Scottish Independence

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

 

One of the big questions is Currency Union and the latest YouGov poll has 51% of Scots siding with Salmond that the Lib/Lab/Cons are bluffing and won't stop it in the case of a YES vote.

Voting on assumption of bluffing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State#Currency

The currency thing is a non-runner tbh. If London really want to be a dick and arbitrarily restrict the currency somehow, against the wishes of the Bank of England, it will cost them billions of pounds. Absolutely no advantages. Ireland basically kept using the pound post-independence, under much less friendly circumstances, and nobody batted an eye-lid. Ecuador uses the USD. Nobody bats an eye-lid.

That's not a currency union though. They can keep using UK pounds and trade for them etc but it will be a foreign currency. They won't have any control over interest rates set by the bank of England or have the option of a lender of last resort like they would if the UK agreed a union.

Aye, yeah, but the distinction between formal currency union versus informal currency union isn't that big imho. No control over interest rates, yes, but part of the argument for a currency union is that their business cycles are nearly identical, so monetary policy would be close to identical anyway.

 

 

On the contrary, it's enormous. Look at the effort Germany has expended in the Eurozone trying to ensure that no members default on their debts. Then consider, using your example, whether anybody in the Federal Reserve could give the faintest toss what Ecuador does with its debts. 

 

The point is not that an independent Scotland couldn't use the pound. Obviously, they could. The point is that having spent decades complaining that London doesn't consider Scotland when making policy decisions, the Nationalists have turned round and proposed a currency solution that would involve London absolutely definitely never considering Scotland when making macroeconomic policy decisions. 

 

It's also worth reminding people that this was nobody's preferred option, that the Nats initially wanted an independent currency, until they realised it didn't poll well, and subsequently wanted to join the Euro, until that turned into a disaster. We're on at least Plan D at this point. 

[peterms]

Exactly.  Also worth bearing in mind that after independence, the economies won't be so closely aligned, with the Scottish economy being much more dependent on oil than the UK is at present.  This mean that as oil prices go up and down (and it's pretty volatile), there's more chance of rUK policy not being what Scotland wants.

 

And of course the aim of independence is to move Scotland in a different direction, not mimic rUK, so over time we should expect to see business cycles diverge for this reason too.

 

Another very big difference between monetary union and shadowing a currency is that one gives the protection of creating the currency and being able to act as lender of last resort, the other doesn't.  That's a pretty significant difference.

 

Shadowing the £ means acquiring what will then be foreign currency (£s), and being able to acquire enough to defend against the kind of speculative attacks that "the markets" engage in when they smell blood.  It's a very weak and highly risky situation to put yourself in.

 

Without an independent currency, there will be no independence; in fact, greater dependency than at present.

[RunRickyRun]

 

Will people still cheer for Andy Murray at Wimbledon?

 

Do the English actualy cheer for this miserable git?

 

Do you think Scots would cheer on Lewis Hamilton?

 

The English athletes received 'home' support at the Commonwealth games.

 

The Irish cheered Nicola Adams to Gold in 2012. Not a peep was heard when GSTQ was played at Croke Park.

 

Its a bit of a myth that there's this animosity between the peoples of these islands (football aside).

[Awol]

Exactly.  Also worth bearing in mind that after independence, the economies won't be so closely aligned, with the Scottish economy being much more dependent on oil than the UK is at present.  This mean that as oil prices go up and down (and it's pretty volatile), there's more chance of rUK policy not being what Scotland wants.

 

And of course the aim of independence is to move Scotland in a different direction, not mimic rUK, so over time we should expect to see business cycles diverge for this reason too.

 

Another very big difference between monetary union and shadowing a currency is that one gives the protection of creating the currency and being able to act as lender of last resort, the other doesn't.  That's a pretty significant difference.

 

Shadowing the £ means acquiring what will then be foreign currency (£s), and being able to acquire enough to defend against the kind of speculative attacks that "the markets" engage in when they smell blood.  It's a very weak and highly risky situation to put yourself in.

 

Without an independent currency, there will be no independence; in fact, greater dependency than at present.

Not only. Without a formal currency union with rUK, which we know won't happen, iScotland will not have a Central Bank as lender of last resort thereby disqualifying it from meeting one the major criteria set out for EU membership. 

 

Senior EU bods themselves are saying iScotland would take at least 5 years to get back into the club, and that's assuming no other state tried to block their entry as a new country - far from guaranteed. Still, at least the Nats can paint themselves blue and howl "Freeeedom!" as their formerly stable and prosperous country disappears down the crapper.  

 

I blame that twunt Gibson.

[MakemineVanilla]

Can some kind Scot explain the function of the Barnett formula?

 

It is often presented as Scotland being handed £1500 extra per head of population than the English get.

 

Is that true or is it just in lieu of other monies the Scots don't get, which the English do?

[chrisp65]

Can some kind Scot explain the function of the Barnett formula?

 

It is often presented as Scotland being handed £1500 extra per head of population than the English get.

 

Is that true or is it just in lieu of other monies the Scots don't get, which the English do?

 

The Barnett formula was a temporary administrative 'fix' to try and get parity for the regions. It's more art than science. The fact that it still exists shows that it's an awkward accommodation of lots of areas with no definitive fair answer possible.

To say Scotland gets more than England is much too simplistic, there are regions of England that get more than Scotland, such as the south east and the south west.

It's partly down to rural communities being sponsored by cities as large conurbations are cheaper to run, but that's not the whole story as I think the areas that benefit most out of all groups from Barnett are actually London and N. Ireland. But I haven't looked at it for a little while so that might have been tweeked.

[lapal_fan]

I reckon when push comes to shove, and the Scotch public are in the booths voting, they'll vote against Independence.

 

Have the overwhelming majority really got anything that's going to be so much different if they were independent?

 

I think like most of us in the UK, a lot of people are a little frightened of change.  Especially something so significant.

 

You'll get the people who know it's worth something to them voting for independence, and the ill informed people will throw some towards it, but I'm pretty confident most people will look at this and think, is it really worth it?

Edited September 8, 2014 by lapal_fan

[MakemineVanilla]

According to a study by Kemp and Stephen (Aberdeen) of the various laws which would determine what share of North Sea oil should be allocated to Scotland, they produce the following graph:

 

 

 

If Scotland were to be allocated between 75%-90% of North Sea oil, their gdp per capita would be amongst the very highest in Europe (3rd) (UK 8th).  

[DiegoD]

So as someone who has no idea about the history of the relationship between England and Scotland could someone give me a high level explanation of why independence has become a big issue and what are the advantages and disadvantages. 

[chrisp65]

So as someone who has no idea about the history of the relationship between England and Scotland could someone give me a high level explanation of why independence has become a big issue and what are the advantages and disadvantages. 

 

You know how sometimes on a Saturday night there will be a man and a woman fighting in the street?

The bloke is a big bully and doesn't treat her right. The woman is a slapper who's married above her league and has a mouth on her.

They've been together for years and hate each other and wish the other one would **** off and have the bruises to show it.

 

Never ever intervene in that fight.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Babymaker3000 was successfully inseminated again. If that news doesn't keep the union together, I don't know what will.

Edited September 8, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[MakemineVanilla]

So as someone who has no idea about the history of the relationship between England and Scotland could someone give me a high level explanation of why independence has become a big issue and what are the advantages and disadvantages. 

 

Well the last great nationalist idea which the Scots thought up was the Darien scheme (1690) which inspired the hope that they could make some easy money from forming a colony near where the Panama canal is today, by taxing goods moving through it.

 

When they actually got there, they found it was all bog, jungle and yellow fever.

 

The failure bankrupted Scotland and they decided to form a union with England and enjoy trading privileges.

 

They have resented it ever since, which was summed up nicely by Renton in Trainspotting.

 

[islingtonclaret]

I have changed my stance on this to hoping they vote yes.

I don't think it will benefit them, but on the other hand I do fully understand that, like Plaid Cyrmu, only their nationalist parties seem to represent what they want. Scotland is traditionally left leaning as a whole, and there isn't an option anymore for them to vote for someone centre-left that is not wholly concerned more about the halls of Westminster.

 

Wheeling out Darling and Brown, who are not in power and past their time serve only to show to Scotland how weak the No campaign is. Osborne wheeling out threats just shows the Scots that shots are being called by "English tories". I don't have an opinion on this at all, but that would be my perspective in their positions.

 

I'd like them to go because of the potential benefits inside England. If we become smaller and London gets a kick up the arse from this, with a smaller distribution area they -MAY- see that having one global city is not good enough and they need to redistribute money more.

 

It's 2014 and I still hear Londoners say "the provinces".

 

There are 13 million of you and 43 million of us. It is not "the provinces", it's "everywhere in England that's not London"

(but there is a certain irony that London is my home and will be for the foreseeable future...because of the opportunities of it being a global city)

 

The only potential fallout I would be worried about is Northern Ireland's identity crisis (for the loyalists anyway). For the record, as an Englishman I have zero opinion on this as it's not my business to be involved in.

 

I will be sad to see a Yes happen though. Cultural heritage completely intertwined and our hundreds of years of history together split into inevitable bickering because London didn't care enough. That -is- my opinion.

[Corcaigh]

I reckon when push comes to shove, and the Scotch public are in the booths voting, they'll vote against Independence.

 

 

 

 

Yup this is my take too, the 'new' Devo Max proposals were predictable once the polling numbers tightened up, should be enough to sway undecided voters to the NO side. Even if the Scots don't vote for independence, they'll still have gotten a good deal out of Westminster out of this referendum.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Corcaigh

[tonyh29]

thought I heard at the weekend that if Scotland votes Yes .. the full break up  would be after the General election so all the Scot MPs would still be elected to our parliament  ...so  in theory we could have a GE result slightly influenced by Scotland , and then those MP's would presumably leave the House of commons a few months later ?

[villaajax]

thought I heard at the weekend that if Scotland votes Yes .. the full break up  would be after the General election so all the Scot MPs would still be elected to our parliament  ...so  in theory we could have a GE result slightly influenced by Scotland , and then those MP's would presumably leave the House of commons a few months later ?

 

So the whole of Scotland votes Green for a laugh at our expense?

[HanoiVillan]

That's up for debate I think. There were reports over the weekend of Tories suggesting postponing the general election for a year until after independence is completed. There are some, ah, dubious implications about that sort of behaviour, but we'll see I guess. Hopefully we won't have to find out. 

 

EDIT: That was a reply to tonyh29. 

Edited September 8, 2014 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

thought I heard at the weekend that if Scotland votes Yes .. the full break up  would be after the General election so all the Scot MPs would still be elected to our parliament  ...so  in theory we could have a GE result slightly influenced by Scotland , and then those MP's would presumably leave the House of commons a few months later ?

 

and Labour MP's shouting vote no or you'll be doomed doomed doomed, failed state, basket case, then refusing to say whether they'd find english seats in future or stay with Scotland in the event of a yes vote

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Are they allowed to offer a new deal despite thousands of (postal) votes already coming in?

Edited September 8, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Nabby]

Apparently there is a new poll out tonight that will cause a sensation ..can only mean the Yes campaign has taken a major lead.