Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?

rick_chasey

Ahead of Amsterdam?

I was under the impression Amsterdam was the global centre for futures and options trading...

rick_chasey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of ... _Insurance

Fair enough.

If you count the RBS and Lloyds balance sheets in Edinburgh rather than London, where they actually use it :P it probably makes sense.

daviesee

DonDaddyD - I can't explain it. Maybe because enough people at one time considered Wales to be no more than an English County? :?

rjsterry - Old data.

Rick - Impressions v Sources. If you have a better source then fair enough. Otherwise Edinburgh is above Amsterdam. Edit - Rick posted as I was typing. Lies, damned lies and statistics. I guess anyone can come up with the figures they want.
Wikipedia? Really?

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD - I can't explain it. Maybe because enough people at one time considered Wales to be no more than an English County? :?

rjsterry - Old data.

Rick - Impressions v Sources. If you have a better source then fair enough. Otherwise Edinburgh is above Amsterdam. Edit - Rick posted as I was typing. Lies, damned lies and statistics. I guess anyone can come up with the figures they want.
Wikipedia? Really?

I didn't realise you count the balance sheet of the firm where their HQ is based, rather than where they actually do their banking...

Either way, London is still the biggest financial centre in the world.

Even after the rise to 50% tax eh? Who'd have thought. :P

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry - Old data.

Granted, but have the overall proportions of each industry changed that much? It seems like the rest of the UK, services are where it's at.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry - Old data.

Granted, but have the overall proportions of each industry changed that much?

With RBS and Lloyds probably a bit...

They're both scaling back, aggressively. RBS especially.

Anyway, how did we get here? I didn't hear much of a response to Cameron from Scotland beyond "Cameron's trying to dictate", which is absolutely true.

daviesee

Back on topic.
We are still in the situation where Alex Salmond HAS to call a referendum before 2016, with 2014 being the touted year.
David Cameron simply wants it out of the way as he assumes Alex will lose and it is allegedly curtailing growth.
That it plays into Alex's hand with David being seen as the "overlord" doesn't surpise me one little bit.
Head to head, Alex will make mincemeat of David in a debate.

Paul E

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry - Old data.

Granted, but have the overall proportions of each industry changed that much?

With RBS and Lloyds probably a bit...

They're both scaling back, aggressively. RBS especially.

Anyway, how did we get here? I didn't hear much of a response to Cameron from Scotland beyond "Cameron's trying to dictate", which is absolutely true.

They can have a referendum (it's only advisory though) but the only parliament that can grant independence is the Westminster one as it's enshrined in law

Paul E

daviesee wrote:

Back on topic.
We are still in the situation where Alex Salmond HAS to call a referendum before 2016, with 2014 being the touted year.
David Cameron simply wants it out of the way as he assumes Alex will lose and it is allegedly curtailing growth.
That it plays into Alex's hand with David being seen as the "overlord" doesn't surpise me one little bit.
Head to head, Alex will make mincemeat of David in a debate.

He is keeping his head down at the moment and if it was called anytime soon he knows he would loose as he has at most 35% of the population in favour of it, which is obviously not enough

rick_chasey

Paul E wrote:

They can have a referendum (it's only advisory though) but the only parliament that can grant independence is the Westminster one as it's enshrined in law

True, but a successful Scottish referendum, even if it's not politically or legally binding, would be too big for Westminster to ignore, surely?

Paul E

Depends what result it brings up, the current max of 35% for independence is not enough, even if it gains enough support does Scotland have enough of an economy with no support from the rest of the UK, I don't think it does, it doesn't have the tax paying population to support itself at the moment especially for the things they get for free that the rest of the UK has to pay for.

Then there is the issue of having it's own army, having to set up all the governmant departments and paying for all of that to govern independently, who will pay for that??

That said I would move up there in an instant as I love the country.

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paul E wrote:

They can have a referendum (it's only advisory though) but the only parliament that can grant independence is the Westminster one as it's enshrined in law

True, but a successful Scottish referendum, even if it's not politically or legally binding, would be too big for Westminster to ignore, surely?

If they do...we have their nukes :twisted:

daviesee

Paul E wrote:

Depends what result it brings up, the current max of 35% for independence is not enough correct , even if it gains enough support does Scotland have enough of an economy with no support from the rest of the UK, I don't think it does, It may struggle. It may not it doesn't have the tax paying population to support itself source? at the moment especially for the things they get for free that the rest of the UK has to pay for. Holyrood decides how to spend it's money. We get free prescriptions, you get cycle super-highways. If you don't like it, change your MPs.
Then there is the issue of having it's own army, a disproportionate percentage of troops are Scottish. What would happen if they left the "English" army? having to set up all the governmant departments and paying for all of that to govern independently most of them are there already , who will pay for that?? The Scots
That said I would move up there in an instant as I love the country.

I've tried to answer your queries to a certain level but basically, I can't see it hapening anyway.

cjcp

daviesee wrote:

Back on topic.
We are still in the situation where Alex Salmond HAS to call a referendum before 2016, with 2014 being the touted year.
David Cameron simply wants it out of the way as he assumes Alex will lose and it is allegedly curtailing growth.
That it plays into Alex's hand with David being seen as the "overlord" doesn't surpise me one little bit.
Head to head, Alex will make mincemeat of David in a debate.

Tbh, he should do, because it's his specialist area. The real test will come if he gets to lead a fully independent Scotland (think this was mentoned yesterday by G66). But why wait till 2014? It's been a topic of discussion for so long that I would have thought they could hold it sooner.

@Paul E - yep, I can see the attraction of living in a country of about 5m people instead of 51m.

rick_chasey

Paul E wrote:

Depends what result it brings up, the current max of 35% for independence is not enough, even if it gains enough support does Scotland have enough of an economy with no support from the rest of the UK, I don't think it does, it doesn't have the tax paying population to support itself at the moment especially for the things they get for free that the rest of the UK has to pay for.

Then there is the issue of having it's own army, having to set up all the governmant departments and paying for all of that to govern independently, who will pay for that??

That said I would move up there in an instant as I love the country.

I think the actual process of devolution towards independence would be decided and negotiated afterwards.

What I do think is a little irresponsible of Cameron is to deny Scotland a devo-max option.

These issues are complicated and difficult. Gradual change towards independence, which from my perspective seems inevitable, makes more sense.

By forcing the binary Yay or nay, Cameron seems to be making a difficult problem more divisive and more binary.

It's a gray issue, and gray solutions need to be offered. Say, as the polls suggest, people are keener on more Scottish freedom, but are sceptical of the benefits of full independence, as discussed above, as well as a more general longer term trend towards seperatism.

An outright 'no' vote tomorrow would only make the problem harder, more complicated, and messier 5-10 years down the line.

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

An outright 'no' vote tomorrow would only make the problem harder, more complicated, and messier 5-10 years down the line.

I don't think it does, if anything it means that there won't be another vote for the next 30 years at least. A yes would mean that they had to do something, and the third "devo-max" option would leave things open for a yes later. That's why Salmond wants to spin this out a little, give the world economy a while to sort itself out, make everyone feel a little richer. Cameron wants a no, because it's politically very difficult for them to get a yes.

rjsterry

Is it not the same tactic as was used to kill off any discussion of voting reform with the AV referendum?

rick_chasey

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

An outright 'no' vote tomorrow would only make the problem harder, more complicated, and messier 5-10 years down the line.

I don't think it does, if anything it means that there won't be another vote for the next 30 years at least.

That's my point. The trend is towards a separatist majority.

If that bares out, then holding another referendum will be complicated.

Let the Scots decide. After all, it's their decision in reality. Constitutionally the rest of the UK has a say, but in practice, not really.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Depends what result it brings up, the current max of 35% for independence is not enough, even if it gains enough support does Scotland have enough of an economy with no support from the rest of the UK, I don't think it does, it doesn't have the tax paying population to support itself at the moment especially for the things they get for free that the rest of the UK has to pay for.

Then there is the issue of having it's own army, having to set up all the governmant departments and paying for all of that to govern independently, who will pay for that??

That said I would move up there in an instant as I love the country.

I think the actual process of devolution towards independence would be decided and negotiated afterwards.

What I do think is a little irresponsible of Cameron is to deny Scotland a devo-max option.

These issues are complicated and difficult. Gradual change towards independence, which from my perspective seems inevitable, makes more sense.

By forcing the binary Yay or nay, Cameron seems to be making a difficult problem more divisive and more binary.

It's a gray issue, and gray solutions need to be offered. Say, as the polls suggest, people are keener on more Scottish freedom, but are sceptical of the benefits of full independence, as discussed above, as well as a more general longer term trend towards seperatism.

An outright 'no' vote tomorrow would only make the problem harder, more complicated, and messier 5-10 years down the line.

Ah, so having their cake and eating it?

I think it has to be in or out, you can't be "independent" for what you want and relient on the rest of the UK for the bits the Scots can't afford. That's not what "independent" means.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I do think is a little irresponsible of Cameron is to deny Scotland a devo-max option.

These issues are complicated and difficult. Gradual change towards independence, which from my perspective seems inevitable, makes more sense.

What, precisely, is devo-max? The limited material I can find suggests that it is full financial autonomy for Scotland. But that means what? Holyrood has to raise all the money it spends. Ok, well Westminster has to raise all the money it spends. And since Westminster would still, one assumes, have to pay for some things that Scotland would continue to enjoy (Armed Forces being the most obvious), Westminster would, one assumes, still be able to levy money from Scotland. I don't see how you can get complete financial autonomy without complete independence.

If you go down the devo-max path though, I cant see any principled basis upon which Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster should be able to vote on financial affairs that don't affect Scotland (ie all those where Scotland has its full autonomy). Then you have the oddity of a House of Commons within a House of Commons.

There is a precedent if Scotland wishes to end the Union: Ireland. Ireland joined the Union in 1801. Following the election of a large number of Sinn Fein MPs to Westminster in 1919, it fought a war of independence against Britain (1919? to 1921). Following a truce, a negotiated settlement with the British resulted in the creation of the The Irish Free State in 1921. That was a Dominion (the same term used for a former colony, because sovereign Republic status was not on offer from the British Govt) that required the Irish to swear allegiance to the Crown and for Northern Ireland to opt out and remain part of Great Britain. It gave the Irish what might be called practical independence though.

The Irish then had a bit of civil war between those who wished to sever allegiance to the Crown and those who did not. In 1937 the Irish did away with the oath of allegiance to the Crown, but it was not until 1949 that the Republic of Ireland emerged as a fully fledged independent sovereign nation.

Trawling through wiki, the process by which the principal Dominions (Australia, Canada) have flown the nest is similarly lengthy and incremental and consensual.

Scotland, however, like Ireland prior to 1921, isn't a Dominion. Both Scotland and Ireland were separate states prior to their respective Acts of Union, albeit ones that shared a Crown with England (wiki: personal union). In each Union the Parliaments of both uniting countries passed Acts ratifying the treaty that united them.

All of which doesn't do more than illustrate that independence is a rather more involved problem that perhaps it first seems. And for once, I agree with Rick, in that if it is to happen it is more likely to do so by gradual and incremental steps over a fair period of time.

And if it happens, Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist. The new term will (I think) be The Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.


PS: to the person who asked what would happen to the Scottish soldiers who didn't wish to continue in the British Army: well, they can leave in accordance with the terms of their engagement by the Army, or they can be shot as deserters. Innit.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

An outright 'no' vote tomorrow would only make the problem harder, more complicated, and messier 5-10 years down the line.

I don't think it does, if anything it means that there won't be another vote for the next 30 years at least.

That's my point. The trend is towards a separatist majority.

If that bares out, then holding another referendum will be complicated.

Let the Scots decide. After all, it's their decision in reality. Constitutionally the rest of the UK has a say, but in practice, not really.

Why not? Because the Scots might not like the answer....

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

And if it happens, Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist. The new term will (I think) be The Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland..

Wales?

Is Devo Max similar to the US model. Would a United States of Britain be workable?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Wales?

Not today, thank you.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

If you go down the devo-max path though, I cant see any principled basis upon which Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster should be able to vote on financial affairs that don't affect Scotland (ie all those where Scotland has its full autonomy). Then you have the oddity of a House of Commons within a House of Commons.

Ah. The West Lothian question. So named as the MP for West Lothian asked that very question as he saw the injustice of it.
Most people can see the logic that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English matters.
My "simple" theory is that Labour liked the fact that the Scottish MPs bolstered their powers.
I am surprised that those powers have been retained with the coalition Government.

Slight tangent. Devolution worked very smoothly with Labour in charge of both houses. I don't think they banked on the SNP being in charge in Scotland and rocking the boat. It was only then that Devolution became an issue, far less independance.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Would a United States of Britain be workable?

In the US each state has its own state legislature, Governor and so own. Overlaid on top of all 50 states' legislatures is the Federal govt - what is recognised as the US Govt. The states are self funded in part, but also (as I understand it) contribute to the Federal govt and receive benefits from the Federal Govt.

The problem that a USB would create is that England, Scotland, Wales and Norn would all have their national governments, but you would need a Federal govt overlaid. Where do you put that? Washington became the seat of the Federal Govt long before the country properly formed. England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that.

Plus you would have a third layer of government: local government, national government, federal government. More public servants to pay. It would be worse than the EU.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I do think is a little irresponsible of Cameron is to deny Scotland a devo-max option.

These issues are complicated and difficult. Gradual change towards independence, which from my perspective seems inevitable, makes more sense.

What, precisely, is devo-max? The limited material I can find suggests that it is full financial autonomy for Scotland. But that means what? Holyrood has to raise all the money it spends. Ok, well Westminster has to raise all the money it spends. And since Westminster would still, one assumes, have to pay for some things that Scotland would continue to enjoy (Armed Forces being the most obvious), Westminster would, one assumes, still be able to levy money from Scotland. I don't see how you can get complete financial autonomy without complete independence.

It's not that straightforward though.

I'm sure there would be an arrangement or agreement that a portion of Scottish taxes raised would go to the combined UK armed forces for example, etc.

These things are never black and white.

There seems to be an assumption that somehow, Scotland will be unable to function without Westminster taxes. I doubt that's actually the case.

greg66_tri_v2.0

daviesee wrote:

Ah. The West Lothian question. So named as the MP for West Lothian asked that very question as he saw the injustice of it.
Most people can see the logic that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English matters.
My "simple" theory is that Labour liked the fact that the Scottish MPs bolstered their powers.
I am surprised that those powers have been retained with the coalition Government.

Quite so. I never really understood why Labour courted devolution, as they must have foreseen that it would fuel nationalism and raise the issue of independence. That in turn throws the West Lothian question into sharper focus, even pre-independence.

My feeling is that the Cons would not be averse to axing Scottish MPs from Parliament altogether. It would have the potential to lock Labour out of government for at least a generation. However, I think it is precisely because the consequence is so severe that the Cons have slightly cold feet about trying something so brazen and openly advantageous to them.

Kieran_Burns

You might find this place useful:

http://www.thecep.org.uk/

My best mate is a very active member

suzyb

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Would a United States of Britain be workable?

In the US each state has its own state legislature, Governor and so own. Overlaid on top of all 50 states' legislatures is the Federal govt - what is recognised as the US Govt. The states are self funded in part, but also (as I understand it) contribute to the Federal govt and receive benefits from the Federal Govt.

The problem that a USB would create is that England, Scotland, Wales and Norn would all have their national governments, but you would need a Federal govt overlaid. Where do you put that? Washington became the seat of the Federal Govt long before the country properly formed. England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that.

Plus you would have a third layer of government: local government, national government, federal government. More public servants to pay. It would be worse than the EU.

Stick it on the border, half in Scotland, half in England. Job Done!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not that straightforward though.

I'm sure there would be an arrangement or agreement that a portion of Scottish taxes raised would go to the combined UK armed forces for example, etc.

These things are never black and white.

There seems to be an assumption that somehow, Scotland will be unable to function without Westminster taxes. I doubt that's actually the case.

Financial autonomy as concept is black and white though. Either you are or you aren't autonomous. And I really can't see how you can be without full independence.

I wonder about Scotland's ability to stand on its feet. A quick google reveals that it has a population of 5 million or so. That's not going to generate a lot of income tax. Nor is it going to support a huge amount of retail sales tax revenue. I also wonder how many companies would base themselves there absent subsidies from Westminster designed to spread business across the country.

Still, if they could persuade Sean Connery to move back the income tax take would rise considerably!