Friday Thread: If Scotland vote YES will TWH have to leave?

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

I just think that's an excuse. It's no different to pretty much any other part of the UK outside the South East of England. Salmond has already indicated he wants to keep the pound: Scotland will just be hostage to what the rest of the UK needs with the Bank of England no longer giving a stuff about the issues it might cause in Scotland regardless of the politics of Westminster. And one effect of Scottish independence is that Westminster will shift right since Scotland doesn't exactly return a lot of Tories.

So do you think the terms of a currency union will result in less freedom to set fiscal policies than we have currently? That does not make sense to me. I can see limits being set on borrowing and interest rates coming from a currency union, that may be a good thing. Fiscal policy will be in the hands of the elected Scottish government. With a bit of common sense this would be set up to benefit the economy.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

So do you think the terms of a currency union will result in less freedom to set fiscal policies than we have currently? That does not make sense to me. I can see limits being set on borrowing and interest rates coming from a currency union, that may be a good thing. Fiscal policy will be in the hands of the elected Scottish government. With a bit of common sense this would be set up to benefit the economy.

No I'm not saying that at all. And it will work provided economic cycles are in sync but as soon as the economies get out of step (which, if Scotland has its "freedom" to set fiscal and economic policy), they're bound sooner or later, the needs of the rest of the UK will swamp Scotland I'm afraid. All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for.

aberdeen_lune

Your right there are risks with a currency union. We have seen that only to clearly on the continent. The loss of ability to set monetary policy can create issues. However we don't have the power to set interest rates in Scotland at the moment anyway. If it's boom time in the south east the bank of England will increase interest rates which may not suit the Scottish economy. So we become independent and still have the Bank of England setting interest rates. Not ideal but hardly a deal breaker.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Your right there are risks with a currency union. We have seen that only to clearly on the continent. The loss of ability to set monetary policy can create issues. However we don't have the power to set interest rates in Scotland at the moment anyway. If it's boom time in the south east the bank of England will increase interest rates which may not suit the Scottish economy. So we become independent and still have the Bank of England setting interest rates. Not ideal but hardly a deal breaker.

Except Westminster really WON'T give a stuff about Scotland's economy (hence my comments above). On an emotional level, I can understand why Scotland wants to be independent. On a rational level, I think Scotland will be mad to do it. I also don't think there's a chance it will happen either.

BelgianBeerGeek

roger merriman wrote:

unixnerd wrote:

Scottish soldiers? Who are they?

Maybe you should ask a few. Please post the results on YouTube, I suspect they dislike being insulted like that.

They are Scottish but the assumption that they would want to leave the MOD to be in the Scottish army, is by no means sure. It would be a smaller less interesting operation and solders do tend to like to well do what they trained to do.

Let alone the number of jobs that rely on the MOD be that ships built on the Clyde or whatever. There are a lot of assumptions

Ok, I was being flippant. But as Roger says, there are a lot of assumptions being made and some of them are lazy. "Scottish" regiments, for example, are not exclusively manned by Scots. And how the RAF or navy would be divvied up is beyond me. It's not a simple question of splitting things in a proportionate manner.
Pie in the sky or not, at least Salmond has some vision, and I can see why that would appeal to many. Cameron can only really come up with "aw, please don't go", hardly a firm rebuttal. It's almost as though he wants independence

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Your right there are risks with a currency union. We have seen that only to clearly on the continent. The loss of ability to set monetary policy can create issues. However we don't have the power to set interest rates in Scotland at the moment anyway. If it's boom time in the south east the bank of England will increase interest rates which may not suit the Scottish economy. So we become independent and still have the Bank of England setting interest rates. Not ideal but hardly a deal breaker.

Except Westminster really WON'T give a stuff about Scotland's economy (hence my comments above). On an emotional level, I can understand why Scotland wants to be independent. On a rational level, I think Scotland will be mad to do it. I also don't think there's a chance it will happen either.

Exactly. It would hardly go done well in England and Wales if a Scotland that is playing at being independent starts wanting the English and Welsh economies compromised by Scotlands monetary policy. What form of independence would that be?

aberdeen_lune

Westminster hardly gives a stuff about the Scottish economy anyway so there won't be much change there. The main difference will be we will be able to vote in or out our government. At the moment we have little say in it. The limited powers of the current Scottish government isn't enough to compensate for that fact.

The Rookie

There will be no currency 'union', the Scots may choose to keep the pound, but much like Zimbabwe going to the US dollar, they would have no say in the critical areas, that is not a union.

tailwindhome

The purple bit is were I am.

DDD you're in the red bit.

It's the pale blue bit which seeks independence.

Hope that clarifies.

rolf_f

TailWindHome wrote:

The purple bit is were I am.

DDD you're in the red bit.

It's the pale blue bit which seeks independence.

Hope that clarifies.

I think you might need to explain the green bit to him as well. I think DDD would be pleased to lose Scotland on the basis that it has Kintyre in it and I doubt that DDD would feel comfortable living in a country part of which looks like a male reproductive organ.

First.Aspect

Who gets to keep Rockall?

YIMan

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Advantages:
Get rid of nuclear weapons.
Get rid of a tier of government freeloading on taxpayers funds.
Stop Scottish soldiers being sent to fight illegitimate wars.
No chance of a Tory government.
No chance of a UKIP MP.
Ability to set up a fiscal regime to suit the Scottish economy.
Ability to set up an immigration policy to suit Scotland's business and educational needs.

Disadvantages.
Need to negotiate terms with the European Union.
Need to negotiate terms of a currency union.
Higher borrowing costs.

I will be voting yes. Does not mean I don't like the rest of the UK.

Scottish soldiers? Who are they? Anyone joining HM Forces swears allegiance to the Queen (heirs & successors etc), not President Salmond. I guess you would have to ask them individually if they wouldn't mind signing off from the army and re-joining the Scottish Defence Force, or whatever it might call itself.

What about English or Welsh soldiers who happen to live in Scotland and will therefore presumably be voting in the referendum?

Sewinman

If the Scots vote yes I won't be visiting their new country if I can avoid it. I visit there regularly for holidays now, but if they choose to break away then they can basically f' off.

meanredspider

What will happen to the 1000s of English, Welsh, and N Irish who work in Scotland now with their national insurance contributions?? Take my wife, for example: one of a number of English nationality teachers at her school. Or the 4 or 5 hospital consultants in my village (all non-Scot UK) - should they stay and be "stuck" with the Scots national insurance scheme or simply head back down the road to England (Wales NI)? No wonder Scotland is worried about immigration rules - there's potentially a big hole left.

meanredspider

In case you hadn't guessed, I'll be voting against as will the rest of my family and, as far as I can tell, my entire street....

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

The purple bit is were I am.

DDD you're in the red bit.

It's the pale blue bit which seeks independence.

Hope that clarifies.

The white bit has the best accent and women.

The purple bit makes the best jokes.

The blue bit has wolves.

The green bit is for dragons and Gregs.

The red bit is on benefits.

DonDaddyD

My personal view is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Europe has gone to great lengths to reduce national borders, get people moving freely between countries and make a single currency work. Sure they f*cked it up and it'll take a generation or two before they get it right, but what we are essentially looking at is an attempt by Europe/Eurozone at creating the UK.

The UK works, yes it isn't perfect but what overwhelming gain is there if Scotland goes it alone. What has Scotland got to offer the World's economy that it couldn't already benefit from in greater terms by being part of the UK. Sure, I get it, independance would be a feat of emotional and passion but, like seeing the first ever Black US President, after the tears have been wiped away and the dust settles who benefits from this, who loses and most importantly how is it going to work.

Establishing a Country is no easy feat.

Also, will England or Scotland pay for the rebuilding of Hadrien's Wall, you know to keep them out....

Sewinman

If they do get rid of defence spending and armed forces, as was suggested earlier, we can just invade them again and take over. No big deal!

anonymousblackfg

(fully agree on that last point)

Despite a yes vote meaning I would have the excuse of 'visa issues' to not visit my inlaws I agree the UK is worth more as a whole.

The bit that got me thinking was watching the Rugby on Saturday, all the buildup and hatred of the Scot's towards the English really doesn't go the other way. I have met a number who believe it does, but they live in Scotland and generally don't travel south of the border. Surely England becomes like a dumped partner seeking petty retribution and truly hostile once dumped?

aberdeen_lune

Well the English will be turning into the Gungams soon with all this flooding. I don't fancy discussing monetary policy with Ja Ja Binks maybe we should just have close ties with the continent. Up here we are nearer Amsterdam than London anyway. Euros may be the way to go.

rolf_f

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Up here we are nearer Amsterdam than London anyway.

By how much?

aberdeen_lune

It's 110 miles nearer as the crow flies. The Dutch are more liberal and open minded as well. It's a win win.

We then just rebuild Hadrians wall and were laughing.

notsoblue

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The Dutch are more liberal and open minded as well. It's a win win.

I'm not sure thats true tbh...

rolf_f

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

It's 110 miles nearer as the crow flies. The Dutch are more liberal and open minded as well. It's a win win.

I think you need a new crow!

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

It's 110 miles nearer as the crow flies

Really that much??? Just scaling it off Google maps ( not the most accurate granted), I'd say Inverness was closer to London and Aberdeen looks about equidistant.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

It's 110 miles nearer as the crow flies

Really that much??? Just scaling it off Google maps ( not the most accurate granted), I'd say Inverness was closer to London and Aberdeen looks about equidistant.

It's about 400 to London and 437 to Amsterdam!

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

It's 110 miles nearer as the crow flies

Really that much??? Just scaling it off Google maps ( not the most accurate granted), I'd say Inverness was closer to London and Aberdeen looks about equidistant.

It's about 400 to London and 437 to Amsterdam!

At a guess, I would say like most skilled Aberdonians, he is actually in Stavanger cashing in.
Which would negate his distance argument but reinforce how easy it is to be multinational and that borders are merely but a mindset.

meanredspider

PBlakeney wrote:

At a guess, I would say like most skilled Aberdonians, he is actually in Stavanger cashing in.
Which would negate his distance argument but reinforce how easy it is to be multinational and that borders are nearly a mindset.

Yes, absolutely. I'm in Scotland today at my home but I work in Amsterdam, live there during the week and pay tax (less of it) in NL. Bizarrely though, if Scotland is forced to rejoin the EU, there will need to be passport controls at Gretna :roll: On the plus side, I won't need my passport to fly to Schiphol

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

At a guess, I would say like most skilled Aberdonians, he is actually in Stavanger cashing in.
Which would negate his distance argument but reinforce how easy it is to be multinational and that borders are nearly a mindset.

Yes, absolutely. I'm in Scotland today at my home but I work in Amsterdam, live there during the week and pay tax (less of it) in NL. Bizarrely though, if Scotland is forced to rejoin the EU, there will need to be passport controls at Gretna :roll: On the plus side, I won't need my passport to fly to Schiphol

Now there's a thought - a useful boost for the Scottish economy with all those English folk heading over the border to sample the pot brought in by Scots on their way back from Amsterdam! Gretnas glory days will return - once the capital for the eloping English couple, soon it could become the capital for the English pot head!

bluefinch

Just for a bit of context on the military issue - the Irish Army has a strength of 5000 men, but there are 4000 Irish citizens in the British armed forces. Given that, as well as the Irish, the Canadians, Australians, Fijians etc can all join the British Army there's no doubt that Scots seeking a military career would have a choice between a small Scots civil defence force and the British forces.

In general if you look at how close Ireland remained to Britain after 1922 (currency union until 1979, free movement, free trade, army recruitment etc) despite far, far more cultural hostility towards the Brits than any Scots Nat has it gives you a better idea of what will change and what won't. It's happened before.