Jump to content
Adblockers - please click ×
Sign in to follow this  
maqroll

Scottish Independence

Recommended Posts

 

What they can't have is a currency union that makes the UK (taxpayers) liable for whatever financial scrapes a new iScotland gets itself into.

I think that's a bit of a red herring, really - as much at least as the counter threat from the SNP (Salmond himself?) about liabilities for existing sterling debt.

How much of what is being trotted out by Salmond and Sturgeon on the one hand and Osborne, Carney et al. on the other is simply electioneering (and positioning for any post election negotiations) or is laying out 'the facts'? I fear that it very little of the latter, unfortunately.

 

Not a red herring at all, does the UK underwrite the current and future liabilities of a foreign nation, or not? That is what a currency union will mean after all, the BoE being the lender of last resort for Scotland.  As for Scotland refusing to take their share of UK national debt, they could do that which is why last month the Treasury told the markets that they would guarantee ALL of it.

 

But with a new currency, or using Sterling like the Panama / USD arrangement, how is Scotland going to borrow money on the international markets having started life as a defaulting nation?  They can't simply join the Euro on independence day plus one, so Salmond is falling back on the line that the UK is "bluffing", which it's not.

 

The truly incredible thing is that after decades of campaigning for independence, the Scots Nats have nothing in place, no plans, no ideas beyond 'the SNP says and the rest of the world falls into line'.  Salmond and his cronies are utterly deluded, the question is whether an avalanche of tartan clad lemmings are ready to follow them over a cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with a new currency, or using Sterling like the Panama / USD arrangement, how is Scotland going to borrow money on the international markets having started life as a defaulting nation?  They can't simply join the Euro on independence day plus one, so Salmond is falling back on the line that the UK is "bluffing", which it's not.

Firstly, the how is just the point I'm making but I'd widen it to a lack of how on the 'pro - No' political side as well as the Scots Nats.

There doesn't seem to be much of a discussion (at least in public) of how things would proceed after the vote and the mechanism for debate over what might have to happen next ought to be part of the 'campaigns', surely?

Would they be a defaulting nation? Surely they would have to borrow some money as a separate nation first in order to default on that?

I specifically said a bit of a red herring as all of the talk on both sides presents a binary choice about the details of life and the relationship between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK after a yes vote (rather than a complete red herring which would suggest that these positions ought not to be thought about now, of course they should).

The ballot paper may give such a choice to the public; there would be more choices on the table to the politicians in any aftermath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland want to have their cake and eat it, if they get it, fair play! Good on them. Hopefully the rest of the UK public will realise that the crooks in Westminster have fractured the UK and Bicks' revolution happens.

If Scotland do vote for independence the potential for revolution gets stronger imo
I see it as a kind of a revolution in Scotland. If the Scottish people vote to sever the ties I can't think of a bigger vote of no confidence in our political system. It will reflect completely disenfranchised population saying enough is enough. It might turn out well for them, it might not, but they're willing to take the jump because they're fed up with the status quo.
Sorry but theres no way its a revolution of any kind, its nationalism, it really wouldn't matter who was in power in the UK or if the whole system changed, the 25% of the Scots that genuinely hate the English and are blinded to all reason would still be banging the same drum.
I don't see it that way. I don't think it's a Scotland England thing at all. I think it's a demonstration of how Westminster politics has failed people of a particular geographical region, who unlike people in the many other deprived areas, have the mechanisms to enable change.

The place was a Tory stronghold until its industry was decimated, later it's oil privatised. The argument that this region can't sustain itself is no argument against independence, it's quite the opposite to the poor folk who live there and have seen years of decline.

Or maybe you're right, maybe it's about foaming nationalists who hate England...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But with a new currency, or using Sterling like the Panama / USD arrangement, how is Scotland going to borrow money on the international markets having started life as a defaulting nation?  They can't simply join the Euro on independence day plus one, so Salmond is falling back on the line that the UK is "bluffing", which it's not.

Firstly, the how is just the point I'm making but I'd widen it to a lack of how on the 'pro - No' political side as well as the Scots Nats.

There doesn't seem to be much of a discussion (at least in public) of how things would proceed after the vote and the mechanism for debate over what might have to happen next ought to be part of the 'campaigns', surely?

The onus for answering "what if" scenarios rests squarely with the YesNP.  So far that seems to consist of insulting everyone who disagrees with their view of how things should be, without providing any plan B (hint, they ain't got one).

Would they be a defaulting nation? Surely they would have to borrow some money as a separate nation first in order to default on that?

It's true the BoE's name is on the debt, however every man and his dog (and more importantly their banker) knows that a portion of that debt should be divided with the breakaway state that helped to accrue it. Should they play fast and loose with that they'd be lucky to borrow the cash for a bottle of buckfast and a deep fried mars bar on the markets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of Scotland isn't what you'd call deprived.

Their industry has probably been less decimated than the rest of the UK, at the expense of other parts of the UK even. I've lost count of how many times shipbuilding has been leaving the Clyde

It is about foaming nationalists, it always was even in the 70's, fortunately they are still in the minority despite all Sean Connery's money and hypocrisy. Its only foaming nationalists that would be having this discussion and not being able to see that their argument gets blown apart at every turn and their only response is.. you're bullying us? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus for answering "what if" scenarios rests squarely with the YesNP.

I'm not talking about 'what if' scenarios (in terms of what if there isn't a currency union, what if they can't join the EU, what if we decide to invade for the oil, &c.) - I'm talking about the practicalities, i.e. the mechanisms by which any breaking up of the union would have to proceed if there were a yes vote.

You've already heaped criticism upon them for setting out their one sided view of what they would want after any vote in their favour now you say that the directions about process ought to be for them to come up with? 

It's true the BoE's name is on the debt, however every man and his dog (and more importantly their banker) knows that a portion of that debt should be divided with the breakaway state that helped to accrue it.

I'm not so sure that 'what everyone knows' is terribly important. Does everyone know how this would be apportioned? No, because as far as I'm aware there is nothing firm about it - that would tend to suggest that it's something for a negotiating table (probably alongside any previously dismissed idea of currency union).

Should they play fast and loose with that they'd be lucky to borrow the cash for a bottle of buckfast and a deep fried mars bar on the markets.

What counts as 'fast and loose'? Not accepting whatever, potentially, the UK would unilaterally decide was reasonable?

Though comical, the 'couldn't borrow enough for buckfast and a deep fried mars bar' routine just comes across as an unnecessary, hysterical counter to the ludicrous claims made by Salmond et al.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University, said: "Only ten per cent of UK business is with Scotland, whereas 40 per cent of it is with the eurozone and 20 per cent of it is with the US. On the SNP's own analysis, then, it would make four times as much sense for the UK to adopt the euro and twice as much sense to seek a currency union with the USA than ... with Scotland."

"Thus when the true scale of UK trade is understood SNP insistence that a currency union is in the UK's best interests ring hollow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't give a **** either way what happens, but I do think it will have a strong bearing on the longevity of the monarchy in the uk. The two are historically entwined and intrinsically linked. The royals will be bricking it if Scotland pulls away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't give a **** either way what happens, but I do think it will have a strong bearing on the longevity of the monarchy in the uk. The two are historically entwined and intrinsically linked. The royals will be bricking it if Scotland pulls away.

 

I doubt that, but if you're right I hope Scotland votes yes! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland want to have their cake and eat it, if they get it, fair play! Good on them. Hopefully the rest of the UK public will realise that the crooks in Westminster have fractured the UK and Bicks' revolution happens.

If Scotland do vote for independence the potential for revolution gets stronger imo
How so? Surely removing a block of people who don't vote tory lowers the potential for revolution?
Tories win more and more elections, carry out more ideological policies, people become more disenfranchised than ever…. Booom!

You seem to have missed the bit where I pointed out that labour would have still won a majority in 97, 2001 and 2005 without Scotland

But carry on ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Libs take their ball and go home on the changes because they didn't get their way on free wind farms for every pensioner or something ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they? must haves missed that, not shocked though as I think they lost something like 11 seats before Nick Clegg had got on his knees in front of Cameron and opened his mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can **** off; I'm not paying ten quid for haggis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: no. Not getting involved in political discussion actually.

you are Ed Balls and I claim my £5 :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: no. Not getting involved in political discussion actually.

you are Vince Cable and I claim my £5 :P

Fixed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Edit: no. Not getting involved in political discussion actually.

you are Vince Cable and I claim my £5 :P

 

Fixed

 

No argument from me  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question,  if they go and they do it without the pound I would say they are going to fail. (They are a sidecar choosing to leave the motorcycle) but when they inevitably fail and fall on their arse would there be a way back in for them at any point ? Could it be turned around so we have a referendum on if they can come back in ?  (Now that result would be funny,  I would say 80 % plus of English people would want them out but thats a guess,  maybe we should have a poll ?) 

 

Also,  they claim that they will keep the pound no matter what,  even if Westminster says no:  That has got to be illegal somewhere along the line ? If that's the case then Wales could just start using the Dollar if it went also ? + if someone from England went to Scotland (Fook knows why but ...) and went into a shop can we legally buy something using a currency that does not exist in the country i am spending it in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also,  they claim that they will keep the pound no matter what,  even if Westminster says no:  That has got to be illegal somewhere along the line ? If that's the case then Wales could just start using the Dollar if it went also ? + if someone from England went to Scotland (Fook knows why but ...) and went into a shop can we legally buy something using a currency that does not exist in the country i am spending it in.  

 

The scottish government could demand its taxes are paid in whatever currency it likes. If it has lots of british pounds in the system already then it can just keep using them, it would not be able to influence the bank of England though so it wouldn't have any control over interest rates or quantitive easing anymore.

 

Some countries do operate that way though. Montenegro use the Euro in that way dispite not being a part of the European Union.

 

I suspect it would be a short term solution until they could apply to rejoin the EU and take up the Euro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â