Independence PROS and CONS

[jambos are go!]

I fully agree that the constitutional set up of the Union can be improved, indeed pre-devolution I always advocated a federalised UK which (I think) would strengthen the union.

 

I disagree with your second point though.

 

For people living in Scotland, who wish independence, there doesn't need to be a reason, other than they would like Scotland to regain its status as an independent nation state. To me, it seems as simple as that.

 

 

 

But by your same logic, these "English" people are as equally mongrel so the terms English/Scottish etc make no real difference. Perhaps nationality can best be described as a feeling or a state of mind, rather than a bloodline?

 

I think it was Coco at the top of the page who mentioned this, or at least alluded to it, but the real reason independence is being debated isn't due to some upsurge in nationalistic fervour, but rather an electorate fed up with the political status quo and, after the success of devolution, a desire for either more devolved power or full independence. (Perhaps that should be another thread as I'd hate to confuse anyone with two questions in the same paragraph!) Scotland and Scottish politics has a flavour all of its own and is already "divorced" if you like from mainstream Westminster politics.

 

None of the Unionist parties are prepared to widen the debate over what next for Scotland's constitutional future, despite the fact that we are where we are because there is an underlying political spirit wishing change (or at least to debate this).

 

Why has the Scottish Labour leadership been so quiet on the devo max option? Or the Libs for that matter who had previously campaigned for this for nigh on a century!

 

Off course the English are equally mongrel. There are currently 800,000 born Scots there and there must be many milllions with Scots descent. My arguements in favour of the Union are based on logic rather than political leanings. We are so in bred and mongrel that to argue that we are pure bred is pure nonsense. We are kith and kin.

 

I'm an internationalist rather than a nationalist of any kind. One of then Behan Brother's said'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' and I agree with that. I wait for the day when as Burns put it when 'men to men the whole world o'er will brothers be'. The Union is a step towards that and I'll have us in Europe and the Euro as the next step as quick as possible.

 

As far as Devo max is concerned I'd look at that and have already criticised the Labour Party for rejecting it so that the SNP and independence can be humiliated in the Referendum. Similarly I've criticised the SNP for only wanting to keep Devo Max on the table so they can continue the fight for independence and ignore a large No vote in the Referendum. Both ignoring the references I made from Lesley Riddoch. The Scots want better governance not Independence so why dont the main parties offer them it.

[Boris]

Off course the English are equally mongrel. There are currently 800,000 born Scots there and there must be many milllions with Scots descent. My arguements in favour of the Union are based on logic rather than political leanings. We are so in bred and mongrel that to argue that we are pure bred is pure nonsense. We are kith and kin.

 

Perhaps we are but if you look at a family unit, we can't wait to fly the nest and get our own homes.

 

We are still kith & kin, but seek independence....

[jambos are go!]

Perhaps we are but if you look at a family unit, we can't wait to fly the nest and get our own homes.

 

We are still kith & kin, but seek independence....

Some of us but not a majority by any means. Not me.

[JamboX2]

I fully agree that the constitutional set up of the Union can be improved, indeed pre-devolution I always advocated a federalised UK which (I think) would strengthen the union.

 

I disagree with your second point though.

 

For people living in Scotland, who wish independence, there doesn't need to be a reason, other than they would like Scotland to regain its status as an independent nation state. To me, it seems as simple as that.

 

 

 

But by your same logic, these "English" people are as equally mongrel so the terms English/Scottish etc make no real difference. Perhaps nationality can best be described as a feeling or a state of mind, rather than a bloodline?

 

I think it was Coco at the top of the page who mentioned this, or at least alluded to it, but the real reason independence is being debated isn't due to some upsurge in nationalistic fervour, but rather an electorate fed up with the political status quo and, after the success of devolution, a desire for either more devolved power or full independence. (Perhaps that should be another thread as I'd hate to confuse anyone with two questions in the same paragraph!) Scotland and Scottish politics has a flavour all of its own and is already "divorced" if you like from mainstream Westminster politics.

 

None of the Unionist parties are prepared to widen the debate over what next for Scotland's constitutional future, despite the fact that we are where we are because there is an underlying political spirit wishing change (or at least to debate this).

 

Why has the Scottish Labour leadership been so quiet on the devo max option? Or the Libs for that matter who had previously campaigned for this for nigh on a century!

 

Whilst to an extent you are right that it is odd there is no alternative in the reform of the Union I actually think the Unionists are playing a this relatively well. Cameron (for all his faults) has offered the hand (and bound his successors by doing so) to a straight yes/no vote, where in the case of a NO to independence there will be a development of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This makes more sense if your goal is a total reform of the whole Union. As for 1 it equalises/stabilises the transfer of central power and would be a big step to looking at how services provided at local and devolved level would work.

 

Now on devo-max, this idea is vague, formless and hard to debate because of that. To the SNP it would make Scotland like the Basque region in Spain. In that there would be total responsibility on taxation in Scotland, and to them total devolution except for currency, monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence. Scotland would pay a grant for the upkeep of the 'Union' services, as the Basque country does for areas not under its control (like justice and welfare). Catalonia operates a similar system. Both can issue bonds as well on the international markets to raise revenue. However, this idea has fallen into massive disrepute and intense scrutiny in recent years. Both regions borrowed more to compensate from less money from the central government, as they were fiscally independent, so to keep services as good as the rest of Spain they had to borrow. Only yesterday this came to fruition when Catalonia requested a Central Government bailout as their creditors came calling, which has helped knock back the Spanish recovery. My link

 

On top of this major failing of the idea of devo-max (or full fiscal responsibility) it has recently been noted, by both Devo-Plus and Gordon Brown that such a move would distort and end the most important element of the Union, which is it reallocates fiscal resources to areas of most need. This would evaporate under devo-max with the riskier above needs of Catalonia and the Basques to borrow money on the bond markets with the bonds being underwritten by the Bank of England. Whilst this may seem a good idea, in truth it opens up the risk that Scotland would require a bailout from the Treasury with conditions which are as strict and stringent as those being imposed on some of our European neighbours. This would not be good for Scotland. And with the fact that negotiation would be needed with the rest of the UK for us to get Devo-Max we would be given full fiscal responsibility with no added or substantial increase in power coming too. The fact it needs negotiated too means the idea of us having it as an option on the referendum would need to be agreed with the UK government as it is us negotiating our position within the Union, and not making it a case of sovereignty.

 

And it is not true that the Unionists are not acting. The Devo-Plus group (an idea I think has more merit than the Max one) has been formed and issued a series of detailed reviews on how Scotland should reform her government, get more powers and enhance local government in this period of constitutional debate, with its members coming from Labour (Wendy Alexander for one), Purvis from the LibDems and Alex Ferguson from the Tories. Labour has had the 'Red Paper Group' which includes Neil Findlay and I think David Stewart (both of the recent new wave intake of 2011). And Menzies Campbell has been put in charge of the LibDems task force to establish their idea of 'Home Rule' in a federal UK. So there is action, but to me it is not receiving as much media attention as the Devo-Max or the SNP and their plans on independence, as the NATO-debate and the questions over things like assertions seats on monetary committies etc.

 

Devo-Plus;

My link

 

The Red Paper Group

My link

My link

 

LibDem Policy Group

My link

My link

My link

[Coco]

The point about fiscal autonomy by JamboX2 is a good one.

 

The pound currently acts something like an optimum currency area.

 

If the idea is to retain Sterling as delivered by the BoE in either independence or devo-max, Scotland would no longer be part of an optimum currency area. There would be some (at least frictional) barriers to movement of labour between the countries and as JamboX2 says there would not be fiscal transfer either. And as covered above, at least in the independence setting, the BoE would not be taking any account of Scotland in setting policy.

 

Lots of chips are being placed on the idea that the Scottish economy would be sound, even with levers being pulled elsewhere, post-Independence or even Devo-Max.

 

Where Devo-Max or Independence would help perhaps though is by disciplining the free mince group of Scottish politicians who infest all the parties up here from Westminster to Holyrood to councils.

[JamboX2]

The point about fiscal autonomy by JamboX2 is a good one.

 

The pound currently acts something like an optimum currency area.

 

If the idea is to retain Sterling as delivered by the BoE in either independence or devo-max, Scotland would no longer be part of an optimum currency area. There would be some (at least frictional) barriers to movement of labour between the countries and as JamboX2 says there would not be fiscal transfer either. And as covered above, at least in the independence setting, the BoE would not be taking any account of Scotland in setting policy.

 

Lots of chips are being placed on the idea that the Scottish economy would be sound, even with levers being pulled elsewhere, post-Independence or even Devo-Max.

 

Where Devo-Max or Independence would help perhaps though is by disciplining the free mince group of Scottish politicians who infest all the parties up here from Westminster to Holyrood to councils.

 

I totally agree that the faith in an economy which is very reliant on a bloated public sector in both Devo-Max or Independence is a major headache and one which is dodgy. I'd argue that both would create a shock that would force a smaller state in Scotland and a move to a more free market economy. Its a reason why many on the right in Scotland feel that the Tories in the late 1990s should have advocated what Douglas-Home did and push for a parliament with full fiscal control. But that's an issue for what might happen.

 

I do think what you've said though is something I really do agree with and that is a lot of this debate is on a wing and prayer. And for parties advocating independence, the SNP mainly, but the Greens and SSP, to have little idea over the basic facts and to have not even began preliminary discussions with the UK government on any consequences to me seems strange. I feel that the Parliament in Scotland should pass a bill calling for total disclosure of all information, in legal and fiscal and social areas to be open and free to all. As it stands the SNP government's refusal to give out info and take the Information Commission to court is a bit daft.

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's an interesting pre-devolution debate. The arguments against a Scottish parliament were essentially the same ones claimed now; higher taxes, less prosperity, only based on anti-English sentiment, etc. They were lies then, they are lies now. There seems to be a desire from the No camp to portray the Yes side as fantasists or naive. This seems to be indicative of a peculiar mindset; one which insists, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that Scots are uniquely incapable of self-governance and that being governed from London offers protection and prosperity. This simply isn't true and that's why the no side have little substance and no positive arguments for Scotland rejecting self-determination. It is only in their vocabulary that words like 'independence' are pejorative and where they'd use terms with heavily negative connotations like 'separatist' in order to discredit their opponents. It's the sort of tactic employed by people who have no positive argument or vision for Scotland's future.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAEevwP_tQ

[JamboX2]

Here's an interesting pre-devolution debate. The arguments against a Scottish parliament were essentially the same ones claimed now; higher taxes, less prosperity, only based on anti-English sentiment, etc. They were lies then, they are lies now. There seems to be a desire from the No camp to portray the Yes side as fantasists or naive. This seems to be indicative of a peculiar mindset; one which insists, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that Scots are uniquely incapable of self-governance and that being governed from London offers protection and prosperity. This simply isn't true and that's why the no side have little substance and no positive arguments for Scotland rejecting self-determination. It is only in their vocabulary that words like 'independence' are pejorative and where they'd use terms with heavily negative connotations like 'separatist' in order to discredit their opponents. It's the sort of tactic employed by people who have no positive argument or vision for Scotland's future.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAEevwP_tQ

 

Fact is independence, or the model we've been offered, that of being in the EU, is a model which I think that would be bad for Scotland as we'd be a cog in the engine of a much larger, less accountable union which accrues more and more power. The model of Norway, in EFTA, completely on her own, no EU inteference and her own currency is the only model to which I think us Scots should consider. And before anyone says we will have a chance to decide that, we have already been told by the powers that may well be that this is the only option, when in fact it is not.

[Patrick Bateman]

Fact is independence, or the model we've been offered, that of being in the EU, is a model which I think that would be bad for Scotland as we'd be a cog in the engine of a much larger, less accountable union which accrues more and more power.

 

So the United Kingdom isn't in the EU just now? I've noticed that attacks on the EU from the Unionist side are commonplace and I wonder why that is. Funnily enough, these same people often claim Scotland 'separating' will leave us detached from 'global influence' (whatever that entails) whilst strongly promoting their own isolationist agenda against Europe. The same scaremongering nonsense about the EU, that they'll control every facet of our lives, that they're the equivalent of the Soviet States, etc, is just paranoid nonsense divorced from fact or reality.

 

As an independent nation, Scotland will have absolute control over who we decide to align and trade with, rather than being on the periphery of what the Westminster's concerns and interests happen to be. This is so apparent I find it amazing that people would try to disagree.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

As an independent nation, Scotland will have absolute control over who we decide to align and trade with, rather than being on the periphery of what the Westminster's concerns and interests happen to be. This is so apparent I find it amazing that people would try to disagree.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that - but the real question is, would Scotland be better off because of it? Having the power to govern and governing effectively are two different things.

[davemclaren]

I wouldn't disagree with that - but the real question is, would Scotland be better off because of it? Having the power to govern and governing effectively are two different things.

 

Isn't that the whole point of indeoendence though, the ability to govern yourself and have the opportunity to hopefully make things better. Why would Scotland govern itself any worse than other countries?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So the United Kingdom isn't in the EU just now? I've noticed that attacks on the EU from the Unionist side are commonplace and I wonder why that is. Funnily enough, these same people often claim Scotland 'separating' will leave us detached from 'global influence' (whatever that entails) whilst strongly promoting their own isolationist agenda against Europe. The same scaremongering nonsense about the EU, that they'll control every facet of our lives, that they're the equivalent of the Soviet States, etc, is just paranoid nonsense divorced from fact or reality.

 

As an independent nation, Scotland will have absolute control over who we decide to align and trade with, rather than being on the periphery of what the Westminster's concerns and interests happen to be. This is so apparent I find it amazing that people would try to disagree.

Er, the point is that Scotland, should it wish to join the EU, will have to adopt items such as Schengen and the Euro, from which the UK has opt-outs. That may be fine, it just needs to be explained what the implications are of doing so.

[Patrick Bateman]

That may be fine, it just needs to be explained what the implications are of doing so.

 

Absolutely and we have two years to discuss these implications. What I don't like is when the No side say "we'll be in the EU" as though we aren't already, which is a lie. Or that we'd somehow have a much smaller voice in Europe, which would be another lie, as precedent shows that we'd have a lot more MEPs than our current 'region' status affords.

 

[JKBMod 1]

One or two posts have had to be edited. Anyone who breaks the rules will be blocked from posting on this thread, and may be suspended from the forum. Please make your points without personal abuse or trolling the other side.

 

JKBMod 1

 

 

Once again, we've had to edit and remove some posts. Personal abuse and trolling are breaches of the forum rules, and if you want to engage in personal spats instead of debating the issue please find somewhere else on the internet to do so.

 

JKBMod 1

[JamboX2]

So the United Kingdom isn't in the EU just now? I've noticed that attacks on the EU from the Unionist side are commonplace and I wonder why that is. Funnily enough, these same people often claim Scotland 'separating' will leave us detached from 'global influence' (whatever that entails) whilst strongly promoting their own isolationist agenda against Europe. The same scaremongering nonsense about the EU, that they'll control every facet of our lives, that they're the equivalent of the Soviet States, etc, is just paranoid nonsense divorced from fact or reality.

 

As an independent nation, Scotland will have absolute control over who we decide to align and trade with, rather than being on the periphery of what the Westminster's concerns and interests happen to be. This is so apparent I find it amazing that people would try to disagree.

 

I don't for a moment think the EU is a rebirth of some neo-Communist Soviet Union of Western Europe. I do however think it's primary purpose, because the UK failed to join at the Treaty of Rome in 1957, is one which is to benefit the Benelux-Franco-German economic area. The EU is advocating ever greater political-integration for its members. To the extent that if Scotland were in the Euro our budgets would be examined by some central bureaucracy authority, which questions the idea of national economic sovereignty. It's a greater intrusion than anything imposed on the Finance Secretary in Holyrood from London right now.

 

Whilst it is true we will gain more MEPs, a Councillor and perhaps a Commissioner, we as Scots have been served well by the UK in the EU. The rebate for example, and the ability of the UK government, through the collective economic clout of the UK, managed to avoid entry in the Euro totally. Denmark has to tie its Krone to the Euro rate and Sweden consistently claims she has not met the EU's own entry criteria, something which occurs so often now that the commission won't fight them all that much. Other EU states not in the Euro are moving towards joining as part of the Lisbon criteria of new members. We as Scots don't even know if we will be accepted, all 27 would need to vote, one veto (likely Spain with Catalonia and the Basques) would scupper our entry. We are not in Europe as Scotland, we are in there now as the UK. We won't have these opt outs, and that's pretty much assured. The Germans and many others resent our opt outs and see us a semi-permanent member, but know the UKs economic clout is something they need. Scotland, I fear would not have that. Perhaps that in the long run would be a good thing. Being fully in the EU, the Euro, Schengen etc, I don't have a crystal ball, but I feel the UK serves Scotland well internationally. The SNP admit this as well, as they assert we would have access to all British embassies as though we were still in the UK. I find that highly strange, as if a reason for independence is a new and more neutral foreign policy, then using the embassies of a Union which many who want out claim is a more belligerent foreign policy seems a strange compromise to me.

 

 

What I'll say is this though, this debate is one which many have already made their minds up on. I believe the Union, with a stronger devolution across the UK, is the best future for Scotland, standing tall in a Union with people who are a lot like us and share our values, culture and language. Those who believe we should leave the Union, become totally independent of the UK and stand on our own are quite right to believe that too. It won't be the end if we go independent, but I don't think it's the best way forward.

[Denny Crane]

[modedit]

 

Now you asked about my claims about Scottish Heritage and I would point you two sources. Firstly this:-

 

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressreleases/proct03/english.html

 

Over the last 200 years over a Million English people have moved to Scotland and at the 2001 census there where 400,000 English born people living in Scotland. Given that the population is around 5 million there must be and continues to be massive mixed bloodlines.

 

The more recent evidence follows up from commment on Alistair Moffats book and Radio Series which includes the conclusion that all Scots are migrants. And common sense tells you that that migrtaion came from the horn of africa, up through Europe and you've guessed it England over then millenia. The Scots hero Robert Bruce was a french family who moved to England in 1066 aand had lands there before moving to lands in Scotland well before 1314.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zfpdj

 

[modedit]

 

So should Canada for example be returned to the empire given the British Isles' contribution towards that nation's population?

 

 

By the way while you are correct that the Bruces settled for a time in England (modern day Teesside to be exact) they were - in origin - from Normandy - a part of the world that had not yet been annexed by France when the Bruce family first came over to England.

[Franco Fascione]

Possible Con - Would Scotland have been able to afford to bail out the banks had it already been independent or would they have been allowed to go bust like in Iceland? (No, not the shop).

[southside1874]

Possible Con - Would Scotland have been able to afford to bail out the banks had it already been independent or would they have been allowed to go bust like in Iceland? (No, not the shop).

 

As Scottish notes all have "promise to pay bearer" in sterling written on them. I'm not sure a scottish government would have allowed its banks to borrow more than it could afford.

 

We will never know.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

As Scottish notes all have "promise to pay bearer" in sterling written on them. I'm not sure a scottish government would have allowed its banks to borrow more than it could afford.

 

We will never know.

As do Bank of England notes.

 

There is no promise anymore because the currency is toilet paper and not backed by gold.

[southside1874]

As do Bank of England notes.

 

There is no promise anymore because the currency is toilet paper and not backed by gold.

English notes don't have this anymore. They stopped when they sold all their gold.

 

Scottish notes still have it.

[Jamboross]

We as Scots don't even know if we will be accepted, all 27 would need to vote, one veto (likely Spain with Catalonia and the Basques) would scupper our entry.

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4428-spanish-foreign-minister-confirms-that-spain-would-accept-scottish-independence

 

The Spanish have already denied they'd veto us joining and I can't see any other member turning us down. Whether EU membership would be a good thing for us or not I'm still undecided on though.

[Coco]

Possible Con - Would Scotland have been able to afford to bail out the banks had it already been independent or would they have been allowed to go bust like in Iceland? (No, not the shop).

 

At their peak the RBS assets alone were roughly 15-20x Scotland's GDP so an Iceland style bust would have been more likely. Capital injections would have been possible but not the guarantees etc.

 

That said, it would have been a foolish Government (as per Brown's UK Government) who allowed banks to get so big that they brought down the system when they failed. [brown actually then compounded his folly when he bought the banks and their horrendous balance sheets too]

[Coco]

English notes don't have this anymore. They stopped when they sold all their gold.

 

Scottish notes still have it.

 

The Bank of England holds several hundred tonnes of gold (even after the Brown bottom).

[Boris]

Possible Con - Would Scotland have been able to afford to bail out the banks had it already been independent or would they have been allowed to go bust like in Iceland? (No, not the shop).

 

Would the banks in an independent Scotland been able to over-reach themselves as they did as part of the UK?

 

Perhaps safe in the knowledge that HMG would bail them out if the worst came to the worst made the banks feel invulnerable. Would that feeling have been there if they were (potentially) being propped up by Holyrood?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

English notes don't have this anymore. They stopped when they sold all their gold.

 

Scottish notes still have it.

Pish!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Would the banks in an independent Scotland been able to over-reach themselves as they did as part of the UK?

 

Perhaps safe in the knowledge that HMG would bail them out if the worst came to the worst made the banks feel invulnerable. Would that feeling have been there if they were (potentially) being propped up by Holyrood?

Depends if Scotland copied Iceland or Ireland in that arc of prosperity...

[Chester™]

Sweden consistently claims she has not met the EU's own entry criteria, something which occurs so often now that the commission won't fight them all that much. Other EU states not in the Euro are moving towards joining as part of the Lisbon criteria of new members.

 

Not all are though, with Poland and the Czech Republic (something which I mentioned on another, similar thread) are being highly resistant too. Its now looking like they may not adopt the Euro at all, such the political and population pressure on not moving to the Euro.

[Boris]

Whilst to an extent you are right that it is odd there is no alternative in the reform of the Union I actually think the Unionists are playing a this relatively well. Cameron (for all his faults) has offered the hand (and bound his successors by doing so) to a straight yes/no vote, where in the case of a NO to independence there will be a development of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This makes more sense if your goal is a total reform of the whole Union. As for 1 it equalises/stabilises the transfer of central power and would be a big step to looking at how services provided at local and devolved level would work.

 

Now on devo-max, this idea is vague, formless and hard to debate because of that. To the SNP it would make Scotland like the Basque region in Spain. In that there would be total responsibility on taxation in Scotland, and to them total devolution except for currency, monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence. Scotland would pay a grant for the upkeep of the 'Union' services, as the Basque country does for areas not under its control (like justice and welfare). Catalonia operates a similar system. Both can issue bonds as well on the international markets to raise revenue. However, this idea has fallen into massive disrepute and intense scrutiny in recent years. Both regions borrowed more to compensate from less money from the central government, as they were fiscally independent, so to keep services as good as the rest of Spain they had to borrow. Only yesterday this came to fruition when Catalonia requested a Central Government bailout as their creditors came calling, which has helped knock back the Spanish recovery. My link

 

On top of this major failing of the idea of devo-max (or full fiscal responsibility) it has recently been noted, by both Devo-Plus and Gordon Brown that such a move would distort and end the most important element of the Union, which is it reallocates fiscal resources to areas of most need. This would evaporate under devo-max with the riskier above needs of Catalonia and the Basques to borrow money on the bond markets with the bonds being underwritten by the Bank of England. Whilst this may seem a good idea, in truth it opens up the risk that Scotland would require a bailout from the Treasury with conditions which are as strict and stringent as those being imposed on some of our European neighbours. This would not be good for Scotland. And with the fact that negotiation would be needed with the rest of the UK for us to get Devo-Max we would be given full fiscal responsibility with no added or substantial increase in power coming too. The fact it needs negotiated too means the idea of us having it as an option on the referendum would need to be agreed with the UK government as it is us negotiating our position within the Union, and not making it a case of sovereignty.

 

And it is not true that the Unionists are not acting. The Devo-Plus group (an idea I think has more merit than the Max one) has been formed and issued a series of detailed reviews on how Scotland should reform her government, get more powers and enhance local government in this period of constitutional debate, with its members coming from Labour (Wendy Alexander for one), Purvis from the LibDems and Alex Ferguson from the Tories. Labour has had the 'Red Paper Group' which includes Neil Findlay and I think David Stewart (both of the recent new wave intake of 2011). And Menzies Campbell has been put in charge of the LibDems task force to establish their idea of 'Home Rule' in a federal UK. So there is action, but to me it is not receiving as much media attention as the Devo-Max or the SNP and their plans on independence, as the NATO-debate and the questions over things like assertions seats on monetary committies etc.

 

Devo-Plus;

My link

 

The Red Paper Group

My link

My link

 

LibDem Policy Group

My link

My link

My link

 

That's all very interesting and I'll read those links when I have time.

 

My main concern is that once the No vote wins the referendum on Independence, then the whole topic of constitutional change withers and dies. I'd never trust a Tory who promises anything! (or most politicians, tbf)

 

That said, for a devo max/plus option to really work, it has to be rolled out across the whole of the UK (imo). Which is what they should have done when the Scots Parliament was born. Again, all imo.

[jambos are go!]

I thought the formal link to the Gold standard was ditched before WWII and the Gold sold by the last Government nowhere near the currency in circulation. Does anyone use the Gold standard anymore and can the value of gold and the supply of gold match the ever growing World economy?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I thought the formal link to the Gold standard was ditched before WWII and the Gold sold by the last Government nowhere near the currency in circulation. Does anyone use the Gold standard anymore and can the value of gold and the supply of gold match the ever growing World economy?

The last link to the gold standard finished in 1971 when Nixon broke the convertibility between the dollar and gold.The UK left the gold standard in 1931, IIRC.

[jambos are go!]

The last link to the gold standard finished in 1971 when Nixon broke the convertibility between the dollar and gold.The UK left the gold standard in 1931, IIRC.

But can gold underpin the huge wold economy now even it anybody wanted it. The price of gold is so volatile as to be not fit for purpose. And there is not enough of it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

But can gold underpin the huge wold economy now even it anybody wanted it. The price of gold is so volatile as to be not fit for purpose. And there is not enough of it.

That's a digression and is irrelevant to this issue in any case. If Scotland had a separate currency backed by anything, it would be oil.

[JamboX2]

Not all are though, with Poland and the Czech Republic (something which I mentioned on another, similar thread) are being highly resistant too. Its now looking like they may not adopt the Euro at all, such the political and population pressure on not moving to the Euro.

 

Part of their membership criteria is to be in the Euro. This will be enforced by political pressure. To many in senior govt positions in Berlin amd France the euro can only become reinvigorated with support of the two big eastern european economies, Czech Rep and Poland. They will be members by the end of the decade due to their agreement to join as will Sweden with its current govt planning a referendum to force the matter and get them in. However as the euro and EU go its trajectory is toward greater integration. Now i believe it has served the UK well but there will be a point soon when we must decide if EFTA would be best or the EU. If Scotland has to rejoin ( which i think we will) and has to accept all elements pf membership (bearing in mind all current applicants must do so) then we will have swapped an accountable Union with the rest of the UK for a largely unaccountable one with the EU. Its not scaremongering, its true. Its why pro-independence campaigners like Jim Sillars, Margo MacDonald and some members of the SSP and SNP do not want in the EU.

[JamboX2]

That's all very interesting and I'll read those links when I have time.

 

My main concern is that once the No vote wins the referendum on Independence, then the whole topic of constitutional change withers and dies. I'd never trust a Tory who promises anything! (or most politicians, tbf)

 

That said, for a devo max/plus option to really work, it has to be rolled out across the whole of the UK (imo). Which is what they should have done when the Scots Parliament was born. Again, all imo.

 

I am no Tory, i think of myself as a socialist/social democrat, but i have to say I think tge PM, Cameron, is being rather unfairly treated by the SNP and wider scottish population. As some on hear have said hatred of the Tories in Scotland now largely seems a fashionable thing. But its disjointed our political spectrum with all political opinion being on the centre-left. Anyway back to my point, i think Cameron is let down by those around him. I think he has a largely thatcherite team and party but is himself a macmillan-heath-hesseltine one nationer. His inclusion of Ken Clarke, Andrew Mitchell and arguably Hague shows a more moderate Toryism than the rabid Thatcherism of Redwood and Gove. I think on this matter he has been right to listen to the likes of Rifkind, Goldie, McLetchie and Davidson over Forsyth. And that he is being genuinely sincere on improved devolution after a NO vote.

 

And what you've said is federalism. I dont think tge UK will ever totally have that. But i agree Scotland, Wales and NI should have an equality of devolution. In England improved and more powerful local government (which we lack in increasingly centralised Scotland) will lead the way through Mayors for Greater Manchester, Tyneside, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmimgham and other metropolitan areas. Some have recently rejected this but if London is anything to go by it would be a huge success in breaking up the Whitehall machine and empowering people locally. As I've hinted i think the flaw in devolution is local government and communities have been emasculated over time since 1999 and they look increasingly more like quangos than local governments. We need reform of how we run scotland in total not just on the major matger of independence.

[Boris]

I am no Tory, i think of myself as a socialist/social democrat, but i have to say I think tge PM, Cameron, is being rather unfairly treated by the SNP and wider scottish population. As some on hear have said hatred of the Tories in Scotland now largely seems a fashionable thing. But its disjointed our political spectrum with all political opinion being on the centre-left. Anyway back to my point, i think Cameron is let down by those around him. I think he has a largely thatcherite team and party but is himself a macmillan-heath-hesseltine one nationer. His inclusion of Ken Clarke, Andrew Mitchell and arguably Hague shows a more moderate Toryism than the rabid Thatcherism of Redwood and Gove. I think on this matter he has been right to listen to the likes of Rifkind, Goldie, McLetchie and Davidson over Forsyth. And that he is being genuinely sincere on improved devolution after a NO vote.

 

Mmm....I'm not so sure I share your evaluation of Cameron. He may well be sincere about improved devolution, however I'm not so sure his party would accept it. Toryism, moderate or rabid, is still Toryism!

 

I agree that the political landscape in Scotland is disjointed, in comparison to England and Wales, but I'm not so sure that is a bad thing. Quite simply, I don't think that the Scottish electorate is warm to Tory policies...as can perhaps be best illustrated by the rejection of the Lib Dems at the last council elections, and perhaps even the rise of the SNP as a result of New Labour's flirtation with centre-right Blairism. (Actually I think that Camerone probably models himself on Blair, whose policies were an extension of Thatcherism to a lesser extent)

 

And what you've said is federalism. I dont think tge UK will ever totally have that. But i agree Scotland, Wales and NI should have an equality of devolution. In England improved and more powerful local government (which we lack in increasingly centralised Scotland) will lead the way through Mayors for Greater Manchester, Tyneside, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmimgham and other metropolitan areas. Some have recently rejected this but if London is anything to go by it would be a huge success in breaking up the Whitehall machine and empowering people locally. As I've hinted i think the flaw in devolution is local government and communities have been emasculated over time since 1999 and they look increasingly more like quangos than local governments. We need reform of how we run scotland in total not just on the major matger of independence.

 

Yes, I guess I am in favour of federalism for the UK and, as you say, a trick was missed in 97/98 when Scotland got it's parliament and Wales its Assembly and NI its equivalent and I totally agree that there should be equality of devolution.

 

Also agree that England would be harder to convince. I'm not convinced that Mayors are the way to go. Remember London has an assembly so is in effect devolved. It is the assembly that has the power.

[The Comedian]

We really need to ditch the EU ala Norway. We'll never be truly independent unless.

 

Also regarding gold, we've opened our first mine in Tyndrum. I'm on the phone now but I believe I read we have great prospects for gold mining in the central highlands. Does that make a difference?

[Boris]

We really need to ditch the EU ala Norway. We'll never be truly independent unless.

 

Or not, as this article may explain.

 

Lets go back to the EEC

By Paul Clarke, EIA Chairman *

Whether explicitly stated or simply the logical conclusion of their views, some political parties in the

UK have leaving the EU as one of the main planks of their platform. Usually, those most in favour of

this step hark back to ?what we joined?: a trading group, not the all-powerful European Union that they

have come to hate. The EEC (European Economic Community) is no more of course, but would it be

possible to return to that sort of trading arrangement? Clearly, the UK would have to come to some

sort of deal, because the other Member States of the EU represent several of its most important

markets. But could it maintain a trading relationship with France, Germany, Ireland and the others

without having to worry about all that bothersome stuff like working time and human rights?

Could we leave?

The answer to that question is ?yes we could?, and it comes with a touch of irony, because the path to

a Member State leaving the Union is for the first time set out in that much-reviled document, the

Treaty of Lisbon. For UKIP leaving the EU is the Holy Grail; for the Conservatives it is more

problematic, as their leaders seem to shy away from actually pulling out, whilst at the same time

promising that any future ?transfer of powers? would always be subject to a referendum. Add to that

the intention to ?repatriate? employment powers, and the UK actually leaving might be an option that

our fellow Member States would regard as a blessed relief. Might ?In a club but not observing its rules?

be another way of expressing ?In Europe but not ruled by Europe??

Let's be the new Iceland

So if we leave, can we just trade with the EU? Why not, the sceptics say, Iceland does, Norway does,

no problem. Leaving aside the fact that Iceland is looking to be fast-tracked into EU membership after

its economy was even more ruthlessly credit-crunched than the UK's, let us consider how its present

arrangements work. The key to this is something called the European Economic Area (EEA)

Agreement which involves the 27 Member States of the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

Under this Agreement, the three non-EU members are given the Treaty rights of free movement of

goods and workers that the Member States enjoy. Game, set and match to the Eurosceptics then?

Well no, not quite.

Take a look at the Official Journal (OJ) L102 of 23 April 2010 and particularly Commission Regulation

330/2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices. Typical, one would have thought, of the

sort of detailed interference with the rights of business to get on with making money that so infuriates

the sceptics. Note at the end of the title, the bit that says ?Text with EEA relevance?. In other words,

Iceland has to apply this Regulation, as do Norway and Liechtenstein. That note appears on

legislation in almost every issue of the Official Journal (OJ); it is the quid pro quo for the freedoms that

the Agreement gives Iceland and the others to access the EU's markets. In short, they accept and

implement any legislation that concerns the Single Market: EU Regulations apply in Oslo just as they

do in Berlin; Reykjavik implements Directives just as Whitehall does. While they may have gained in

national pride (being still proudly independent) they have given up any right to influence the legislation

to which they are bound. No MEPs from Iceland; no Norwegian politicians speaking up for their

country at meetings of the EU Council of Ministers.

With the Balkan countries queuing up for membership, the EEA States are joined only by Switzerland

in standing aloof and, without going into detail, it too is bound by similar agreements which ensure

that it earns its trading rights by accepting EU legislation. The importance of the EU as a trading

partner ensures this and even extends beyond the continent with, for example, the United States and

China having to pay detailed regard to the REACH legislation on chemicals if they want their

manufacturers to trade with, say, Germany.

If the UK left

Not only would the UK need access to EU markets, Kraft would want its managers from Cadbury in

the UK to go to work in its plants in Poland, so the Posted Workers Directive would have to apply to

us. If companies could no longer rely on London being the gateway to a market of 500 million people,

why should they set up shop there? Chinese and Indian companies might as well go to Warsaw or

Munich or Turin, where they would only have one set of regulations to deal with to tap into that huge

market. Furthermore, UK manufacturers would not be able to ignore eco-design directives and

technical standards or they would be back to the old pre-Single Market days, when selling to

Germany or France meant long delays before their products could be assessed as meeting the

requirements of those markets.

So business would find itself having to take on board all the regulations and directives that it does

now, but no politician in the UK would have had any say in formulating those rules. There would be no

UK Members of the European Parliament arguing the case, no Ministers expressing a view in the

meetings of the Council. No chance, as it did last year, for the UK Government to lead a blocking

group against proposals to remove the opt-out from the Working Time Directive.

Disingenuous

If this argument is sound - and many years of working with EU information convinces me that it is -

then the total ignorance of the EEA agreement in the UK is shocking. If the Eurosceptics know about

it then they are being disingenuous; if they don't, then they are dangerously ignorant. Have a happy

election ...

* The comments expressed here are the personal thoughts of the author. The European Information

Association does not take sides in the fight between Europhiles and Europhobes, but it is concerned

that information presented about the EU should be factual, readily available and transparent.

 

 

For the record it dates back to May 2010.

[jambos are go!]

Or not, as this article may explain.

 

 

 

For the record it dates back to May 2010.

Not 100% certain but did the Norwegian PM not once say that Normay is largely ruled by Fax from Brussels.

[Boris]

Not 100% certain but did the Norwegian PM not once say that Normay is largely ruled by Fax from Brussels.

 

If he did say that, then he is basically agreeing with the point put forward in the article I quoted.

 

Better to be inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

 

IMO

 

The trouble with this country is the way downright lies are told about the EU, thus colouring the public's view. All topped off with a hint of jingoism.

 

I do find it hypocritical of the anti-Brussels brigade who use an argument for leaving the EU, but equally that argument could be used by Scotland re the UK but, in my experience, these Eurosceptics tend to be arch unionists.

 

Kinda contradictory, imo.

[Chester™]

Part of their membership criteria is to be in the Euro. This will be enforced by political pressure. To many in senior govt positions in Berlin amd France the euro can only become reinvigorated with support of the two big eastern european economies, Czech Rep and Poland. They will be members by the end of the decade due to their agreement to join as will Sweden with its current govt planning a referendum to force the matter and get them in. However as the euro and EU go its trajectory is toward greater integration.

 

I know fine well part of the criteria is to be in Euro.

 

The rest? Possibly. Though there is a massive will in both countries to not accept the Euro, with latest reports saying that the estimates of either 2015 or 2019 for adoption are looking 'optimistic'.