Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Kabaal

I'm honestly quite nervous about the vote. With all the nonsense surrounding it i think a lot of people aren't taking it seriously enough. If the vote ends up yes then Salmond and his cronies could well end up completely breaking everything. What happens then? Does he or his successor beg to be let back into the UK? I doubt they would take us back lol.

You do know we have houndreds of polish builders waiting in the sides lines to put Hadrians wall back up as soon as you leave

Originally Posted by Sirius

You do know we have houndreds of polish builders waiting in the sides lines to put Hadrians wall back up as soon as you leave

The sad thing is, far too many Guess voters simply don't understand that Fat Aleck is in no position to guarantee there won't be border controls in the long term. The Schengen agreement is just one of several inconvenient pieces of the European project that he would need to negotiate his way out of and it is quite clear that Spain intends to make an example of Scotland in the event of separation. They will do so in order to show their restive provinces that breaking away from Madrid and then expecting life to carry on as before, except with extra sweeties, is just a pipe dream.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

The sad thing is, far too many Guess voters simply don't understand that Fat Aleck is in no position to guarantee there won't be border controls in the long term. The Schengen agreement is just one of several inconvenient pieces of the European project that he would need to negotiate his way out of and it is quite clear that Spain intends to make an example of Scotland in the event of separation. They will do so in order to show their restive provinces that breaking away from Madrid and then expecting life to carry on as before, except with extra sweeties, is just a pipe dream.

Now you see Salmond's Tartan Twits don't want to confront mere 'technicalities' such as that. Far better to promise the earth then worry about delivering after the people have been conned and blame the resulting mess on everyone else. I fail to see why anyone in their right mind would vote for this but if sufficient people do then so be it. I'll be happy either way because the result will either end Salmond's nonsense for good or wipe out Labour's unfair electoral advantage. I'm not sure which will please me most.

Originally Posted by Sirius

You do know we have houndreds of polish builders waiting in the sides lines to put Hadrians wall back up as soon as you leave

I heard Martyh has already volunteered...

[Wad_2002]

Originally Posted by Chris

Erm no, Scotland did not vote for independence in the 1970s. There was a devolution referendum, which was defeated. The "technicality" was a quorum, which is a totally uncontroversial device in decisions involving constitutional change. IMO there should have been one in 1997 as well, although I believe Scotland would have met it. Wales certainly wouldn't and as a result the Assembly came into existence with the active support of fewer than 25% of Welsh voters.

I believe there should have been a quorum for this year's referendum as well. It can in no way be said to be the settled will of the Scottish people to effect permanent, radical constitutional change unless a majority of adults - all of them, not just the turnout - are sufficiently motivated to go out and vote for it.

Permanent and major constitutional changes should be demonstrated by more than 50% +1 of whichever voters turn out on the day. If the result is 49-51 for the union, the separatists will keep agitating forever and a day until they get what they want, arguing that opinions might have changed, but if it goes 51-49 the other way, the destruction of the modern British state will be permanent.

It's all very well you being happy with the consequences but our children have to live in the land we are at risk of birthing this year and we have a responsibility to them.

Cameron has been a pragmatist in allowing the seps to have their referendum, with votes for teens and no quorum, because he knew there was a risk that Salmond the ever-reckless would simply go ahead anyway and plan to try to fight for his result through the courts if necessary. But there is a real risk now, if the result is close, whichever way it falls, of long lasting social damage.

Yeah, Chris your right, it wasn’t vote an independence – I put my hand up on this one.
But what does this tell you, that nearly 2.5 million Scot’s came out, the majorty voted for a referendum. But because 40% didn’t vote that it was swept under the carpet. What does this mean?? in a decomcratic society that we’ve created that even the majoirty don’t have a voice weather 37% voted or 7% percent.

While your explanation of the “quorum” may be true but certainlly doesn’t make it right. It aint my problem that voters don’t turn up. I would still expect my vote to count and to mean something. If people don’t turn up to vote, that aint my problem.

Chris, I am 26 years old now. I have lived with decsions my mother, father, etc… made decades ago growing up in a society fueled by personal gain and motive, taking full advatage of the days of propersity. I am fully aware of how important this is for our kids.

I don’t and we don’t owe Cameron any thanks Chris lol. The fact that Scotland did not vote for a torrie/lib dem coliation should be noted. We pay our way like everyone else. If we want to change something it should be reasonably considered without having to be grateful or asking please.

Originally Posted by Wad_2002

The fact that Scotland did not vote for a torrie/lib dem coliation should be noted. We pay our way like everyone else. If we want to change something it should be reasonably considered without having to be grateful or asking please.

"Scotland" did not vote for anything - neither did "England". This is just another nationalist fantasy. It was a UK general election, with about 650 constituencies, each of which returned an MP. There are regional variations all over the UK in general elections but the fact that we are a modern, liberal democracy means that we accept the government even if we didn't vote for it, for the duration of its term. Most Scottish voters are sophisticated enough to understand this, and cast different votes for Westminster and Holyrood.

By a similar token, when the referendum results are announced region by region, and Shetland votes a resounding 'no', would you be content with the argument that "Shetland didn't vote for this"?

[Wad_2002]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I thought the BoE Governor explained the pound situation quite well - how can the Scots have independent taxation and the same currency as the rest of the UK?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25930075

Sorry Hugh, I may just be me, but I can't see where it says that. The jist of it, is that an agreement has to made up for it to happen. But again, by the looks of things, some people are unable to play ball.

Again can someone explain why a shared currency would not work?

Originally Posted by Wad_2002

Sorry Hugh, I may just be me, but I can't see where it says that. The jist of it, is that an agreement has to made up for it to happen. But again, by the looks of things, some people are unable to play ball.

Again can someone explain why a shared currency would not work?

You're asking the wrong question.

It can be made to work, even if it is badly designed - spend a few minutes pondering the Eurozone. That shared currency is being kept afloat at the cost of billions of Euros the taxpayers of Germany haven't yet realised they are unable ever to get back, and at the cost of terrifying levels of unemployment that have destroyed the Greek economy for a generation.

Where the Euro project went wrong was at the very outset, when the federalist founders thought they could implement monetary union while leaving fiscal union for some later date. They knew that fiscal union would be required, in fact desirable in its own right, at some future point, but didn't push for it because the political will for it wasn't there. They didn't foresee the financial shock that has almost ripped the currency union apart (and may yet do so).

Sharing a currency is not simply a matter of agreeing to use the same tokens when purchasing goods. A modern currency is a government's principal means of economic control. Its value is determined by the strength of its economy and the trustworthiness of its government. The Euro blew up because different countries, with different tax and spending policies, caused imbalances in the system. In short, lots of Euros ended up in Germany and there were next to none left in Greece. The Euro became too expensive for Greeks to be able to afford it. With its own currency, Greece could have simply printed loads more of it, devaluing the currency and making imports horribly expensive but at least keeping the domestic economy afloat.

So, to return to the point at hand: a common Sterling zone *could* work, if

1. The lessons of the Euro were heeded, resulting in
2. A common fiscal policy for rUK and Scotland, resulting in
3. None of John Swinney's extravagant promises about competitive tax rates being possible, because
4. A successful common currency zone (see: US Dollar) relies on a central governing body which can move money around the system from where there is too much, to where there is not enough, which
5. Requires the common consent of *all* involved.

Let's be absolutely clear about this, a state that does not control its own economy is not independent in any meaningful sense. The GuessNP want to *break* the currency union of the UK and then re-forge one that will of necessity be more complex because it will be managed by politicians sitting in 2 different parliaments and 2 different governments, rather than in one place as is now the case.

And, finally, the great big elephant in the room: a fiscal union with a foreign state would lead to a loss of sovereignty for the people of the rUK and the rUK government being forced to guarantee the Scottish banking system against failure. Having just had their faces slapped with a Yes vote, how likely would the voters of Enlgand, Wales and Northern Ireland be to agree to underwrite the Scottish banking system and to allow the Scottish government to influence rUK tax policy?

Not very, I submit, is the answer to that question.

[Osem]

Sounds like some Scots only want a little bit of independence. If Scotland wants to go its own way and believes it can, let it do so on its own merits and with its own currency which will be valued and rise/fall along with interest rates according to economic fundamentals in Scotland not the UK or anywhere else. Scotland cherry picking what it wants from the rest of the UK isn't really being independent at all. Salmond's got it all sussed according to some so why worry about Sterling - surely it'll all be right when he's running the show and can plaster his image on the banknotes...

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's be absolutely clear about this, a state that does not control its own economy is not independent in any meaningful sense. The GuessNP want to *break* the currency union of the UK and then re-forge one that will of necessity be more complex because it will be managed by politicians sitting in 2 different parliaments and 2 different governments, rather than in one place as is now the case.

Aren't taxes set at state level in America? I know Sales Tax is....

Originally Posted by Damien

Aren't taxes set at state level in America? I know Sales Tax is....

There are oodles of Federal taxes in the US. The Union would collapse if there weren't; it's the only reason a state like California can remain in an effective currency union with Iowa. Federal taxation and spending allows fiscal transfer from the places where the money is made to the places where it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxatio..._United_States

See also: http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...s-fiscal-union for a brief but informative piece on the sheer scale of fiscal transfer between rich and poor parts of the USA.

The fact that the successful US Dollar zone relies on a TAX-RAISING GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION should not be overlooked.

Originally Posted by Chris

There are oodles of Federal taxes in the US. The Union would collapse if there weren't; it's the only reason a state like California can remain in an effective currency union with Iowa. Federal taxation and spending allows fiscal transfer from the places where the money is made to the places where it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxatio..._United_States

Ta

[Wad_2002]

Originally Posted by Chris

"Scotland" did not vote for anything - neither did "England". This is just another nationalist fantasy. It was a UK general election, with about 650 constituencies, each of which returned an MP. There are regional variations all over the UK in general elections but the fact that we are a modern, liberal democracy means that we accept the government even if we didn't vote for it, for the duration of its term. Most Scottish voters are sophisticated enough to understand this, and cast different votes for Westminster and Holyrood.

By a similar token, when the referendum results are announced region by region, and Shetland votes a resounding 'no', would you be content with the argument that "Shetland didn't vote for this"?

Yeah, I would be content as I would repspect there vote. But at the end of the day, if the majoirty vote was yes/no (putting voter turnout to the side this now)...I would respect this.

But this is where the draw back is Chris and the fundamental flaw of the "system" is Scotland cannot implement/influence policy decision making in Westminster becuase of the under re-presentation of the Scottish MP's. The same goes for NI, Wales, etc.. I realise we got devo, but sorry, it doesn't satasfy my need and nor would I expect it to satasfy the scottish parliaments needs.

We have 50 or so mp's in westminster out of a representation of 600 for the UK. How can SNP, Salmond or anyone for the fact change things for the better good.

P.s. I didn't want to quote your response to the pound question because of the size, but I acknowledge and respect your answer to my question. It certainly gave me a lesson

Its certainlly gave me a different way of looking at it. Yeah the euro is a complete mess and yes I have to agree there are risks on a unpredictable nature of sharing the currency with different polices on each side of the border in play.

I have said before Chris, I don't think leaving the UK is the answer, but uncertainlly over the currency aint going to stop me from voting yes. But this did not explain why Scotland cannot go alone and make a good one out of it.

I quote from DC -

“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country” - David Cameron (April 2007)

Mr Wad, the question we must answer in September has never been *could* we. It is, *should* we.

What sort of Scotland do you want? If you want true independence, a la Norway or Switzerland, then you close your border, print your own money and set your own taxes. This is not what the SNP is promising to negotiate in the event of a Yes vote.

If you want everything to continue pretty much as it is now, except without interference from Westminster, which is what the SNP is promising, then you are believing a lie. For the border to be open, and the currency to be unchanged, Scotland would be leaving many of the powers that rightly belong to an independent government, in the hands of a foreign neighbour. You think Westminster doesn't reflect Scotland because it only has 50 Scottish MPs? How about when it has zero Scottish MPs, but Scotland's fiscal policy is still being set there?

The GuessNP is selling a pig in a poke. The only deal on offer isn't independence, it's a hamstrung union in which Scots have vastly less influence over a government that will continue to rule over their economy.

[Mr Angry]

".....how likely would the voters of Enlgand, Wales and Northern Ireland be to agree to underwrite the Scottish banking system and to allow the Scottish government to influence rUK tax policy?"

I don't recall the electorate being asked to agree to underwrite the British banking system.

It seems it's not always the case that the electorate are consulted on such matters. Surely Scotland could have a pound or currency pegged to the UK pound rate? The Falklands do it and they, Wales and NI all print their own banknotes which are pegged to the pound. Here in NI we can transact at point of sale in Euros or pounds sterling, Northern, Ulster, Bank of Ireland and First Trust notes (to name but a few). Whilst I'm not an economist I don't see why it would be such a stretch for Scotland to do likewise.

Meantime, big business has finally decided it's time to stand up and be counted. Better Together is quoting the boss of a major investment bank specialising in the energy sector thusly:

Colin Welsh, chief executive officer of Simmons & Company International Limited, corporate finance specialists for the energy sector, said today;

“I wholeheartedly endorse what Bob Dudley said yesterday regarding the uncertainty that the question of independence brings to our industry and the threat that this poses to our economic future. This is an issue that is too important for the business community to stay silent on and the oil and gas industry needs to stand up and say what it thinks before it is too late.”

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

".....how likely would the voters of Enlgand, Wales and Northern Ireland be to agree to underwrite the Scottish banking system and to allow the Scottish government to influence rUK tax policy?"

I don't recall the electorate being asked to agree to underwrite the British banking system.

It seems it's not always the case that the electorate are consulted on such matters. Surely Scotland could have a pound or currency pegged to the UK pound rate? The Falklands do it and they, Wales and NI all print their own banknotes which are pegged to the pound. Here in NI we can transact at point of sale in Euros or pounds sterling, Northern, Ulster, Bank of Ireland and First Trust notes (to name but a few). Whilst I'm not an economist I don't see why it would be such a stretch for Scotland to do likewise.

Banks in Wales do not print their own banknotes.

And notes printed in Scotland are not 'pegged' to the pound because they are not a distinct currency. Every single one of them is backed by a deposit of identical value, held at the Bank of England on behalf of the Scottish banks. A Scottish banknote is simply a promissory note, a substitute for the real thing. I believe this to be the case for notes issued in NI also.

Your comment about underwriting the British banking system rather misses the point. Regardless of your feelings about reckless bankers, what occurred in 2008 was a rescue of the British banking system, by the British government, using taxes raised in Britain.

In a future currency union, constituted to avoid the debacle currently destroying southern Europe, there is a risk of the Scottish banking system, being rescued by the English/Welsh/NI Government, using taxes raised in England/Wales/NI. Politically, the use of English/Welsh/NI taxes being used to rescue the economy of a foreign neighbour, is a wholly different proposition to the notion of using that money to rescue the State's own economy. It is likely, in my view, that calls for a referendum on this issue in rUK would be very loud and quite possibly irresistible.

You are of course correct, you can fully or partially substitute your own currency, either by pegging or by simply using the foreign country outright. It works well enough for tiny economies like the Falklands, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands (US$) and a few others. However it comes with one massive risk, a risk which given recent history any sane person should consider simply too great. A fiscal authority without its own currency cannot be lender of last resort to its own banking system. Had RBS blown up in an independent Scotland running a substitute currency ... goodnight Vienna.

Incidentally, you can transact in Pounds, Euros, Dollars or lumps of Wensleydale cheese, anywhere in the UK, just so long as the buyer and seller agree on the rate of exchange. Agreement being the operative word. It gets a little more complex at government level, however.