JerryChicken wrote:As long as there are no border controls that need passports then I don't mind which way they swing
One thing pointed out on R4 today is that a split would require MP's from Scottish constiuency's to withdraw from Westminster by 2016 (I think) which would mean a nett loss to the Labour Party of something like 40 seats making Labour far less likely to be a party of government in future and possibly in 2015 ?
The other side of that - which is where the traction for the Yes campaign has been coming from recently - is that Yes means no Tory government ever again for the Scots. That seems to be driving half of Glasgow at present. At the end of the day this vote will be decided in Glasgow.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
JerryChicken wrote:One thing pointed out on R4 today is that a split would require MP's from Scottish constituencies to withdraw from Westminster by 2016 (I think).......
Any why would that be? Until the actual split that would leave the people in Scotland with no representation at all. I personally think in the event of a Yes vote a formal split by 2016 is pure fantasy anyway. You aren't going to unpick the Union in around 16 months.
In the interim the Westminster UK government would continue to govern the UK while the representatives of the upcoming Scottish government negotiated with the UK government over the actual terms. You can't have a total limbo situation while its all worked out with people totally disenfranchised as it may take a lot longer than the ridiculously optimistic timetable of 2016.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Dally wrote:The other side of that - which is where the traction for the Yes campaign has been coming from recently - is that Yes means no Tory government ever again for the Scots. That seems to be driving half of Glasgow at present. At the end of the day this vote will be decided in Glasgow.
It's pure fantasy anyway. In 1979 they returned 22 Tory MP's. Inthe Major v Kinnock election Major won with a majority of 21 and there were 11 Tory MP's - so enough had they been as socially responsible as they claim to be now to swing it the other way. The rejection of the Tories in Scotland is relatively new. It occurred in 1997 as it did in many parts of the UK in that election.
There is absolutely nothing to say a different form of nationalism would not surface in an independent Scotland. They already have one UKIP MEP and counties once hailed as socialist nirvanas such as Sweden and NZ are now firmly in the grip of the right. Norway has its Nationalist loonies as well.
This Tory government is gift to Salmond. It has allowed him to do as you say, paint this as no more Tories in Scotland but it is a fundamental lie. If ever the proverbial hits the fan in the future the Scots are no less bigoted than any other group of people in the UK and would react just the same way.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Sal Paradise wrote:They would have to have their own version of the Bank of England.
On interest rates - how does every other country set interest rates, surely the same would apply to Scotland?
No it would not because you have to frame those things in the context of what Salmond has said will happen or wants to happen.
First he would prefer currency union. That means he doesn't need his own central bank but all three major parties have said no to that.
So now he says, they will use the pound regardless. So he still has no central bank and so he still has no way to set interest rates.
The reason he wants either of these is 70% of Scottish trade is with the UK so the prospect of their own currency is not what he wants at all as the exchange rate would potentially make Scotland un-competitive as it would be higher due to the oil revenues (look up Dutch disease for an explanation of what this brings) and the transaction costs would harm Scottish businesses more than the UK's (which does 10% of its trade with Scotland)..
But lets say they did set up their own central bank meaning they had their own currency. If the didn't let it float thus risking the above problems they could peg it to the pound. But that takes lots of money (foreign currency in fact) held in the central bank so it can buy its own currency to maintain its value should the need arise. And it would arise as the speculators would have a field day.
Pegged or not having your own currency requires large reserves and this begs the question where will these foreign currency reserves come from? Well one answer is their share of the UK's reserves but hang on, Swinney has said if there is no currency union Scotland will walk away from its debts so you think the B of E is going to hand over a shed load of reserves in the event of a Scottish default?
The fact is no one voting on the 18th knows what will happen with the currency and that in itself beggars belief but it does seem Salmond has managed to brush this huge issue under the carpet.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
DaveO wrote:Any why would that be? Until the actual split that would leave the people in Scotland with no representation at all. I personally think in the event of a Yes vote a formal split by 2016 is pure fantasy anyway. You aren't going to unpick the Union in around 16 months.
In the interim the Westminster UK government would continue to govern the UK while the representatives of the upcoming Scottish government negotiated with the UK government over the actual terms. You can't have a total limbo situation while its all worked out with people totally disenfranchised as it may take a lot longer than the ridiculously optimistic timetable of 2016.
DaveO wrote:Any why would that be? Until the actual split that would leave the people in Scotland with no representation at all. I personally think in the event of a Yes vote a formal split by 2016 is pure fantasy anyway. You aren't going to unpick the Union in around 16 months.
In the interim the Westminster UK government would continue to govern the UK while the representatives of the upcoming Scottish government negotiated with the UK government over the actual terms. You can't have a total limbo situation while its all worked out with people totally disenfranchised as it may take a lot longer than the ridiculously optimistic timetable of 2016.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 679 Location: Bordon, Hants
Cronus wrote:Alex Salmond claimed victory in the last debate partly due to apparently establishing that Scotland would be able to use the pound. That, and the fact he shouted down a flustered Alistair Darling.
What Darling attempted to get across, but was ignored by the whopping 'Yes' crowd, was that yes, they could use the pound, but they could also use the ruble, the Euro or the dinar if they so chose. It might be the pound in name and appearance but that's all. Furthermore, it seems it would be impossible for an independent Scotland to join the EU if it used the pound without a formal currency deal or its own central bank (taken from this excellent article on the subject).
And the oil debate. So what if it runs out in 10, 40 or 80 years? The one thing everyone agrees in is that it's finite. It's going to run out.
Too many grey areas for me and most Scots I've spoken to. Unfortunately the emotive side of the 'Yes' argument is sucking people in.
Wonder if Braveheart will be showing on the evening of the 17th.
I tried to watch but had to turn off because Salmond didn't seem interested in having a debate. He was particularly bad during the part where he was supposed to be answering Darling's questions. The moderator seemed to be doing a pretty p155 poor job.
Regarding oil, this bloke seems to suggest it might not be theirs. I've tried looking for some information to back the claims up but without any luck.
Cronus wrote:Alex Salmond claimed victory in the last debate partly due to apparently establishing that Scotland would be able to use the pound. That, and the fact he shouted down a flustered Alistair Darling.
What Darling attempted to get across, but was ignored by the whopping 'Yes' crowd, was that yes, they could use the pound, but they could also use the ruble, the Euro or the dinar if they so chose. It might be the pound in name and appearance but that's all. Furthermore, it seems it would be impossible for an independent Scotland to join the EU if it used the pound without a formal currency deal or its own central bank (taken from this excellent article on the subject).
And the oil debate. So what if it runs out in 10, 40 or 80 years? The one thing everyone agrees in is that it's finite. It's going to run out.
Too many grey areas for me and most Scots I've spoken to. Unfortunately the emotive side of the 'Yes' argument is sucking people in.
Wonder if Braveheart will be showing on the evening of the 17th.
I tried to watch but had to turn off because Salmond didn't seem interested in having a debate. He was particularly bad during the part where he was supposed to be answering Darling's questions. The moderator seemed to be doing a pretty p155 poor job.
Regarding oil, this bloke seems to suggest it might not be theirs. I've tried looking for some information to back the claims up but without any luck.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
Dally wrote:Having just got back from a couple of weeks in Scotland, the "Yes" voters are much more apparent. The No campaign seems to have a much lower profile and "No" voters seem afraid to express their views to their vociferous "Yes" neighbours. Based on what you see I think "Yes" could edge it. It is to be hoped though that the quieter No voters will simply turn up on the day and vote No.
Part of the problem for the No campaign is they have no cause and no credible "leader". The PM should be up there but, of course, given their hatred of Tories it has been felt he should keep out and also it would be wrong to have the English meddling in the Scottish vote. In some ways I think that is counter-productive as it suggests Westminster doesn't care about Scotland, which at the end of the day is in large part what this is about - distance and disillusionment with Westminster.
So, No is lead by a Labour figure and he doesn't seem up to the job, having no charisma.
Last weeks "debate", which I watched, was shocking. Salmond acted like a yob and just shouted down and interrupted Darling continuously. Nevertheless, because Darling was fixated with the currency question which the live audience were sick of he was felt to have been trounced. He didn't have the sense to change direction even when the audience were booing and heckling for keep asking about the currency.
I think it will be sad if they go independent. There will be lots of things that will change for us as well as them. One of the biggest losses will be the world's best flag! I think Scotland will become poorer over time and the rest of the UK poorer in the short-term. From a strategic point of view we lose a big chunk of our armed forces personnel and the US, fast looking East rather than to Europe, may lose interest in us.
One consequence may be the rise of English nationalism, which the establishment is always at pains to contain (although they may be happy to go along with to prevent independence movements in Cornwall, Yorkshire, etc).
A big threat to Scotland could be if they vote Yes and we get out of the EU. Then we could charge lorries crossing England to / from Scotland to use our M -ways (nice earner for Switzerland), could be trade barriers over time, etc if we are not all part of the EU single market.
Interesting times but I think a Yes vote will be detrimental to Scotland and us.
I work in Scotland. Based on what I see/hear it's about 70/30 in favour of no. It's just that the yes minority seem to shout louder. Of course that's only based on the people I know and work with and other parts of the country could be different, but I am expecting a no vote.
Joined: Apr 06 2004 Posts: 4420 Location: The Pavilion, Hilton St
No matter what the result is will the hatred and vitriol that has come up over the past few months ever be forgotten?
If it is a 'No' vote will nationalists be demanding another refferendum within the next ten years?
If it is a yes vote will Scots soon be asking to rejoin the Union? What will happen in areas that voted overwhelmingly to stay in the union, will they sit back and accept independence?
wigan_rlfc wrote:No matter what the result is will the hatred and vitriol that has come up over the past few months ever be forgotten?
If it is a 'No' vote will nationalists be demanding another refferendum within the next ten years?
If it is a yes vote will Scots soon be asking to rejoin the Union? What will happen in areas that voted overwhelmingly to stay in the union, will they sit back and accept independence?
After a couple of years the no voters, which will be in Borders, Edinburgh and parts of Glasgow (ie Southern half of country, nearer to England) will ask for help. The English government will send some SAS in without insignia and stack tamks up ar Berwick-upon-Tweed. There will be a bit of a scrap and Putin will place economic sanctions on England.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
