/ Mark Carney talks on Scottish Independence
Intersting. Particularly this point
"Losing control over its currency exchange rates would likely mean that Scotland's public spending, wage levels and employment would be the first to suffer if there were any economic shocks.
In turn, parliaments and voters in the rest of the UK would also have to agree to backing up Scotland financially by bailing it out during a crisis – that, he said, would be a political decision beyond his authority as governor of the Bank of England."
How would that work? The usual time line for economic shocks goes something like Day 1 9am...everything is ok.Day 1 9.05am..FCK EVERYTHING IS NOT OK
How long to get a referendum together with the rUK public on shall we help out?
It doesn't make sense if Salmon really thinks Scotland will be economically superior as an independent nation.
Equally a recovered England with a strong pound will make Scotland an expensive destination for foreign tourists - surely Scotland's only growth industry.
With parity there is no incentive for English businesses to choose Scotland over England. They would be better going it alone and avoiding the pitfalls of the RoI.
You might at least try to get his name right.
You forgot the whisky.
So let's see.
(1) Scotland in UK = Scotland gets to vote for the government that, via the Bank of England and other mechanisms, controls Scotland's currency.
(2) Scotland not in UK = Scotland doesn't get to vote for the government that, via the Bank of England and other mechanisms, controls Scotland's currency.
Tell me again--which of (1) and (2) is it that we're calling "Scottish independence"?
>will make Scotland an expensive destination for foreign tourists - surely Scotland's only growth industry.
And that is why we want independence. Scotland is not a theme park for tourists, it is a country in which people live and work.
Owned by foreigners ( like most things these days )
You forgot to add:
1. Doesn't get democratic representation
2. Does get democratic representation
The pound 'issue' will be governed by economics, not politics in the event of a Yes vote.
Indeed, but when events start to control and effect your economy...useful to be able to pull some levers yourself no?
Sure, but who said a currency union was going to be any more than an intermediate solution which suits both parties? When it's not in either's interests it'll go.
English get representation, welsh and northern Irish don't. But you know that.
The question for the BoE guy is, if Scotland is not allowed to use the pound what happens to Scotland's share of the pound denominated national debt. Salmond will tell him that Scotland won't take on a national debt denominated in a foreign currency. At that point sharing the currency rather than getting paid off in Scottish pounds might seem like a good idea.
They would be better going it alone and avoiding the pitfalls of the RoI.
Seems a very confused post to me, I'm not sure what side you are coming from and perhaps you should check out various lists/measures that are done which indicate that the "RoI" despite all the banking troubles etc is still one of the richest countries in the world and on all studies I have seen a fair way ahead of the UK. Take London out of the equation and the difference is even more startling.
That's just really puzzling. Scotland in the UK sends MPs to Westminster, same as Somerset, Swansea, and Strabane. What can you possibly mean by saying that Scotland in the UK "doesn't get democratic representation"?
Your response to Sir Chasm's question does not shed light on this puzzle.
i think the point being made was.... no matter what parties the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish vote for they usually end up with a UK government they didn't vote for because their votes are outnumbered.
in the last general election Scotland voted in 1 Tory MP... and yet we have a Tory led government.
England has the largest population by a factor of 10, so as a voting block they get represented.
Other home nations may get the government their majorities voted for or not - depending on whether they backed the same party as the majority of the largest voting home nation ( England) voted for.
Scotland hasn't had a majority Tory vote for quite some time.
Scotland is a country, Tim. Countries govern their own affairs, regardless of short term economic fixes which will probably suit both parties.
The same could be said for the English as the Welsh and Scots vote for policies that only affect the English.
Plenty of countries have been in long-term cooperative relationships with other countries, to the advantage of both. Canada is, arguably, more than one country, even if you leave Quebec (and the First Nations) out of it. E.g. when Newfoundland voted to become part of Canada in 1949, that was the merger of two countries with different histories to the advantage of both. According to you, did the Newfies do something intrinsically wrong by choosing not to "govern their own affairs"?
By your logic, anyone who lives under a Conservative government and didn't vote Conservative "has no democratic representation".
But that's nonsense. It just suggests you don't actually know what democratic representation is.
valid point and I've said on numerous occasions that England should have had it's own assembly / parliament when the other home nations got theirs... not doing that was wrong!
I'm surprised more people didn't complain too, to be honest
Different places, different times etc. lots of other countries manage fine after a split.
What the case of Newfoundland establishes is this: it's nonsense to claim that it's some kind of law of nature that "countries govern their own affairs".
Parallel interesting factoid: round about 1910 NZ and Australia very nearly voted to become a single country. (Thank God they didn't; just imagine the rugby and cricket teams.) Neither of them was governed by your doctrine that countries simply must govern their own affairs. Quite right too.
In any case all modern countries have a lot of "affairs" that they can and do only "govern" in collaboration with other countries. Independence/ self-determination is a matter of degree.
And that brings us back to my original point--that Scotland will have more fiscal self-determination if it votes No than if it votes Yes.
If currency union was an end point and not a short to intermediate step on a fiscal journey I might agree with you.
Lots of people on the Yes side believe currency union is not going to be in Scotland's interests too.
It's a step, I believe, like the Aussies and Irish using the pound. Even without a currency union Scotland will do fine, but there will be enough change to deal with initially so it makes sense to do it this way.
- The RUK keeps it's current debt and creditors, so that the creditors are not burdened with the additional risk of lending to a new Scotland, and remain willing to lend to the RUK at low rates.
- Scotland pays it's share of the national debt (in GBP). To do so, it issues bonds in Scottish pounds (SCP?). RUK buys most or all of those bonds, using the money Scotland is paying.
Now, the RUK is taking a bit of a risk. Scotland could inflate their pound in order to reduce the value of the bonds. I guess that is what you were referring to? But Scotland currently has a deficit, and almost certainly will continue to run a deficit for some years after independence. They can't re-structure that fast, and will also have some extra costs during the transition, as they'll have to set up their own bodies to take over from HMRC, MOD etc. They will need debt to fund that deficit, and if they are seen to be inflating away their existing debt, they will have to pay a lot for new debt. Indeed, as that first group of bonds matures, they will have to issue new bonds to pay off the old. The rate they get on these new bonds will depend on ho the market views the performance of the old ones.
If those initial bonds are on a relativity short term (say 5-10 years), then I think the RUK could reasonably agree to having them denominated in SCP. It is IMO a much better idea than entering into a currency union without a fiscal union.
One slight issue with your description or I have been voting in general elections completely wrong.
I vote for an MP to represent a constituency not a country (i.e England). At least one constituency in Scotland is getting full representation as they returned a conservative MP to Westminster. Could probably argue that all the areas in Scotland and England and Wales etc that returned Lib Dem MPs have full representation at Westminster Government level also!
"A fiscal journey". Where to, I wonder, given that the reason the SNP favour keeping the £ is the horrors that would await any attempt to set up a currency of their own.
"A fiscal journey". All this Messianic talk. But you don't have to embark on it, you know.
You and I are individuals. England and Scotland are countries. I'm talking about majority votes per home nation. Some folk on here don't differentiate between the personal and the national.
I suppose it comes down to where one believes scotland is a county or not.
Aye Tim, it sure will be one heck of a ride during post-Yes vote negotiations. Give me the positive case for remaining in the union and I'll ponder it - but not now. I'm off out for a bit.
See above. Scotland is a country (and not a county). But that doesn't mean it HAS to be independent!
The various states of Germany before Bismarck, or of Italy before Garibaldi--they were countries too. They chose to become parts of greater unions. As Scotland did in 1605/ 1707, and as Newfoundland did in 1949.
I think every one of these decisions was a good one.
If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It.
Countries that just happen to make up a bigger country (UK of GB)
Nothing to do with whether I think Scotland or England is a country or not
I vote in the UK general election to elect an MP to represent a British constituency the fact that it falls within England is irrelevant I am casting a vote to return an MP to the British Government. My Scottish family in my mind are also returning an MP to represent a British constituency not Scotland as a whole etc. In my mind an MP returned to Westminster should not be voted for on nationalist grounds! There is no us and them there should only be us and that includes you in Scotland, Me in England and My best mate who is Welsh etc.
I am actually slightly in favour of Scottish Independence (My family is Scottish and the majority still live there). I just don't agree about the non representation stuff at Westminster level as I see us as a whole and not an US and Them. Its why in the current setup I have no real issues with a Scottish constituent MP getting involved in English affairs as until England has its own representation (English parliament or English votes for English issues etc) It is governed by the UK government as part of Britain so any British MP should be allowed to state their opinion.
Interesting. So how do you propose to turn the tourism industry into haggis mining or whatever, you know, real jobs? How long after independence would this occur.
I hear the same talk down in Cornwall, where the nutty nats there seem to think that the can eliminate tourism, (which accounts for 15-25% of the county's income, depending on who you believe,) and replace it with the long lost traditional industries, like mining and fishing.
There is also a hate campaign against tourists, though only English ones it would appear, and the nutty nats political party, Mebyon "Sons of Cornwall" Kernow, has even discussed putting extra "Cornwall only" taxes on tourism.
Maybe not the best turn of phrase given the state of the UK's finances...
Anyway, it's precisely this that the argument is about. Many prospective 'Yes' voters have looked at the evidence and concluded that the current situation is 'broke'.
The UK's finances are improving in difficult times. And at least with the UK's finances, we know what the currency will be in ten years' time. With the hypothetical independent Scotland, we don't have a clue. (Amber beads, possibly.)
But it wasn't just finances I was thinking about when I used the word "broke". Up and down the UK there are a million little emotional and family and friendship and business links between Scots and English people. With all our proud differences, we share a history, we share an outlook, we share an island. This arrangement has endured, with popular consent and a clear democratic mandate, for over 300 years. This is what I really care about, not the finances. I like it. And I want it to continue. The SNP want to break it up.
And I'm not sure the SNP have any clear idea just how bad things could get if they continue stoking up provocations and grievances between Scotland and England. In recent history our two nations have been friends, not enemies. I don't want that friendship poisoned.
And I see what happened between Britain and Ireland less than 100 years ago, and it makes my blood run cold.
Or a Tory government for 16 years.
steady on Tim!
I don't mean that I think we're heading towards civil war. But I do wonder--if you start a process of telling people that they can't go on living together because they're too different from each other, where does that process take you?
How and where does the ending of a friendship, a collaboration between two countries, bottom out?
How do we know it won't leave Scots and English a lot more ill-disposed to each other than they currently are, even when they're at their worst and most bigoted on either side?
Maybe it's because my wife is French, I don't know - maybe I would have thought that way anyway. But I don't regard my family as any less my family just because some of them don't have the same passport as I do. If I had any members of my family living in England, the same would be true of them in the event of Independence.
I look to relations between (for example) the Scandinavian countries and don't see any reason why relations needn't be absolutely normal - maybe even better than they are at present. I have no party-political affiliations, but I don't see anything anti-English about the SNP's policies. They seem to me to be anti-British, rather than anti-English.
I think that is probably true Doug, but given the English do not differentiate well between Britain and England, and that England constitutes the bulk of Britain, anti-British can easily be taken askance by the English.
Unfortunately, it is broke and getting more so because the trend to centralise everything of value and all power and influence in London and the South East is accelerating. That leaves Scotland and much of England dependent on 'handouts' which pushes their politics towards the left and distorts the whole economy.
I'm not sure you can say its incresaing when significant devolution has occured in the last decade?
I have to say--and this isn't a dig at you particularly; I don't know you--that there are people who will think that this is what's happening, no matter what the evidence. I've come across people who were saying exactly this, in late-night whisky sessions in bothies, about 30 years ago.
To be honest, I think it's a bit of a myth. By which I don't mean there's no truth in it. Sometimes there has been, sometimes there hasn't. At the moment I think there is a bit of economic centralising going on. (Though not political--not when the government's a coalition, and not just when we're about to vote on complete separation.) At other times the opposite has been true.
What I mean by calling it a myth is that people go on believing this independently of the evidence for it. It's like "All Scotsmen have red hair and say 'Och aye'". Or "All English rugby fans are arrogant". People believe these things with their guts, not with their heads.
I think there's a danger that if Independence happens (and I still tend to think it won't), people may see it as an end in itself. There's a lot of de-centralisation needs to happen here, irrespective of the result of the referendum. Otherwise it could be a case of substituting one over-centralised authority for another. (Lesley Riddoch's Blossom has a lot of very thought-provoking arguments in favour of radical change to local government in Scotland.)
Decentralisation? Devil in details, I think. You know what Attlee said to Bevan: "Communism would never work in Britain, Nye." "Oh, why's that, Clem?" "Too many committees."
I'm not sure I think structure is the point; I'd rather have a just and competent govt/ administration that was badly over-centralised, than an unjust and incompetent govt/ administration that was nicely decentralised.
After all, Trotskyism is all about decentralisation and rule by local committees--the original soviets. Which is what Attlee had in mind.
It might be more meaningful to point to the rest of western Europe in the present day, where local government is de-centralised to a far greater extent, and where involvement in local democracy (as evidenced by turnout in local elections) is far higher.
Here's a table from Blossom:
Nation - No of councils/municipalities - Median population of each
France - 36,781 - 380
Spain - 8,112 - 564
Italy - 8,100 - 2,343
Norway - 431 - 4,439
Germany - 12,0123 - 6,844
Belgium - 589 - 11,265
Sweden - 290 - 15,039
Scotland - 32 - 115,000
It's only been that way since 1996; prior to that there were 65 local councils. Prior to 1975 there were >400; prior to 1930 there were 871 Parish councils.
Maybe gives you pause for thought?
It certainly gives me pause for thought. My grandfather was thrice Mayor of Tottington :-)
I think you are right in the sense that internally Scotland is very centralised and becoming more so (e.g. the effective order from the Scottish government that councils can't raise council tax, AS overiding local planning decisions ). Overall though the UK is less centralised than previously, I would say, most obviously due to the Welsh and Scottish devolution but also as a result of fewer central pays deals and so on. I can't really see where independence comes into this - if anything recent trends suggest Scotland would become less localised as a result.
I'm doing a translation of Aeschylus' Oresteia, which I've nearly finished. Quite coincidentally, I've just translated this bit, from the Eumenides, lines 976-987. It sort of resonates, to me at any rate.
The Furies/ Eumenides ("Kindly goddesses") pray for the Athens of 458 BC, a city racked by political turmoil, in these words:
My prayers ward off the storms of civil strife;
never, here, may the greedy undertow
of party hate drown their public life in woe;
never their dust soak dark with their citizens’ life.
Nor let them trade in revenge as in their sweet right,
rejoice when they fell their opponents, because they can,
unconcerned if, to bring down their foe, they bring down their land;
instead let them trade in the favours of friendship’s delight,
in the oneness of all men that’s healing for each one man.
The fact is that in the UK the banks and central bank, the parliament and the main spending ministries, the supreme court and the main media organisations are all in London. If you need access to money from banks, government contracts or public attention the people you need to influence are in London. This sucks in other industries. Then it sucks in major transport infrastructure like airports and railways so there is even more reason to locate in London.
The whole thing is incestuous. MPs and senior civil servants have houses in London so they are personally financially tied to the London property market. Living in London they are sympathetic to funding transport and services for London no matter what part of the country they nominally represent. They most likely have family members and friends involved in the financial services industry or have worked in it themselves so there's privileged access to government for that industry.
In the end anyone wanting to get ahead in the UK who isn't in London is putting themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. The situation in the US and Germany where the main industries and government functions are spread across multiple cities is much healthier.
I liked this take on Carney's visit, "Is this how an aloof and disinterested state behaves when it is convinced it has nothing to fear or nothing to plan for because it has the result in the bag? Or are these the practical and on-going steps of a government and its institutions preparing for ground-breaking change, no matter how hard they try to resist it?"
Apart from the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish parliaments.
And the BOS and RBS. Both of which of course were bailed out by the British tax payer not just the Scottish tax payer.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of your own so called facts.
Ah, he probably gets his facts from a media institution largely based in Salford quays.
The SNP are based in Salford? :-)
Does it not stand for Salford Naturist Party?
Come on. What kind of budget and power do the Northern Irish and Welsh parliaments have? The Scottish parliament has a bit more but it's still pretty limited.
BOS was basically taken over by Halifax. RBS took over Nat West. They might have Scotland in the name but that doesn't mean the 'centre of gravity' of the organisations is in Scotland. You could actually read the failure of BoS, RBS and Northern Rock as partly due to the near impossibility of doing anything ambitious in the UK outside of London (although being run by complete dicks didn't help). Either way now they are pretty much lame ducks the finance industry is even more London centric.
> In the end anyone wanting to get ahead in the UK who isn't in London is putting themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. The situation in the US and Germany where the main industries and government functions are spread across multiple cities is much healthier.
However, would I want to live in London, just to have more money? Not me, I could transfer within the company I work for, but am happy to let those who want to, go to the 'bright lights ' of London , and I will stay in Scotland. There are some I know who have gone, but most came back.
Money is not everything, the way I see it the more ' like minded' people go there, the more they will just make each other miserable.
This is an interesting point and one which, as an emigrant from London, is close to my heart. I heard an (unattributed) statistic yesterday which claimed that 80% of new jobs created in the past year were in London. From which I assume they meant the South East.
From a Yorkshire perspective, it makes me wonder whether the massive effort, constant stress and huge personal risk I've put into building a successful business to earn less than a junior merchant banker earns after a couple of years in the job was really worthwhile. The answer is always "yes" but you can't help wondering.
From a Scottish point of view (and I do have one) I question whether a fiscal divorce from England really makes economic sense when London will be Scotland's main trading partner and employment provider. The SNP is sensible enough to half realise this, at least where the currency is concerned, yet persist in the more emotional drive to devolve. So the "yes" campaign is absolutely correct in seeking to maintain the currency status quo, but will only be able to do so on terms which are acceptable to its currency partners who will demand fiscal supervision. A dilemma indeed.
I suppose it might be because deep down they know that the economies and peoples of the British nations are so interdependent and inter-twined by centuries of shared history, trade and migration that true independence (with all that implies) is unthinkable. But I'm not sure.
I'm not sure who decides how much money gets printed but hasn't the UK Government already handed over the power to set interest rates to the Bank of England?
Yep, but to think that the BoE is completely autonomous from the UK government would be niaive. Mark Carney and George Osbourne will have a close relationship.
Which is indirectly controlled by the UK government as it can e.g. set targets appoint the chairman and so on. I think Thomm's point was why would Scotland want a bank with targets set by a foreign government. This hasn't worked too well in Europe of late, which is heading in the other direction to that proposed by the SNP and trying to become more united not less as a result.
It does seem ironic, given that they make their currency look as different as possible to ours already.
Apart from the Euro, the other option would be a Scottish currency pegged to the value of sterling. Would that work? A bit like Namibia abandoning the South African rand but pegging the new Namibian dollar to the same value.
Don't underestimate the sheer narcissism of Scottish politics. At present three Scottish banks can print their own notes with the word "Scotland" or "Clydesdale" on them. They could carry on doing that if Scotland had a full currency union with rUK; they could carry on doing that if Scotland had its own currency; they couldn't carry on if Scotland merely used Sterling without being part of a currency union; and they certainly couldn't carry on doing it if Scotland adopted the Euro.
You seriously think that's why the SNP's policy on currency has changed? Because of a deeply-held desire to allow Scotland to continue to print "Scotland" (or, er, "Clydesdale") on its banknotes??
This is factually wrong. Also, the "vote" produced a result against what Scotland voted for. So having this vote made zero difference to what the UK Government is.
Again, factually wrong - the whole point of this is a partnership. Not simply letting another control your economic policy which is the current set up which is not a partnership.
Neither as both are not on the cards.
Yes! Which why having no control over your economy (the current situation) has to change.
Hopefully this will shed light on the puzzle. Economic powers are reserved to Westminster. The Westminster Government is made up of the Tories and Lib Dems. Scotland is a country not a region like the areas you mentioned above. Scotland did not vote for the government which controls its economy which is the clear distinction between Somerset and Scotland.
One is a country, one is a region.
The country/region argument is pretty simple. The Act of Union was signed by two countries. Not two regions.
Regions like Yorkshire or Banffshire are equal in terms of status in this and most people accept that.
It depends on the individual - if one person gets the government but from a party which doesn't represent their constituency then most people accept that as part of the system. It happens all the time in Scotland, UK and elsewhere.
However, given that Scotland is a country and not a region that no longer applies and questions are raised as to why a country should have no say over it's economic policy. Nothing wrong with asking the question.
Tim betrays his confusion over region vs country and this leads him to make comparisons with a region and a country. These don't hold.
I think you have hit a few spots there. My assumption is given the history of conservative (small c) politics in the UK, big change is scary, then breaking it down into smaller steps works. Devolution, independence mk1, independence mk2 and so on.
I heard that statistic too. It's an argument that the UK doesn't even work for the 80% of the English population living outside of London.
Correct, British banks bailed out by British taxpayers - Ground breaking news! Imagine that.
Agreed. The the BBC has some interesting figures recently for arts expenditure in England.
£4.70 approximately per person in English areas outside London.
£74 approximately per person in London = massive subsidy.
No wonder it's creating all these jobs when there are subsidies like this and others have less to play with. Poor Sheffield got a doing on the BBC news at the start of the week. I bet it would do a lot better given a level playing field.
Thats a ridiculous argument, once England was composed of three kingdoms, Wessex, Mercia and I think the other was East Anglia, finally they all saw sense and became England, including Yorkshire etc. Eventually Great Britain saw sense and Scotland and Wales were included in the union, Scottish independence is going backward for hundreds of years.
No it's not. Have you heard of the Act of Union? If not I suggest you read up on it.
Places of equal status such as Roxburghshire and Yorkshire are regions.
Scotland and England as countries have been well established for centuries and it was their nation status that allowed them to sign agree to a union.
You need to check your history on multiple subjects and this will increase your understanding.
And no idea about the UK other than the debt is rising, the gap between rich and poor is already one of the biggest in the western world and widening and so on.
Nonsense. History will not be changed by Scotland being independent. The island will still be shared, friendships will still be there.
So if you care about that you can rest easy as none of this will change. I am not a friend with a guy in Reading because of the Act of Union, I just like him. I not friends with a girl in Weymouth because certain powers are reserved to Westminster. I just like her. A very, very weak argument there Tim.
It hasn't endured by popular consent. This is the first ever vote in 307 years. Only if there is a no vote can you claim popular consent.
What provications - you are just making stuff up now.
Stop making up gibberish then about people wanting to break things up, poison and so on. The break up of the UK is a by product of independence, not the aim.
And yes grievances - I don't want to pay for a railway line in England which is called "for all of Britain" despite it never serving anything other than a few part of England. Instead I would rather spend the money on the A9 but as part of the UK I am forced to send my taxes south.
I suggest you look at this for inspiration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0
It's not a spoof. It's from the campaign that you are a member of.
You'd hope they'd just drop it. I'm still waiting on facts from the YES campaign, and I don't mean historical facts about north sea oil or Norway. We'd be better off with Devo-Max than Independence. Independence would seem a rather Pyrrhic victory
Relax; no thread on Scottish Independence would be complete without the obligatory appearance from Al Evans likening Scotland to an English county.
There's no point engaging with him on that topic - his mind is clearly made up. I actually wonder what it would take to get him to admit that he's wrong on that point.
Devo Max is off the ballot thanks to Westminster. They'll be scrabbling around now offering Jam Tomorrow after Carney refused to piss on the Yes fire.
Ladbrokes are offering 1/100 odds of a currency union in the event of a Yes vote and 50/1 against.
What about it?
But you yourself, through supporting the Union, cut yourself off from devo max. It was the Unionist side that blocked it.
Are you sure about that? I thought the Scottish govt put forward what they wanted on the ballot and they decided to leave Devo Max off?
>after Carney refused to piss on the Yes fire.
I can't see how he didn't. He explicitly says it "requires some ceding of national sovereignty"."
i.e. the Bank of England would really be in control of our currency..
I think the referendum is for the rest of the UK to approve any monetary deal set up with Scotland. My feeling is that this is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to what Scotland wants as part of the severance deal and how it could adversely affect the rest of the UK.
It is all well and good for Scotland to decide to become independent, but if the severance deal ends up negatively impacting on the rest of the UK, I can see an inedible political bun fight brewing that will make the anti-immigration and the anti-EU brigade look like small fry.
Even if you accept that point, it seems to me that there would still be a net gain in terms of Scotland's national sovereignty in the event of Independence.
I am amn't engaging him. I am just noting places of equal status such as Kirkcubrightshire and Yorkshire.
Instead of spouting rubbish from a foreign country, Evans should return to his native region and campaign to have an equal deal on arts expenditure with London. Instead he supports independence in a reverse feedback loop.
He didn't piss on the yes fire. He said that it requires some ceding of national sovereignty. This is true of any partnership arrangement such as that the UK is party to with the UK.
The key issue is currently Scotland has no sovereignty to cede and with independence can decide with whom and to what extent partnerships are entered into.
So it's not a "loss" of powers as we don't have them to lose.
Very true. However, Scotland does stand to loose influence and bargaining power. This potential deal with the Bank of England is just one such deal. Scotland want to use the pound and services of the Bank of England. Whether they will get it on the terms they want or that are advantageous to Scotland is another matter. Should Scotland not get the terms it is seeking, is there a viable Plan B?
Within the last few weeks The Treasury has already come out and said it will take on all the UKs national debt post a Yes vote. This was done to remove doubt that would otherwise have negatively affected the UKs financial standing. It would then be up to an independent Scotland to chose if it takes on an equitable proportion of these debts or not, if not, the UK would simply absorb them. The thinking being that higher interest rates imposed by the markets would if The Treasury had not removed this doubt would have been far high and the extra cost would have dwarfed taking on Scotland's share of the national debt. So the question for the BofE guy has already been answered.
Carney was being extremely diplomatic. I think you know damn well what he was saying but it simply doesn't chime with your hopes.
The universally accepted technocratic interpretation of his observation was that he considered this to be a Germany/Greece conundrum and that neither the BofE nort the English electorate would be willing to enter into any union that did not give London control of fiscal levers. That means tax and interest rates, which doesn't leave much for Holyrood.
I am very sympathetic to Scots who feel remote from Westminster. I spend a fifth of each year in Scotland and love the whole country and the feeling of being a million miles from London. Heck, I feel remote from London in my normal home of Yorkshire. I reckon there's a good chance I would support independence in your shoes. But the currency strategy is a significant weakness of the campaign.
I think the UK Treasury would demand a decent settlement from Scotland on its share of the debt, and would be in a very good bargaining position to get it (in return for Agreeing that the Bank of England will act as the lender of last resort to Scottish based banks)
The Bank of England issued around £200 billion of guarantees on behalf of Scottish based banks during the 2008 crisis (NB the GDP of Scotland is around £70 Billion per annum) - That's some bargaining power.
For me that's what it really boils down to: Are people in Scotland prepared to give up a degree of control over their fiscal destiny in order to be independent? (Do they care/ understand that this will be the case?)
I don't know but it's good to be discussing the mechanics of this as opposed to be trying to close down the concept.
I just listened to what he said. I'm pretty happy about what he said. You are getting annoyed about something no one said.
I don't think there is one, exact, precedent to call on to show the way forward. In all likeliness the situation will be a new novel one.
I agree though, the currency strategy is not the strongest point of the campaign. Most countries just vote in principle on independence and work out the details later. I can't remember if it's Lithuania or Latvia that has the highest growth in the EU but they certainly didn't spend so much time obsessing about one issue which is unresolvable until the vote takes place.
Agreed. However, I am still placing my bet on a second Scotland and UK wide referendum on any severance deal made post 'Yes' vote regardless of what any PM may have said in the past.
I am sorry bui you have got it completely wrong. I mean this sentence: For me that's what it really boils down to: Are people in Scotland prepared to give up a degree of control over their fiscal destiny in order to be independent? (Do they care/ understand that this will be the case?)
What control can be given up? All economic powers are reserved to Westminster. None, over currency etc are with Holyrood. You can't give up powers you don't have.
The "loss of powers" issue is a non-starter. Once independent both Scotland and rUK would have to agree to some formalised power sharing (with currency union) and in this situation Scotland would be in a considerably more powerful position than it is now. The loss of powers would be at Westminster who would have to share some.
The choice is for an Independent Scotland, and either way I don't think it's a huge issue for the UK. However if an Independent Scotland did to chose to walk away from an equitable portion of the debt the markets wouldn't be happy and their credit rating would be low.
What odds are you getting?
In the event of a 'yes' vote, then ceding sovereignty w.r.t taxes and interest rates etc to the BoE will be good practice for when, eventually, Scotland re-join the EU and apply to join the euro, when they'll have to do it all again with the ECB.
Well, call it a metaphorical bet. Owing to Yorkshire tendencies, my pockets appear to suddenly have been sown shut.
I still think it is on the cards and interesting that the supposedly independent Governor of the BofE has been the first high profile figure to moot the idea in public.
Well, at the moment people in Scotland vote for a parliament that sets policy, that is control.
Post Independence Westminster will dictate policy to Scotland (though the setting of the key parameters)
Westminster will have the whip hand
(Now I expect you might say 'so what, no change from the current situation!')
You may be right
It has no control over economic matters though so can't do in this case. Your statement doesn't hold any water.
How, presently, do you see Holyrood having control over "fiscal destiny" as you call it?
But currently Westminster / BoE does consider Scotland when considering economic policy (although I doubt you will concede that)as it is part of the UK. If it isn't, they will only consider the rUK (which no doubt you will say is no different to now)
But it could be a lot different to now
No I agree but I think that consideration pays little attention to need and requirement and a lot to control and income.
I don't think it's working anywhere like as well as it could.
In the event that Scotland becomes independent and can neither retain the pound nor join the Euro, then it will need a new currency. The Scottish pound is rather English in tone, and so I propose that a new currency should be called the 'Shoulder'.
There would be 100 Chips to one Shoulder.
You are correct in that you will have financial control over your own affairs. However Blurty does still have a point in that your options as an independent country may well be severely limited by external factors beyond your control.
If Alex Salmond is to be believed, Scotland will retain the pound and the services and security it offers and will be welcomed into the EU with open arms. The reality is likely to be far from this in practical terms.
You no doubt read much about EU interference in UK matters despite the fact that the UK has much influence in the EU. Such external meddling will surely be much worse for a young, small state like Scotland?
Yes but nothing like as severely as currently. I don't think Blurty quite understand that Holyrood has no economic powers.
Disagree with not being allowed in the EU. We are already in it. All laws are compliant and have the most strategic waters in the world. In fact I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest Scotland wouldn't get in. Even "Better Together" have said this. The question is get in, or stay in.
See this nation of "small" - Scotland would be a medium size EU state. Not a small one.
You often hear this ting "small island" - the island is one of the biggest on the planet.
Oh, I often thing the UK uses it's influence not for the benefit of Scotland. That only comes if the interests happen to coincide. Fishing being a good example.
Simply put, I think the UK isn't serving Scotland that well and it could be a lot better to take control of the powers that Westminster currently has and exercise them from Scotland.
But an independent Scotland wouldn't have control over its own affairs. It wouldn't have control over interest rates and exchange rates, and levels of taxation and borrowing would have to be agreed and negotiated with the BoE. I don't see how that can be said to having financial control. It might be more than is the case now, but it still leaves the Scottish economy dependent on the BoE.
It would have control in that it can make its own decisions. The fact that the choices on offer may be more limiting than at present, is up for debate.
It's quite clear that the European Commission have openly said that Scotland will have to apply for membership.
Decisions made with one hand tied behind its back. And the Scottish Government already makes a lot of independent spending decisions in the devolved areas of health and social care, education and the police.
Is it?????? When did they say that? From memory they said that only a member state can ask for advice on that and the UK refuses to.......
The UK has committed to guarantee Scotland's debt with the clear quid pro quo that Scotland will refund the cost of servicing and repaying their portion of the debt. Theoretically Scotland could, I suppose, choose not to do so but even the wettest of UK governments would presumably make clear that this would not be in their interest.
And how does that work when much of the 'debt' has been bought up by the Bank of England using printed money under the QE programme and the UK government is paying 'interest' to the Bank of England which turns its 'profit' back to the government. Is Scotland supposed to pay interest to the UK without having a share in the 'profit' from the central bank?
Has the Treasury agreed to guarantee that part of the UK debt which might be attributed to Scotland post-independence (in other words, carried over from per-independence) but not new debt taken on by Scotland after independence? Or have they agreed to guarantee post-independence debt as well? Being lazy I admit, I haven't actually looked for myself.)
The commission has repeatedly said this. To assume that you will automatically be allowed in is wrong. Every time the commission says this, the SNP goes up in arms over it.
Granted you will probably be allowed in, but probably after a couple of years of independence.
Of course they said that because they don't want the inconvenience of the UK breaking up or to send a message to other regions.
If there is a yes vote and the UK is going to break up the balance of convenience for the EU will be to keep everything the same as far as possible. The Spanish that are all worried about their own regions breaking off will start to consider that they won't be doing any fishing in Scottish waters and that if one of their regions was to leave Spain life would be much easier if it stayed in the EU. In the end it will become a tussle about making Scotland join the Euro and Schengen.
The former, is my understanding.
They've not said as far as I know. I might be treated just the same as debt owned by any other creditor or the Scottish might insist on some pro rata transfer of the income.
Thanks. So a newly-independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily enjoy the same credit rating as the UK, and it might have to pay more for borrowing?
But then, any borrowing would have to be agreed with the BoE ... It's all a bit complicated.
I don't think they have repeatedly said this actually.
So 2018? Do you think the UK will still be in the EU by then?
EU figures including European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council president Herman Van Rompuy have suggested Scotland would have to rejoin as a new state. That has been their line all the way through.
A Holyrood committee questioned four legal figures on the Scottish government's EU proposals.Three of the four argued that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership as a separate state.
Better had be. I am pro EU.
I believe so.
Right that is slightly different from what you said above where you said they had repeatedly said Scotland would have to rejoin. Slightly different from the definite case you were presenting.
Also rather different to your "I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest Scotland wouldn't get in". It would get in, eventually, but it would be messy is my guess.
Or it might have to pay less.... Creditors might think an independent Scotland was a better bet than the remainder of the UK.
I do love an optimist.
The sooner rUK start accepting this and start rationally planning ahead with this the better for all nations.
Are you really high just now? Or did you forget the ironic 'smiley'?...or..
Oil tax revenue as %age of the UK total is about 1.5%. You think loss of this will result in "total collapse" of the pound for a future rUK?
Excellent, some much needed humour. Have you been contributing to the whisky revenues at lunch?
"The trading surplus of oil and gas, whisky and manufacturing provide stability for the UK balance of payments. This maintains the worth of the currency in international markets. rUK requires Scotland’s membership of sterling to protect the currency."
Do you have a source for that? There hasn't been and O+G trade surplus for some time.
Not nearly as funny as you...
how much did the US Federal reserve fork out to bail out Barclays?
The case I am saying is that you will have to reapply. I have no doubt you would get in. But its going to be messy. To present it otherwise is simply rubbish. There is the same issue in places like Catalonia. The commission is saying the same thing...you will have to rejoin/reapply or whatever.
For the SNP to say it is going to be a smooth seamless transfer - no questions asked-- is just spen.
It's interesting that in common with the whole referendum debate those opposing independence on this thread list a series of scare stories and reasons why not to vote yes. There is a deafening silence when it comes to positive reasons to vote no. In contrast the yes campaign seems to be about the kind of country we want to build in Scotland. A very different country to a South East dominated and Tory led UK. I think we need to accept that through negotiation a series of practical issues and quite complex problems will need to be resolved following a yes vote. And the Carney contribution simply focused attention on quite how testing those negotiations may be. But when you are dealing with such a major structural change such complexities are to be expected. They don't represent reasons not to try to formalise the inevitable movement towards more self determination in Scotland.
Is taken from this blog:
Not entirely independent. Bit like Scotland would be with the BoE setting interest rates and exchange rates.
From the pro independence white paper?
ONS site is down but as far as I can tell UK exports are about £300bn pa. Whisky exports are about £4bn and oil and gas (from Scotland to ex UK) about £13bn as far as I can tell. I think the idea that the loss of these from the RofUK numbers would collapse sterling is a classic scare story.
I think the fact that, according to every opinion poll, the majority of Scots (albeit for a number of reasons personal, political, economic or otherwise) plan to abstain or vote no provides a rather positive rebuttal, and exposes the arrogance of the yes campaign. For your assumptively inclusive "we", you could substitute "a vocal minority".
Bringing the Tories into this makes no sense to me. Though I admit it is good politics. The UK has been led by Labour for 13 of the last 16 years. It seems you are simply rousing moderate socialist Scots against the "arrogant" English, when in reality the UK has been ruled by "socialist" Scots for most of the last 20 years!!
Many people in Scotland have longer memories. The imprint of Thatcher is pressed deep into the national psyche.
Oh, and the idea that the Scots who have been in power have been close to being socialists is a bit of stretch.
The entire GDP of Scotland is £60 - 70 Billion.
And what are total UK international exports?
In 2012 Scottish exports were estimated at £98bn of which £60bn were to the RoUK.
(Source:FT from Govt of Scotland). Of the total about £24b were oil and gas.
I don't think anybody has reliably calculated the Scotland/RoUK trade balance (or even the Scotland/ Rest of World trade balance but ex oil and gas I'd be surprised if Scotland had a surplus with either.
So you are left with a number which, whilst positive for Scotland's economy is not a major negative to the RoUK's. Worth noting also that oil revenues are notoriously volatile.
And it therefore makes good politics to remind them, as I noted. Do you think it is any different in Yorkshire? But the economic success of my region consists in exploiting London's power and influence, not deriding it.
Did you miss the inverted commas around the word "socialist"? ;-)
Funnily enough the document that highlights Scotland's exports doesn't seem to highlight its imports.
However, a 1998 document shows Scotland running an £8bn deficit with the RoUK and a £4bn surplus with the RoW (both inc oil and gas) making a £4bn deficit overall. Scotland accounted for 7% of UK imports and 10% of exports so I guess 3% of the trade deficit. Hardly a game changer if those numbers are still indicative.
They're state owned industries? Cool.
So international exports of oil and gas from scotland inc north sea/scottish waters is £34.7 billion, international exports of oil and gas services is an additional £8billion - £42.7billion
Other international exports are worth £26 billion so my original estimate was close but too low, £68billion is value of international exports.
See page 41 of doc found at link below for the north sea issue
It's not rubbish. It's an opinion which is no more or less valuable t han your "spen".
I think it will be no more hassle, in fact a lot less, than any state joining the EU.
Of course there is the rUK exit to manage also as the member state will have broken up.
Now if you want mess then think about the rUK rejoining and the cesspit of right wing politics that will come out there.
Well said. You raise an interesting point - that the No campaign can't talk about independence other than saying it wont work. Better Together, the campaign that Tim is in, doesn't want to legitimise the concept by talking about how it might work.
The no campaign is unable to talk about independence. It's too scary.
Issues such as why child poverty is so bad in Scotland, why we should go to war against our wishes, send all tax south and so on are all brushed under the carpet in a barrage of questions, many of which are legitimate but many of which are unanswerable.
Their only tactic is to blast out scare stories and this is becoming less and less effective.
There is no community based No cam public campaign. I've looked all over for it. no street stalls, no leafleting, no meetings - nothing. It's a construct of powerful people who want to retain power.
The shift in UKC itself is interesting to note over the years.
I think your reading that wrong. "onshore Scotland" is normal goods and services, not onshore oils and gas, so International exports are 20.9(onshore goods and services) + 13.8 (oil and gas)=34.7
I think the numbs are the same as the ones I used but take subtract £8bn or so for intra Scottish services as explained.
Anyway, its still the net c/a numbers that count.The most recent estimate I can find is by a Sandy Stewart which shows a £10bn deficit.
Scotland - SNAP 2008-09 experimental
• GDP(E) – market prices - £billion
– Exports to rest of UK £ 33.7 bn
– Exports to rest of world £ 20.4 bn –
Imports from rest of UK £ 45.8 bn
– Imports from rest of world £ 18.4 bn –
Net trade - £ 10.1 bn
If Scotland becomes independent will it result in you and Donald (aka "free Scotland" aka "the laird of somewhere or other") learning to read? Al hasn't done this, he has referred to ancient kingdoms, "countries" in today's language, which joined together to form England and Scotland and then Britain. A similar process has taken place throughout Europe, in Italy with Garibaldi, Germany with Bismarck and also in your wife's country of origin France, but in this case over a longer period. In all these countries there are nationalists who claim that their bit of the world should be, are, "countries" but it is a subjective opinion and doesn't really add much to the argument in real terms.
PS. BTW, your example of France as being a decentralized country just basing on the number of "communes" only shows how statistics can be used to prove anything. It's true there are many communes in France, the excessive number of political entities and levels of government in France are very much in debate at this very moment, but it doesn't prevent France being a very centralized country, everything really does happen in Paris, is decided in Paris.
This comes from the centralized monarchy under the "ancient regime" and the centralized bureaucracy favoured first by the Jacobins after the Revolution and by Napoleon afterwards and maintained more or less ever since. Regional assemblies have nut really changed much even today. Britain is comparatively less centralized than France. A bad example IMO.
My reading is fine, thanks. Al's made the comparison with Yorkshire (it's always Yorkshire, for some reason) more times than I can remember.
It's not really that subjective. Or are you disputing that Scotland is a country?? Even arch-Unionists generally concede that point.
As for your other point, my French father-in-law is always amazed at how centralised 'local' government is in Scotland, compared to France. As you say - your opinion.
On this thread he referred to Mercia etc as being kingdoms, then said they all joined together along with Yorkshire to form Great Britain, he didn't refer to Yorkshire as being a "country".
As for your father in law, he may be referring to the fact that for much paperwork, of which France requires extraordinary quantities, you go to your local "mairie", or "prefecture" rather than do it by post as in Britain but I don't think this can be likened to political centralism - IIRC driving licenses, or log books?, all go through Swansea (not Westminster!) but this is just a reflection of a rationalisation of bureaucracy that hasn't yet happened in France, here (in France) you go and queue locally rather than put it in the post, but as I said this isn't anything to do with decision making. To give an example of real centralization, in France the National Education defines centrally, in Paris, all programs and has done for over a century, a national program is new in Britain, isn't it? If your father in law thinks France is not centralized enough then he must be about the only Frenchman who does :-)
What do you mean by country? At present it isn't an independent country, no, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was an independent country until a few centuries ago but then chose to merge with England, and Wales I suppose, to form Britain (or whatever the exact name was at the time). Since, in the most common sense of the word "country" it has been a component of the existing greater unit which I would say deserves fully the term "country". If you look up the definition of "country" you'll find that the term is considered to be ambiguous as is the term "nation".
Whatever, to say Scotland is a country as you nationalists do, doesn't have any meaning in political terms, it is just a bit of spin to present the situation as being somehow special, independence somehow natural. Corsican or Basque nationalists speak of their bits of the world in similar terms but it doesn't advance their cause an inch in a political sense. What does matter is what the majority of people concerned desire, and that's something we should know shortly for Scotland, after the vote.
Moving on. I'd like to see the following things in Scotland which haven't or have happened through the UK. Random list alert.
Tunnel under the Cobbler for the A83
Electrification of rail lines to Perth, then Aberdeen then Inverness
Dualled A9 - this is happening anyway
No influence at all by people appointed to the House of Lords. In fact just cut off their subsidy entirely.
Removal of trident
Consideration to a tunnel or causeway between Coll and Tiree
An oil fund being set up on a similar basis to the Norwegian one.
A82 upgraded - big time!
Islay having some kind of spirits fund given the amount it produces
Land reform preventing purchase of large areas of land by people who don't live here. Also, legislation that requires land purchases over a certain size to have a community and ecology plan
No problem, it's oddly labelled.
I can't see the point of much of this. Independence is clearly needed because the No campaign have, through their wilful behaviour and public statements, shown so little respect for the people of Scotland and display such ignorance. Why would anyone choose a path for their country that is preferred by such disreputable fools. However, Eck's vision of independence is rubbish. The Queen, the Pound: hell, these are the sort of things we need rid of.
- There are several countries nearby who have become independent in the last 150 years and though two of them have had financial problems on the similar scale to the UK recently, these have been successful countries who have often made huge contributions on the international scene and include the richest country in the world (barring banking mini-states and similar anomalies).
- Scotland has greater natural resources than most of the countries mentioned above.
- All the key business resources for economic power and success routinely measured by the major international financial institution are present and highly developed in Scotland: education, commercial law, physical and electronic infrastructure, industry, services and agriculture.
- Stop talking about rUK (rest of the UK). No Scotland equals only one kingdom left so no united kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites (sorry guys but that's how it is).
Democracy (you understand the point of the house of lords?)
Personally, I'd like to see campervans banned everywhere outside of dual carriageways. You know, Scotland for the locals, not for the tourists? I mean what do we get from a tourist in a campervan other than blocked roads? Better if they stayed in B&B's.
I also find it amusing that people think that they will escape from South East centric politics in an independent Scotland when the majority still live in the Central belt. Highlands will be doing what Edinburghers and Weegies want anyway.
Good luck with your campaign. How would campervans get to the west coat under your master plan?
Yes I understand the point of the house of Lords thank you. I want it elected though and there is zero chance of that happening so time to break way.
Your post was definitely the most mature so far. Well done.
As I am No at the moment, how have I shown little respect to myself? You still fighting the English?
Annnd Scotland as part of the UK hasn't?
Where do you find that out?
Highly developed? What was sour alba talking about child poverty for then?
Makes me think you don't like the English?
well, why would it? In essence they are arguing for the status quo, or an evolution of it - like the tax raising powers the Scottish Govt will get in a couple of years (not that the SNP have exercised the existing powers in this area - leaving those levers of power well alone!).
As the group arguing against change its very hard to not sound negative, they do have a section on their website (the +ve case) which sets out what it sees as the benefits of Union - not very well I think, but it is there.
Good luck with yours, about as many facts in both! (Starting to think we should meet for a climb one of these days; chat at the belay, think about it on the pitch, respond on the next belay, then go for a pint...)
Could be fun but I am not drinking bucky! I haven't done as much climbing in the last few years so you would probably destroy me!
It might demonstrate some foresight but they haven't done so far.
They don't just "sound" negative - their entire campaign is not about information more just trying to make it sound as scary as possible whilst making everything as uncertain as they can.
I asked a unionist a few months ago if they could show me one thing, something I can see, touch, take a picture of etc, that they could say Scotland would definitely not have were it not for the union. After their usual outburst they still couldn't answer it.
(I don't mean stuff like trident or Balmoral - I mean things that the general population can see)
All this stuff about shared history, values etc and other vague stuff is all very nice but irrelevant. People are nice or nasty because of a political system.
They wouldn't, I was just trying to suggest that your dreams of Scottish independence don't match with mine, nor the other 6 million out there (I'm sure that you'll find some that agree...A82 though? Like midges, keeps people away!)
P.S. on the climbing side, it's all about the feet!
A part of the member state may decide to become independent. The remainder would carry on as before. The newly independent Scotland won't be a member of any organisation automatically.
Can you point me to some definitive legal advice on this or precedent? The remainder would become a new state. The old one goes out of existence.
For one who's evidently determined to nit-pick over what Al did or didn't say on this particular occasion, you're reading an awful lot into what I said. I never claimed that my father-in-law thinks France isn't centralised enough; I said that he was surprised by the amount of centralisation in Scotland.
Just the normal everyday dictionary definition.
This may come as a shock to you - but I already knew that and, again, I never claimed that it is an "independent country"; merely that it is a country.
No doubt all that makes sense in your world... but in the real one, even people who are dead against Independence can still see that Scotland is a country.
I'm not surprised that he could not give an answer - its a crazy question!
A Scotland that was not in the union could have anything that it has in the union - including Trident and Balmoral - it might cost more, it might work differently, but it could have them. Whether it <would> have them is a differnt case, and depends on what the scottish electorate and politicians decide to go for.
Similarily all of the aspirations of the SNP white paper that are not just being seperated from the UK, could be achieved within the UK - eg getting rid of Trident, alleviation of child poverty etc etc.
I know that you have in effect given up on UK reform and just want out, but leaving the UK does not in any way guarantee the sort of outcomes you appear to want.
I know and no one says it does guarantee anything. More and more people though are coming round to the view that Scotland could do a lot better by having the powers of in independent country.
The UK has had every chance to do more.
Sorry, but I remember this one coming up at the time. I responded with an answer, so whereas you may have disagreed with the answer, one was still there. FACTS, that's what we're after. Not lies.
Obvious answers are RBS and HBOS. OS maps, GB Olympic team and various unions are others.
"Joining the EU is usually done under a process - sometimes lengthy - detailed in Article 49 of the union's key treaty.
Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."
Granted, not advice I paid a lawyer for but it seems clear enough - an independent Scotland has to join the EU, the rUK stays in (assuming a YES vote)
Well, the SNP kind of do, by publishing a white paper and saying that this is what will happen in the event of separation. They repeatedly say "x will be better, Y will be better" and they have no basis really for knowing those things.....
(Of course the unionist rejoinder "no it won't, no it won't" is equally flawed)
Carney said "Any change can be made to work", of course he has cautiously worded his statement....and now the Brit nats are twisting his words and insisting that it's some kind of victory for them.
When Australia became independent they continued to use pound Stirling for some time before they transferred over to there own currency.
Sadly after the Scots gave 300 years of hard service with in the UK's armed forces, and our massive contribution to the UK in so many other ways (list is way to long to write right now), as soon as we exercise our right to return to our former independent state, the spiteful Britnats try there damnedest to punish and undermine Scotland.
You Britnats have really "spat the dummy out" haven't you's
Well you'll just cut off your noses to spite your faces.....if you think all the Scots will buy your pish propaganda and lies then I suggest you Britnats go home to think again.
Sooner or later you Britnats will need to change your attitude toward our very possible victory, although I doubt that, you's ooze poison from every oraface....any decent human being would be pleased for Scotlands historic return to self rule and congratulate us on our success.....but decency and fair play isn't something the Britnats are known for ,is it.
A growing economy. What if independence had taken place in 2008, without currency union with sterling, with or without membership of the Euro? An independent Scotland would have collapsed far harder than under the union.
The coalition, whilst pretty useless on broader policy, is internationally (including the IMF) regarded as having handled the economy rather well in extremely difficult circumstances. Even the slightly overdone emphasis on early and immediate austerity, which the coalition now acknowledges could have been leavened, had the very positive impact on business that something was being done to fix the economy. With the highly desirable effect that job losses were not as severe as feared. And growth is now better than in virtually any other comparable state.
As someone else has noted, the better together campaign, in arguing for the status quo, can't easily point to how things will improve. On the other hand, the yes campaign reminds me of the recent French election, in which many promises of a better world were made by Hollande and co until the blinds were decisively drawn from in front of people's eyes.
I have great sympathy for the independence movement, and I would quite possibly vote yes in your shoes, but the tone of the yes campaign is enough to make anyone wary. Be careful what you wish for.
Carney was simply stating the technical facts re. Scotland keeping the pound post independence, not wanting to get drawn into the politics that accompanies the facts.
I don't think you've done the nationalist cause much good with your bile filled rant. Are you working for Alastair Darling on the QT?
9-10. Loving your work ( well done on the punctuation )
On a completely different note, I am curious as to why Scotland are in such a hurry to leave the UK but join the EU. EU rules and regulations aren't exactly light on the ground and if the UK were to leave the EU, and should Scotland get into trouble again, they would be dancing to the beat of a German drum rather than a UK one. I don't get it.
Jim Fraser and Lynx might offer a clue.........
> Many people in Scotland have longer memories. The imprint of Thatcher is pressed deep into the national psyche.
lest we forget, the SNP were directly responsible for Thatcher winning her vote of no confidence in 1979. Not the best track record eh?
I'd forgotten that part of the story. My vague recollection had put it down to simple maths when the numbers went wrong, but you're right, it was the SNP who put the motion of no confidence. Turkeys voting for Christmas, as Jim Callaghan put it.
"Britnats"? Sheesh. Can you see that what you are doing here is inventing a term of hatred and exclusion, and then using that word as if it was an argument in itself?
"Britnat" is just as bad as "Jock". In fact, judging by the tone with which you and others seem to use it, it seems to be little better than various racial epithets that we all know. (And since you use "Britnat" as the opposite of "Scot", and quote that line about "sending them homewards to think again", it apparently is a racial epithet: it pretty well means "English".)
And... it's your *opponents* who (charming image) "ooze poison"?
Your post is a perfect example of everything that worries me about the tone of the independence debate.
If people with your attitudes ever get anywhere near power in Scotland, then God help Scotland.
All well and good. But in practical terms a massive hassle for all concerned. Lots of EU citizens living in Scotland, lots of Scottish citizens living in the EU and carrying EU passports. Lots of companies doing business, lots of state organisations co-operating. Scotland does not want to leave the EU and the EU does not want to lose territory so in the end everyone knows Scotland will get back in. By far the easiest and cheapest solution all round is to have a meeting of EU heads of state and sign off a brief document that keeps the status quo in place.
The EU might use the leverage of potentially not letting Scotland back in to annoy the English by pulling Scotland into the Euro and Schengen. But that might be a good thing anyway.
"everyone knows", right, well then, you'd think that H V-R would have said so. After all he should know ...
GB Olympics is an event not an object and the slight flaw in your post was that almost none of it took place in Scotland.
Most countries have maps and banks and I think we can safely say that Scotland would also.
Maybe I didn't word it properly. What I mean is present me an object (the question orginally referred to Fort William) which you can say Scotland would not have had were it not for the Union. My question was in response to someone going on about untold riches and so on and I merely asked where in Fort William these riches were. He was utterly unable to answer this question so I expanded it to Inverness. Again no answer.
So relative to other wester countries, where is this huge wealth?
That might make sense for the EU as a whole, but it's the individual countries that would have to agree not the amorphous unified entity. I don't know if Spain cares more about what's best for the EU as a whole or what best discourages the Catalan independence movement. If relations are sour, you wonder whether the rUK would care more about what's best for the EU or what gives them the most leverage in their other discussions over debt, nukes, currency and so on. If you need everyone to sign off to make it happen, you give a point of leverage to everyone who has something they want from you.
As for the Euro, isn't the reason they want to keep the pound basically to avoid change and therefore make it sound like a smaller step? I would have thought if the idea that they might be forced to switch to the Euro to stay in the EU were floated, a few waverers would decide it wasn't for them?
I don't think the kind of, or do say that at all actually. It's a prospectus. If you read everything in a prospectus as someone saying it's guaranteed then it will always fall down.
As far as a stab at the questions, I think it's pretty good.
What would you do that could give certainty and crucially, can you give certainty for some of the NO vote issues e.g. beyond an opinion, can you guarantee the UK will be in the EU in 10 years time - No.
The idea of guarantees is a red herring.
A growing economy is not unique to the UK so no on that one. Indeed the recovery is very much confined to the SE of England.
Of course it's an opinion, but I don't think an independent Scotland would have ever got to the mess the UK was in in 2008. The facts here show that the UK did.
I don't actually think there is a campaign even with Better Together. I have not actually seen a single person, leaflet, meeting, event or know even one person involved in it.
Where is this campaign? It's run from London as they can't get anyone to do anything at community level for them.
Check out this video from Better Together. It's recent and real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0
Self determination. Fairly simple.
Who will the UK be dancing to when it gets into trouble again as all countries do?
I'm involved in it. So you do.
No, it's run from 5 Blythswood Square, Glasgow, G2 4AD.
What a laugh Tim. "Britnat" is a response to "Cybernat". It always amazes me how sensitive the unionist camp is to its own insults.
For decades now, people in favour of independence have been referred to as nazis, fascists, anti-english, right wing and so on. The sheer nastiness of the abuse Salmond gets in just ignored by the Unionists but the slightest hassle they get brings out the tears.
I would remind you that you really all are in it together. Your campaign, BT, is strongly supported by the Orange Order, the far right, UKIP and so on. These guys are shoulder to shoulder with Better Together.
The term "Scottish Nationist" is interesting. Does it mean someone in favour of independence? If so then someone in favour of an independent UK is a British Nationalist.
Or are you defining it as something else?
I won outright with that one. Nothing can trump it. ;-)
What hubris. I haven't time to search for the text of his old speeches, but I remember prior to the crash Salmond was talking up the chances of an independent Scotland becoming like Ireland and Iceland.
Scots played their part in the crash just like the English, Irish, Americans, Japanese, ... just remind me again, where does Fred Goodwin hail from?
When will the campaign start? I have seen not one thing, ever, and believe me I have kept an eye out.
What do you do in a practical sense for them?
No I am not asking that. To be clear, this guy said the Union had brought "untold" riches. We were in Fort William at the time. I asked where in Fort William I could see these untold riches. No answer. I expanded to Inverness- no answer.
Good point. Yuu mean "Arc of Prosperity". I counter with "End to boom and bust". The difference is in the latter it ended in thousands of jobs being lost and the Tories getting in.
That does sound like a fair summary of breaking up the uk
> England has the largest population by a factor of 10, so as a voting block they get represented.
> Other home nations may get the government their majorities voted for or not - depending on whether they backed the same party as the majority of the largest voting home nation ( England) voted for.
> Scotland hasn't had a majority Tory vote for quite some time.
Neither has the north of England
No again, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest Scotland would not have an NHS or equivalent under independence. In fact removing the subsidies to HS2 etc and Trident would leave more money for things like hospitals.
So again, where are these riches? Was the person wrong to claim that the UK has resulted in riches for the population?
>[...] I counter with "End to boom and bust". [...]
But I never claimed that the UK didn't make mistakes or that an independant England would have miraculously avoided the crash that hit every other EU state.
I just think your statement that "I don't think an independent Scotland would have ever got to the mess the UK was in in 2008" indicates wishful thinking.
Yes but the north of England is not a country. Just because you are happy to put up with it doesn't mean others should.
I remember the Scottish Tories being described as a desert plant which comes out now and again when some water arrives - rarely.
Scotland has never had an SNP majority vote but has an SNP government. Apparently that's just fine though.
Convenient get out. No he's a real person running a real business in Fort William.
I was always of the opinion that the UK government bailed out UK banks, unlike the Irish and Greek banks which were bailed out by the EU bank which was mainly paid for by Germany.
Where is your evidence to say that an independent Scotland *would have* created it's own NHS if the act of union had never been passed?
Where is your evidence that an independent Scotland *would not have* bought an expensive nuclear missile system if the act of union had never been passed?
I have no evidence. Where is yours to say it wouldn't?
Yes, but It's bollocks. The Conservatives consistently polled over 30% of the votes for many decades until 1979 (except 1974). As late as 1992 they polled 25%.
Here's a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Scotland
Once again demonstrating what a silly question you asked.
It was in reference to recent times meaning the last 20 years. Iain MacWhirter wrote it.
Indeed so far out of touch were the poor Tories that when the Scottish Parliament was created they were against it but it was the only thing that saved them. If it wasn't for the SP the Tories would be deader than a dodo. They were saved from themselves by the SP.
When has it come out in the past 20 years?
Australia and Ireland pegged their currency to the pound for a number of years. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland from doing this without having to negotiate any currency union. This would seem to be the logical way to go while an independent Scotland got up and running. Of course this would limit the financial independence of the new nation but Scots would be free to choose an alternative at an time.
What has become clear over the last few years is that if a nation wants full control over it's tax, borrowing and spending, then it must have its own currency.
The question is not answerable, so we're (finally) agreed on something, that's a start.
However the question does shine a light onto the nature of this debate. The question of whether or not Scotland will fare better or worse under independence is not answerable before the event. Therefore the yessers appeal to emotion - hope and the noers appeal to emotion - caution.
The opposition always get the easy ride, since they don't have to deliver on any of their promises, hence the yes campaign can appear relentlessly positive and deride the status quo. Everything can always be the fault of "the Westminster government" as if Scots don't get a vote.
The unionist position points out the pitfalls, such as loss of EU membership, ceding taxation and spending controls to a foreign govt. etc and they are belittled as running a negative campaign.
In all my readings of your posts you have failed to make me think that Scotland will be better off voting yes, I now think that you believe this to be the case so strongly you refuse to see that you could be making the biggest mistake in 300 years. Your comments earlier about avoiding the crash and UK being forced to leave the EU if Scotland do were typical of this mindset.
Not much really. It seems they come out now and again with some stupid stuff like Ian Lang yesterday and Jackson Carlaw a week or so ago but beyond that they seem to restrict themselves to in fighting and the occasional scandal. No body pays much attention to the Scottish Tories.
Exactly. If I were a Scottish Conservative I'd be campaigning aggressively for the "Yes" team as the only hope to shrug off the Thatcher legacy in Scotland. If I were an English Tory I'd be doing the same for the same reason.
It shows how principled the Conservatives are that they don't do this :-)
The question is unanswerable as what he said "untold riches" is not true. That is why he or anyone else is unable to give any examples.
Your take is almost the polar opposite of what most commentators close to the issue i.e. in Scotland, say about the Yes campaing.
The mostly say it's too dry, not based on emotion. There is certainly no emotion in the White Paper.
With the greatest of respect, it's fairly clear that you haven't really followed this closely (how could you not living in Scotland) and that isn't a problem.
The Better Together campaign is mostly scaremongering. Today, as one example, they are on about the Open University being broken up despite it working internationally. Doh!
Ok I've failed to convince you. Fine.
Now, please give me your plan with exact detail and guarantees as demanded by the No campaign on every issue.
Can the Unionists live up to their own rhetoric??????
If the yes campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on? Your reply is in exactly the format I'd have anticipated. No facts, just call the better together campaign scaremongering then ask for plans from them. Classic opposition tactics.
Here's the thing the "plan" for the better together is to remain as we are. One nation, sharing risk, currency, defence, EU membership etc etc.
The yes plan is? Leave the EU, and rejoin at some point in the future, have the BoE dictate tax and spending in order to keep the pound, chaos while we sort out defence, health, transport etc, etc, oh but everything else will be rosy because we can stop paying for trident, cross rail and HS2.
Eh, I was answering your points. What information were you requesting? You haven't even used a question mark.
The yes plan is to stay in the EU. You might not agree with that but I would have at least thought you knew about it.
Fundamentally you haven't bother to look at what is being proposed and find yourself fighting against your own propositions.
Sorry maybe you didn't understand me. My question mention exact fine detail on all issues. For example, what, exactly, will happen should the UK vote to leave the EU but the Scottish vote is to stay in? Exact details please backed up by evidence.
Instead of shooting down your own false propositions, can you provide clear, concise information with evidence please on this one issue?
But, and I accept it isn't definite, the indications from the EU are that by becoming independent Scotland would not be an EU member and would have to reapply. So it isn't a case of staying in, no matter how many times you mendaciously repeat it.
Goodness me, talk about failing to address the point. Having suffered less than most European nations, the UK is now enjoying better growth than virtually all of them. The fact that growth is emerging first in the south is evidence of the initial stages of London-led economic growth. Do you honestly believe that all those businesses in Edinburgh are waiting for independence before they bother making a profit?
And as for the arrogance of that statement, one voiced by Salmond as well, words fail me. So the canny Scots would have been unique in anticipating a crisis which surprised and crippled the entire western world? What utter twaddle.
If you would stick to reality, I'd have a lot more time for your arguments. But your economic assumptions are naive at best.
You are confused. I didn't say that was my plan. Do you and the UK Government say the same things all the time?
I am fairly comfortable with reapplying. The really uncomfortable bit will what happens in the rUK as the right wing will be much stronger then. Should be an interesting thing to watch, from the outside.
With Scotland independent or not?
If independent, Scotland (if it has been accepted as and voted to be a member) will remain one, the rUK won't. Since membership of Schengen is compulsory for new members, border controls will be needed between rUK and Scotland.
If not, then the UK will no longer be member.
Evidence? Decisions such as that are decided by the democratic principles that will be present whatever the vote this year. Note that support for EU membership in Scotland is comparable to the rest of the UK
I'm not part of the UK government, whereas you are part of the yes campaign. So at least part of the yes campaign accepts it won't be a case of "staying in".
There are multiple scenarios, all of which are uncertain but ultimately this means that the Unionist camp can't provide any on this issue. No matter how much they demand certainty from Yes it isn't possible for anyone.
If the Tories get their referendum and Scotland is still part of the UK it might be forced to leave if England votes to leave, despite what Scotland votes for due to numbers.
If they don't get their referendum and there is a no vote then proceed as normal.
If there is a Scottish Yes vote we leave and either stay in or have to reapply. Meanwhile, rUK fights it out to decide whether to stay and it is this exercise that would be very interesting to watch as the English right wing would be much more powerful.
Schengen might then come into play but I reckon a classic EU fudge more likely given the value of Scotland to the EU meaning it doesn't happen. But if it does come into play then there would have to be a border such as the French-Swiss one if the rUK wasn't in the EU.
Another scenario is the rUK is a new state, which it would be, and has to reapply and adopt schengen. Now that, would be interesting to watch!
Most likely scenario is a common travel area as the UK is currently doing with ROI.
Support is comparable (for the EU) but in that comparison you see there is effectively no anti-EU agenda in Scottish politics like there is in England so I am pretty relaxed about that.
Indeed UKIP have lost their deposit in every single Scottish election they have fought. So whilst there is a comparison, the evidence is that support for the EU is much higher in Scotland.
I am more confident of my £10 now.
The result of a yes vote, will be that Scotland leaves the EU then re-applies see earlier quote "joining the EU is usually done under a process - sometimes lengthy - detailed in Article 49 of the union's key treaty.
Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."
So the result of a yes vote would Scotland leaves the EU, with a plan no doubt to rejoin. I thought we had covered that earlier
just read this,..
then plotted populatio size v gdp and gdp pp
almost 0 r squared.. attrocious journalism.. both sides as bad as each other for the bullshit right now, but also peoples willingness to accept anything that supports their view is incredible.. should just do the vote now as so few will be swayed either way
I agree with pretty much all that, although it goes beyond your initial question, which I answered. The ROI/UK travel type area wouldn't work if Scotland was in Schengen (ROI isn't)
My £10 is safe I reckon.
Yes we had and I refer you to my reply above.
Aye I know but I reckon a fudge, maybe even toffee, would win the day and an new way found. It can't be the Third Way as Blair used that. The Tenth Way?
PS I am choosing Torridon MRT. Which is yours?
Not sure. Maybe Borders. Quite interesting what the bookies think
> Not sure. Maybe Borders. Quite interesting what the bookies think
Make sure its not one of those 'Scottish' banknotes......
And my initial question was this:If the YES campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on?
Fundamentally you have read my post and decided that my question is a bit too tricky to answer directly, so you decided the best thing to do was to launch an attack without replying to the question.
Sorry maybe you didn't understand me. But instead of muddying the waters with another question I'll ask the same one again.If the YES campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on? Exact details please backed up by evidence.
Instead of putting up more straw men, can you provide clear, concise information with evidence please on this one issue?
Out of interest are you expecting an independent Scotland to stay part of the British Commonwealth? Otherwise the 2014 Commonwealth games will prove an ironic testimony to it's leaving.
I thought health was already devolved. I haven't noticed any chaos. Actually it seems to be managed better up here than in England.
The SNP have done a surprisingly competent job of managing the devolved public services. They have even shown a willingness to cut costs, probably to a greater extent than the Tories down south. The Tories tend to shout about efficiency and slashing costs and actually do very little where the SNP has been quiet but actually cut stuff e.g. Scottish Enterprise and re-organising the police into Police Scotland.
Why do you keep propagating this idea when no EU figure talking about prospective Scottish independence has suggested it? (while all the major figures have suggested Scotland will have to apply for membership and the Spanish chap that it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion)
You have the cheek to attack the No campaigners for scaremongering while happily indulging in it yourself.
Considering the Yes campaign wants to keep the Queen as head of state, I think it's fair to assume that Scotland would retain membership of the Commonwealth.
The last canny Scottish financial wizard lauded by the press was " Fred Goodwin". Look what happened there....oh dear it all went wrong
You think vitriolic anti-English rhetoric is "a laugh"? I don't. I think it's dangerous and stupid.
Here's another one for you. Do you personally know anyone who isn't a politician who will lose his/ her job in the event of a No vote?
Because I know scores of people who will lose their jobs in the event of a Yes vote. It's called the research sector, and it's the mainstay of Dundee's economy. No RCUK funds, no research; no research, no jobs. That's the bottom line for this town.
I think you'll find Salmond has unilaterally decreed research council funding will be shared. No potential problems or complications so stop worrying. The fact Scotland currently gets 13% of research funding for 8% of GDP contribution is not important.
Oh well, if Salmond's unilaterally decreed it, that's fine then.
I never meant that Scots would not be capable of managing Scotland, please accept my apologies if that's the impression you got. What I meant was, the yes vote will definitely mean lots of upheaval with little economic benefit.
Here's what it says on the Scottish Government website. (The fact that public money is being shamelessly used by the SNP to promote their party-political ends is another outrage, incidentally.)
"We will seek to continue the current common research area arrangements and funding through the existing research councils."
Translated: we will ask the rUK to let us go on using RCUK. But why should the rUK agree to that, when Scottish citizens and Scottish universities are part of a foreign country?
"And while the UK will remain an important research partner, Scotland can also build on the significant successes achieved in working across European boundaries by hosting international research centres who are increasingly attracted to Scotland by the quality of our research base."
Translated: We'll thrash around hoping something will turn up.
"The current Scottish Government supports the European Commission in its ambition for “a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth” with researchers, research institutions and businesses moving, competing and co-operating across borders more intensively."
Translated: waffle waffle waffle waffle has the question gone away yet?
"Levels of public investment in university research will be sufficient to enable our researchers and universities to remain internationally competitive with current levels of public investment in university research, through the Scottish Funding Council and Research Councils, at least maintained as part of wider and longer term plans to enhance levels of investment in research and development in Scotland from the private sector and other sources."
Translation: for "will be" read "we hope they will be". This is pure aspiration.
"The present Scottish Government also intends to use the powers of independence to address one of the biggest threats to research in Scotland as a result of the policies of the current Westminster Government. We plan to reintroduce the post-study work visa, which was abolished by Westminster in April 2012. This visa will encourage more talented people from around the world to further their education in Scotland, providing income for Scotland’s institutions and contributing to a growing economy."
Translation: Let's change the subject and do some distractionology, with a side-order of "Westminster is evil and racist" to help things along.
Utterly feeble. I was expecting them to have something a bit meatier than this to say, but no. I can see even more clearly now why Scotland's leading researchers are all extremely worried.
Another edit required Tim.
"The current Scottish Government supports the European Commission in its ambition for “a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth” with researchers, research institutions and businesses moving, competing and co-operating across borders more intensively." However an independent Scotland will have to leave the EU so you'd best start looking elsewhere for funding in the short/medium term, just until we've re-joined.
Try looking round some Universities in Eire - they seem to be rolling in cash, certainly in the electronics/computer science departments. IMEC in Belgium does really well too out of milking EU money. The Scottish government is a lot more interested in Research, high technology and education in general than the English one because it's not stuffed with landowning Oxbridge PPE graduates. As a small nation without an anti-Europe chip on its shoulder Scotland would probably do better out of EU level research programs as well.
The UK gives EPSRC the research council for Physical Science and Engineering about £700M per year but it can find £600M to spend on Syria. An independent Scotland, like Ireland and Belgium, would realise it couldn't afford expensive big power games to buy influence in the middle east but it needed a strong research base to seed local industry if it was going to pay its way after the oil ran out.
The other thing you see in Ireland is money coming out of the financial sector in Dublin and going into local high tech companies which spin out of Universities and the Irish offices of multinationals. In the UK the London based financial sector has got very little interest in high-tech and no interest at all in high tech north of Cambridge.
I know a bit about universities in RoI. I have friends and colleagues who work there. Rolling in cash? Er, no. Not at all. Worse off than UK departments, mostly.
As for the idea that an independent Scotland could pull a rabbit out of the hat by going virtually pacifist, that's a joke. Even if they chose to free-ride on others' military efforts, as they no doubt might, there would be one very big new expense they'd be facing: namely, they'd need a Secret Service of their own. GCHQ is not run on spam sandwiches and free paperclips, you know.
I don't think that. Can you provide some evidence of this please from the Yes Camapaign?
Yes. Many in the public sector with the further cuts coming in 2015 onwards. I would say I know about 25 people in this situation.
I take it all back. I was out at lunch there and met some BT activists. Three people about 60 years old standing in the centre of Inverness giving out a leaflet which I now have.
According to this leaflet credit cards will cost more under independence. No evidence for this.
Car loans will cost more - no evidence supplied.
Apparently families will also lose "everything" - no evidence supplied.
Nothing other than negative scaremongering.
This is interesting: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm
"· Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence
· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens
· For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission
· Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence"
And what do you think it is that funds jobs in the public sector? I'll tell you: taxation revenues from enterprise and innovation and research.
No research grants, no research; no research, no jobs.
Correct and since we are getting a lot less of that funding (which all goes to London and comes back in a block grant) many people will lose there jobs. As part of the UK.
Could you provide some evidence of "vitriolic anti-English rhetoric"? Who is doing this and where?
Oh why do I get sucked into this. I wish I could ignore these threads...
>> You think vitriolic anti-English rhetoric is "a laugh"? I don't. I think it's dangerous and stupid.
[I don't know if you think it's a laugh, but I would say "vitriolic anti-English" sums up your persona on here pretty well]
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I would not describe myself as "leading", but I am nevertheless extremely worried. I'm just crossing my fingers that the bookies have got the odds right.
Portillo said last night on 'This Week' that the Government will not go to Scotland to debate , but will just send the likes of Hague to Scotland to 'scare the Scots' .
Snag is if you look back at what Hague said would happen if they gave Scotland Devolution, he has got form on being way off the mark with his scaremongering predictions.
I don't and you will find no evidence of it.
Just because I post about independence means I am "anti-English" in your head? So if you post about the UK leaving the EU then you are anti-French?
Total drivel but it's further evidence of the No campaign tactics.
Stop your vitriolic anti-English rhetoric please Jim!
Hope you're not posting BT propaganda at work Tim.
Apologies if you're not at work, and if you're not why not head down to the BT do at the railway station today? They look like they need a hand.
I'm of English descent,( lakes) I'm entitled ;)
(But please don't tell my English family members that I'm anti- English, or my wife's , we have been pretending to like them all our life)
I'll post what I like when I like, thank you very much. It's called freedom of speech. As Chris Whatley knows, some SNP members struggle with the concept.
But it isn't "Better Together propaganda" to object to the use of public money for party-political ends. It's a fundamental point about how democracy works. That you don't see it as such, apparently, is yet another thing to worry about.
No you're not. No more than being Jewish would entitle you to tell anti-Semitic jokes.
You said above, on this thread, that you thought the use of "Britnat" as a term of tribalist contempt was "a laugh". That's evidence.
I think you hold "westminster" all scotland's troubles, and are therefore anti-westminster. In many cases I think that is foolish. I also think you are anti-English in the sense that I think you equate "westminster" with england rather than with the united kingdom.
I am not a member of any campaign and do not have any tactics. I speak only for myself. I see you as feeling you are arguing on behalf of the "yes" campaign, although I don't know what your formal relationship is with them. To be honest I don't really care about persuading anybody else to change their view on the matter, I think the chances of that are pretty slim, although I would prefer things were discussed in a more objective manner than they are. I suspect there's little chance of that from either side, though.
Public money is being spent on the case for Scotland to remain in the UK:
Do you object to that too?
And 'Cybernat'? A term that has been equally been bandied about. Not only by the gutter press but by the Better Together campaign themselves.
Ah, so in your head I type "Britnat" and you say this is vitriolic anti-English rhetoric despite no mention of England?
Is that really it?
Are you really an academic?
No I don't. I think Westminster is decades out of date and by far the worst parliament for Scotland but I don't recall blaming it for all Scotland's troubles. That is in your head only.
I speak only for myself. Why would it be assumed otherwise?
You are right, there is almost no objectivity and it's interesting to note that your please for this is accompanied by using evidence of someone's posting history for vitriolic anti-English rhetoric.
I rest my case.
When he's pished.... Is he a Cidernat or a Beernat?
:-) I'll need to remember that one!
The SNP types on here keep doing two things:
(a) when called out for abusive and tribal behaviour, responding that "The other side do it too";
(b) when confronted with a solid and worrying argument, such as the complete lack of any substantial strategy on university funding post-break-up, ignoring the point and attacking the person who's making it.
I don't think much of either kind of response, to be honest. If we're to have a debate about the referendum, it needs to be better than this.
No one has abused you or anyone else. You just keep firing of accusations and start crying when people pull you up.
Agreed, but since you keep firing of accusations without any evidence then until you change it can't change.
When will you start the Better Together charm offensive?
You'll not find me doing either. 'BritNat' or British Nationalist is as insulting as 'Scottish Nationalist', in other words not at all. To expand slightly, there has been a concerted campaign to 'out' so-called 'cybernats' in an attempt by some sections of the media to paint of a picture of your average Yes supporter being a rabid, xenophobic, abusive numpty. That element does of course exist and they are utterly reprehensible. However they are conveniently ignoring sections of the 'CyberUnionist' support who act in exactly the same manner.
I won't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable on this but from links posted by others it doesn't look like you have too much to worry about in regards to funding.
I'm still waiting for a response to my suggestion that Scotland is not replete with far-sighted economists who would have gone against the grain of the entire financial universe in steering an independent Scotland clear of the financial crisis. Or that having a truly global supercity at the heart of a nation's economy is really SO bad.
Easier to move on to another topic. Like how much greener the grass will grow.
Granted, neither side is going to back down much. I'd vote yes, if the pro independence lobby were ready to accept the limitations of their capability and admit the naivity of some of their aspirations. Will EVERYTHING really be better? The world is full of swings and roundabouts (or roundaboots) not fairy dust. Some things may get better, others possibly worse. Does anyone really believe otherwise?
I think you may be waiting some time then. Best to ask an economist and then report back. Not my area I am afraid.
I don't know where your thought that Yes are saying "everything will be great" comes from. I am certainly not saying that. IN fact most of this thread has been, as usual, refuting mad suggestions made by unionists. The debate can't move on until they move on or get left behind.
If you think everything will be better then say so. You seem to be the only one. If you think everything will be worse then also say so.
Once again here we are trying to steer you off a course that only you set for yourself.
Another passive aggressive reply, in which you seem to specialise. Duck the hard question and turn against the questioner. If you think this is the way to sway the crucial floating vote then good luck to you. I sincerely hope the Scottish people come to a consensus view because the alternatives are not wholesome to contemplate.
Why would an independent Scotland need to read half the world's e-mail and hack into Angry Birds? Little countries don't have as many enemies as big countries.
Anyway a Scottish MI6 would never work. They'd be too easy to spot with the kilts and accents. Although I guess we could get Sean Connery.
It's never going to be better than this because the UK government's tactic is not to negotiate anything until after a YES vote. Therefore there is intentionally no certainty about anything.
The goal of refusing to negotiate anything until after the vote is to create fear so people will vote NO. The outcome of such a negative campaign with daily scare stories implying that Scots are manifestly incapable of running a successful country without handouts from the English is quite likely to be anger which persuades people to vote YES.
He'd have to be dragged back from Spain, or wherever it is he prefers to Scotland.
Ah, that is his cover story Tony, its been a long insertion but now he's deep in!
Oh don't be so bloody silly. Paranoid nonsense. Who the hell is going to spend enormous resources negotiating something that may never happen? I doubt that Salmond is any more keen than Westminster to negotiate. It would make it apparent what a nightmare the whole process is going to be and that it might not work out for the Scots.
Edited that for you :-)
Wasn't a "canny Scot" Prime Minister at the time and another Chancellor of the Exchequer? Incidentally abroad Brown was credited with having a pretty good reaction to the crisis at the time, but from there to have seen it coming is something else... but then if Scotland had been independent they most certainly would have done this, stands to reason.
I'd find either insulting because I'm not a nationalist and have a pretty low opinion of such people given the suffering they impose on the world, on the other hand to a nationalist neither would be an insult it's true.
You consistently say this, how "Westminster" is so bad for Scotland and holds the country back... don't you even realise what you are typing?
Come to think about it why on earth would you spend so much time posting in favour of Scottish nationalism and independence if you weren't convinced that things would be better for you if Scotland became independent?
Someone that feels that the electorate have a right to know what the deal is on independence before they are asked to vote on it. With the outcome of the negotiations unknown the referendum is about emotion - fear vs optimism and/or anger.
It's amusing that Cameron wants to negotiate his deal with the EU before the UK referendum on leaving and the EU are about as interested in that negotiation as he is in negotiating with Scotland before the independence referendum.
Like Salmond who called the referendum?!
Completely different scale of negotiations. Is Cameron planning to claim European resource assets?
One of many reasons I want my country to be independent.....I wish to remain a part of the EU and personally I would rather Scotland was represented on the EU flag with a nice little star all of our own....cut out the middle man and have our own representation when dealing with European politics.
"To gauge attitudes towards an independent Scotland’s relationship with the EU, respondents were asked, regardless of how they intend to vote in the 2014 referendum, whether an independent Scotland should or should not be a member of the EU. Six in ten Scots (61%) think that an independent Scotland should be a member of the EU compared with three in ten who think it shouldn’t (33%)."
And as for those who accuse us So called cybernats of being racist, put your dummy's back in and stop your pish....I don't have a racist bone in my body and that also goes for the vast majority of the nationalist that I know. I am very open to European Union and the rest of the world come to think of it.
According to that poll it's the no voters in Scotland that carry the majority of the anti euro voters within there ranks......maybe that's because the BRITNATS are more inclined to be even more nationalistic that the Independence supporters.
>I don't have a racist bone in my body
Of course you don't. As you've already told us, you just hate the English.
How is Salmond supposed to tell people what the deal is before the referendum when the other side refuse to negotiate until after a yes vote. It's a straightforward spoiling tactic by the UK government and it is disrespectful to the voters.
I actually think calling the referendum was a mistake. I'd have preferred for the Scottish Parliament to gradually accrue powers within the UK and to only go for an independence vote if something dramatic happened like the UK deciding to leave the EU. But once the referendum was called the die was cast and over the course of the campaign I've got more and more aggravated by the continual stream of 'you're all going to die if you leave' propaganda. The whole tone is so disrespectful I figure if that's the way the political establishment in London feel about Scotland it's time to tell them to **** off and see how we do without them.
He's trying to renegotiate a union the other side don't want to renegotiate with a threat of leaving. Same as Scotland.
How do you come to the conclusion that I hate the English....you appear to have a bit of a complex about this...are you assuming that all Britnats are English settlers in Scotland?
Accusations that the Scottish independence voters are being racist towards the English, are presently being exaggerated by the Britnats. They will use every method they can to discredit us and most of their methods are despicable.
Those that support the Better together brigade associate themselves with:
The use of fear as a weapon to terrify the Yes and undecided voters. Fear, that in reality comes from unfounded statements, that are then not given the same coverage by the media when the SNP counter claim the comment.
The use of derogatory terms and just general nastiness, to bash both the first minister of Scotland and his supporters.
They have a very unfair and apparently "rule breaking" support from the BBC, ITV and Sky news channels.
Who is Westminster kidding when they say that they are remaining neutral on the independence campaign, they must think we are daft....just like many Britnats I guess who use the "too daft to run our own country" type comments".
The list goes on and on......in reality it's pretty damned obvious that we can be a very successful independent country, but then that's not what the Britnats want any one to believe.
Really, are you surprised that I'm pissed right off with the Better together brigade? If you don't understand my frustration, then you must also think I'm a drafty, gullibly willing to buy the extensive underhanded bullshit that they spread.
Racism against the English is bad, any act of racism is bad regardless of who it is directed at...Racist slurs against the Scots by the English is also bad and is well documented.
My mum was half English and if she was alive today she would have described herself as a proud Brit, having first served as a corporal in the RAF, and then as a wife to my Scottish unionist Father who was also in the RAF.....that was them and that was a long time ago....I disagreed with them. Having the freedom to think for my self and having lived my adult life free of British institutions, I came to the decision that I wanted Scotland to be independent...this decision I made 32 years ago.
When a political movement is set up to obtain something that the existing crew don't want, be it a new road, a tunnel, a change in the social services, or, as in this case, the break away of one part of the country to form a separate sovereign state then the onus is on those who want the change to argue their case... how could it be otherwise? they are the ones who know what they want, no one else can do it for them or know exactly what is in their heads.
You mean like the voting public who gave the SNP a parliamentary majority thus enabling the newly elected government to implement one of its core manifesto promises.
If the level of agreement required is - "if you want to leave, we will negotiate an equitable split" which is I think the current UK gov position, then I'm all for negotiations. If its down to the level of how will funding of research at dundee be affected then the cost and time involved are pretty immense and I would prefer those funds to be spent elsewhere at the moment.
45% of the votes of 50% of the voting public? About a quarter of the voting age public in Scotland, and quite a few of them may have been interested in the free education, better NHS, more police, council tax freeze or more jobs that the SNP also promised. It's about 1 million that voted SNP out of 4 million on the electoral role. 3 million, the majority, either were against SNP or didn't care enough to vote.
I don't think 25% represents the will of a nation, do you?
Parliamentary majority as in biggest number of seats won. i.e largest amount of MSPs outright equals no coalition required equals government majority equals manifesto promise equals where we are now.
Let's see if you're right on the 18th sept.
How on earth can you claim that you have lived your adult life free of british institutions. Do you pay taxes, vat,use phones,watch the bbc, have a passport, use a driving licence, drive on the roads etc etc. Interested to hear.
I fail to see how you think less than 25% of the population wanting something is the way to decide the future for the other 75%. I know it is the system we have and is legal, but it is pretty ridiculous when you look at it.
Say there are 60% that want independence and 40% that don't, do you really want to be living in a country where 40% of the population want it to fail as quickly as possible so the UK can be reformed? Even if you just lose, nearly half of the population will be unhappy about the future of the country. The whole thing is utter nonsense. Can you not see that?
All of the above can be turned on its head. Can you not see that?
As an Englishman, Scottish independence would get my vote if the English were allowed to vote. If I was Scottish I would certainly vote for independence.
Independence for Scotland would demand fiscal rectitude and would remove Scottish socialism forever and that would be a good thing. The country would prosper massively and would develop an entrepreneurial business-savvy culture with most people working in wealth creation rather than directly or indirectly for the Government.
The first part cannot, it is not ridiculous for 25% of the population to do what 75% want.
In the second part I have put the result of a victory for either side, how can you not see that?
Now this is one of the best arguments I have heard in favour of independence.
It's been the subject of a few articles in the press recently, for example:
So 75% vote for other parties or no party and they get to decide the make up of government? How?
I agree it's a pretty crap system, but one we've got to work with. What would you do? And while you're at it have a look at other parliamentary results in say the EU and tell me what's so fundamentally different about Scotland.
The second part of your observation did indeed state close results on either vote and your analysis of what could happen. I take it from that you'd prefer the whole issue didn't come up and we were all happy Brittishers? Enough folk voted with a differing view to that. That's why we're here.
The debate will get hotter but once the result is in pragmatism will take hold. We've all got to work and live and play together after all.
A view I tend to agree with, the catch being that oil revenues may allow an independent Scotland to sustain the large State model a while longer.
Not make up government, decide if Scotland is independent or not.
Absolutely. It's a mess caused by an idiot politician who doesn't realise what divide the vote will create amongst Scots in Scotland.
Independence was one in ten options on the manifesto. We have no idea how many voted purely for independence. I was very close to voting SNP because the rest of the options were so good and was disappointed that there was no opposition that had the same ideals. I have come to the conclusion that Salmond will just say what it takes to win. This post summed up his approach: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=570552&v=1#x7586173 He wants a yes at any cost to the future.
Would we be in this mess if this was the case?
What you're calling a mess is turning into the biggest grassroots engagement in the political ideal in a generation, if not longer; regardless of which side of the debate one's from.
I think good things will come from that for all the peoples of these isles, in the form of more engagement in the political process, regardless of the result. Do you think we'd be here now without a referendum on independence looming?
You're link above comes across as a bit of a rant. Folk, including you, make the mistake of thinking the whole self-determination movement is the result of one man. If some of the No camp played the ball a wee bit more often they'd maybe see that there's a whole spectrum of folk who's had enough of the same auld shite and think of a positive response to this call for change.
I'll refraise that....I've never worked for British institutions.
Back in the 70's and 80's membership of the SNP, or just expressing a desire for independence was frowned upon if you worked in several of the military or Nuclear (not exclusive) institutions. I've heard first hand from people in the know that you would never get a job at Dunray nuclear power station if you were a nationalist.....and strangely enough those that I do know that once worked there, are all Rangers fans who proudly display there loyalist banners on there face book profile pictures.
People who supported Ranger football team would be favoured as it was 99% certain that they would have been supporters of the Union.
When I was looking for work in the early 80's (not easy due to high unemployment), I applied for a job with a company called Ritchie's rock drilling in Kilsyth. During the interview I sat opposite the interviewer, looking at all the Rangers memorabilia surrounding him. One of the first questions he asked me was "what team do you support" I replied "errr, hibs", wrong answer, " don't call us we'll call you'". I finally got a job up in Kyle of Lochalsh.
I was born Prodestant, brought up a RAF brat, but due to the fact that I supported a so called catholic team I was now disadvantaged in life.
You see it very much today living on in those institutions....
How did you come to that conclusion? I was never in the British forces, I grow up with parents that were.
Time and the removal of barriers moves on, no doubt women etc could tell you the same tales about being disadvantaged.
But don't believe me, believe these folks--they're the experts...
Panic, murder, polis.
Not really. Sober assessments from professional economists.
So let's hear your arguments, if you have any.
Sorry but did our vote for the SNP and Labour in say...2010,change the fiscal policies dished out to us since?
Oh, you redacted it.
Actually yes. Just like my (and a majority of Scots') votes against the SNP in every election makes us more self-determining.
Just out of interest, when are we going to be able to wave goodbye to this recurring Nationalist argument that voting for the losing side in an election means you've been disenfranchised?
Because it really is pants, you know.
The same could be said for any working class Londoner, that's what Scottish nationalists seem to be unwilling to see, you are not the only ones who have the feeling that your interests have not been taken much into account for a long time, if they ever have.
I have, or had, I don't know if he is still alive, an uncle who was a trade unionist in the London docks, he lost his job when they closed them down and introduced containers. I have other family from Scotland who, if I remember correctly as I haven't seen them for years either, lost theirs in other economic changes. Scottish or English didn't make much difference.
I too keep on voting for parties that don't end up in power. In fact, I've voted in seven UK general elections, and in all that time I've only voted for what turned out to be the largest party in parliament twice. Should I too issue a UDI?
Well done for a spectacularly irrelevant post.
We as a country don't vote Tory where as the English always do so how is there no difference ?
We are a country you are an individual,are you so blind in your pro-GB bias ? as well as being dismissive and flippant about the wishes and strong feelings of so many Scottish people.
You are joking? This whole debate is based on blindness from both sides. Its laughable as someone with no real interest. I am pro GB but non resident and don't really care.. almost all articles can be cut down so easily from both sides.. the amount of bullshit accepted if it comes from the side someone supports is laughable. I see educated scots liking articles which are just waffle..
Yet they then point at pro-GB articles similarly flawed...
Tim, that link you put up from the fear factory is so full of deceit, supposition and outright pish that I won't get into a battle of the links with you over it and leave folk to make up their own minds.
Last week it was "Carney will tell Salmond (they mean the Scottish electorate) he can't have a currency union" , this week it's "a currency union will be too difficult for poor, wee Scotland to sustain".
I can smell the panic. Naw, actually I smell the same auld shite. Come up with something positive.
How about this-
Now do i have to spoon feed you your line-
Or would you prefer to eat your own words Mr Joker ?
Eh? I laugh at them all...
One article how small countries do well... go and plot GDP V Population? Whats the R squared value? Then do GDP per capita? R squared value... NONE of you are questioning...
The guy who posted that article was a senior figure in Scottish Athletics... lawyer.. I was gob smacked.
you missout, as you do.. my next point.. I live in germany.. now moving to the us... united GB? sure.. importance to me personally.. sod all.. in fact I gain from you lot leaving, less competition for team GB
The Yes campaign showed how Scotland would be the 8th richest country in the OECD by GDP per head in 2011 compared to the UK's 17th place.
People seem to view the richness of a country by gauging it's GDP, now that's really not the best way to do it....for example: Qatar, the richest of them all, has a very poor distribution of wealth...it's a "right wingers" dream, how most must fantasise about being either directly associated with its royalty, or even just up there in the 5% that have virtually all the money. Cars made of silver or even ones plated in gold, big plush palaces and assortments of private jets....mean while the majority of the Qatari people have very little...so really, is it the richest country in the world?
Now small countries, like Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland, all of them in the top listings, have a far greater distribution of wealth.....now Britain may have a reasonable GDP but does it have that good a distribution of wealth? Personally I think not.
Scotland as an independent country will achieve a high GDP, I have every confidence that it's people will have a better share of that wealth than they will in a future still ruled by Westminster.
Being in oil and gas I can assure you of the abundance of that resource in Scotland's waters, still plenty in the North Sea and now it seems we have loads on the Atlantic shelf. Then there's all the other renewable resources that are both presently being tapped and are potentially tapable, we also have a decent amount of exports gained from engineering and manufacturing etc...etc
In addition to all that, we also have some decent sports men and women. In the future we'll potentially have lots more, that we'll all proudly support, as they represent us in what ever international competitions they enter into.
I may have exaggerated a bit on Qatar but that's more to do with the anger I feel towards them....they do have a relative poorish distribution of wealth.
There treatment of "World Cup" workers is diabolical....
Interesting reading for a unionist written by a unionist.
Singapore good distribution of wealth? It also has poverty issues.
You, like most, accept predictions willingly if it supports your view.. 8th richest country in the world.. we'll see.
That's what it's all about, isn't it, oil? Plot SNP support against oil production and you have the real answer... also plot reduction in tory vote against SNP vote... those 30% of tories didn't just disappear into Loch Ness. Whenever oil, or any other sudden, enormous mineral wealth, is discovered in a country there is a temptation for a breakaway state to be set up, selfishness it's what it's all about really, and short sighted selfishness too. But what's the point, as said above this is all just exchange of broad-sides out of range, few will change their minds, role on the referendum so this can all be settled.
It's amazing that people capable of reading can present Singapore as a model, isn't it?! Or how they can imagine that over night Scotland will become another Switzerland or Luxembourg, as if they had the same history! Scots will all become rich bankers from one day to the next as if it's only the size of the population that decides such matters!
As opposed to giving all the tax receipts and control of that asset to a neighbour.
That's not short sighted though, is it Bruce? That's national philanthropy and that's fine with you.
So, you have no arguments to offer, then.
Yes, I imagine your response will help folk to make up their own minds.
The majority of Scottish people don't want independence. Why are you so dismissive and flippant about their wishes and strong feelings?
Plenty of energy for street canvassing and debating undecideds in the flesh. Not so much for a point scoring debate with you.
Still no positive case?
My positive case is further up this thread. It's among the first things I said on here.
But actually we're not the ones who need to make a positive case. You are. And you've failed dismally in that.
You mean "if it's not broke" up thread? Aye right.
There's panic in the Better Together ranks. That' s a result of positive campaigning?
Rant and bluster away if you like, but still you've no answer whatever to all the questions I've just raised about the economics. Your policy statements on this and on everything else are pure never-never land.
I suppose that's honest, in a way: after all, it costs nothing to promise everything when you know you won't need to deliver anything.
You've not raised any questions, you've linked a Better Together pamphlet which states the same old unionist assertions that it's all Salmond's fault and Scotland is doomed. Again. Always trying to scare the electorate whilst playing catch up with the debate.
Have you seen the FInancial Times article today on the Scottish economy post-independence?
Scotland was a huge beneficiary of the the Union for nearly 300 years. Its industrial, financial and economic success were predicated on being party to the British industrial revolution and imperial venture.
It's human nature that when the these benefits of union have gone and a new national resource has been discovered that Scotland might want to abandon the Union but don't pretend its justification is 300 years of exploitation by your neighbour.
But you barely voted SNP yet you are pushing their policy through.
SNP got 19.9%
Tories got 16.7%
You'll enjoy the FT piece, Pat.
The oil in Scottish territorial waters was a catalyst in the self-determination movement from the 70's on. Home rule and other ideas for self governance have been around for a lot longer.
As a neutral observer I have some sympathy for the 'Yes' campaign based on Scotland's now distinct political identity. However, this sot of victim mentality isn't going to help win the argument.
It wasn't unique to Scotland, but the rich elite and establishment benefitted greatly from the Union. The general population, including that outside Scotland but within the UK, didn't. Evidence = the quality of life in other Western European countries is pretty similar and many cases better than that in Scotland.
Conclusion = most of these western European countries have reached a similar quality of life whether part of the Union or not.
Could you explain your accusation above please Tim (Anti English vitriol)? I was ski touring at the weekend (brilliant) with people from all over. How does this fit with your theory?
You have absolutely no basis for this statement. Elections are not single issue referendums and whilst they can be used to draw conclusions, they aren't definitive.
No matter which interpretation want to give, your statement is nothing other than an opinion.
The UK led the industrial revolution, was the richest country in the world until the late 19th century and one of the richest until well into the 20th. Scotland was a part of that. To look at the standards of living now and in 1750 and say only the elite benefited is ahistorical bollocks.
As I pointed out, this lead has now gone (it began to go from the late C19th). The crucial catalyst in Scottish independence terms came in in the 1970s and 80s,when oil was discovered, heavy industry moved to Asia and the empire had long gone. No coincidence.
I read the FT piece over the weekend. I thought it was good. But hardly a ringing endorsement for independence, more highliting the uncertainty I thought.
"Scotland’s fiscal health will also be challenged by the relatively rapid ageing of its population and the long-term decline of oil output from depleted North Sea reserves.
In a research paper this week, James Knightley, senior economist at ING, said the high transition costs of separation and uncertainties over currency and the terms of EU membership meant that the material benefits of independence were “far from clear”.
"But North Sea oil production - and thus govt revenues - are on a downward trend plus forecast differ markedly about the likely trajectory of prices, production and govt receipts"
I am talking about the present day. It's not bollocks.
I don't disagree with your analysis for the catalyst and I think it's a one way road and inevitable. Nothing is forever and the UK is no exception to that.
Course they are far from clear. Pretty much everything is far from clear. That in no way diminishes the principle of self-determination.
But I wasn't.
It's not bollocks.
So living standards for the majority haven't improved massively since 1707?
Since the clear meaning of my comment was that for the best part of 300 years Scotland benefitted from the union but arguably no longer does I am unclear what you are disagreeing with.
It's there Donald sad to say. I've already been told, by someone purporting to canvas for the SNP, 'you don't count you're English'. Despite having lived here for 35 years having a job that limits me to working in Scotland, a Scottish wife and daughter I apparently don't count as Scottish unless I intend to vote 'Yes'. A situation I find disturbing.
That is the most egregious example but I would have to say that my experience, both professionally (in terms of defending racially aggravated offences where the aggravation concerns the Englishness of the complainer) and personal is that there is an undercurrent of anti-English vitriol that has increased in recent years.
Having said that I would not level that accusation at Alec Salmond, I disagree with him but cannot consider him anti English (the head of an alarmingly centralising government that ironically seems bent on making Scots law English yes, but racist no)
On a wider point why all the emphasis on the economy, if independence is desirable surely it should be as desirable poor as it is rich?
I am not saying it isn't there Roger. It clearly is. But I would say that the vitriol on UKC is almost exclusively on the Unionist side. Mad paranoid accusations come easily to Better Together which Tim Chappel is representing.
You may not count in the eyes of some arsehole but you certainly count on an equal footing with me and anyone else I know. Please be assured of that.
Agree on your last point also.
I don't doubt you!
(on either point)
Support for independence as seen in these polls varies from 26 - 52%, mean average of 33%. These polls were taken from 1999 - 2013.
I would say that counts as clear evidence for Tim's position.
Ok. We disagree.
It isn't, polls vary widely and can get it badly wrong. Tim or Donald with be proven right come the actual referendum.... not long to wait.
I don't see there's anything to disagree about. The results of polls over the last 14 years show the majority of Scots in favour of keeping the union.
What about this set of poll results which look at voting intention?
The highest percentage of yes votes was 44%. I can't be bothered to calculate the mean of that list, but it looks to be similar to the first - i.e. middle 30s.
Once again this shows the majority of Scots want to keep the union.
Polls have been wrong in the past, granted, but the link was the results from 97 separate polls over 14 years. In only 1 of the 97 polls did the independence vote top 50%.
I'm not a statistician but I'd think if there was widespread support for independence it would have been reflected in polls more often than once in 97 occassions
You're probably right, but with the referendum so close I would wait till if and when you are right.
The original point was that 96 out of 97 polls back up Tim's position, which seems to me reasonable evidence.
You stopped quoting before the next bit: "Yet Mr Knightley also noted that greater sway over its own economy could be a real advantage for Scotland. "
Well exactly. Dwindling oil reserves, the loss of major industries and an ageing population are not problems that can be overcome by tax adjustments. People would do well to remember that Governments are less powerful than they would all have you believe.
There's another FT article which came out at the start of the year. A survey of 50 big wigs in finance reviewing their predictions for a variety of topics. They were asked about Scottish Independence and the most positive comment I remember was one where someone said that the Scots would be poorer but happier if they left the UK. Actually I dispute that. People soon abandon fine ideals when their financial well being is threatened.
Scotland will do well to reject the separatist snake oil. No doubt about it.
..was that the one commissioned by the SNP? I believe it was set up along these lines and has been discredited by impartial observers as it was constructed along these lines: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...
I did, but only in response to you posting it as a positive news story for Independence "You will enjoy this one Pat..."
I thought it was well balanced giving a good account of both points of view, but in response to yourself felt it needed to be highlighted that there were concerns over the economic side to the debate.
I thought it was interesting that Scotlands biggest industry by far after oil and gas is financial services. Similar to UK now and if independence goes through, would it remain or would it be taxed back to London? I have no idea...but interesting (for me anyway ;-)
Everything you said is true of the rest of the UK.
No its not.. oil is far more crucial to Scotland.. a decline in revenue would impact greater on Scotland than the rest of the UK.
I thought the reason PP would enjoy the article was for the reasons you state; which still doesn't detract from it being a positive story for the Yes side.
The mainstream media have been biased towards the union for the duration of the current debate so a report from the Financial Times which states as fact that Scotland doesn't get a fair return under the current set up is a positive contribution.
The mainstream media in Scotland (MSM) have been the subject of an academic report which found that the year between sept 12 and sept 13 the BBC and STV were biased towards the No camp by a factor of 3 to 2.
Here is the report from prof John Robertson of the University of the West of Scotland: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/FairnessInTheFirstYear.pdf
Here is the BBCs call for an investigation on the methodology used and the raw data gathered and the author's response: http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/bbc-blasted-in-uws-response/
This is the reason the FT report is a significant positive addition to the debate.
Existing oil estimates are for around 40 years. West of Shetland and potential new fields of the mainland Scottish west coast aren't factored into that.
Regardless, even 20 years will be enough to see us well on the road to restructuring the economy for the longer term.
That's a nothing statement...
So destroy marine life? More drilling. I do find it funny how so many environmentalists suddenly want more drilling to support an independent Scotland.
But also what if other areas want independence? Shetland is a long way from Edinburgh, why can't they have independence? If they move you lose a huge amount of fisheries and oil. More likely would be a Faroe Isles type approach..
Salmond knows its an issue. Years ago he was quite open about Shetland being more independent until he realized how much he needed them.
There was talk that Shetland and Orkney could remain part of the UK.. but I've not seen any updates in the past year.
Why can't they have independence right now?
Is it a nothing statement because it differs from your unionist leanings?
Do you think the oil will stay in the ground if it remains in UK territory?
The auld northern isles "argument" again, eh? Aye they're welcome to lobby for that. What's that sound? Either tumbleweed or Alistair Carmichael's belly rumbling again.
I think we'll move away from it..
No, its nothing. You can do that now. Scotland has gradually left the UK, the government has had increasing powers. Its just a nothing statement. Scotland will be heavily reliant on oil. That's why Shetland leaving will be so bad and will be fought against.
Yes.. or stay with the UK..
I do think that should have been part of the referendum for them.
TBH I just think this will be a huge waste of money, billions spent and in 10 years I doubt anything will be different.
If Independence happens (still a very big "if", in my opinion) why would Scotland be "heavily reliant" on oil? Other similar-sized nations get by without it. Could it not be that any extra revenue from oil would be just that - a bonus?
For a disinterested party living in Europe and about to live in the US your views chime with the Better Together mindset.
If your mind's made up fine - we'll have to agree to differ on the 'nothing' part of my assertions - if you want to have a say move here for a bit on your way over the pond. the closing date for registering in the referendum is early september.
Its just hot air though, 'we'll restructure'.. what develop finance? that's easy... or what?
Its just politicans speak 'we'll reduce taxes and increase spending'
You ask a how and you get the response you gave.. just vague statements.
which ones? Others do which are city states. Scotland isn't. It has a lot of infrastructure it needs to maintain. Like Norway.
The small states quoted, Luxembourg, Singapore are essentially cities. Incomparable to Scotland which has a big landmass for its population size.
It's obviously impossible to say definitively, but it's fairly clear that the SNP administration wants a low tax, high-welfare economy. That being the case, it's likely that the oil revenue would be disproportionately important, when compared with similar sized countries which have higher tax levels.
No, neither are Denmark, Finland (which has an even lower population density than Scotland, though why that's relevant I'm not sure...).
Neither of these are directly comparable to Scotland (or each other) but they surely serve to illustrate that there's nothing inherently un-viable about populations around the 5-million mark. I dare say Norway would also manage fine without its oil reserves.
Yes, but that's just the SNP's stated position - other models are possible.
OK Iain, what do you predict will happen economically in the next 20 years if we remain in your dear union? My opinions are just that, I'm far from claiming to be an economist.
A monkey can see that a country heavily dependent on a finite source (your terms of reference) will need to address the predicted shortfall before it happens. The 20 years I gave could happen in a longer or shorter timeframe, depending on the availability of and desire to consume fossil fuels. So at least a generation to steer the economy is fine by me.
As has been stated above oil is a bit of a strawman argument. Other nations manage fine without it. It's only when unionists see the potential threat of a useful asset slipping away do we hear the "it's volatile, you can't handle it" bleating.
As would and increase. Given that Scotland gets zero oil revenue right now and relies on a block grant I am happy to move to a new system.
Other models certainly are possible, and the difficulties associated with the volatility of oil prices were recognised by John Swinney some time ago, but the importance of oil are stated and restated regularly by supporters of independence. If it were just a bonus, it wouldn't get the prominence it's given.
This must rank as stupid post of the day. Read why Patrick Harvie wants independence.
Get on with it then.
Nonsense without evidence.
That's because it's not going to happen and is about as likely as reform to the House of Lords.
Both of which have a higher tax:GDP ratio than the UK.
Again, Norway's tax:GDP ratio is higher than the UK.
Yes, and listening to supporters of the status quo, you'd almost think an independent Scotland would be better off without it.
As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
Re. your other reply re. tax/GDP: so?
I think the real worry would be that all the fine words about building a sovereign growth fund out of oil will turn to nothing when those revenues are needed to pay for all that welfare that can't be supported out of income taxation, or for debt servicing at unforeseen interest rates owing to the inevitably over-optimistic miscalculations. Politicians are not renowned for doing anything for any reasons other than winning votes in the next election. And these don't come round only once every generation, there's one of one type or another most years.
In no way is this an argument to vote no, but it is perhaps a warning to those voting yes that there must be strings attached to their support.
Yes and I am pretty relaxed about that.
It often occurs to me that many Unionists strongly believe that the push for independence is to just set up a smaller version of the UK. Like we really are wanting massive military spending, foreign intervention on a yearly basis, GCHQ, nuclear weapons and so on.
This seems to be particularly true of people who live further from the debate's centre.
There's no mention of opportunity. No consideration even that it might be time to think in terms of other political systems.
The recent job loses at BAE and Grangemouth were even signs of "stability" apparently.
As there are to any vote. There are strings attached to everything. The string is looking thinner and thinner though.
So you've just said I'm wrong you're right... but didn't explain jack shit.. you may as well have stuck your tongue out and gone ner ner...
That is because as per usual the debate has gone down the road of refuting mad suggestions by people who aren't interested in discussing what the future might look like.
Do you think you can think, discuss and visualise what life might be like in an independent Scotland?
Let's discuss it.
Yup, almost certainly.
The point being that to enjoy similar or better standards of living, more tax revenue is needed, so the desired low tax regime might not be achievable.
About increasing the overall tax take.
re the oil, its not the revenue its also the employment.. 6% of the working population. Fishing is in trouble, that was another major industry.
As it is now.. we'll look to continue to bring in new supplies but we'll get less reliant on oil. I do worry about the UK not being part of the Euro.. I think that should happen.
But the finance industry has grown well. We are growing again, our GDP is improving.. we had the 2009 downturn but most of the world did. I really don't think markets like instability.
I don't think the dear Union is broken. As a country I think it could be a lot worse, there's a grass is greener approach for sure.
Some nations do, Norway also has huge fishing which is a major reason why they never joined the EU, so you can't see us or Scotland being as successful. Denmark does well, good exporter, continental Europe, also exports energy, green producer. But both are helped by being continental.
Not sure re finland..
I just cant see the UK/Scotland accepting the Scandanavian Tax model.. They don't complain but they see the benefits and have grown up with those levels. I just don't think that is an option.
Can you think of other options for an independent Scotland?
See my list above. I would like to find out if the unionist dare to think of another way.
I am at it. UKC is an irrelevance in the bigger scale of things.
I think the Yes can think in terms of the union, as that is what we have, and independence which requires a bigger vision and some acceptance of uncertainty.
I don't think the Unionists can think about what an independent Scotland might look like hence they just slag it off. That is having less and less effect.
How have I 'slagged it off'...
I think, as I said many times, an independent Scotland would be 99% the same as it is now.. you'll just pay billions for it.. Some sectors will gain, some will lose.
I don't think anything will vastly change, it rarely does.
You might be, but it's not exactly featuring very highly in the Yes campaign, which features reductions in corporation tax, halving air passenger duty, and according to the white paper, "there will no
requirement for an independent Scotland to raise the general
rate of taxation to fund existing levels of spending".
It'll still be using the pound, it'll have the queen as head of state, we'll still be speaking English, we'll still be required to implement a whole bunch of EU legislation, we'll be driving on the same side of the road. It'll look pretty much like it does now.
OK so let's look beyond the general. The savings made by not paying part of the bill for HS2. What would you do with this?
Yes at the macro, general level. I am keen to drill down to what sorts of policies might be in place. For example, if Labour won the first Scottish General Election, would they be keen to remove trident and would they start some means testing on bus passes etc?
In your enthusiastic efforts to reply to everyone I think you might have missed my point, which is that you need to envisgae attaching a very thick string to the Scottish government post-independence, if they are not to disappoint you.
> OK so let's look beyond the general. The savings made by not paying part of the bill for HS2. What would you do with this?
I would fix the A9
well that will offset some of the outlay.. look at the building of the Scottish parliament... this will cost billions
But I think Scotland will also get the high speed rail.
Seeing as only a million people voted for the independence referendum, I would think that this is pro independence!
Aye me too. The forecase cost is £3billion (dual from Perth to Inverness). Under devolution that would be nearly 10% of the entire budget.
Currently though Scotland pays about £5billion for HS2 and £1.6 billion for Crossrail 1 leaving no £3billion for the A9.
You mean high speed rail as part of the UK or independence?
Under independence where would you put it? Glasgow -Edinburgh?
Use it to pay for the Scottish infrastructure that is no longer receiving money from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I personally have no figures as to which amount of money is larger, but I suspect you'd not be left with enough to implement anything that would dramatically change everyday lives.
HS2 is a good example of the kinds of large scale project that a larger country can undertake in a more sensible way, sure HS2 mostly will benefit businesses in England, but this is because it makes sense to start the network where it can connect with that on the continent (i.e. the South East) but a high speed rail network increasing transport capacity for the whole UK, like is planned after HS2, would benefit Scotland greatly.
This is of course all just my opinion and unsubstantiated gut reaction, but I think that's important, because what puts a lot of people off independence is the uncertainty without definite benefit. Those who are strongly for independence seem to have at the root of their argument not economic concerns but ideological ones about whether they feel Scotland is a separate entity or not, that's fine.
The problem is that those arguing for an independent Scotland seem to keep saying that there are uncertainties but we'll work them out and then get upset when people ask them about the details and say that it's all being taken care of and that it'll work itself out. The reality is surely that it's not all taken care of, the future of an independent Scotland would be very uncertain, but for some people that's an acceptable price to pay for independence and for others it isn't and that's what the referendum will come down to.
Scottish infrastructure doesn't receive money from England.
There are no plans to build HS2 north of Leeds or to build it outside England.
Do you think everything can be taken care of prior to the vote? If so, can you give me a 100% certain piece of evidence that says the UK will be in the Eu in 20 years time. I like the EU and want to stay in it so I need a guarantee.
What about setting up all the services currently provided by the UK as a whole that Scotland will have to create? Setting up embassies, driver license centres, home office, foreign office, a special house for the first minister unless there is one already! It's not going to be free, it all costs, and is going to cost a lot as we will make the necessary mistakes setting up as a country.
There may be a negative impact on Scottish business and manufacturing, which the new government will want to succeed, so money will need to be ready to shore them up too.
Remember we will also have our share of national debt, I would think any savings would go into paying that off.
That's an example of what I was talking about. I don't think you can or should decide everything before the referendum, I said so above. My point was that you shouldn't react angrily to people who are worried about specifics, they have every right to be worried because uncertainty can be worrying.
I also clearly pointed out that I had no substantiation for my numbers and that they were just a gut feeling, you had a perfectly good opportunity to make the points you've just made in a friendly and informative way. Instead you were aggressive and changed the topic, which isn't going to convince anyone who's not already on your side.
Shit you have clinched it! I thought all of that was free. My god. Give me my pen so I can get my cross into the no box.
Why do you want Scottish Independence then? UK is part of EU, leaving that is leaving EU.
I am not angry actually. Ask questions by all means but don't set up false arguments and ask others to justify them. Mirrors are good for that.
This entire thread has just been one long effort to try and get to a discussion but we can't as we just have to deal with nonsensical arguments.
If you want aggression, look to Tim Chappel's accusations of racism and so on. He is part of the Better Together campaign.
Thats not really true.. the plan is to connect up the UK, even after independence. A quick link to London is still preferred.
Again you have failed to provide discussion, only sarcasm. How does that strengthen the yes argument?
You gave a list of things that you want done further up the thread. Where is the money coming from? Initially on independence there needs to be loads of money to start up new services. You would then like additional loads to fix the problems you described above. Where from?
Loans? Who from? What is the credit rating of the independent Scotland? Oil and gas tax income? There won't be a lump sum up front. If Nuclear weapons are forced to leave the Clyde, do you think the rest of the UK will be so chuffed at the expense that they sponsor independent Scotland for the first few years?
There is no guarantee the UK will be in the EU.
That is not clear at all. I don't want to be subject to the Westminster system, politics or unelected politicians. I don't want to pay (using taxes raised in Scotland) for projects that the Scottish Parliament has no control over. I don't want to be satisfied with Labour for a few years and then the Tories for a few years.
I want policies that are more suited to Scotland and so on. Surely after this amount of time you have some inkling of why I want independence?
I didn't set any false arguments, that genuinely was what I thought I'd do with the money, put it into Scottish infrastructure (some of which does get UK subsidy, renewable energy projects for example). There is also discussion of the extension of high speed rail further North after HS2, but given even HS2 isn't definite yet it's even further in the future.
I'd have very much liked to get into a discussion with you, but as you did with Ian above you took someone who made what they thought were some perfectly valid points and responded aggressively to them, which precluded the possibility of any rational discussion.
If you want to change people's minds try being a bit nicer to them and just respond calmly to people like Tim who you think are being aggressive who are making you angry, it will work much better.
Build a tram system in Edinburgh?
I used sarcasm as I was surprised that you are still at that level. You actually seem to believe that people don't understand that all these services are required and everyone is approaching this argument from a point of complete ignorance.
The money will come from the same place it does currently - taxation. The difference is that the taxation will go to a Scottish government and not a UK one. Additionally the SG will have much more substantial borrowing powers.
Scotland more than pays it's way.
Isn't it blatantly obvious where the money will come from? The same places as it does currently. I can't answer your question on credit rating and you can't either. You will of course think it will be junk and I will think otherwise. Both views are as valid as each other.
Jeez, you are approaching this whole argument with such a closed mindset.
Mind you, you did say once that budgets should be allocated by population and nothing else and this would be such a regressive measure it does give us an insight into your mentality.
Just to pick you up on HS2, there are no plans or otherwise to bring it to Scotland or Wales. Based upon the facts, I think most people would accept it's not going to come to Scotland.
To say anything else is misleading.
Please don't patronise me. Read the comments above and then see what you think.
Apparently the word "britnat" is anti English despite there being no reference to England. Wales doesn't get a look in with Tim.
Those are classic plays by a small country with an open border to a much larger one. It is an incentive to businesses to put their head office in Scotland or fly from Glasgow or Edinburgh in preference to English airports.
England is 10x the size of Scotland so it is quite reasonable to believe that the loss of revenue from lower taxes could be made up by increasing the number of companies registered in Scotland and the number of people flying from Scottish airports.
It is at the moment and I think it probably will continue to be.
I don't want the Sottish parliament, I think it's a waste of money and problems with rogue councils are being ignored because of the independence issue. There, both of us are unhappy, how can you make us both happy, because my equal vote opposes yours?
Neither is the majority of the UK, I'd rather people did something about it UK wide instead of focusing on Scotland, as I don't think we are so different. Or I think we are similarly regionally different.
The majority of the policies on the SNP manifesto are ones wanted across the UK. Excellent free healthcare, free education, jobs, legal wars, etc... I want them too, I'd rather vote for them as part of the UK instead of leaving the UK. While I'm happy to be Scottish, I'm also happy to be British too.
I'm not patronising you. I did read the comments above and I have read yours and others comments on other threads. Ignoring the comments to people like Tim who is clearly sometimes just as aggressive as you are, I genuinely do feel that most, not all, of what you write in response to people who you have no previous discussion with is aggressive and doesn't try to engage them in constructive discussion. As you clearly care a lot about this issue I thought I would let you know that in a constructive manner rather than just being aggressive back.
On the HS2 point I admit I am getting my information from google, but there are several official looking government documents with future options connecting to Glasgow. I had no intention to mislead.
I also don't know what a "britnat" is.
You just name call and bully others!
It's a pretty simple question that obviously hasn't been answered if people are still debating what new things HS2 and Trident savings can be spent on instead of getting the country up and running!!
It presently comes from the UK Treasury, taxation is one income stream to it, it has experience balancing the books going back 300 years and links to financial institutions around the world. The fledgling Scottish Treasury has none of that and will start off in the red. Does that seem promising?
This is still debatable. We also have a rather large welfare system and lots of people that want to commit more to it.
Really? I keep coming up with questions to ask, how is that closed? Is an open mindset achieved by believing in independence and then imagining how all problems may be solved?
It's regressive in that it would be the binning of the Scottish government because I am not massively in love with an extra layer of politicians and all their minions. Westminster > Council. Simple, what's wrong with that?
Where am I bullying people? Please show your faces all those I am bullying!
The country is up and running so no need to worry about that.
So does the Scottish Government. In fact the UK government rarely balances it's books. The Scottish Government has 100% of the time. Fact.
Why do you think the UK is so bad at this?
because your entire thrust is based upon asking unanswerable questions and then when you don't get an answer you take the lack of answer (from one person) as definitive proof that self determination is a bad idea. At the same time you can't answer multiple questions about the UK but that is no issue for you.
It would be a nasty, selfish, right wing policy that would leave people down on their luck in a much worse off. Those with a disability with much less support. Young and adult carers left to fend for themselves. Those in remote areas with almost no services. Those in poor council housing with little chance of an upgrade.
Deal with these issues please in the above paragraph. Why do you believe the state should not give additional support based in need?
So, I take it everyone has agreed Mark Carney was right/wrong?
Got it in one ;-)
You can also get rid of a layer of government by going from:
EU -> London -> Edinburgh -> Council
EU -> Edinburgh -> Council.
It depends if you believe in human solidarity or not. One part of the country has a wealth producing industry, should they build a wall around the area and keep the profits or do they belong to a larger human group and share them? The financial business based in the City of London produce enormous wealth, should this be just kept for them or should the bankers and insurers pay taxes so that their profits benefit all the country?
Many Scots who helped set up the Labour Party and have played a major role in it over the years thought wealth should be shared, I think they are right... but each of us may have their own opinion, of course.
You really don't get it do you? People will be voting no because they have visulised life in both an independent Scotland and as staying in the UK.
If we were to leave the UK Scotland would be poorer, the next generation would have fewer opportunities to develop their potential they would be more likely to leave Scotland and as a people we'd have less say in affairs outside our borders.
Are you on holiday at the moment or is this a quiet day at work for you?
You don't half talk some bollocks on the economics front but more of that later.
I do get it actually Eric.
In your opinion it will be poorer. I think it will be richer but I don't think the rich will be richer. Centre right politicians such as Darling will lose out certainly.
I am on holiday today yes but doing photo processing. I was ski touring at the weekend which was superb.
I think you talk bollocks too. That balances out your view ;-)
You always avoid this question, but why do you think the UK lags behind in quality of life relative to Scandinavian countries?
You have repeatedly downplayed my opinion with nothing to back up your reasons for doing so.
It isn't, Scotland is not acting as an independent country. It worries more that you think it is, or think that it is easy to assume the extra roles.
There is no Scottish Treasury! Given the Edinburgh trams and the Scottish Parliament building fiascos I fail to believe your comment (or am amazed that there was enough money to balance the books after the waste!)
As it's council run, I think the councils are poorly controlled and fairly corrupt.
I can answer every question about the UK, because there would be no change, it would go on like it has done since I've been alive. The lack of response to many of my questions suggests that answers are lacking and that worries me. The problems can be sorted, but it won't be cheap and it will be my tax paying for it.
This is all the result of removing the Scottish Government and going back to the system of Westminster > Councils? How?
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand where the comment above has come from? I've never said that.
I agree, but it'll cost more to remove London than Edinburgh.
Anyway, back to the subject.
It looks like a Currency Union is off the table as both George and Ed have it's unlikely they'd agree to one if we were ever to vote to leave the UK.
I think this is a good thing and no doubt Jim Sillars who referred to the whole idea as "stupidity on stilts" will think so too, along with various other old SNP worthies.
So the question now is, what is plan B? The Euro or the Groat (Scottish pound?
So just to get this straight, you say you, a grade VI climber from Glasgow, feels bullied by me? Really?
I know these blatant truths that you keep reminding me of. I didn't say there was a Scottish treasury, I didn't say it was operating as an independence country but it patently a fact that the place is up and running.
You seem to think independence will produce total collaspe of the state.
OK so you think the UK system of local government is poorly run and corrupt. Overall I think it quite good.
My question: "Why do you believe the state should not give additional support based in need?"
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand where the comment above has come from? I've never said that."
You can't have a system which gives support based on need if you want to allocate all funding based on population.
So please deal with this. You can't have it both ways.
I don't know what plan B is for the currency. What's plan B for the rUK if Scotland votes to go?
Please no! 12 Pound Scots to 1 Pound Sterling was were we left it.
Pistole – Gold, 12 pounds Scots
Dollar – Replacement for the ryal, 60 Scots shillings (James VI)
Ryal – Gold, 1565
Crown or Lion – Gold (James I)
Half-crown, Demi-Lion or Demys – Gold (James I)
Ducat or "bonnet" – 40 shillings, 1539 (James V)
Mark or merk – Gold (giving rise to the term markland)
Noble – Gold, worth half a mark, 1357 (David II, reintroduced by Robert III)
Unicorn - Gold, 18 shillings Scots, 1484/5 (James III)
Half-unicorn – Gold, 9 shillings Scots (James IV)
Testoun – silver, 1553. Was produced in France with the new process of mill and screw, being the first milled coinage of Scotland.
Bawbee – Billon, six pence from 1537
Groat – Silver, equivalent to four pence, from 1357 (giving rise to the term groatland)
Half-groat – Silver, equivalent to two pence, from 1357
Turner – Billon, two pence (James VI), later copper.
Bodle – Copper, two pence (Charles II)
Hardhead – also called Lion, billon coin circulated in the reigns of Mary and James VI
Penny – Billon, one of the earliest coins, dating from David I. Later made of copper; giving rise to the term pennyland.
Halfpennies – Initially literally half of a penny, these became minted coins in their own right in c.1280. Later made of copper.
Farthing or quarter-penny – These were originally quarters of pennies, but as with Halfpennies, became coins in their own right in c.1280. Later made of copper.
I think everyone knows that Mark Carney is right - fiscal union does mean less than 'full' independence, of course that is more than 'no independence', but who knows how it compares to enhanced devolution?
as usual the thread has disintegrated into daftness.....
I was at a very depressing course today that touched on the NHS and how it fits into the national budget. They showed current borrowing for the UK vs spend on various departments.
If we got rid of all defence spending, and police spending, we would still be borrowing 30 billion a year.
So at least for the UK as currently constituted, massive defence cuts would not solve our problems. I'm not convinced that Scotland would be able to turn its swords into ploughshares as some seem to envisage......
"Again you have failed to provide discussion, only sarcasm. How does that strengthen the no argument?"
Well said. You post is timely as it has just gotten daft as you say.
I will save up a list of unanswerable questions for the next time ;-)
A clear, if Scotland votes Yes we will NOT agree to a currency union.
Then everyone knows where they stand.
I feel even more pathetic after that now. But seriously, it's more your style that is bullying, similar to a politician on a podium trying to send a message to his popular supporters but not winning over the rest.
I disagree, I think a little more work is required.
Have you read the "Rotten Boroughs," section of Private Eye recently? Do you think it right that the Chief Exec of the Highland Council gets £140,000? More than MPs and the same as the First Minister and Prime Minister?
I do think the UK is one of the better run countries in the world, but think that a lot of that is because of the systems in place, new systems would make mistakes that are costly for a small country, when we can just keep things the same.
Money from Westminster to Council based on population, council spend it on welfare services, etc.
?? What are you on? I don't understand why you just posted that.
They have green coal there then, do they? I didn't know that :-)
Quote of the week!
Don't know about Denmark but they have green coal in Germany.
At least the money spent on Edinburgh stays in Scotland and the effect of power in Edinburgh is to bring people that want to influence government to Edinburgh which boosts the Scottish economy.
We'd have to get the money from somewhere first though. The services already exist as part of the UK, we'd be paying to have specifically scottish services, when we've been using UK for the last age.
I'm also not a massive fan of Edinburgh, if we could stay part of the UK and let Edinburgh become it's own state I'd be all for that.
Well the reason may be that a currency union could be in the interests of the UK if the terms were right but after the meeting between Mark Carney and Mr Potato Head they felt that the deal that the SNP would be looking for would not be worth the risk. I don't know. Certainly they've been saying this for some time anyway:
"But, even with constraints in place, the economic rationale for the UK to agree to enter a formal sterling union with a separate state is not clear. The recent experience of the euro area has shown that it is extremely challenging to sustain a successful formal currency union without close ﬁscal integration and common arrangements for the resolution of banking sector difﬁculties."
(Have a look at the graphics on page 6 as well)
Also of course it's politics but what do you expect? Mr P-H only went for this option after the Euro became as palatable to the Scottish electorate as a jobby sandwich.
Which brings me on to the next question, apparently if Scotland were to leave the UK and apply to join the EU then it would be expected to join the Euro and if it didn't want to do that it would have to get the agreement of all the other 27 or 28 member states to opt out...which kind of makes me wonder about the whole sterling idea anyway. Even if George had said, "Great idea Alex, we'll look after you." I'm afraid Herman in Strasborg may well have hissed "zat is vot you tink Tommy".
You know what? Bollocks to all this nonsense about "if this happens" and "when so and so and so and so agree to this that and the other" and "assuming the price of Irn Bru is X" and "the Irn Bru reserves will last for eternity" then we'll be the 4th happiest country in the world. It's not going to happen.
The UK economy is strong and stable. The UK is great country to live in. Better to vote No.
Now that is the silliest thing I've read on here today.
I see you pretty well answered Jim's question several days ago.
You know what? The only Scandinavian country I would like to live is Norway. And that's just because of the countryside. So for a host of reasons, not least being the extortionate cost of a pint, I don't buy this "better off in Scandinavia" stuff particularly. No matter how bloody surveys you quote and link to.
Keep talking Scotland down, Eric. I'm enjoying the old Labour taunts. Makes me nostalgic for the time we had a socialist party in Scotland fighting for the underdog.
Labour have had such a great track record on fighting poverty they now find themselves protecting the very system which caused the inequality in the first place. The party's going to implode in Scotland after a Yes vote. Still time to save your pride.
Postmanpat.....you like to quote history......the Scots were forced in to the Union, it was wrong what happened in 1707, country to what you unionists think and say, Scotland overwhelmingly didn't want to loose its sleep rate identity.
England cared not about Scotland's welfare when achieving the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, self preservation, greed a a hunger for power drove it to enforce the Union. Queen Anne was not going to allow her Catholic brother (King) James Edward Stuart to rule as King of Scotland....Scotland had an agreement with England and that agreement ended when William the lll Died without leaving an heir.
"The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom". Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day? There were also massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish burghs on the day it was passed by Parliament, as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law."
It's taken 300 years but now Scotland will gain back what it should never have lost.....I'm disappointed about the continued treachery, lies and just nasty underhanded ness, not dissimilar to what it was most probably like back in 1706-7, coming from the Britnats-Better Together rabble and Westminister.
You Britnats really have to stop stooping to the level of using fear and doubt in to your argument. Surely, deep down you know that Scotland has all ways been capable, and will all ways be capable, of looking after it's self. No doubt it'll take a lot of effort to make the transferral over to an independent Scotland but in the end it'll all come good.
The benefits to be gained from Independence are plentiful, even if just for our own identity fully restored, we negotiate our own deal in Europe and then, if desired by the people, we get our own star as a country on the flag of Europe.
According to polls this is the general view held by the majority of the Scottish people, whereas England is on the verge of pulling out of Europe.
The nationalists have many good reasons to want independence, and it seems more and more of those reasons are being proven to be viable and positive arguments.....sadly the Britnats have failed to deliver a strong argument for remaining in the Union, they are failing miserably with there campaign of misinformation, fear and bullying.....
You are using fear and uncertainty a lot in your argument, just like the rest of the Britnats on here, despicable really, particularly since your argument can be counter argued with good sound benefits and possibilities.
Postmanpat.....you like to quote history......the Scots were forced in to the Union, it was wrong what happened in 1707, regardless of what you unionists think and say, Scotlands people overwhelmingly felt that they didn't want to loose there identity.
There's fairly strong arguments for forming unions.. its hardly just about fear.. European Union.. United States.. many think you are stronger and more stable being larger. You can call that fear but its wrong and dismissive.
I see the ex-politician, Comrade Broon has been busy.
What a guy: http://order-order.com/2014/01/24/exc-gordon-brown-office-has-10000-a-week-expenses-raises-over-3-mi...
The FT is running a series of stories on Scottish Independence right now. It's behind a paywall so I will post it here for those who can't see it as all adds to the debate.
Regarding the financial sector in Scotland (Scotlands 2nd largest export)
"Fund managers based in Scotland face a multimillion-pound bill to pay for a new financial regulator if Scots vote for independence in the September referendum, the trade body for Scotland’s financial services industry has warned.
The public intervention by Scottish Financial Enterprise underlines growing concern in a crucial sector of the economy about the implications of Scotland breaking away from the rest of Britain. “A yes vote would require the creation of an additional financial regulator with hundreds of staff. The cost would run into millions and have to be paid for by the industry in Scotland,” said Owen Kelly, chief executive of the trade body.
The intervention by the financial services industry, which employs almost 100,000 people in Scotland, comes amid opinion polls showing the Yes camp gaining ground ahead of the September 18 vote on breaking the 300-year-old union with England, though still well short of a majority.
Mr Kelly said fund managers would need to tailor their products and services for Scottish clients to a new tax, consumer protection and regulatory regime, creating additional complexity and costs.
“Some changes will be necessary if fund managers cease to be in the same legal jurisdiction as the City of London and 90 per cent of their customers,” he said.
Fund management has long been one of Scotland’s strengths. The first life assurance fund was invented by two Scottish clergymen in 1748, while the investment trust movement grew in the 1870s for Dundee’s jute traders to invest their profits.
Scottish fund groups today account for more than 4,000 jobs and at least £520bn of assets, roughly a quarter of assets managed by groups with headquarters in the UK according to figures from the UK’s Investment Management Association.
“We have a significant majority of customers outside of Scotland and a clear duty of care to ensure they are not disadvantaged by a Yes vote,” said Adrian Cammidge, head of communications at Kames Capital, an Edinburgh-based manager.
Data released last week by the Scottish government in its Global Connections Survey highlighted the interdependence of Scotland’s financial sector with the rest of the UK. With earnings of £11.2bn in 2012, financial services was Scotland’s most important export sector. But 86 per cent of those earnings came from sales to the rest of the UK.
As well as the additional fees associated with a new regulator, funds would face extra administrative costs as they cope with demands from agencies on both sides of the border, said Nathan Willmott, a partner at law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner.
“Where you have a problem, you would have to co-ordinate between two regulators,” he said. There was a burden associated with dealing with “two regulatory regimes.”
Despite the high stakes, virtually all Scottish fund managers meet questions about business prospects in an independent Scotland with silence or a “no comment”. They are reluctant to be seen to be interfering in politics, particularly if they find themselves out of step with public opinion, as some business leaders appeared with their hostility to Scottish devolution in the 1980s and 1990s.
“There are just too many unknowns for us to comment sensibly on what it might mean for the business,” said one leading manager who did not wish to be named.
London-based fund groups with Scottish clients, including Schroders and Man Group, declined to comment on how the referendum could affect their businesses.
Martin Gilbert, the usually outspoken head of rapidly growing Aberdeen Asset Management is uncharacteristically cautious when discussing independence. But he made clear he does not think it would spell disaster for the sector. “If it did happen, it would be neutral for Scotland’s financial services industry,” he said.
“There is still too little information about the details of how it would work in practice to be able to say for sure,” he said.
The SFE said it was concerned that Scottish financial services providers could lose out to competitors in the event of a Yes vote while negotiations with the UK and EU governments took place and new constitutional and currency arrangements were finalised.
Although an offer of EU membership appeared likely in the event of a Yes vote, the SFE pointed out that Scotland would still have to agree currency and central bank arrangements with Europe along with European regulatory and customer protection requirements.
Shiv Taneja, managing director of Cerulli Associates, a consultancy, said the vote was increasingly on the radar of international fund managers as well. A US fund manager visiting Edinburgh last week told him that a Yes vote would be “bad news for Scottish fund managers in terms of sourcing assets”.
“He took it quite seriously, and frankly I think it is a bad idea all round,” he added.
But another senior figure in the Scottish investment industry was more positive, saying: “It could lead to more flexible government that would be more responsive to business needs. People would say ‘we have no one to blame but ourselves, so let’s get on with it’”.
I'm not sure If Europe would ever be as united as all the states in the USA, appart from "the lone star" state Texas, which can elect to leave the union. I do see more advantages than disadvantages by being a member of the EU but would much prefer doing this as an independent Scotland.
The article is just the usual negative "may be a disaster", "you'll only suffer" tone that has good reasonable counter arguments by nationalists. No one has all the answers as to what will happen when Scotland does become independent, but all will come about that will need to be done, I'm sure we're good enough as a people to make a good success of it, regardless of what the unionists think or say.
The main difficulties that Scotland will face, will likely be a bitter backlash of vile spite, that will be unleashed upon the Scots, from it's disgruntled former UK partners.
No they weren't. It was unpopular with many ordinary people, presumably the Jacobite element included, but was pursued by large elements of the ruling classes. Ironically, in England the Tories were against it. It's not as simple as "being forced into it" or being universally desired, on either side of the border.
The main impetus behind the Scottish elements pushing for union was to participate in the benefits of England's rapid economic and imperial growth. It worked.
I think that's the end goal.. I think more and more we'll have a 2 tier system like the states. I just think this step is an idealistic one, a huge outlay and we'll both still end up as small states in basically a federal Europe.
That's why I think little will change. As it is England, or the Union, are convenient excuses whenever there is an issue, and they can just say 'if we were independent'... I just think little will change.
I'd be amazed if within 10 years Scotland haven't introduced tuition fees. Other countries don't but they either have less debt or more taxes.
For historical reasons you might have a point when it comes to NI, but England? It really isn't the emotive subject down here you seem to think it is, and that's reflected in the posts on here (excluding Al but the Latino fervour has rubbed off on him).
You're paranoid. Read it again. It's an article reporting a variety of views, some for, some against independence but mostly just highlighting areas that would need attention and work.
You really think rUK is going act out of spite if Scotland separates rather than self-interest? I am sure rUK would drive a much harder bargain on many matters than nationalists expect but it wouldn't be out of spite - just a desire by what would then be a foreign country to get the best deal.
? It really isn't the emotive subject down here you seem to think it is, and that's reflected in the posts on here
The nationalist belief that "Westminster" is desperate to "keep" Scotland is very odd. As you say most people in England are either indifferent or want to maintain the UK as a partnership. A few believe Scotland drains loads of resources and support separation on that basis but I don't think I have ever heard the view that Scotland is somehow a possession, except as a figment of the imagination of the SNP/Nationalist group.
England isn't Westminster.
Does Wales ever get a look in with Unionists?
I'm sure the Welsh have similar views but haven't lived there so can't say for sure.
I know that I'll still get on with my English friends, English family (my brother married a scouser and lives in Liverpool with his two daughters), Incidently, my Scouser nieces support independence and so does quite a few of my English pals.
My family in Scotland is widely split, strong protestant unionists 60% and rebels like myself 40%
Friends in Highlands: YES 80% NO 20%
Friends in East and south of Scotland 50% YES and NO 50%
I don't know many that base their judgement on Greed, they seem to all base there judgement on a desire to be fully Scottish, the guarantee that the Scots will have a party elected by the majority of Scots.
There will be no doubt be political bun fights for the first few years of the split, and for those fights we will need a strong leader....I'm sure UKIP and the Tories will shout a lot but I suspect Salmond will do a good job of negotiating through to the first Scottish general election.
What do you mean regarding Wales?
I'm not sure how much further behind Wales is in terms of the independence movement, but the WAG have got increasingly more powers.
I mean twice now on this thread people of unionist disposition have equated Westminster/Britain with England forgetting about Wales and Northern Ireland. This does go some way to explaining the mentality.
For example, the term "britnat" is apparently anti-English according to Better Together's representative Tim Chappell despite no mention of England or any hint of it.
>[...]they seem to all base there judgement on a desire to be fully Scottish,[...]
This seems to be at the heart of Nationalism, that you aren't 'fully Scottish' without independence. Which maybe answers the question I put to S.A, way up thread to which he never replied.
In reaction to fears that Scotland would invade England as an Ali of the French and Reinstate the Stuarts....."The English Parliament hit back with the 1705 Alien Act. This was a draconian piece of legislation which transparently exposed the huge differences in economic strength between England and Scotland at the time. Under its terms, all trade and free movement between the two countries would cease, and all Scottish-owned property in England would be seized: unless negotiations opened leading either to the repeal of the Act of Security, or towards a full Act of Union. The result was what many viewed - and still view - as a shotgun wedding: an Act of Union approved by the Scottish Parliament (in effect voting itself out of existence) on 16 January 1707. It is clear that blackmail, espionage and bribery all played a part in securing the vote in the Scottish Parliament, and very clear that the Parliament's decision was against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people. But perhaps underlying it was an unavoidable sense of Scotland's huge economic problems at the time, and the very real benefits that were on offer under the Act of Union, especially in terms of Scottish access to free trade with England and its overseas dominions, and compensation for the huge losses (arguably caused by William III/II) that Scotland had suffered in the Darien Scheme. At the same time, a number of the things that made Scotland distinctively Scottish, such as a separate set of laws, a separate education system, and a separate church, were maintained under the Act of Union."
A certain amount of lairds in Scotland accepted bribes from the English. All were opposed to the Union to start with but after economic sanctions began to take hold, they reconsidered and took payment for there signatures.
"Westminster" is a term used by nationalists mostly as shorthand for everything they don't like about the current set up. Often it is equated with England (e.g. Lynx234234's post at 6.05 and 10.17) so don't be surprised if other bits don't feature much in discussion.
Life in an independent Scotland will change over time.
Day 1 celebration North of the border, puzzled looks on the South.
Year 1-5 A few teething problems. e.g. Setting up the new taxation department was expensive. Relations with international business not going so well. Adopt a quiet role in the EU.
Year 5-10 Improved standards of living achieved...
Post year 10 Crystal ball all a bit hazy
The point that seems to be overlooked by the Yes side of the argument is the cost of establishing the institutions of state, the disruptive nature of change and the dislike of uncertainly by external parties (e.g. business and banks). Can Scotland be successful - absolutely, what will increase the likelihood of this? a clear path to manage/mitigate these risks. At the moment shouting rhetoric is doing more harm than good.
Look at the population differences. If 10 people have posted the chances are only one is from NI or Wales.. so they are more likely to post from their countries view.
However I just don't think that is the case.. that's your chip and paranoia showing.
So, not really, its done from a UK persective. I think people like you, solely lived in one country, struggle to understand that some of us don't really see things from one perspective.. I'm very much British.. born and raised in England, lived Wales for 10 years, Scotland 4 years,1 year Germany, 1 year US, never in England as an adult, Sister did her degree and PhD in Scotland, now lives there, parents now reside as semi retired between England and Scotland.
re the last point, fully Scottish. I never bought the lack of identity argument. You heard it in Wales, yet I'd say Scots and Welsh people identify much more closely with their nation than the English do..
Mercantilism of this type was a fact of life in the 18th century. Most countries did it to each other. It didn't mean every country was "forced" to join another. Basically Scotland was too weak economically to flourish alone given the nature of 18th Century economic and trade policies so it's ruling class decided it was in their interests to join a Union and they were right. Plenty of skulduggery involved, I'm sure.
I think you'll find that what the "majority" wanted was also a bit of a side issue in most countries at the time.
Scotland isn't the first country that has gained it's independence from a union or foreign oppressor, about 100 countries have gone through the same experience, and I'm sure not one of those countries now regrets it's actions. Some of these countries are very similar to Scotland, both in resources and populations, and provide good models for us to learn from...Norway has expressed it's desire to help with some advice....I doubt we'll copy too much of Norways life style though, can't see us having to spend £7 for a pint.
It's good to know that there are models to learn from, i'm based on the other side of the world so i dont get the same coverage that you... Could you post a link to some of these examples?
I think that's incomparable. I can't think of many which have had so many hundreds of years.. Same currency, same military./.. it was/is a union. There's a bit of re-writing history going on here.
If it was such oppression how come there is a referendum and has been increasing devolution during recent history.
Oppressor is a tad offensive.. come on recently how has there been oppression?
Lets still remember that as it stands Scots can vote on English issues.. English can't vote on Scottish issues..
Exactly, you cant cherry pick.. ahh we want low taxes, but a great quality of life... the Norwegian model won't work unless you buy in to high taxes. Those who live there grew up with it. But also see the benefits. Brits won't for years and would have to face huge tax rises.
And no doubt if beer was 7 quid a pint and heavily taxed towns in the North of England would benefit.. its like Connery.. the great Scot who won't pay tax...
Well, three hundred years on and The UK has come and gone....how is this possible? Democracy, fairness, if both of these things had been present in society back in 1707 then we wouldn't be discussing this today.
You could call me paranoid but I feel that the Darien Scheme was a set up....it's founders and those with the funds were Unionist sympathisers...the hard core Protestants in Southern Scotland
William Paterson founded both the Darien Company and the Bank of England, his investors and supporters were predominantly king Billie supporters in Scotland. William Paterson had made an agreement with England, England agreed to assist with venture; Queen Anne imposes Alien Act on Scotland....Agreement now broken and help from England's near by colonies is out lawed. All current and future trade with England and it's colonies was ceased
There's one small flaw in that statement...
No, and you'd have been a hell of a sight poorer for a lot longer.
You're paranoid. So the Darien scheme was set up by Unionists with the intention of failing in order to push Scotland into Union?
You're sectarian rumblings don't bode very well for the future of a united Scotland. Get over it.
Just saw the BBC announcement about BP's boss putting the boot into Scottish independence.....nasty Man sounded like he was from the USA.
.nasty Man sounded like he was from the USA.
From the USA! The horror. Say no more.
It is wrong.. If you go somewhere for work that's different. He can afford tax, he lives where he does for tax reasons.
Go to the isle of Man, so many stunning houses empty.. basically just houses for people saying they live their for tax reasons, good houses not used and tax not being paid in places that need it.
This is the problem, people like you defend these people because they support your view.. yet he's obviously not supporting Scotland.
When you say 'putting the boot into', is that the same as saying there are "big uncertainties"? After all, we do keep hearing that there would be loads of negotiations after independence, so it's quite clear that there will be uncertainties. What's nasty about saying this?
And how do you know what would have happened? More negative rhetoric, can't you say anything positive about Scotland becoming Independent? You Britnats are a dour bunch really, a right bundle of laughs.
Quite an interesting paper on the Darien Scheme
How right up to the present day?
Em no. "Westminster" is used to describe Westminster.
I just think people shouldn't equate England with Britain just as they don't California with the USA.
No, I am just picking up others on errors which are important. You are paranoid.
Nothing to do with me. Direct that at the person who said it.
It's unionists who are spiteful and bile-filled, right?
why? Why the words Scottish, British, are in many companies names and they wouldn't care. Even if Scotland leaves the union Great Britain remains..
That's just the name of the land..
That's just a really random suggestion.
It's also not called British Petroleum and hasn't been for years.
BP is a multinational company which derives the vast bulk of its revenues away from Britain. The idea that there's any particular allegiance to Britain is laughable. Your paranoia really is kicking in.
You're sounding sounding pretty unpleasant and xenophobic. Surely the bright new future Scotland is going to include all comers, Americans included, even one's with really bad comb-overs?
Which bit of what Bob Dudley said is wrong?
That's not really comparable. Maybe they shouldn't but England is 80% of Britain, so what people see as British is often English, so you can understand confusion.
You've slipped back to the ner ner argument again...
The argument about national identity runs through the independence argument.. I'm not going to ask 1 million people individually....
Off for a run..
I think that comment derived from my post. It's difficult to guage Welsh opinion as when I am there it is as a tourist and there isn't much reporting on Welsh opinion.
He'll be fully aware that his company with have no problems operating from an independent Scotland, Salmond, on numerous occasions, has expressed his desire to have "business as usual" policies with foreign countries that operate out of Scotland.....I know it's not called British Petrolium but it used to be, I also know it's opened by its share owners, but I just can't help but smell a rat I'm afraid..totally unfounded comment. Probably meant to be a "Grenade", to be lobbed at the Scottish people, by corporate business who value there status quo security over democracy deciding Scotland's future.
Now who's paranoid?
Or could his thoughts just be those of an extremely intelligent, worldly-wise head of one of the world's largest and most successful companies, which just don't happen to chime with your desires and perspective.
I know whose opinion carries more weight, that's for sure.
"Time to ride north and sack Edinburgh, its the only way"
HRH Prince Charles
Interestingly, and most importantly, from what I know opinion seems pretty balanced amongst posters who have a vote.
Yes - me, Lynx, Tom, Craig, Doug?, Jim?
No - Tim, Eric, Johnnie, can't remember the rest.
In regards to the question of an Independent Scotland copying a Nordic model
"Perhaps the most high-profile Scot of all in the Nordics – Tom Johnstone, chief executive of Swedish industrial group SKF – says: “It’s a very good target to aim for. The question is: do you need to be independent from Britain to do that?”
So there is a Scot who is top of a large Nordic conglomorate who is also not sure. Can you smell a rat there as well?
But he doesn't even know what the currency will be, or what the levels of corporation tax will be, or what other 'economic levers' will work for or against BP. He's not saying BP couldn't work in Scotland - it works in far more demanding environments in the world - but he is saying the economic conditions under which BP would be working are uncertain.
But as you keep reminding us, UKC isn't representative of anything.
He's quite right.Independence is not necessary to achieve that We could achieve so much with Devo-max. That, however, is a concept that uniquely united Cameron and Salmond in that neither wanted it as an option. Democracy my arse! DC sees it as being too independent and Salmond sees it as not being independent enough. We should have had that as an option, but advisers to both camps said it would be the outright winner, so no, not allowed.
Hope you had a good run.
A pro-independence blogger (and ex-BBC political reporter) has an interesting take on the nationality issue: http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/double-bluff/#comments
"It's long been clear that the Union is a Good Thing for England's political representatives so long as it works to their advantage. This means in broad terms that they have the upper hand, get to dictate, allocate and restrict according to their own perceived national need. This is the England in which Scotland, Wales and Ireland (N) are the lucky passengers, permitted to share the journey sitting in the cheap seats.
Therefore the national (UK) resources are England's essentially and are disbursed to the deserving but the quid pro quo is in return a sense of gratitude, albeit unspoken, and an acknowledgment that none of this would be possible without the nod of approval from the patient English nation."
..."This is part of the much wider media view which frames Scottish self-determination as an attack on England. It is only if you believe you are giving charity to someone that you have done your best for them that you are offended when they want to get on without you. In this they are heavily backed by both the British government whose legal advice is that it all belongs to them and Scotland ceased to exist 300 years ago and generations of compliant, self-serving Unionist MPs not one of whom ever stood up in the Commons and declared: My country is not subsidised."
Ms Lamont is starting to see the public implosion of North British Labour now that Ian Davidson and Ken MacIntosh have said no to her desire to present Devo something to the Scottish electorate in a bid to quell the swing to Yes.
Added to Milliband's failure to hide the Falkirk selection debacle from the public (and his favourite newspaper) one can see a meltdown in the offing.
In which case do the rest of us get a vote?
> No - Tim, Eric, Johnnie, can't remember the rest.
Me, if I am allowed still.
Plenty of stirring, emotive stuff there, not any actual facts though.
Still I don't suppose you'd let let a little thing like that cloud your judgement, would you?
Do you have a vote? I thought you had moved away?
I might. I'm not sure of the rules.
Yes, I'm pro independence. I think it would ultimately force the country aways from it's attachment to State socialism and reawaken its entrepreneurial spirit.
I wouldn't have thought those two need be mutually exclusive, depending on what you mean by 'state socialism'?
> Plenty of stirring, emotive stuff there, not any actual facts though.
> Still I don't suppose you'd let let a little thing like that cloud your judgement, would you?
What? like your insistence that Scotland will be out of the EU and have to reapply?
It's interesting in that it gives a glimpse at the mindset of some in Scotland, and their attitude towards the 'English'. It is also complete rubbish.
It is clear if you look at political representation over the last century that Scottish and Welsh politicians have fully participated in the politics of the UK. Aneurin Bevan was not a passenger.
Actually it should really have been called "Scottish Petroleum". It was owned largely by a Scottish company, Burmah, one of its major early assets was the Scottish shale company and its first chairman and minority shareholder was Lord Strathcona. It had a strong Scottish strand about it until well after WW2.
Those damn Scottish imperialists :-)
They are not natural bedfellows but either way, if Lynx is lucky he can look forward to a prosperous independent Tory future :-)
Its a long way of being an issue TBH. It's decades off at the moment and to be honest not many are in full support of it right now, even amongst the north waleans.
Scotland has a good 100 miles of not much between the major North England cities and the central belt. With Wales the north and south are probably more segregated links wise than the north to chester/Manchester (a5, A55), the mid to west midlands (M54) and the south to the south west, south of England (m4).
It wouldn't be impossible but it would be harder.
But I didn't make it up, I was quoting what Herman Van Rompuy said. There's a difference. Your post was full of emotive tosh about how England takes all Scotland's wealth and then assumes Scotland should be grateful for getting some of it back. As I said, no facts, just an appeal to emotion.
I'm a don't know, though still don't see the point.
Did you read the whole article? He was talking about two Westminster MPs spceifically with English constituencies. Please point out the emotive tosh.
Re Europe - Herman Van Rompuy is a politician. Politicians have agendas. The link I posted (which you seem not to have read) was from Graham Avery who isn't a politician. He was a negotiator for the EU for 33 years. His professional opinion matters.
ok sorry I had you down wrong.
OK since I didn't have Graham down above he can take your place in "no" and I'll put you down for don't know.
In the whole article it contains this reference to the 2 MPs
"Thus Mark Field (City of London) and Peter Bone (Northamptonshire) have decided that after a Yes vote the Barnett Formula should cease immediately and not continue while negotiations go on. “It should not exist now”, says Bone. “It would be doubly absurd if it were to continue after they had voted for independence”
What it *doesn't* quote them as saying is -
"In effect, we will cut off their money supply and let them stew. Then we’ll demand a referendum to decide if “we” will allow them to share “our” currency."
That last bit is the bloggers words, not the MPs so he has either only heard part of their statement, and gone off on one, or heard it all and edited it neatly so he can be justified in going off on one.
As for the rest of the article, I can only hope he's got a phlegm proof keyboard because he seems to be frothing at the mouth.
> OK since I didn't have Graham down above
As a fellow Graeme I share your anger.
And surely on this thread of all places you would expect the default version to be Graeme.
I still get the Ian.. this is the real problem with the English domination of Britain... suppressing the use of our proper names...
The whole Ian/Iain bit is odd. Iain being the Gaelic version of John and Ian being the Anglicised version of Iain - why not just change Iain back to John!
BTW both me and my brother Ian were given Scottish names (no idea why) but of course my folks got it wrong with Ian.
There's a few more.. Eoin.. and I think maybe Sean has similar routes.. Sean and John are linked, there's a whole clave of names involved.
We just had to be named after good sportsmen. And my Mum doesn't like shortened names so called me Iain, and then went on to call me 'E'..
You can have a 'no' from me, although by the time the date comes around, I'll be so bored that I might not vote at all.
Just Googled Sean and it's the Irish for Jean (or Jehan in Norman). Which of course is connected to John :-)
Yeah, had a google earlier.. read this on here but they don't give an original source..
"Found this on-line regarding the name John:
English form of Iohannes, the Latin form of the Greek name Ιωαννης (Ioannes), itself derived from the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan) meaning "YAHWEH is gracious". This name owes its popularity to two New Testament characters, both highly revered saints. The first was John the Baptist, a Jewish ascetic who was considered the forerunner of Jesus Christ. The second was the apostle John, who was also traditionally regarded as the author of the fourth Gospel and Revelation.
Greek form of Yochanan (see JOHN).
VARIANTS: Ioannis, Yannis, Yiannis, Yanni, Yianni (Greek)
FEMININE FORMS: Ioanna (Greek), Ioanna (Biblical Greek)
OTHER LANGUAGES: Gjon (Albanian), Yahya (Arabic), Hovhannes (Armenian), Jon, Ion, Ganix (Basque), John (Biblical), Yehochanan, Yochanan (Biblical Hebrew), Iohannes (Biblical Latin), Yann (Breton), Ioan, Yoan, Yan, Ivan (Bulgarian), Joan (Catalan), Jowan (Cornish), Ghjuvan (Corsican), Ivan (Croatian), Johan, Jan, Ivan (Czech), Jens (Danish), Johannes, Johan, Jan (Dutch), John, Shawn, Shaun, Shane, Sean, Evan, Ian, Ivan, Shayne, Jon (English), Johano (Esperanto), Juhan, Johannes, Jaan (Estonian), Juhani, Juhana, Jouni, Joni, Johannes, Janne, Jani (Finnish), Yann, Jean (French), Xoán (Galician), Johannes, Johann, Johan, Jan (German), Keoni (Hawaiian), Yochanan (Hebrew), János (Hungarian), Jón, Jóhannes, Jóhann (Icelandic), Shane, Sean, Seán, Eoin (Irish), Giovanni (Italian), Johannes, Joannes (Late Roman), Jānis (Latvian), Sjeng, Sjang (Limburgish), Jonas (Lithuanian), Jovan, Ivan (Macedonian), Juan, Ean (Manx), Jan, Hann (Medieval English), Jehan (Medieval French), Jens (Norwegian), Janusz, Jan, Iwan (Polish), João (Portuguese), Ion, Ioan (Romanian), Ivan, Ioann (Russian), Jon, Johannes, Johan, Jan (Scandinavian), Ian, Iain, Eoin (Scottish), Jovan, Ivan (Serbian), Ján (Slovak), Žan, Janez, Jan, Ivan, Anže (Slovene), Xuan, Juan, Iván (Spanish), Jens (Swedish), Yahya (Turkish), Ivan (Ukrainian), Siôn, Iwan, Ioan, Ifan, Iefan, Evan, Ieuan (Welsh)"
So some clade (I put clave before.. no idea why)
Henceforth I will be calling you Yehochanan, or Yeh for short :-)
Big oil people like Dick Cheney, that's mr bp's mould, no doubt he's had a game of golf with Dick and plotted foreign interference to get lucrative oil reserves....
So for Salmond's vision to actually happen the following needs to occur:
- Scotland votes yes
- an overall majority of the yes vote needs to agree on a shared currency with the rUK
- rUK needs to consent either via act of Parliament or complementary referendum to being Scotland's lender of last resort
I'm a bit unclear on the last point so perhaps somebody can clarify?
Really, how many do you know?
Must admit I'm lost on the currency thing.. surely that's the rUK's call more than theirs?
I can't understand why we would.. if anything I think we'd both be better of joining the Euro.
I'm not financially savvy at all, but that seems to make sense.
I think you're doing more for the "no" campaign than Messrs Dudley and Darling ever will. Keep it up.
575 posts and the first person to mention my Op re how would that work. Thx for bringing it back on topic ;-)
Not at all, and in any case i'm sure the SNP has thought it through :p
As I said, bp have no moral compass.....and love to get involved in politics aparantly.
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned"
A cynical Person might say.
They blocked it so that Scots could not vote for it and legitimise it.
They blocked it so they can now offer it as a last minute 'bribe' to get Scots to vote NO.
They blocked it so that once the Scots fall for it and vote NO they can quietly forget about it
(it's not like they actually voted for it , it is not on any ballot paper)
And yet these same people are the ones that you want to get into bed with to provide for future of an independent Scotland.
You can't slag them off one minute and then shag them the next minute.
In rely to everyone else:
This isn't a comment on anyone else's comments, just a response to lunx3555's inconsistent BS.
> You can't slag them off one minute and then shag them the next minute.
Isn't that what wives are for?
I heard an economist on the radio the other day saying that an independent Scotland would need its own currency for 'a while' before it could join the Euro, rather than being able to switch straight from Sterling to the Euro immediately post independence. Something to do with having a measure of the economy's worth before conversion.
Economics isn't my strong point either though I'm afraid.
That makes some sense. Member states have to meet certain criteria before they're allowed to use the euro regarding debt, public spending, GDP and so on. After the Greek debacle, in which these criteria were stretched beyond breaking point, I suspect the ECB or whoever decides will want to be sure the criteria are met, and it's hard to be certain if, for example, Scotland's borrowing costs are artificially constrained because of the BoE role in setting interest rates.
Sounds eminently sensible. I guess that the SNP will bang on about this "sterling currency zone" for a few months yet because they don't want to frighten the horses - they don't want fear of change to set up a momentum against them. Sometime between June and September it'll be quietly dropped and they'll come clean about Euro membership which, after all, is nothing to be afraid of anyway.
I see Vince Cable has said the HQ of RBS would need to be moved to London in the event of a split.Self eveident really.
Looks to me like the big hitters are starting to come off the sidelines and express opinions about the effect on business.
It will be interesting to see if AS comes up with a big business name to show support for the Yes vote...
I think Vince Cable's position on Independence has been clear all along.
As for what the man from BP said, an article from a known pro-independence blogger:
and another one from someone who is still undecided but leaning towards retaining the Union:
In the same way that it is self evident that everything and everyone will have to move to London until the entire population of the country is stacked up 30 stories deep and the whole thing sinks into the clay under the weight.
The No campaign continues to focus on negative scare stories about the possible consequences of a Yes vote. It is cynical but possibly effective electioneering. Just look at any US congressional campaign. There is not a shred of positive attention is being given to those areas where there should be a weight of thought and debate. The opportunity to change and improve things and how that might happen. Health and social care. Education and Skills. Economic growth and job creation. Expanding international trade. New forms of effective local government. All the No campaign has to offer is "business as usual" , economic and political stagnation and a morbid fear of change. Rest assured that the views of the current CEO of BP will change quickly if the Scottish people vote Yes. Or BP will have a new CEO.
It does, but that is a very real risk... its not just scare mongering. Markets do not like uncertainty
And the currency issue as it is leaves a huge amount of uncertainty. If the SNP really want to combat it then they need to show clear strategies. Right now, as this thread has highlighted it has just been 'things will be better'..
Don't know how, or why, but they will..
Yet with no currency set how can there not be uncertainty, and if Scotlands future is to lie with the finance industry leaving this huge question open just is not a good strategy.
Do you not think so?
I accept that it is a big and important question which requires attention. And there are some genuine concerns. I do feel however that we should be able to accept a degree of uncertainty at a time of such momentous change. It may take some time to work out the best solution. And it is important that although the issue is clearly significant it doesn't drown out the very positive discussions about the opportunity which we have to make Scotland an even better place in which to live, work, study or run a business. The tone of the debate just seems to me to be too negative and change is never easy and usually comes with risk and uncertainty. Ultimately it's about degrees of risk and the dividend attached to that risk. I think many of us feel that doing nothing at present is a much more worrying option. Both economically and with reference to the kind of country we want for our kids.
Bunch of arse! You wouldn't accept such a degree of uncertainty in any other life changing decision.
>Seriously? Really need the basis of that worked out in advance, otherwise no-one's making an informed decision.
>.. drown out the very positive discussions about the opportunity which we have to make Scotland an even better place in which to live, work, study or run a business.
- It's only 'positive' in that you're positive that you want it to b like that, but negative in that nobody can provide any actual facts on how it'll be achieved.
>The tone of the debate just seems to me to be too negative
Exactly, the pro-indy side are NOT providing real factual info with which to make a decision.
>and change is never easy and usually comes with risk and uncertainty. >Ultimately it's about degrees of risk and the dividend attached to that risk.
- i.e a huge gamble with everyone's future
>I think many of us feel that doing nothing at present is a much more >worrying option. Both economically and with reference to the kind of >country we want for our kids.
A bit disingenous. We all know that a change like this will cause upheaval for quite a while. your kid's kids may ultimately benefit.
If that were accepted to be the case more widely, I'd have a bit more time for the idea. However, all we get from the SNP is that everything will be fine, and there's nothing to worry about and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering. The unwillingness to accept any elements of doubt or uncertainty is not convincing.
As I said, I would like to see a " big cheese" from the corporate world say Yes to the Yes campaign.
It would do your campaign alot of good. Until then............
I'm just amazed this has been allowed to rumble on. The uncertainty argument is probably the strongest card the unionists have and could be answered by having a clear strategy. It's such a momentous issue. I do wonder if the SNP have an answer.
Currency unions do exist but looking at it the most cost effective option mus be simply keeping one currency whilst we both enter the euro.. but I can't see England adopting that so quickly.
Well they are the No campaign, that's their job, to campaign for the continuation of the union. If they were shouting up the benefits of independence they'd be on the Yes team wouldn't they?
>There is not a shred of positive attention is being given to those areas where there should be a weight of thought and debate.
Surely, the positives about independence should be put across by the Yes campaign.
>Rest assured that the views of the current CEO of BP will change quickly if the Scottish people vote Yes. Or BP will have a new CEO.
You think so? I really wouldn't be holding my breath on that one, the CEO of BP will carry on while his strategies are making money for the shareholders of BP.
Such sophisticated logic seems to go over the head of those Nationalists who are posting on this thread :-) As usual alas... and I think it would be a bit of a certainty that if they did make a load of positive promises about the future within the union the same people would be quick to accuse them of wishful thinking or "promises, promises".
As for companies taking a clear position for or against independence that seems to me to be a bit tricky - people don't usually appreciate it when businesses openly take positions in favour of political parties and whatever happens a company will probably want to continue trading in Scotland whatever happens so I think this reticence is understandable.
Uncertainty is a fairly normal human condition, if we gave in to uncertainty as easily as you do then it would be a very sad world to live in.
34 countries have gained there independence since 1990, mainly as a result of the collapse of the USSR. All of these countries were virtually on the bone of their arses when they entered into their very uncertain futures....can't find any evidence anywhere that shows any of them regretting becoming independent....All of those 34 countries are far better off relative to how they were prior to becoming independent.
Must be really sad to face all life's uncertainties terrified..particularly when the odds are for a very successful out come.
He should probably have said "Scottish corporate world," not someone that lives in Monaco.
Are you seriously claiming that the situation of Scotland is comparable with that of those countries under Soviet control following WW2? Apart from anything else Britain has been an open democracy for many years and people living in Scotland have been free to vote for a different social system for quite a while. Some of them have taken the opportunity to vote for Nationalism, but only quite recently, one MP in 1967 and then more since the 70s, under that magnificently altruistic slogan "It's Scotland's oil!"
BTW, I don't anyone is saying Scotland could not carry on functioning as an independent state, certainly not on this thread anyway.
I wasn't aware that your opinion counts for less depending on where you live. Oh well, at least we can discount most of the posters on here then.
Does he pay taxes in Scotland or Monaco? I believe they are quite reasonable over there.
I thought you were commie!??!!!
Fair enough..very good company....pity he lives in Monaco...so I assume he does not get a vote.
How dare you? We are compassionate, environmentalists, people of the earth, I know of no one in the oil industry who lives without a conscience for the bigger picture. Even Groanpeace put oil on their bike chains and in their outboards.
I presume not. It seems that those without a vote seem to be some of the most vocal in expressing an opinion. I can understand that as those living in Scotland risk a heated discussion with friends should they raise the subject and find they disagree with others.
I've found that many people outside Scotland are interested though and various people asked me about it when I was aboard recently.
Yeh, but the "country," is made up of lots of smaller pieces, each of which would be better looking after themselves. What interest do the agricultural borders have with the deer estates of the northern highlands? The cities and towns of the central belt; what interest in either? I'm all for streamlining, but independent Scotland isn't it.
Another reason to regret the whole subject. What the feelings will be like after the results of the vote are out I hate to think!
On a cruise somewhere?
But you aren't really ruled by London.. military still is, but health, education, law.. a hell of lot has been transferred.
Well it's very common - many states are federations of one form or another so lots of people see reasons you are missing. Mostly I would guess to do with stability, economics, defence, geography and the ability to hold more than one identity.
No to mention powers with the EU, WTO and myriad other organisations. The 19th century style state operating in splendid isolation doesn't happen any more, whatever the SNP and rapid Tories might think.
My understanding is it's about those who live in Scotland, not just Scotsmen, be they English, Polish, Pakistani, French, Estonian, e.t.c Thankfully, as I understand it, it is only residents that can vote
What bollocks! It won't make any difference to my identity, and I didn't vote for the current lot in Edinburgh or Westminster.
The point was a lot of people who'll have a valid vote won't be Scotsmen.
I have no pride or shame in being a Scotsman. It's just something I am. Being proud of your nationality is like being proud of your height. Being Scottish doesn't make anyone inherently excellent or better than anyone else, nor does it make them worse.
Lots of bits of the world were sovereign states (the word "country" doesn't mean very much) and then they decided they were better off, safer, by joining forces with their neighbours. This is the case for Britain, it was even the case for Scotland before that, as it is for Germany, Italy, France etc etc etc. Each bit of all these states could reason like you do, maybe in some cases there could be a some truth in it, some states are maybe too big, but the simple fact that at one historical period an area was a sovereign state doesn't seem an argument that is sufficient to necessarily go back to that temporary historical situation.
Here's something I came across while making sure I had my dates right:
"Scotland was a poor rural, agricultural society with a population of 1.3 million in 1755.
Although Scotland lost home rule, Union allowed it to break free of a stultifying system and opened the way for the Scottish enlightenment as well as a great expansion of trade and increase in opportunity and wealth. Edinburgh economist Adam Smith concluded in 1776 that "By the union with England, the middling and inferior ranks of people in Scotland gained a complete deliverance from the power of an aristocracy which had always before oppressed them." Historian Jonathan Israel holds that the Union "proved a decisive catalyst politically and economically," by allowing ambitious Scots entry on an equal basis to a rich expanding empire and its increasing trade.
Scotland's transformation into a rich leader of modern industry came suddenly and unexpectedly in the next 150 years, following its union with England in 1707 and its integration with the advanced English and imperial economies. The transformation was led by two cities that grew rapidly after 1770. Glasgow, on the river Clyde, was the base for the tobacco and sugar trade with an emerging textile industry. Edinburgh was the administrative and intellectual centre where the Scottish Enlightenment was chiefly based."
I'm not saying it is necessarily true, who knows how reliable Adam Smith and Jonathan Israel were, but it is another opinion and maybe could show that your picture of desperate Scots being forced into Union and their doom may not be the only way of seeing history.
PS. I'm not a nationalist so I don't see how I can be proud of the accident of where I was born, no flags flying above my house, not even a red or black one these days.
And to quote from a section from your link....
"After the negotiations ended on 22 July 1706, the acts had to be ratified by both Parliaments. Scottish proponents of union believed that failure to agree to the treaty would result in the imposition of union under less favourable terms, and English troops were stationed just south of the border and in Ireland as an "encouragement". Months of fierce debate in both capital cities and throughout both kingdoms followed. In Scotland, the debate on occasion dissolved into civil disorder, most notably by the notorious 'Edinburgh Mob'. The prospect of a union of the kingdoms was deeply unpopular among the Scottish population at large, and talk of an uprising was widespread. However the Treaty was signed and the documents were rushed south with a large military escort"
Treaty of the union.
I don't doubt that Scotland went on to prosper a bit after the Union, but who's to say that we wouldn't have done so, as a friendly neighbour of England.
England and some of the southern Scots wanted a protestant Hanoverian King and felt Scotland threatened this, if Scotland challenged the crown by backing the Stewarts then it would likely result in Civil war....plenty of Jacobean battles faught in the highlands leading up to the 1707 union.
Burns puts it well when he says Scotland was sold for English gold....well the Scottish people didn't have a say then, but they do now, and wouldn't it be nice to see that wrong made right?
I have found that any discussion with the 'Better apart' camp leads to very angry exchanges on their side.
This thread hasnt been..
The 'tobacco and sugar trade' was basically slave trading and drug dealing. It may have 'suddenly and unexpectedly transformed' the Scottish economy but I'm not sure it is a consequence of the Union that we should be proud of.
The growth of Liverpool and Bordeaux were largely due to the triangular trade too... nothing to be proud of but that's how we all were back then... a thief was hanged for stealing a piece of cloth at the time too.
The end of Britain.. we'd lose 10%? We keep the better bits.. :-)
But to be honest why should most of England care that much? The quality of life won't change (as I said I don't think it will in Scotland).. it's an issue for Scotland. Those of us who have spent time there, benefited from the union, will care, but the rest? Don't think they'd give a flying shit..
Re the CBA.. there can be no real talk until the SNP release a plan for the currency. Which they must be scared of, hence no plan.
I think if you're a Labour supporter in England or Wales you probably ought to be concerned at the prospect...
I don't think so. It's a different world now. UKIP etc. But, even as someone who doesn't vote Tory, why should the dominant party in England not form the government to make the calls in England.
But to be honest that's just democracy and we should probably actually have an English government to decide English issues, or at least make some votes for English MP's only at the very least. At the moment it is totally undemocratic that Scots can vote on issues which have no impact on them.
If a matter is about something which has been devolved to Wales and Scotland then those MP's should not be voting.
If that's what you think, then you've got a lot more in common with those who support Scottish independence than you perhaps think you do.
Again, you're occupying the same ground as the SNP - their MPs have not voted on devolved matters for many years.
That's the SNP.. many others have. I posted a recent article about English matters which HAVE been crucially affected by votes of Scottish MP's.
I don't think I occupy the same ground. I just think devolved matters should only be decided for the MP's which have a personal issue on it.. as in have a constituency within the area affected. I'm still pro Union.
I think it would be easy enough to ensure English only decisions are only voted on by English MP's, we'd actually not need another system, or new buildings etc.
Why hasn't Westminster bothered to do anything about this (WL Question) then? They could at any time but haven't.
This "no change" idea of your is pretty fanciful I think. I agree to a point though. For the common man, in the immediate term, there might not be much change. It's the likes of the establishment etc that will see the biggest change in the short term and it won't be good for them.
E.g. could the rUK stay a permanent member of the UN Security Council without a realistic plan for nuclear weapons etc.
What are they going to do about that?
Why am I remotely concerned? Em, because it's very relevant to this debate. If you don't think so then just look away.
The point is there is probably more uncertainty about the rUK than there is about Scotland and plenty about the UK itself.
I suspsect (but don't know) that those nukes in Faslane wont be going anywhere regardless of Septembers vote. They will be negotiated to remain in place I reckon. Or it all goes horribly hard ball maybe?
The British Isles is the USAs largest aircraft carrier, plus Germany and Italy It's not unusual for independent countries to host weapons for others in return for something. Not to say it would be very popular, but independence is the goal as far as I can tell, at any cost ;-)
In the short term yes, probably until the end of the trident system but they wont be getting replaced.
Ukraine had a much bigger arsenal when it got independence and they got rid if it relatively quickly.
Anyway, that is Plan A for UK, what is plan B?
Oh don't be silly, rUK would belong to the same organisations the UK belongs to now. The only uncertainty is in your head, you like to pretend there are terrible uncertainties for rUK (even though it would be none of your business) as a distraction.
For some reason I thought the thread was about Scottish independence, not what your neighbours would be doing.
I think rUK not staying a permanent member of the UN security council might not be such a bad thing, it would certainly save a fortune in not playing a part in America's world police forays. The more I look at it, Scottish independence is a win win for Scotland and rUK.
Iain's right though, for the average Englishman who isn't part of the ruling classes or establishment, a yes or no vote in Scotland will make no noticeable difference. Dropping out of the EU would make more of a difference, but I think that is unlikely whether we're UK or rUK.
Fully agree. It would be great if that happened. Sir Chasm is slightly delusional if he thinks you can lose nuclear weapons, the strategic GIUK gap, ship building and so on and all of that equals no change at all on your international standing.
> But you aren't really ruled by London.. military still is, but health, education, law.. a hell of lot has been transferred.
Here's your pocket money sonny, you can spend it on whatever you like.
Sure you can have free prescriptions (but crap roads , Yes to Free Uni education ( But less hospital beds etc.
The purse strings are still held by Westminster so they are in charge.
Your fanciful distractions of what your putative neighbour will do in the event of Scotland's independence are still irrelevant. Concentrate on what you want Scotland to be rather than fretting about another country.
You only had to watch that BBC2 series on submarine warfare to gain a comprehension of the significance of having a nuclear deterrent at Faslane etc.I understand that we now have no hunter killer capability and yet those damm peskie Russians are spending billions on new super silent submarines.
Then get rid of free education.. its not a bottomless pit. I've said continually I just cannot see how Scotland can afford free education. It's a huge black hole.
At the moment its the main point for the 'Scotlands better than england' argument so is being kept. But it has to go. Its just unsustainable unless you cut student numbers? And you think Scottish voters will support that? Less chance of kids in Uni compared to the English?
When independent Scotland economically all goes wrong, which it will, do you expect England to welcome you back into the union with open arms?
> The purse strings are still held by Westminster so they are in charge.
Err... London sets the basic tax. London then gives Edinburgh the money they would spend on devolved stuff if it wasn't devolved. Scotland gets a little more than the national average. The only way for Scotland to get more money would be to have more tax, which they are free to do if they wish .
 see Barnett formula
 see Scottish Variable Rate aka 'tartan tax'
Sorry obviously not directed at you Iain.
The Admiral Kuznetzov (their aircraft carrier) has now twice been to the Moray Firth and the Royal Navy had no answer as they have no ships apart from mine hunters based in Scotland. So much for the maritime nation.
? Did you expect them to sink it?
I'm sure an independent Scotland's 5th carrier fleet would have done the job in no time.
Didn't they send a ship up from down south? I don't follow these things closely but that was my impression.
All daft willy waving of course, but presumably making sure you've a full spectrum of naval whatsits officially based in Scottish waters is only something to care about if you hold strong views for independence? Otherwise, what's the problem?
What would RN's 'answer' be anyway - a display of expensive hardwear in the firth for the benefit of the cameras?
If there is a currency union (which was the starting point of this thread) then the BoE will be having a major say in how much tax you raise and spend similar to the role of the ECB in Ireland. Saor Alba will no doubt come along and tell us that is a much better situation for Scotland than the present one, but I don't think you'd feel markedly different.
No, did you?
Yes, I think it took about 24 hours to get there.
It's not really a problem but does go to show that there is no great RN presence in Scotland.
Choices, choices. Alternatively, paid-for prescriptions for certain sectors of the population, with some money for the roads, paid-for university education and more hospital beds. It's the Scottish Government that's decided the priorities, and there's only ever going to be so much money to go round.
I'm just confused at the point your trying to make. One minute the RN entire nuclear arsenal is a scourge on Scottish waters, nxt minute you say there is no great presence of RN in Scotland?
I think you are trying to poke fun at Britains Royal Navy, but not sure why.
As far as I'm aware we aren't at war with Russia so what does it matter that one of their boats is in our waters? was it trying to fish for cod illegally ?
Never knew that. I would be more concerned about their submarines. After all some shore to sea missiles or even a submarine torpedo could soon knock out an aircraft carrier in the Moray Firth.
Who knows what the future holds, its the ongoing argument for keeping that form of capability.
I am saying that Trident is a waste of money and not much use and that surface vessels are useful. In Scotland we have the useless, expensive one and dont have the cheaper, useful one. And importantly, we have no control over any of it regardless of which is better. That is the key issue.
You really think Russians were a threat? They can hit Scotland from Russia..
TBH modern navy aren't needed around the shores of the UK for that. We need it for rescue, smuggling issues. Not military threats.
No. I am not saying that. Please read my posts.
I am.. why do we need an answer to a ship in our waters?
We could have an air strike anyway? But seriously its there, so what?
> Frightening really.
The royal navy currently operates 2 Astute class submarines and 5 Trafalgar class. There are four more Astute class being built, and another one on order after that. These are fleet submarines, or 'hunter killer' as you put it. The astute class are a very modern and very quiet, the Americans are even swallowing their pride and getting BAE to build the pump-jets for their new Virginia class. The new Russian Yasen class boats are probably nosier than the Astutes - mostly because they use a propeller not a pump-jet - but given the secretive nature of these things, not many people will know for sure.
The nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines are the Vanguard class, and there are four of them.
Fascinating. I was told the Russians are building some which will go down to 2,000 feet and throwing billions at it, is that right?
Not sure.. of course their would be job losses.. the rUK would prefer to contract to rUK companies?
The thing is the disadvantages in practical (rather than emotional) terms consist of a whole slew of small things. Each one can be claimed to be insignificant and not worth bothering with (as in that article) while ignoring that taken together the effect will be substantial. By contrast the yes comapaign is all about one big fluffy promise, which is easier to sell.
The Yasen class has a test depth of 600m or about 2000 feet. The first one cost $1.6bn, the second one looks like it'll be double that, despite being more or less identical.
The Astute class has a test depth of "over 300m", which means the real number is classified, it's probably not 600m though. Cost is £1.1bn each for the first three, though that's expected to go down as they build more.
Yasens can probably dive deeper. Astute is probably much quieter. Yasen might be 5-10kts or so faster. Astute probably has a better sonar suite. Yasen has vertical tubes for cruse missiles. Astute probably has better torpedoes. They have one Yasen and one under construction, we have two Astutes and four under construction. The British 'punisher' course is renowned for producing good submarine commanders. I doubt anyone knows which boat is truly better. The french Barracuda class, and the American Seawolf and Virginia class are supposed to be very good boats too.
Perhaps when the next president gets off the nest, it may be worth a chat. Better together?
I couldn't agree more; I take no pride at all in my nationality. I love Scotland for its landscapes and its light, and think it's a pretty good place in which to live (although my patience gets tried in weather like the last few weeks), but that's another matter.
Ever noticed, though, that the head of the Better Together campaign - Alistair Darling is always telling us that he's a "proud Scot"? So is the Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael. So is Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader. In fact, every Scottish pro-Union politician seems to be at particular pains to point out their pride in being Scottish. It's as if they feel they have got something to prove.
Will it ? Bit of spiteful wishful thinking there Al.....I'd rather eat sea weed and rats than ask England for assistance, but to be honest, I think it's much more likely to be England asking for assistance from Scotland.
You see, I don't get that attitude (or that of Al's). I think that if Scotland were to become independent, it ought to be possible to have civilised, respectful relations between the two countries.
When did the UK last ask a country for economic assistance?
Not a country, but it had to go to the IMF for a loan in the mid-70s.
Put any other country's name but England's into this sentence, and the racism is obvious even to you.
Why do you think it's so big and clever to hate us?
probably the Yanks back in the 40's
I'm sure England will cope very well along side Wales and Northern Ireland ,and so will Scotland as an independent country....wouldn't it be nice if Scotland and the remaining ruk managed to get on, I'd like to think so, but I fear that bitter reprisals are in store.
Er, what? You express your hatred of the English, I point out that you're being a racist, and that's *me* "using the racist card"?
You're very strange.
I love the Scottish people, and they deserve their independence of they want it.
I love the Scottish people too, and they deserve a better future than separatism can offer them.
How would you know how I love the Scots? Come to that, how would you know how I love my pets?
You don't know anything about me, and you have already proved that your judgements about anyone English are likely to be distorted by your blind hatred of the English.
>very typical Britnat statement that
There you go again, corralling people into prefabricated groups using hate-speech vocabulary.
I'm not going to play your games. They're too silly for words.
Sorry Tim, only posted that to try and get Mariah Carey next to this thread:-) Epic fail:-)
You've worked it this time, though :-)
Quote: "Then I spotted the tweet, the one I had been waiting for: "The bad news is Cornwall is cut off from England. On the other hand, the good news is Cornwall is cut off from England". Wuh! Hell up!
You see, we've always felt different in Cornwall. Not just cut off. The majority of us don't feel especially English, which really winds some outsiders up because they think it means we don't like them. It's why squillions of people come to Cornwall every year! Our history, our language, our culture, our sports, our people … we're Cornish before we're anything else. Without that rail link, we may well be cut off, but because communities pull together for each other, we're even more Cornish now."
Don't take a look at the Cornish. Take a look at yourself.
Just another daft, arrogant, bastard who professes to speak for all "his" people.
I personally think the Cornish thing is very relevant.
I thought that this quote was particularly interesting......"The majority of us don't feel especially English, which really winds some outsiders up because they think it means we don't like them"
You could take out the word English and replace it with UK and it then pretty much describes the reaction of most of the Britnats towards Nationalists.
What, all of them?!
Let's not forget how desperately and sycophantically willing we are to lead the way with illegal invasions,genocidal sanctions and forced regime change of scores of sovereign countries.All to benefit our multi-nationals of which Iraq and Libya are some of the more recent examples http://rt.com/news/libya-rebuild-contracts-uk-385/though you can trace back as far as you want and which ever region you want.
I agree and perhaps we can ditch Nato membership after a possible Independance vote.
I don't see what this means, isn't the word "britnats" supposed to mean "British nationalists" as some Scottish nationalists like to call people who are for maintaining Britain as it is?
It looks to me as if you are the one 'coralling people into (your) prefabricated groups' by trying to make out he is a racist for making an innocent and humorous comment like that.
But then you have much previous for trying and failing to 'coral people
into your prefabricated groups' don't you Tim?
So you really have become a Nationalist now? Mind you, you wouldn't be the first left winger to move to the extreme right - Mussolini, Doriot etc. Sad all the same.
When we were basically on our own against Hitler? yeah that was a UK failure!
Come on Bruce i'm no nationalist and you know it,you also know why i think we should be free of the Tories we always suffer from but never vote for.
Don't get me wrong my party,the Communist Party want a no vote but i have my reasons for wanting a yes vote of which the above point plays a big part.
My religion requires me to answer Yes to that :-0
No one hates you Tim. You have just imagined it and find it convenient to use against people you disagree with. Please don't use such strong language and try to resist racism that is in your head only.
You are meant to be working for a positive campaign and are instead just slagging others off.
So, did I imagine this?
Whose is the 'strong language'? Who's the negative one here? Who's doing the slagging off?
My reading is that he doesn't want to ask England for support. I think it's nonsense to suggest he hates the English on that basis.
It's similar to your suggestion above about vitriol - nonsense.
Don't try and defend the indefensible. He's a bigoted small minded racist. Try "I rather eat rats than except help from blacks" for comparison
Is English a race?
Do you have no sense of humour?
Its pushing towards it, its incredibly small minded at best.
Of course he hates the english.. that statement couldn't be clearer.
Elsewhere on the site
More than 20 years after first setting eyes on the peak and noting it as a potential objective, Mick Fowler, with Paul Ramsden,... Read more
This streamlined, midweight thermal layer has an incredibly speedy moisture wicking ability and dries ultra fast if it gets... Read more
Last year, Finn McCann wrote an article about climbing El Capitan with his terminally ill father Seamus, who had been... Read more
October 21, 2014 – Textile Exchange, a global nonprofit dedicated to sustainability in the apparel and textile industry,... Read more
The B.D.V. — short for Black Diamond Vertical — jacket and pants are Black Diamond’s most versatile climbing... Read more