Scottish Referendum - Part Deux

rick_chasey

What do you think the point of the analogy was?

TheBigBean

In other news I just spoke to a nameless party who is attaching greater credit risk to Scotland much to the dissatisfaction of the Scottish government.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

What do you think the point of the analogy was?

Make sure you aren't short of money?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

If they get Indyref2 and vote out, does that mean we can bin British Summer Time, as its sole beneficiaries are half a dozen Hebridean sheep farmers?

I thought the Scottish connection to the time changes was the clocks going back to give a few Scottish farmers more daylight in the morning?

Annual history lesson. No. Summer Time was introduced to give more evening daylight at the expense of very early daylight and is more beneficial further south than north. Winter Time is GMT.

OK, but I haven't asked before.

Stevo_666

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

*facepalm*

Some people don't understand the point of analogous stories do they?

*facepalm*

little point in an analogous story that is so full of holes it would sink without trace in the bath ...

It assumes the two games are identical. So bad analogy.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

If they get Indyref2 and vote out, does that mean we can bin British Summer Time, as its sole beneficiaries are half a dozen Hebridean sheep farmers?

I thought the Scottish connection to the time changes was the clocks going back to give a few Scottish farmers more daylight in the morning?

Annual history lesson. No. Summer Time was introduced to give more evening daylight at the expense of very early daylight and is more beneficial further south than north. Winter Time is GMT.

OK, but I haven't asked before.

Fair enough. Pass the message on though as it does get tiresome.
Oh, and I goofed. It tends to be a bi-annual debate. Expecting the same in October.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

If they get Indyref2 and vote out, does that mean we can bin British Summer Time, as its sole beneficiaries are half a dozen Hebridean sheep farmers?

I thought the Scottish connection to the time changes was the clocks going back to give a few Scottish farmers more daylight in the morning?

Annual history lesson. No. Summer Time was introduced to give more evening daylight at the expense of very early daylight and is more beneficial further south than north. Winter Time is GMT.

OK, but I haven't asked before.

Fair enough. Pass the message on though as it does get tiresome.
Oh, and I goofed. It tends to be a bi-annual debate. Expecting the same in October.

Not with me its not. Clear enough now.

Although we could avoid it altogether by leaving the clocks as they are in October - my personal preference.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although we could avoid it altogether by leaving the clocks as they are in October - my personal preference.

But that would adversely affect people who work early in the morning, like postmen and milkmen. Well, it did in the 60s when they last tried it.

RoSPA is all in favour. More accidents happen in dark evenings than in dark mornings.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although we could avoid it altogether by leaving the clocks as they are in October - my personal preference.

But that would adversely affect people who work early in the morning, like postmen and milkmen. Well, it did in the 60s when they last tried it.

RoSPA is all in favour. More accidents happen in dark evenings than in dark mornings.

I never went to or from school in the dark. BST all year round would have meant that I went to school in the dark. Obviously TheBigBean's schooling years ago shouldn't drive the decision, but I imagine it is still true for lots of kids.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

What do you think the point of the analogy was?

The end result is that he gets paid (or retained) to write a load of crap that will appeal to those who don't think through what's been written whilst annoying those of us who see just where he's gone wrong.

Pretty poor journalism ... much the standard these days ..

capt_slog

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although we could avoid it altogether by leaving the clocks as they are in October - my personal preference.

But that would adversely affect people who work early in the morning, like postmen and milkmen. Well, it did in the 60s when they last tried it.

RoSPA is all in favour. More accidents happen in dark evenings than in dark mornings.

I never went to or from school in the dark. BST all year round would have meant that I went to school in the dark. Obviously TheBigBean's schooling years ago shouldn't drive the decision, but I imagine it is still true for lots of kids.

The especially annoying part of it (for me), is that we have to wait until March for the clocks to go forward again, making it 5 months instead of 4, (4 if it was an even length each side of the winters solstice).

The sunset/sunrise times that occur at the end of October when the clocks go back are those that occur at the end of Feb, but they consider it to be too much of a shock if it went back to dull mornings so we have to wait until it's so light that it makes no difference.

pblakeney

Capt Slog wrote:

The especially annoying part of it (for me), is that we have to wait until March for the clocks to go forward again, making it 5 months instead of 4, (4 if it was an even length each side of the winters solstice).

The sunset/sunrise times that occur at the end of October when the clocks go back are those that occur at the end of Feb, but they consider it to be too much of a shock if it went back to dull mornings so we have to wait until it's so light that it makes no difference.

Blame the Europeans. Seriously! :shock:
We adjusted to synchronise with their switch dates. Maybe one benefit from Brexit? Doubt it.

RallyBiker

https://youtu.be/ST1ha7gU9aE

secretsam

bompington wrote:

There's a world beyond london, you know.

Funny, that. I don't live in London, BTW

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What do you think the point of the analogy was?

Make sure you aren't short of money?

No, that's the moral.

apreading

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVynXGj4eyA

Car Crash seems the right term...

Nicola Sturgeon trying desperately not to say it but effectively admiting that independence would mean higher taxes and slashed public spending in Scotland.

ballysmate

There must be some SNP supporting Sweaties on here. What do you make of the fact that Wee Nippy goes for the nuclear option of asking for a referendum and the biggest concern on here is how it will affect BST?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

There must be some SNP supporting Sweaties on here. What do you make of the fact that Wee Nippy goes for the nuclear option of asking for a referendum and the biggest concern on here is how it will affect BST?

Bendy bananas innit.

haydenm

I've had a quick scan of this thread but apologies if others have said the same already, I don't think NS wants a referendum anytime soon, I think it would go to a bigger No vote than last time and they know that. The oil industry went to sh*t about 30 seconds after Salmond had spend the revenue 6 times over in the last campaign and a lot of the optimism that could have swayed moderates has gone. I think she is pressuring TM to let Scotland have a bigger say in Brexit negotiations and setting the scene for independence in anticipation of a big negative swing in public opinion once we 'know' the deal (after the two years). NS is also not talking about the EU in the same way in as the runup to the last indyref, while it might be trigger for pressing the cause they aren't treating full membership as a given like the last time. Having said that, why wouldn't May agree to it under the condition it happens asap?

It has been suggested by some that the NI situation is being stalled purposefully to leave them with no First Minister and therefore no say in Brexit negotiations. Quite a cynical view but it shows what the stakes are

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

First.Aspect

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

And there was me thinking that this was a huge issue in the last referendum. That and all the other issues that are just the same or worse.

haydenm

First Aspect wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

And there was me thinking that this was a huge issue in the last referendum. That and all the other issues that are just the same or worse.

*weren't ironed out

apreading

HaydenM wrote:

I've had a quick scan of this thread but apologies if others have said the same already, I don't think NS wants a referendum anytime soon, I think it would go to a bigger No vote than last time and they know that. The oil industry went to sh*t about 30 seconds after Salmond had spend the revenue 6 times over in the last campaign and a lot of the optimism that could have swayed moderates has gone. I think she is pressuring TM to let Scotland have a bigger say in Brexit negotiations and setting the scene for independence in anticipation of a big negative swing in public opinion once we 'know' the deal (after the two years). NS is also not talking about the EU in the same way in as the runup to the last indyref, while it might be trigger for pressing the cause they aren't treating full membership as a given like the last time. Having said that, why wouldn't May agree to it under the condition it happens asap?

It has been suggested by some that the NI situation is being stalled purposefully to leave them with no First Minister and therefore no say in Brexit negotiations. Quite a cynical view but it shows what the stakes are

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

I think its actually much simpler than that - NS is just seizing on the opportunity to use this and stir up anti Westminster feeling in order to gain support for herself and her party - securing votes for SNP in future elections. Its actually in SNP members of the scottish parliament's personal interest for Scotland to be denied the vote - they can spin that to make themselves look better and hide the fact that they are making a terrible job of running things up there.

kingstongraham

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

There are countries that are independent from the USA that have currency pegged to the dollar.

haydenm

KingstonGraham wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

There are countries that are independent from the USA that have currency pegged to the dollar.

I know that but to what extent would we (Scotland) be economically independent in that scenario? So much of what Westminster decides affects the value of the pound and Scotland would have no say in it. Selfishly I wouldn't mind seeing us pegged to the pound to give us an exporting edge over Euro to GBP imports, what would that mean for trading with the rest of the world?

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

There are countries that are independent from the USA that have currency pegged to the dollar.

The big ones (China) have capital controls whilst the small ones are either dollarised (Panama, Ecuador etc. ) or have a thriving uncontrolled black market undermining the whole economy e.g. Venezuela. Of these, the best for Scotland would be the dollarised equivalent i.e. continue to use pounds. This wouldn't be a disaster in the short-term, but would remove any ability of the Scottish government to print money or generally have any control over monetary policy. This would be much like eurozone countries.

To me the solution is fairly easy. New currency and new debt underwritten by the RoUK government for a number of years. I don't see any problems with this, but the SNP felt it wouldn't be popular, so ended up on the back foot.

apreading

But why would RoUK underwrite the debt for a country over which it has no fiscal or political control? That would be lunacy.

TheBigBean

apreading wrote:

But why would RoUK underwrite the debt for a country over which it has no fiscal or political control? That would be lunacy.

Because otherwise it would be chaos. It would be all part of the mature friendly exit discussions. Plus, Scotland doesn't have to take on the debt.

apreading

Ah - OK - you are just talking about Scotland's share of the existing debt being underwritten. I thought you were talking about RoUK underwriting any NEW debt that Scotland might run up, which they simply wouldnt do.

And whether or not Scotland would have to take the debt is debatable by more qualified people than us - if they refused it could be argued out in the courts and its even possible that the UK Govt could make it a condition of granting independence meaning that the process was stalled until they did.

I still want to know what would happen if Edinburgh and the borders then wanted a vote on independence from Scotland, on the basis that they hadnt voted for Independence from the UK in indyref2, and because they wanted to rejoin RoUK. Would old Nic let them have that vote?

First.Aspect

KingstonGraham wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I'm slightly more likely to vote Yes this time round but there are some pretty big issues to iron out which weren't last time such as the danger of pegging the currency to the pound and pretending it makes Scotland independent for instance.

There are countries that are independent from the USA that have currency pegged to the dollar.

Costa Rica, Venezuela and Zimbabwe?

Awesome.

No, the options became apparent about 5 minutes after anyone informed thought about it. (i) Euro, with no independent interest or other control (ii) the pound - no control all (iii) the Scottish pound - out of control.

There's nothing new and there can be nothing new. What's to be "ironed out"? And if (iii) seems appealing, just ask a Canadian or Kiwi how great it is to have unfavourable exchange rates and rapid changes thereof, in relation to a large and powerful neighbour. Unlike both of those, Scotland would have two such neighbours. It would be bad. Very bad, as Donald would say.

pblakeney

What on earth are you lot talking about?
Entry to the EU. The Euro. End of.