the South-west where there is no regional identity we need power devolved to much smaller local parish/district councils and authorities.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.

I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean?


Erm, no.

quote:
Yeah, your ancestor was wronged by two empires.


Well, not really, since guaranteeing Belgian independence wasn't really done with the aim of colouring the country red on maps, was it?

quote:
Well done.
Likewise.

[ 14. September 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
"The secret folk of England,
of whom the poet wrote,
We have no voice, we have no rights,
we barely have the vote.

Our rulers built an empire,
they built it with our blood.
They trampled over half the earth
and treated us like mud.

Our rulers lost their empire
or threw it all away;
And now the other nations
are calling for their day.

We have no friends or allies,
our rulers still conspire;
But if we must defend ourselves
the world will end in fire."
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

Some of our ... Prime Ministers have been Scottish.
Names like Macmilllan, Home, Blair, Cameron.

Gordon Brown's name sounds English though...
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Out of curiosity - what impression are shipmates furth of Scotland getting of the campaign? There is a lot of comment on Facebook / Twitter etc that the media simply aren't reporting Yes gatherings, preferring to focus on statements by business people and politicians.

For example, this was Inverness yesterday, and this was Glasgow - note the chanting of"We still love you even if you're No"

Is this being reported south of the border?

Most of us south of the border take the newspapers with as big a pinch of salt as those north of it. Some stuff is appearing on the news but many have been discussing things with the various expat Scottish people they work with or looking on social media. All the expats I know would vote no if they could. Of them, their family members who do have a vote rang from rabid nationalists, inbetweeners to no voters.

I think it will be extremely close however it falls. Which means there will be endless arguments about whether the result fits the criteria set out in the agreement.

I hope things like the "Let's stay together" rally in London this week is also getting air time north of the border. What the no campaign haven't managed to get across is that a whole is always stronger than the sum of it's parts and that both sides will be poorer and have less opportunities without the other. That's even down to practical things like the ability to move between each other for work. People will need a work permit, won't be entitled to benefits etc.

Tubbs

[ 14. September 2014, 12:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Gamaliel:
quote:

'Scotland and Wales will be thorns in the side of England ...'

That's poor form; God casting his vote early and letting it be known publicly. Pft.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.

I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Most of us south of the border take the newspapers with as big a pinch of salt as those north of it. Some stuff is appearing on the news but many have been discussing things with the various expat Scottish people they work with or looking on social media. All the expats I know would vote no if they could. Of them, their family members who do have a vote rang from rabid nationalists, inbetweeners to no voters.

I think it will be extremely close however it falls. Which means there will be endless arguments about whether the result fits the criteria set out in the agreement.

I hope things like the "Let's stay together" rally in London this week is also getting air time north of the border. What the no campaign haven't managed to get across is that a whole is always stronger than the sum of it's parts and that both sides will be poorer and have less opportunities without the other. That's even down to practical things like the ability to move between each other for work. People will need a work permit, won't be entitled to benefits etc.

Tubbs

Yes, this. Plus:

It will be a great shame to split up and destroy what others who waged war against us couldn't. It's far better for the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to stand side by side for justice in society than to try to do so in isolated pockets.

I understand the reasons for the call for separation. I think that the debates have encouraged a positive interest in politics that was badly needed. But this is needed not only in Scotland, but in the whole of the UK.

I pray that we will not be divided.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.

I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
If you mean the '15 and the '45, surely those were about the Glorious Revolution rather than the Act of Union. AIUI the aim was to replace the Hanoverians on the throne in London, not to spin Scotland off.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.

I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean?


Erm, no.

I think we're just going to have to register flat, complete disagreement on this one and move on.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:


I think, the grievances which Wood claims are real, are to be found in any country where power is concentrated unhealthily in the capital city.

With this I agree a hundred per cent.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
There is one massive upside for England in the event of a Yes vote... it will kill off once and for all the possibility that Rangers and Celtic will be allowed into the English leagues!

That alone is worth the oil.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Is there any situation in which you believe putting non-relatives needs above your own, or your family's, needs or desires is justified deano ?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is there any situation in which you believe putting non-relatives needs above your own, or your family's, needs or desires is justified deano ?

Of course there are. Starving people need food more than I do. I need to lose weight.

But I don't see any situations involving Scottish people that would qualify. They can deal with whatever mess they leave themselves in. As long as me and mine are not affected then I will sleep soundly in my bed.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
There is one massive upside for England in the event of a Yes vote... it will kill off once and for all the possibility that Rangers and Celtic will be allowed into the English leagues!

Why are you against that? I always thought it might be a good idea - shake things up a bit and all that.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is there any situation in which you believe putting non-relatives needs above your own, or your family's, needs or desires is justified deano ?

Of course there are. Starving people need food more than I do. I need to lose weight.

But I don't see any situations involving Scottish people that would qualify. They can deal with whatever mess they leave themselves in. As long as me and mine are not affected then I will sleep soundly in my bed.

Would starving Scottish people count ? Or starving Syrians ? Or starving Britains only, in any format the UK happens to be at the time ?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
If the Scottish people starve then that is something that will need to be addressed at the time.

This focus on hypothetical situations is a neat way of sidestepping the real issues and enables some people to run screaming to the extremes.

Kind of like the "baby incubator" pacifists who measure out every weapon in terms of how many baby incubators could be bought instead.

This thread is about the Scottish vote for independence not about starving Syrians.

It seems to me that the position of Yes-voters is to make everything a matter of national pride. If the English say "We want you to stay", the nationalists are likely to say "well if you want us to stay we will leave because we won't give you the satisfaction of meeting your demands!" If we say "Go then", the nationalists will most likely say "We know when we are not wanted!".

There is no debate. It is entrenched in anti-English/anti-Scottish sentiment. It always has been.

Surely if the vote is one of national pride and sovereignty then economic arguments are irrelevant. The Scottish people should ignore all economic arguments and vote for the principle of national sovereignty. To reduce it to the level of "How much will it cost me" is not what a proud nation should base its future on.

But if it isn't about national pride and is merely one of economic benefits, then why vote away the UK? Surely it is too much of a risk to take? Surely it is better to remain in the UK and not risk damaging the existing economic situation?

Perhaps after Thursday, in the event of a No vote, the UK (excluding Scotland) ought to be given a vote to decide whether we want to kick Scotland out of the UK. After all, you have been given the chance to decide if you want to remain in union with us, surely it is only fair that we are given the chance to decide whether we want you to remain in union with us.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?

French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.