The UK will always have the stronger position. Salmond's hot air and bluster can only go so far. He may be a better orator that Osborne could ever be, but if Osborne became Prime Minister, he's the one with the stronger hand. Salmond's yes vote will promise a Tory England for at least 15-20 years, and that's who he'll deal with, and to address your earlier point, if there is a currency Union, in which Scotland will inevitably be the junior partner, then, in my opinion, not only Salmond won't have delivered true independence, but he'll also be dealing with Tory politicians who have made it pretty clear that they won't be bending over backwards to accommodate his assumed conveniences. Plus he'll be out there like Ireland is. While the UK retains the strength of London and it's standing in the world. If Salmond really wants independence, he'll completely sever, sign up to the Euro and immediately apply to the EU for membership. That's what independence truly entails, and Salmond is kidding his voters unto a half arsed effort that masquerades as independence, whilst still hanging on the coattails of the U and being subject to our economic direction.
No, you really shouldn't. You should wait until their economy has proven sustainable, just like the EU does for every other prospective member states. Why should Scotland get an automatic entry? Has nobody listened to the lessons of Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland? When their economy is sustainable and they otherwise meet the entry requirements, that's when they join. Why should an independence vote translate into "let's go in and save them". If they want to go it alone, let them do it on their own merits and qualify as an EU state just like every other prospective member has to do. There is no case whatsoever for an easy route in just because they used to be British.
Be fair, he finds secession boring, which given the US handled its own secession with a civilised referendum, whilst England and Scotland are in the midst of war over slavery and state rights.... Wait, I may be getting mixed up here
Um, I asked none of those things. I even strongly indicated that it was a bad idea. You have said that giving up monetary control means giving up all control. It does not. Or did you mean something else by saying that Scotland would be England's bitch? You are letting nationalism cloud your thinking. If a theoretical Scottish government wants a monetary policy that closely aligns with London's, they might decide to peg their currency to the Pound. How does that make them England's bitch? Google currency board and when you come back, try to understand that I'm not advocating this, simply pointing pit that it is possible and not without precedent.
Osborne was handed a strong hand after the last election, and pissed it away with embarrassingly shallow politics. The Tories never truly recovered from his omni-shambles. Salmond has little to fear from Osborne. Gove, on the other hand, is a dyed in the wool bastard of the first magnitude and has been merrily pushing himself forth without being overly obvious for years now. He'd have Salmond in a tizz. It's being economically sane, Edinburgh will need to borrow and to have inward investment, and the Scottish economy and rest of the UK's economy is very entwined - one falls, the other does too - a currency union for a decade or so makes sense, the alternative is we all have another lovely recession, and this time London would feel the cold much more. Until Scotland can establish a well-funded central bank, with plenty of foreign reserves, it would be in tremendous difficulty - nothing it couldn't overcome, but it would hit us as well. The closest thing we've had to this of late has been the Icelandic independence, but from an economic perspective it had been economicalyl free from Denmark since the end of the Scandinavian version of the Euro in the early 1900's. The world is a much more entwined place now. To simply split economically is lunacy as it is the kind of 'black swan' moment we really don't need right now.
Finally home, so in between on train working I tried to jot down some thoughts on this. Not really in a great order and I've no doubt missed half the things that need to be said. Whats clear is that 'No' should have romped this, but 'Yes' have had a better campaign, a well thought out strategy, mobilised the troops on the ground and on social media which has all helped sway the no's and undecided. The terrible no campaign of fear hasn't helped much. Regardless of who wins, the yes campaign have made serious inroads and this is a victory for mobilisation of the people and a re-engagement in politics. Sitting on a long train journey back from Manchester, so this post has the potential to turn into a tldr one. I’ve got to say that I am an undecided voter and up until two months ago would have voted no. The arguments put forward and the behaviour of the no campaign have got me swaying towards yes. Most of this post will read as a yes voter, but that’s mainly because yes are the only ones offering something to vote for. There are plenty staunch yes and no voters in Scotland, Im not really one of them. Where to start, unfortunately one of the many problems are that there are a whole lot of untruths out there pedalled by both sides of the debate. Dan, first off if Independence goes through, I don’t see Salmond and the SNP lasting long. The SNP’s mission will be over. Scotland will need a centre left and centre right party. Whilst the SNP are driving the yes campaign, it’s not a vote for them. Move house first as they say, worry about changing the wall paper later. The economy is obviously the big issue, and more than likely the one that will decide the outcome. Westminster say Scotland can’t keep the pound, Salmond says it’s as much ours as England’s. He’s right of course, and he has the threat that if we don’t get a share of the UK assets (sterling), then we won’t be taking on a share of the UK debt. That’s not a really a sensible plan to start defaulting before we even begin, but it’s a nice threat to have. What will be interesting however is if big business, Lloyds, RBS et al see a shared pound in their interest and start lobbying the gov. I think this scenario is much more likely and it will be business as usual. Plan B is the so called Panama solution, keep the pound and use it the way Panama uses the dollar and Plan C is the Euro. Salmond has not majored on this however as he knows the sort of reaction he would get. Taking a step back, this should never have got anywhere near as close as it’s got. No should have had this in the bag, and the reason it’s not is down to a dreadfully managed campaign and some serious complacency. Now getting behind a message of hope, change and social justice is far easier than a message of maintaining the status quo, but the no campaigned have spent the last 3 months pedalling fear and telling the Scottish people how they won’t be able to do anything alone. Time and again there are dirty tricks coming out of the No campaign, going back to April/May when the UK gov was caught colluding with the Spanish gov and press to push the no agenda. Spain was chosen as an ally as they obviously don’t want the Basque’s getting any more ideas. Last week someone within the treasury leaked an RBS plan to relocate the head office registration to London, before RBS made the announcement that said head office registration moves but no jobs or services will be affected. Gordon Brown comes out last week warning of hyper inflation and a state resembling the Wiemar republic. We are also getting armed guards on the borders apparently, just like there are between France and Germany and Belgium and Holland and Spain and Portugal…….come on to fuck! Cameron and his cronies brought this on themselves. SNP never wanted the referendum this quickly, mainly because they didn’t think they could win yet. What they wanted and what I believe was the best thing was Devo Max. Cameron decides a year or so ago, no chance, those pesky Scots are not getting anymore powers. Devo max is not on the table and you’ll get your referendum on a straight yes/no and that will be the end of it. Low and behold when the polls showed yes ahead a week past Sunday, devo max is suddenly rolled out if we vote no. Saying that however, we get no details on what we are voting for, only a time table of when we get to see what the devo max powers will be. A fucking joke! On that point however, the yes campaign really is no better as we don’t know what currency we will be operating in. So what do we get with both options? No appears to have been more of the same, with a relatively strong pound. Better the devil you know. No also tells us that it will be the end of the financial world. Of course the financial world nearly caved in 5 years ago with these cunts in charge, the same cunts who are telling us to stay together. How much worse is it really going to get? Yes ‘promises’ a fairer, more just society, living off our own resources and making our own decisions. Building up an oil fund, investing in renewable energy (we have the greatest potential for wind and wave power in Europe), getting rid of nuclear weapons which are currently maintained 23 miles from our biggest city. All of this for a nation of 5million people with the bonus most countries don’t have of a North Sea oil bounty. It’s not as if we will be doing this from a standing start either, the Scottish parliament has made great strides and been an overwhelming success. We have no prescription charges, no tuition fee’s, better elderly health care etc than England. Our industries are pretty diverse, oil takes up less than 15% so we won’t be putting all our eggs in the one basket. Pensions, financial advice, whisky, tourism, renewables are all pulling their weight. What else we get is a something el chu doesn’t even think is a valid point but to me, I feel very strongly about it. We will finally get to have a government who we can vote, influence and elect. The current FPTP UK system with the large number of seats available in the rest of the country means it doesn’t really matter what or who we vote for. Take right now as an example. One conservative seat in Scotland and yet who is the government incumbent? With an independent Scotland, 5million Scots will get to decide who to elect based on the combined FPTP and PR system, rather than leaving it in the hands of a separate nation of 60million with their own identity and agendas. So, whats truth and whats not truth? The reality is that no-one knows. There are a barrage of articles, opinions and comments out there on both sides of the argument, some from some very respected and you would expect credible authors. Last week Krugman wrote two articles in the NY Times stating it would be a bad deal for Scotland, however yesterday Standard and Poors put out their own report which argued that Scotland would be fine and likened it with other nations with AAA credit ratings. One day we get the No campaign presenting to us a collective of business leaders who advise that No is the only way forward, the next the yes campaign wheels out similar stature leaders who support independence. I’ve read countless articles on both sides and its still up in the air. It’s really just a mixed bag and separating out the bluster from the yes campaign from the fear put forward by the no campaign is not an easy task. Only one national paper has come out in support of independence, the rest are in favour of maintaining the union. There are questions about the objectivity of the BBC with yes campaign complaining of bias of reporting. Is that true? Maybe, one thing I did notice was that when there was a huge rally Saturday in Buchanan Street, the pictures never got any air time. Buchanan Street is a flagship pedestrian retail street in Glasgow. A good 750 metres long and the place was packed. Is it because they don’t want to showcase the sheer scale of support for the yes campaign? Who knows. Saying that, they haven’t been reporting on the little dust ups between campaigners which have been happening either. For my part I’m still undecided, I want to vote yes, but the economic questions are possibly too big. There is that old saying however that fortune favours the brave. I think No will get a narrow victory, and that will be down to the economy. If Scotland were to get independence I fully agree that it won’t be Salmond’s land of milk and honey straight away, we would have to work at it. But I really don’t think it’s the doomsday scenario either. Final point, the refreshing part of the whole referendum is that for so long, 20+ years, everyone assumes that people have no interest in elections in western society. Well Scotland is going to prove that wrong on Thursday. To date, 97% of the eligible voting electorate have registered to vote. Just goes to show that when there is something worth voting for, something that you can influence (regardless of what way you vote) then people will vote. Note my point about a representative society. El chu, two other things. One, of course we get to keep the Queen, last I checked she was Queen of the UK and numerous other countries, and two, Chupacabra is not a Scottish surname.
Because every one of its citizens is already a citizen of the EU. Whether or not they also remain subjects of the Queen really shouldn't matter for that.
I should also point out that there are too many judgemental arseholes out there on both sides who bully, belittle and intimidate people on the other side of the debate. Its been obvious in the streets, on tv and in social media. A disgrace. Really, independance is a viable option, as is staying in the Union, if either were so bad, we wouldnt be lookimg at such a close decision. Nothing wrong with voting no despite what the yes camp say, and nothing wrong with voting yes either!
That's not sound reasoning. The UK is the member nation of the EU. If Scotland gets independence from the UK, it also gets independence from the EU. For what it's worth, apparently Brussels says that Scotland would need to go through the membership process.
@Stallion: I'd be a lot more comfortable if it weren't so close. A narrow victory for either side is going to result in the kind of ugly political dynamic we have in the US. Not everybody will see both options as okay, though I agree with you that both are perfectly viable.
And finally, as well as getting pissed off by the fear campaign, im also getting really annoyed at 'celebrities' telling me to vote for independance. The worst are the arseholes who dont live here anymore and therefore dont get a vote. Very good, i'll just sit here and vote for something which the eton bum club say will bring in the apocolypse while you sit in your Malibu mansion. Get tae fuck!
There is that worry, it might get a little rowdy but as a comedian pointed out lastnight, this is the only independance break away that has not seen a single shot fired. He then went on (jokingly) to note he couldnt see Michael Collins having second thoughts because someone asked what currency they would use.
I think Slovakia and Czech Republic split without firing shots. What happens if the UK government decides it isn't willing to give up the whiskey and links?
Uk can keep links, sausages are square in Scotland. If they want whiskey, they will have to go to war with USA, whisky (note no e) is Scottish.
Which is as it should be; a new nation seceding from a member might turn out to be incompatible with basic EU rules, e.g. deficient in democracy or basic human rights. But this one won't, so we should get through that process as quickly as possible. Legalities aside, what should matter is how individuals make up a nation, not what one abstract collective fiction thinks about another.[/B]
It's not been that long since the banks in Scotland printed their own money. I have pound notes from the bank of Scotland, the royal bank of Scotland, and the Clydesdale bank.
I think it's about the consent of the governed. From what I remember of the UK it was like the us turned upside down with those in Scotland getting the short end of the stick. It's a different culture and way of living. England has a lot of trains, buses, and other mass transit and so the government punishes car drivers by placing a 300% tax on motor fuels. Meanwhile the farmer in rural Scotland is paying that tax too, and he has little choice. I could see people getting fed up with paying 12 bucks a gallon for fuel and 3/4 of that going to Westminster.
Except that Scotland is, overall, being subsidized by the rest of the UK. Much like the American South.
We do print our own bank notes and they are legal tender. Im not sure what you are getting at here? You do know we can only print and release set amounts upon agreements with the Bank of England right? Its not as if we are just churning out monopoly money
Do Scots receive more money on average from London than London takes? Most of the reasons for leaving seem ideological and based in historical butthurt than pragmatic. On the other hand, some of the things we here about London's political culture would make me want out too. Sent from my iPhone while driving
A matter of some debate It is striking that child poverty has reduced sharply in Scotland since the devolution of powers, so there is certainly benefit in Scotland being run by Scots. DevoMax fits the bill for that though.
This x 1,000,000,000. Canada went through the same thing with Quebec. Twice. In both cases the "no" side won by a narrow victory, which left lots of scars. I think if the Quebec separatist movement started up again today most Canadians would be happy to say goodbye to the dirty French bastards. In the case of Scotland, however, those fuckers in the south (i.e., England) should simply feel damn lucky to have such an awesome people living above them. I say this without a trace of irony or sarcasm, as my family originally hails from Inverness.
Using another nations currency isn't that big of a deal. Many 3rd world countries, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, use US dollars as their official currency with domestically minted coins for change. Actually, I could see Scotland going this route as oil is traded in USD and they'd basically be a petro-state. This is why Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc have currencies pegged to the dollar.
Oil is traded less and less in dollars. The US is losing its status as reserve curency, thus I'm not sure what third world countries will do.
