Scottish independence - The real issue

Northwind

cooldad wrote:

Scotland is a country? I thought it was a character in a Mel Gibson movie.

Nah, Christopher Lambert wasn't it?

Right, back a bit, talking about general elections... Another reason why the Scots are fed up of this westminster crap. Who's the official 2nd party in Scotland at Westminster? Lib Dems, with 11 seats and 18.9% of the vote. Who's the 3rd? SNP, with only 6 seats but 19.9% of the vote! How democratic is that then?

(and yeah, I like Tory bashing but they're even worse off, 16.7% of the vote but only 1 MP. And he's a retard so they didn't really get their money's worth there...)

Briggo

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Briggo wrote:

How do they expect people to decide on something so important based on "we'll improve childcare and make the tax system fairer"

What the farkin hell does that mean Salmond, how will you improve it and how will you make it fairer?

But there are two issues which are being completely intermixed and confused.

One the one hand you have what Scotland as a nation could do if it were independent, regardless of who was in power at the time.

On the other you have the SNP manifesto as to what *they* would do if they were the government of Scotland.

They are two entirely seperate things, it's not beyond the realms that if Scotland is independent they could vote in another Lab/Lib coalition government and not the SNP.

However, thats what the vote is being based on isn't it, the SNP versus Westminster.

What the SNP could do for you if Scotland was independent is the message that's being used to get people to vote Yes, not the long term meaning of what an independent Scotland means regardless of which political power is in the driving seat and that's the scary thing about it all.

Massive amounts of people may be voting being ill informed.

Hopefully the votes won't be based on people wanting to re-enact Braveheart and that the SNP's vague promises which have no detail and mean nothing in reality won them over and that people really understand what it means for them.

Northwind

Briggo wrote:

Massive amounts of people may be voting being ill informed.

Well yes, that's democracy. Massive amounts of people voted Lib Dem in the last election under the mistaken impression they weren't the Tory party.

But no, the vote isn't- or shouldn't be- the SNP vs Westminster. Personally, I'd vote SNP in an independent Scotland but a lot of people wouldn't, they're still seen widely as a single issue party. (and also, widely, the other way round- lots of folks are anti-independence but vote SNP for the rest of their policies)

bompington

Northwind wrote:

bompington wrote:

Fair enough, if it was representative of the whole country at the 2011 election then about 23% of the street would have voted SNP ;-).

Ah now you know that's misleading, Scotland votes for Westminster parties in the UK elections, the SNP can't compete on a national scale so many supporters vote tactically instead. But they got an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament- a system that the designers admit was specifically chosen to prevent the SNP getting an overall majority

Not all that misleading, as the 2011 election I referred to was the Scottish Parliament election - roughly 50% turnout, of which about 46% of the vote was SNP, you can probably do the maths yourself. And no, I don't know how you get a majority with 46% of the vote in a PR system either.

poah

they should make is so you have to vote - the turn out at that last by election up here was about 25%

dannyjames8

I agree

Northwind

POAH wrote:

they should make is so you have to vote - the turn out at that last by election up here was about 25%

I don't think I want people who can't be bothered to vote, to vote... Maybe if you add on a multiple choice qualifying test too, and if you fail you get beaten with sticks.

poah

Northwind wrote:

POAH wrote:

they should make is so you have to vote - the turn out at that last by election up here was about 25%

I don't think I want people who can't be bothered to vote, to vote... Maybe if you add on a multiple choice qualifying test too, and if you fail you get beaten with sticks.

you can spoil your paper so you don't have to have a vote that counts

The Northern Monkey

Will Hadrian's wall be rebuilt?

markhewitt1978

Rebuild the wall which has never formed the border between England and Scotland

thekickingmule

Still, it should be rebuilt! Then there can be a passport control installed. It'll create jobs. The government will like this.

poah

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Will Hadrian's wall be rebuilt?

well would give Scotland more land I suppose

YeehaaMcgee

Well I never. This is a bit deep and intellectual for the CC, no?

Northwind

Fuck off you cunt

Thewaylander

I say use let them get go, then declare war and reconquer them, job done.

The Northern Monkey

A war about oil... the yanks would love to get in on that one.

welshkev

yeah lets invade Scotland!

Chunkers1980

This all proves the Welsh are cleverer than the Scots.

stubs

Its not looking good Osborne has said no to monetary union and the Spanish and French will possibly block entry to the EU because it might encourage there own independence movements. I am all in favour of democracy and if the majority want to go thats fine with me but I hope Scots dont let racism towards the English and England colour there judgement. Its a big old jump with no going back I would be examining the fine print of Salmonds manifesto with a big magnifying glass. l have looked at it briefly and it does seem as if its a wish list not a serious proposal for the most serious thing to happen to Scotland since 1707.

poah

Osborne is a moron, having no union would be better for Scotland as our economy is stronger thus our pound would be worth more than the English one. Spanish and French won't block because of import/export issues between the countries.

thekickingmule

POAH wrote:

Osborne is a moron, having no union would be better for Scotland as our economy is stronger thus our pound would be worth more than the English one. Spanish and French won't block because of import/export issues between the countries.

I very much doubt it. The Scottish economy is an unknown quantity when it's not in a union. You will see Scottish companies shares drop massively if they vote 'Yes' and many businesses may pull out of Scotland completely, as it doesn't have the details of how everything will happen. As it stands now, yes it may be stronger, but alone, I imagine it's going to struggle.
If Scotland has to find its own currency, it would most likely join the Euro. Providing it could apply for it and be accepted, which would be difficult due to the fact nobody knows how it will perform. If they stuck with the pound, then their pound would be no stronger than our pound as it's the same money. They'd be worth exactly the same.

Spain and France just like being awkward.

stubs

POAH wrote:

Spanish and French won't block because of import/export issues between the countries.

Spanish politicians have many times said they wont support Scotlands application for EU membership, I believe the Italians arent too keen either and French politicians have come out and said outright they will block an application. This is for internal political reasons Madrid, Rome and Paris dont want to encourage there own SNP equivalents.

I dont know what the waiting time for membership is but its going to be years not months and Scotland will have to negotiate trade treaties with the EU in the meantime or the economy is fucked, no way can Scotland trade into Europe with the tariffs and extra paperwork. None of the current treaties that the UK is signed to will apply after independence and I am not sure if a government in waiting has the legal power to negotiate or sign treaties. Till independence and a general election there will not be a Scottish govt, at the moment Salmond has roughly the same legal power as a US state governor.

poah

thekickingmule wrote:

If Scotland has to find its own currency, it would most likely join the Euro. Providing it could apply for it and be accepted, which would be difficult due to the fact nobody knows how it will perform. If they stuck with the pound, then their pound would be no stronger than our pound as it's the same money. They'd be worth exactly the same.

Spain and France just like being awkward.

it won't be the same currency though and won't be affected by the bank of England.

rockmonkeysc

On the bright side. Scottish independence might see a return to Coombe Sydenham for the British Downhill Series.

Northwind

stubs wrote:

Spanish politicians have many times said they wont support Scotlands application for EU membership

But then they'd also like to have their fishing industry not completely destroyed.

I do like the trusting way everyone is taking politicians at face value, especially those highly trustworthy and competent gents George Osborne and Ed Balls.

thekickingmule

POAH wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

If Scotland has to find its own currency, it would most likely join the Euro. Providing it could apply for it and be accepted, which would be difficult due to the fact nobody knows how it will perform. If they stuck with the pound, then their pound would be no stronger than our pound as it's the same money. They'd be worth exactly the same.

Spain and France just like being awkward.

it won't be the same currency though and won't be affected by the bank of England.

Yes it would. It would be the same setup as the Euro. The Euro in France isn't different from the Euro in Greece. When Greece went bankrupt, it brought the entire Euro down with it.
One of the main arguements that we wouldn't let Scotland have the pound is that Scotland wants to keep its ties with the Bank of England, which would be ridiculous as it would cost us (England and Wales) money so you can keep the pound. That wouldn't be too popular a decision

Northwind

thekickingmule wrote:

One of the main arguements that we wouldn't let Scotland have the pound is that Scotland wants to keep its ties with the Bank of England, which would be ridiculous as it would cost us (England and Wales) money so you can keep the pound. That wouldn't be too popular a decision

But it also saves the rUK a massive amount if Scotland retains the pound, due to the reduced costs of doing crossborder business. Not to mention that without a currency union, Scotland walks away with its share of the Bank of England reserves- at last count, £41 billion pounds. So the idea that a currency union ends up costing the UK money is pretty farfetched.

Ironically, the harder question to answer has always been whether Scotland should be going for it- it could well make more sense for Scotland to simply use the pound outwith a currency union (because remember, the question isn't whether scotland can keep the pound, it's only whether we do it as part of a negotiated settlement, or unilaterally)

poah

thekickingmule wrote:

Yes it would. It would be the same setup as the Euro. The Euro in France isn't different from the Euro in Greece. When Greece went bankrupt, it brought the entire Euro down with it.
One of the main arguements that we wouldn't let Scotland have the pound is that Scotland wants to keep its ties with the Bank of England, which would be ridiculous as it would cost us (England and Wales) money so you can keep the pound. That wouldn't be too popular a decision

it won't be the same thats the point. The euro is a monetary union, we wouldn't be in a monetary union if you believe what Osborne has been saying thus not the same pound. Its going to cost you anyway since we give more than we take, you'll not have the oil&gas revenue and trident will have to be relocated. That's why they don't want to split the union because we are a good thing at the moment.

thekickingmule

Northwind wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

One of the main arguements that we wouldn't let Scotland have the pound is that Scotland wants to keep its ties with the Bank of England, which would be ridiculous as it would cost us (England and Wales) money so you can keep the pound. That wouldn't be too popular a decision

But it also saves the rUK a massive amount if Scotland retains the pound, due to the reduced costs of doing crossborder business. Not to mention that without a currency union, Scotland walks away with its share of the Bank of England reserves- at last count, £41 billion pounds. So the idea that a currency union ends up costing the UK money is pretty farfetched.

Ironically, the harder question to answer has always been whether Scotland should be going for it- it could well make more sense for Scotland to simply use the pound outwith a currency union (because remember, the question isn't whether scotland can keep the pound, it's only whether we do it as part of a negotiated settlement, or unilaterally)

We'd also pass on our fair share of our debts too, so that would take out some or most of the £41b. That's not that much really (!) in the grand scheme of things though. I agree with the second paragraph, they could still hold the pound (scottish ones anyway) as you're still ruled by the Queen, so can have her on the currency.

POAH wrote:

it won't be the same thats the point. The euro is a monetary union, we wouldn't be in a monetary union if you believe what Osborne has been saying thus not the same pound. Its going to cost you anyway since we give more than we take, you'll not have the oil&gas revenue and trident will have to be relocated. That's why they don't want to split the union because we are a good thing at the moment.

You sound like you're throwing your toys out the pram. Salmond wanted a monetary union, to keep things nice and simple between the 2 countries. Osborne said no because it would mean England/Wales would pay for your currency, which wouldn't go down to well, and NONE of the other parties disagreed with him (only SNP). Yes you have the oil and gas, and yes we'll need to take trident, but Scotland will need to find funds for defences, you'll have to build up a LOT of business that you currently rely on England for. I admit, Scotland contributes a lot of money for the UK, but don't start thinking you're providing more than England, you're FAR from it. We would pretty much be ok, yes it would hurt financially, but we'll survive, it's Scotland that has to put a lot of hard work in to get back to where it currently is.

poah

thekickingmule wrote:

You sound like you're throwing your toys out the pram. Salmond wanted a monetary union, to keep things nice and simple between the 2 countries. Osborne said no because it would mean England/Wales would pay for your currency, which wouldn't go down to well, and NONE of the other parties disagreed with him (only SNP). Yes you have the oil and gas, and yes we'll need to take trident, but Scotland will need to find funds for defences, you'll have to build up a LOT of business that you currently rely on England for. I admit, Scotland contributes a lot of money for the UK, but don't start thinking you're providing more than England, you're FAR from it. We would pretty much be ok, yes it would hurt financially, but we'll survive, it's Scotland that has to put a lot of hard work in to get back to where it currently is.

Yes I agree keeping a monetary union would make things easy. Osborne is saying no because he doesn't want the UK to split up.

We don't provide more than England because they have more people but that's not what I said.