I am in favour of independence purely for the reason Westminster would lose loads of Labour and SNP MP's which would mean more likelyhood of continual tory rule in England

The usual insightful analysis we've come to expect from Buzzjack's most bone-headed member.

The usual insightful analysis we've come to expect from Buzzjack's most bone-headed member.

 

I have never lived in Scotland, not my business what the scots people decide to do or not do, i can only comment on what affects me and that does, in a good way

 

As long as the price of haggis doesn't shoot up (one of my fave foods) it doesn't bother me what they vote for

Edited December 2, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

"Rule". Quite an interesting word that Craig, says a lot.

I would assume that Scots and UK subjects would be treated in a similar way to the agreement with Ireland.

 

There are a number of countries that use the US dollar so it really shouldn't be a big deal if Scotland wishes to use the pound. After all, Ireland continued to do so until 1979 when they joined the ERM but the UK stayed out.

 

I'd guess the dollar countries are more like fleas against a juggernaut and not likely to affect the USA well-being?

Scotland is quite sizeable: more of a big deal if they expect (as seems to be the case) the UK to essentially be guarantor to Scottish banks (a 'foreign' nation). Assume RBS or BOS go bankrupt (again) and Scottish parliament hasn't enough cash to bail them out - that leaves London as rescuer or let the pound go down with the sinking ship. Scotland would benefit from the joint currency, not so sure the UK would.... and who prints the money? What if Scotland doesnt like the devaluation (printing money) tactics of Westminster? Can't be allowed to print their own pounds as that would affect inflation and goods prices in the UK. Just seems like a potential mess to me....

 

I think it should marketed honestly, and that should mean total independence with all that that entails, or stay as part of the UK, not some sort of half-hearted sort-of-but-not-quite-independence-where-it-doesn't-suit-us. Otherwise the Uk citizen is going to have to vote to agree to accept the conditions for independence where it affects the UK?

 

Not anti-scottish by the way, I want 'em to stay! Better for everyone, I hope.

The main export of Scotland, Oil, is priced in £. Hence why we would be wanting to keep it at least for the short to intermediate period. (So as not to disrupt the price with uncertainty over the strength of the currency) The case for keeping it is actually pretty good. Over and above oil, we are a small island and the amount of trade done between Scotland and England is vast (We produce the oil and more electricity than you or we need) so it would be beneficial to both sides to not be subject to exchange rate fluctuations. Plus you don't want a violent sudden split upon I-Day. Ideally you'd want things to be phased in with the final ties in law being ceremonially cut on I-Day.

 

There has been countless cases over the years of separate nations with a shared history entering into a currency union, that's not the Eurozone. Benelux has been in various economic unions etc over the years. And Scotland's role models, Scandinavia, have been in so many currency unions it's unreal. There is a reason Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland's currencies all translate into English as 'Crown'.

 

I would imagine that we would eventually join the Eurozone after it settles down and the house is gotten in order.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...sh-independence

 

Actually, the more you hear from the No lot the less they sound like an unreasonable spouse and the more they sound like Dad. Grow up, they argue. Flouncing out of the United Kingdom like this, and anyway it's not as if you're decamping to the Mediterranean, is it? You're still IN SCOTLAND. Just a gobby teenager stropping off to her bedroom. It's a rebellious phase you're going through, a gesture of defiance. Well, GREAT. Some of us love that. Crusty England laying down the law, attractive young Scotland giving it the finger.

 

*.*

As Silas suggested, there's plenty of currencies that are interlinked without necessarily being the same. There are variations of the dollar all over the Americas, I'd guess that some are tied to the US$ and some aren't. I don't see any reason why the Scottish pound could be any different.

...but nobody's answered the basic question about banks, currency and bankruptcy. Nor that what the people of Scotland might WANT is not what the people of the rest of the UK might be prepared to allow...

 

Not so much a mutually discussed agreement on the best way forward, more of a "This is what we want and we don't need to bother discussing it with you matey".

 

First on the agenda RBS can very much stay in Scotland and come off the UK tax payers life support.....

The main export of Scotland, Oil, is priced in £. Hence why we would be wanting to keep it at least for the short to intermediate period. (So as not to disrupt the price with uncertainty over the strength of the currency) The case for keeping it is actually pretty good. Over and above oil, we are a small island and the amount of trade done between Scotland and England is vast (We produce the oil and more electricity than you or we need) so it would be beneficial to both sides to not be subject to exchange rate fluctuations. Plus you don't want a violent sudden split upon I-Day. Ideally you'd want things to be phased in with the final ties in law being ceremonially cut on I-Day.

 

There has been countless cases over the years of separate nations with a shared history entering into a currency union, that's not the Eurozone. Benelux has been in various economic unions etc over the years. And Scotland's role models, Scandinavia, have been in so many currency unions it's unreal. There is a reason Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland's currencies all translate into English as 'Crown'.

 

I would imagine that we would eventually join the Eurozone after it settles down and the house is gotten in order.

 

True enough, on trade and D-Day.

 

Currency-wise, though, for example Norway (were it's biggest bank to go bankrupt) would not be dependent on Swedish currency nor Sweden's central bank to bail them out, or any other closely-linked currency. Very happy to use them as a model. That's not what's being reported as proposed though. If it goes tits-up, the pound is under threat and Westminster has to bail (assuming it's a Scottish-only problem). Being the voice of doom and gloom, they said it would never happen in 2006 and it did. Nothing has been fixed, the economy is still as much in debt and any world-crisis could easily tip things over badly again. Frankly, I wouldn't trust bankers or regulators as far as I could throw them. I would, of course, throw them a long way if it were down a cliffside, as that's what they've done to the rest of us.

 

Ah, happy days! B-)

It won't happen anyway, the scots wont bite the hand that feeds

 

The NO movement have a 10 point lead, Labour has an 8 point lead and no one on here gives the tory party a chance of winning the next election so i dont see why people think a 10 point lead for staying part of the UK will disappear

It won't happen anyway, the scots wont bite the hand that feeds

 

The NO movement have a 10 point lead, Labour has an 8 point lead and no one on here gives the tory party a chance of winning the next election so i dont see why people think a 10 point lead for staying part of the UK will disappear

A few months before the last Scottish parliament elections Labour had a comfortable lead yet the SNP won a massive victory. Whether you like him or not Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician and should not be underestimated. If he does what I suspect and announces that a Yes vote will be followed by a second referendum on the specific negotiated settlement, I think there is still a very real prospect of him winning next year.

Not to mention that rough estimates of long term polling has the numbers as 30% YES, 40% NO and 30% Aye Dae Ken.

 

A 30% undecided vote is so very much higher than any equivalent number at a General Election. That is why the 10% lead is nothing anyone is taking for granted. A 10% lead at a General election would be unassailable but this is a simple Yes/No referendum. It's like comparing apples and granite.

 

 

Plus as Suede rightly pointed out. In February 2011 Labour were on course to end the SNP minority administration (just) with a Labour minority administration or, more likely, a Lib/Lab coalition, again. On election night the tide had turned so much that the SNP landed a majority administration in the electoral system designed specifically to ensure that never ever happens. The way the list section is made up is that if a party, in theory, wins every constituent seat then it can't win a list seat. In the North East, the SNP won every seat. Their % of the vote was so high that they also won a list seat to ensure it was proportionally representative of the votes.

 

Alex Salmond is a political machine, heavily underestimated, and far better than any other UK politician at what he does. I was the only person that predicted a SNP victory on here 5 months out from the election because of Salmond. I'm certainly not ruling out a YES victory...

Exactly, how you can possibly call a result now Craig when there are so many undecided voters and a narrow margin between the yes and no sides? I don't think you can draw parallels with the predictions for the 2015 general election (which incidentally I don't see being better for the Tories than another hung parliament), when the GE has many complexities far beyond a simple Yes/No referendum.

Yeah, I agree with the last few posts.

 

I'm still very worried about this. I've seen people compare it to the AV Referendum and use just that one referendum to say "British people always vote for the status quo in referendums", but I think that logic is a bit faulty tbh.

Nicola Sturgeon was speaking at the University of St Andrews today about this white paper. I was lucky enough to get to go along and see her. It was really very good. She spoke well, she was funny and she made a lot of sense. Even got to meet her at the end!

Didn't you absolutely detest the SNP a few years ago? :P

 

I agree, Nicola Sturgeon has always seemed impressive whenever I've ever seen her on TV. One of the few politicians in the country who actually seems to give simple, straight answers to questions rather than trying to desperately evade the question or waffle on about nothing to make herself sound more intelligent, and she actually seems to have the balls to go against the media consensus on occasion (I remember one Question Time where within the space of half an hour she managed to say immigration and benefits were both Good Things, which would give the spin doctors of most British parties seizures).

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by Danny

Indeed I did!

 

 

She was like that in the Q&A session after her speech. Direct answers, a bit of humour, and not afraid to stand for what she believes in. She repeated the need for 'sensible migration' saying that it was essential for the growth of the working population. She also reiterated the childcare policy and the benefits of it (estimated at £700m in additional tax revenue a year by providing free childcare to under 5's) alongside why she things a currency union will happen (makes sense to both sides. No oil in sterling reduces the balance of payments and devalues the sterling. England and Scotland are also massive trading partners with Scotland being England's second largest export market after the USA.), and why the SNP think we'll stay in the EU (it's set up for enlargement, no actual protocol for leaving, will be an EU nation until I-Day anyway so would be unprecedented for them to remove the EU status of citizens that have voted to keep it).

 

Was very enjoyable actually. BBC Scotland were there so it should appear on the news (in scotland) somewhere.

Latest poll shows the yes to independence side now just 6% behind "no".

 

Eek.

It was always going to happen. The No vote has to do something other than scaremongering to win. Now let's just see if it's an outlier or a trend caused by Labour admitting that economically speaking they would be little different from the condems re cuts and austerity.

Latest poll shows the yes to independence side now just 6% behind "no".

 

Eek.

If another poll confirms this trend rather than it being a rogue poll, then it should at least make the debate more interesting. It might even force the No campaign to come up with some positive reasons for remaining within the UK.