Scottish Independence

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If Scotland was to vote Yes and the Tories said they wouldnt respect the decision it wouldnt be staggering.

Have you read the article?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Perhaps that's open to interpretation but that reads to me that if the Scottish people vote Yes, but negotiations cannot be agreed with Westminster, the Union is the default option.

You're correct, it's awfully written and the source would be helpful but the ambiguity certainly leaves that as a possible interpretation.

I'm fairly certain that the 'source' is talking about the 18 month deadline put on negotiations by Salmond. They're right - independence couldn't happen until negotiations had been concluded.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

At least this time the people of Scotland will get a say and a vote as to what happens to our country, unlike in 1707 when they rioted in the streets of all the major cities. I keep hearing about independence, I always thought we were independent as it was only ever a merging of parliaments and never a merging of countries, this seems to be the most important thing everyone is forgetting.

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Perhaps that's open to interpretation but that reads to me that if the Scottish people vote Yes, but negotiations cannot be agreed with Westminster, the Union is the default option.

You're correct, it's awfully written and the source would be helpful but the ambiguity certainly leaves that as a possible interpretation.

The ambiguity from the paper is deliberate. Without that you don't have a (crappy) news story. I don't think there is any doubt at all that the intent of the source is to say that the current Union would continue until such time as negotiations were concluded, rather than to say that if Westminster didnt like the negotiations they would just keep the Union.

When you think about it that suggestion is so barking the not even Farage would come out with it.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

I recently re-read Michael Fry's ''The Union.'' It gives a decent account of events and well worth reading to understand how we came to be where we are in the first place.

[Glory Lurker]

No to CU and no to Scotland taking debt are the two opposing nuclear bombs that set up a mutually assured destruction arrangement. If there is a yes vote, neither will be carried through. Why?

No to CU - Westminster's made its argument most clear. It's being deployed just now though for political reasons, in the expectation that it will stem (and perhaps reverse) the apparent growth in support for Yes. Achieve this and it never becomes an issue anyway. If Yes does win the vote, though, can they stick their ground? Perhaps they would be happy to inconvenience 10% of their economy. Reckless, but not impossible. It starts getting a bit stickier when you consider the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound. That would interest the international markets. There would be no two ways about it, the UK economy would be weakened. What we're being told is that taking that hit would be less painful for rUK than entering a currency union, the downsides of which might never need to arise, and possible terms for which have not even been considered. I don't think Scotland would turn round and say "stick the debt" (for the following reasons), but if they did the markets would be over the rUK like a rash.

No to Scotland taking debt - first things first, "default" is entirely the wrong terminology. Scotland would not be defaulting on anything. It would need to be the legal debtor to do that, and only the UK can perform that role. Anyhow, it is not automatic that the markets would take a dim view of Scotland avoiding a moral responsibility if it could demonstrate that its economy would work going forward. I think the ultimate problem of not taking the debt would be in terms of finalising EU membership and probably NATO membership. RUK would almost certainly look to veto both.

Should it get the chance to play out, the truth is somewhere in between. Here's hoping it does get the chance.

[steakbake]

"I'll give you your divorce but you can't have the house, even though a fair bit of it is yours in the first place".

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"I'll give you your divorce but you can't have the house, even though a fair bit of it is yours in the first place".

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

This is true but the countries remained totally separate but with the same monarch for those years. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain). There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.

As you can see, England attempted to merge the parliaments 3 times but failed, if it wasn't for the Darien Scheme we may still be a separate country now.

[steakbake]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

The kids? It's well beyond the time for them to fly the nest too.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is true but the countries remained totally separate but with the same monarch for those years. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain). There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.

As you can see, England attempted to merge the parliaments 3 times but failed, if it wasn't for the Darien Scheme we may still be a separate country now.

Quite interesting really because although you say that England tried to merge the parliaments 3 times the attempts actually took place under the rule (mostly) of Stuart kings of England and Scotland and of course those Stuart kings were Scottish in origin, not English. It was a mixed bag of interests which was almost never a matter of Scotland versus England. In almost every case the motivation was one or more of religious, personal, financial or geopolitical.

The 'if' on the Darien scheme is a very big if. The scale of financial disaster we got into there is hard to overstate. It would be interesting to see a comparative examination of the effect of that upon Scotland's economy and finances compared to the banking collapse of the last few years. I suspect it beats RBS etc out of the park.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No to CU and no to Scotland taking debt are the two opposing nuclear bombs that set up a mutually assured destruction arrangement. If there is a yes vote, neither will be carried through. Why?

They don't though. The only thing they assure is even bigger cuts in public services, higher taxes and much more expensive borrowing for us, brought on by us.

No to CU - Westminster's made its argument most clear. It's being deployed just now though for political reasons, in the expectation that it will stem (and perhaps reverse) the apparent growth in support for Yes. Achieve this and it never becomes an issue anyway. If Yes does win the vote, though, can they stick their ground? Perhaps they would be happy to inconvenience 10% of their economy. Reckless, but not impossible. It starts getting a bit stickier when you consider the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound. That would interest the international markets. There would be no two ways about it, the UK economy would be weakened. What we're being told is that taking that hit would be less painful for rUK than entering a currency union, the downsides of which might never need to arise, and possible terms for which have not even been considered. I don't think Scotland would turn round and say "stick the debt" (for the following reasons), but if they did the markets would be over the rUK like a rash.

The notion that the advantages for the UK of smoothing out admin procedures and costs for the 10% of their exports that come to Scotland outweigh the disadvantages of a currency Union in which Scotland represents an unstable risk to the pound is wishful thinking to say the least. Apart from anything else the people who will foot the bill for any additional export costs will be Scottish consumers of those products and services to whom they will be passed on.

As for 'the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound', the effect on balance of payments in those circumstances are estimated by Prof Brian Ashcroft at the Fraser of Allander Institute to be broadly neutral for a variety of reasons. In fact Scotland not being part of a currency Union may actually improve the balance of payments for the rest of the UK. Link: http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/...ependence.html

No to Scotland taking debt - first things first, "default" is entirely the wrong terminology. Scotland would not be defaulting on anything. It would need to be the legal debtor to do that, and only the UK can perform that role. Anyhow, it is not automatic that the markets would take a dim view of Scotland avoiding a moral responsibility if it could demonstrate that its economy would work going forward. I think the ultimate problem of not taking the debt would be in terms of finalising EU membership and probably NATO membership. RUK would almost certainly look to veto both.

The semantics of the use of the term 'default' here is pretty irrelevant. Money markets would be watching to see what kind of fiscal responsibility or otherwise a separate Scottish state was demonstrating. Playing politics with international debt (including debt in which we have a share from the UK) by refusing to take our share tells them we are high risk and means they will attach a higher risk to any borrowing we want to make. That gets us bigger interest rates on our borrowing as they charge us more to cover the risk premium. The notion that international money markets and institutional lenders of all types would be willing to look the other way over us refusing to take our share of debt and instead make new loans to Scotland on promises of how well behaved we would be in the future takes make believe to a whole new level.

Should it get the chance to play out, the truth is somewhere in between. Here's hoping it does get the chance.

Scotland keeping the pound under independence is now dead. Refusing to take our share of UK debt is the equivalent of blowing our own financial brains out before we even start.

If Salmond won't tell us what is his Plan B on currency, it is either because he is too scared of the public response to it or because he doesn't have one. Either way it is economically very, very reckless.

The more this stuff on currency, debt and public finances is examined in detail and the more the Yes side substitute assertion for facts the more I am struck by a clear parallel. It is almost exactly like the 'we owe it to ourselves' Yammanomics culture we have seen elsewhere where any reality is always overruled by a grand assertion from the guy at the top, no matter the evidence and no matter how fanciful or unsupportable.

Next stop, #Alliscurrencybarry

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quite interesting really because although you say that England tried to merge the parliaments 3 times the attempts actually took place under the rule (mostly) of Stuart kings of England and Scotland and of course those Stuart kings were Scottish in origin, not English. It was a mixed bag of interests which was almost never a matter of Scotland versus England. In almost every case the motivation was one or more of religious, personal, financial or geopolitical.

The 'if' on the Darien scheme is a very big if. The scale of financial disaster we got into there is hard to overstate. It would be interesting to see a comparative examination of the effect of that upon Scotland's economy and finances compared to the banking collapse of the last few years. I suspect it beats RBS etc out of the park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Makes a good wee read and opens your eyes a bit as to what went on and what went wrong.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Makes a good wee read and opens your eyes a bit as to what went on and what went wrong.

Yes I'd seen that and although I'm a bit dubious about accepting what what people can write up on wikipedia it is still in interesting read as you say.

Variously tragic, corrupt and naive. All those eggs in one basket....

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=One Day Soon;3906760] The evidence on cuts beyond even what Westminster is planning and tax increases and cuts in public services is in the various NIESR reports which I quoted in detail earlier in this thread and which one independence supporting poster described as being a respectable source. I can post references and hyperlinks to those if you like. If we have the pound in a currency union - which it is now clear we won't - cuts are the price we will pay.

Thankfully I'm not responsible for the idiots on either the Yes or the Better Together sides but I can clarify one point - the coming vote gives us a choice between staying in the UK and keeping the pound or separating and not having the pound. It's that simple.


Independence supporters have a somewhat different take on your analysis of the latest NIESR report.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/-thought/#comments

FWIW a number of the assertions made by NIESR are based on what will happen if an Independent Scotland changes nothing and simply does what Westminster does. You would do well to remember what the IFS said in November 2013:-

"Independence would give Scotland an opportunity to design a much more efficient tax system than the UK currently has. While pressures on the public finances would point towards tax increases, the characteristics of an independent Scotland suggest a number of ways in which the 'optimal' tax system for Scotland might involve lower taxes than that for the UK. Scottish income distribution is more equal than the UK's, so the scope and need to redistribute through higher taxes would be less."

My point here is that there are many different interpretations of how the economy of an iScotland would pan out (check out the recent FT report). The question is who the Scottish Electorate will believe? Bottom line is that an iScotland would not be a 'basket case' economy as some in the BT camp would have us believe.

I simply do not buy your comment about the pound. Your opinion is at complete odds with mine. I see the stance taken by Osbourne, Balls and Mr "I'm a Highlander and Scot" as nothing more than political posturing.

I think you are missing the point here. The currency option being advocated by the SNP has just been taken round the back of the building and shot through the head, publicly and irrevocably by all three major UK parties. It is a dead parrot. The Yes campaign can 'prefer' to articulate for a sterling zone all they like - it is no longer an option. In that context we are now being asked to vote for independence with no clarity about what our currency option would be in the separate state.

Not missing the point. You're taking everything said by Osbourne as gospel. To put it mildly, I think he is full of ****.

If we are going into the Euro for example then we have a right to know now. A Yes vote would make no difference tIt is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to know what your preferences on this are. We need to know what the Scottish Government o the position of the rest of the UK on currency. It is not in their interest to seek currency union with us for reasons already set out above and elsewhere on the need for parallel political and fiscal arrangements to make a shared currency work. Salmond needs to tell us what currency Plan B is.

The Fiscal commission working group set out a range of options for monetary policy for an iScotland. You can check out all of viable the options online anytime you like. They recommended that the best one was a sterling zone and, as far as I'm aware, that's the one Yes Scotland will continue to articulate.

There is no 'playing hardball over debt' option. We either take our share and pay for it or we refuse to take our share. If we refuse the money markets then have us pegged as high risk borrowers who act in bad faith in playing fast and loose with debt obligations. If we do that they will loan us much less than we would like and at a far higher cost. So the hardball you refer to ends up with us kneecapped before we start. If you want an example of what happens to you when you default on debt just look at Greece - no-one wants to loan to you and when they do they're either doing so at massive and unsustainable rates which you have to hammer your public services down to pay for or they will give you the loans at better rates like Germany effectively has but at the price of them telling you how to run your house.

This is just incorrect. Looks like you've bought the Darling line here? First off, an iScotland would not be 'defaulting' on debt. The UK has taken on a debt obligation. Just in case there is any doubt here, the UK only recently made a public statement that this is their debt obligation, theirs alone and that they alone will pay it off (though they expect a Scottish contribution). Scotland has no debt obligation. A default is when you fail to repay a debt obligation. Scotland has no debt obligation so it cannot be in default.

With regard to international markets, as I've said before they, as profiteers, will not be too concerned about morality.

As to Osborne spouting condescending crap - just no. The SNP want to break away and set up a separate state. Are you seriously suggesting he isn't allowed to set out the position of his UK party on one of the core issues to be settled post referendum? It's not condescending, it's a taste of what is to come if we make the rest of the UK into a foreign state - they will look after their own interests first. We can't demand independence and then demand that they comply with what would suit us on currency afterward. What is condescending is Nicola Sturgeon trying to tell us that the rest of the UK will have to agree to set up the currency union that we need because it is in their interest to do so. We are only 10% of their export market. The SNP senior figures are beginning to buy their own bull on this stuff which I suspect is why this week's dose of reality on currency has come as quite a shock to them.

Condescending is coming up here, telling us what we can and can't have whilst at the same time refusing to take any questions on, what is, an extremely contentious issue.

[Beefster]

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26215963

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ouch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26215963

No surprise really....unless you are Alex Salmond. I wonder what spin he will put on this?

At least now we are getting closer to what independence might actually mean. No pound, no EU....to be honest that makes it much more realistic and maybe more desirable (to me at least!) but the Yes camp have went so far down the 'status quo' route with these things that they are going to look a bit silly if they now start arguing that none of this is of much concern.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26215963

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria

I can understand him saying it may be difficult. But to suggest it may be impossible is complete and utter nonsense.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria

Bulgaria declared its intention to apply for membership of the EU in 1989. It joined in 2007. Slightly longer than the 18 months that the SNP claim it would take.

Aside from the potential timescales, Barroso seems to be talking about getting the agreement of every existing EU country. Spain, in particular, would be very reluctant to let us join.

[Phil D. Rolls]

---

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

Oh that's it, I wondered how long it would be before the kids got used as a weapon. OK I'm a selfish get, but won't you think about how it affects them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bulgaria declared its intention to apply for membership of the EU in 1989. It joined in 2007. Slightly longer than the 18 months that the SNP claim it would take.

Aside from the potential timescales, Barroso seems to be talking about getting the agreement of every existing EU country. Spain, in particular, would be very reluctant to let us join.

Probably a better measure would be Finland, application 18th March 1992, joined 1st January 1995. In that time Finland had to pass multiple acts in parliament to change their governmental model and legislature to conform to EU requirements. Scotland already conforms 100%

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Spain losing Catalunya would surely be more catastrophic than the UK losing Scotland. I'm sure the Italians must be watching nervously too.

[lucky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Probably a better measure would be Finland, application 18th March 1992, joined 1st January 1995. In that time Finland had to pass multiple acts in parliament to change their governmental model and legislature to conform to EU requirements. Scotland already conforms 100%

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins

On Sunday politics both Salmond and Swinney were on . Both spouting EU president was wrong on Scotland automatically joining the EU and that the rUK were wrong on the currency. At least they are consistent but it's a shame everyone is wrong bar them.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

He's Portuguese.
But the point about Spain resisting our membership is valid.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He's Portuguese.
But the point about Spain resisting our membership is valid.

Didn't realise that. Cheers.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On Sunday politics both Salmond and Swinney were on . Both spouting EU president was wrong on Scotland automatically joining the EU and that the rUK were wrong on the currency. At least they are consistent but it's a shame everyone is wrong bar them.

Ah... Missed that, normally watch it as well!

And aye, I know where your coming from, they're defo not on my list of possibilities on who I'd vote for if Scotland did go independent.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins

Nicola Stugeon got an hour on the Daily Politics during the week.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nicola Stugeon got an hour on the Daily Politics during the week.

Like I said, I missed the prog today .... and missed that as well!


I suppose what I'm getting at was that Salmond was pulled up by AD with no chance of a defence..... I still don't think an argument with only one side represented is fair? (What ever side).

Taking the prog during the week, that, again would only be fair if the BT guys got similar, in fact I really wish we could see more real "meaty" discussions all round.