Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Das Root]

 

In what way? You may think one sentence replies are dismissive but it makes you look like you are dodging the issue.

 

 

So you think the money markets would deem Scotland a bad credit risk if an agreement could not be reached with rUK and Scotland refused to take on a debt burden?

 

Did we apply for this credit? Sign the agreements? No. You can't just transfer your own debt to somebody else because you want to.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

So you think the money markets would deem Scotland a bad credit risk if an agreement could not be reached with rUK and Scotland refused to take on a debt burden?

 

Did we apply for this credit? Sign the agreements? No. You can't just transfer your own debt to somebody else because you want to.

Yes, I do.

 

Any Scottish sovereign debt would not have any kind of track record so the markets will look for evidence on how it would be managed. Starting with debt repudiation would not look good at all.

[JamboGraham]

My main concern with today was that the Scottish Government didn't produce a white paper on the referendum. What they produced was an SNP election manifesto for the first election in an independent Scotland.

 

What I need is a clear and concise, or at least an objectively assessed, indication of what an independent Scotland could, or could not do.

 

I would have thought that the first thing to happen if Scotland votes yes is that the Scottish Parliament is dissolved immediately to allow a new election to represent the new country.

 

Interesting times ahead...

Edited November 26, 2013 by JamboGraham

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

My main concern with today was that the Scottish Government didn't produce a white paper on the referendum. What they produced was an SNP election manifesto for the first election in an independent Scotland.

 

What I need is a clear and concise, or at least an objectively assessed, indication of what an independent Scotland could, or could not do.

 

I would have thought that the first thing to happen if Scotland votes yes is that the Scottish Parliament is dissolved immediately to allow a new election to represent the new country.

 

Interesting times ahead...

I think you are forgetting that Scotland cannot dictate the terms of its departure.

[The Comedian]

My main concern with today was that the Scottish Government didn't produce a white paper on the referendum. What they produced was an SNP election manifesto for the first election in an independent Scotland.

 

What I need is a clear and concise, or at least an objectively assessed, indication of what an independent Scotland could, or could not do.

 

I would have thought that the first thing to happen if Scotland votes yes is that the Scottish Parliament is dissolved immediately to allow a new election to represent the new country.

 

Interesting times ahead...

 

 

That is the independent Scotland we will negotiate following

a Yes vote. We will do so in time for Scotland to become

independent on 24 March 2016 and be ready for the first

elections to an independent Scottish Parliament in the spring

of that year.

 

Lifted right our of the white paper.

[Das Root]

 

Yes, I do.

 

Any Scottish sovereign debt would not have any kind of track record so the markets will look for evidence on how it would be managed. Starting with debt repudiation would not look good at all.

 

 

I would say you are wrong. If you can provide evidence to support your supposition I am happy to be proved otherwise.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

I would say you are wrong. If you can provide evidence to support your supposition I am happy to be proved otherwise.

And what would you determine as a burden of evidence?

[JamboGraham]

Lifted right our of the white paper.

 

but that is after the date of independence, not after a successful 'Yes' vote. I just find it slightly odd that we would not have an immediate election. The current Scottish Parliament mandate surely becomes morally, if not legally, 'null and void' following a 'Yes' vote.

[Patrick Bateman]

The current Scottish Parliament mandate surely becomes morally, if not legally, 'null and void' following a 'Yes' vote.

 

Based on what, exactly? There's no legal principle or realpolitik that says that.

[JamboGraham]

Based on what, exactly? There's no legal principle or realpolitik that says that.

 

Simply based on my own view of right and wrong. The people of Scotland voted for the current Scottish Government based on an agreed set of criteria. The current SNP Scottish Government would change this criteria by returning a 'Yes' vote in the independence referendum.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Simply based on my own view of right and wrong. The people of Scotland voted for the current Scottish Government based on an agreed set of criteria. The current SNP Scottish Government would change this criteria by returning a 'Yes' vote in the independence referendum.

Except that is the manifesto they were elected on in 2010. I know it is radical for a party to keep a promise but there you go.

[Alba gu Brath]

Exciting days.

 

The world's media turning up - imagine the clamour upon a 'yes' vote. A 'no' vote and the same auld grey future beckons....

 

Thought Harvie of the Greens sounded good today - doesn't usually come across as so combative.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Based on what, exactly? There's no legal principle or realpolitik that says that.

 

The mandate of the SNP Scottish Government in its current form is to run a devolved Scotland. That mandate expires on independence day to me as a voter. At that point we need an election or a national government till elections in May.

[Patrick Bateman]

The mandate of the SNP Scottish Government in its current form is to run a devolved Scotland. That mandate expires on independence day to me as a voter. At that point we need an election or a national government till elections in May.

 

It's fortunate that independence day would be in 2016, the same year as the Scottish parliamentary elections would be regardless of the outcome!

[JamboGraham]

Except that is the manifesto they were elected on in 2010. I know it is radical for a party to keep a promise but there you go.

 

Ha....indeed....

[Das Root]

 

And what would you determine as a burden of evidence?

 

 

You decide on that Geoff.

[Das Root]

 

 

but that is after the date of independence, not after a successful 'Yes' vote. I just find it slightly odd that we would not have an immediate election. The current Scottish Parliament mandate surely becomes morally, if not legally, 'null and void' following a 'Yes' vote.

 

 

Would you not think that negotiating the dissolution of the union is more important? The first new government should be elected after that agreement is concluded imo.

[Das Root]

Exciting days.

 

The world's media turning up - imagine the clamour upon a 'yes' vote. A 'no' vote and the same auld grey future beckons....

 

Thought Harvie of the Greens sounded good today - doesn't usually come across as so combative.

 

 

Equivalent of $1Bn of global advertising pointed at Scotland the days leading up to the Yes vote.

 

[JamboGraham]

Would you not think that negotiating the dissolution of the union is more important? The first new government should be elected after that agreement is concluded imo.

 

I know it couldn't be delivered but I am very nervous of any one political party, or political alliance doing the negotiating. To me it just feels like too important a task to be left to the short term thinking of politicians. The negotiation should consider the Scotland that is required in 50 years, or 100 years or 200 years. Unfortunately the negotiation would be more likely to focus on what will get the negotiator re-elected at the next election.

[Jamboross]

I know it couldn't be delivered but I am very nervous of any one political party, or political alliance doing the negotiating. To me it just feels like too important a task to be left to the short term thinking of politicians. The negotiation should consider the Scotland that is required in 50 years, or 100 years or 200 years. Unfortunately the negotiation would be more likely to focus on what will get the negotiator re-elected at the next election.

 

The SNP have said themselves they want the 'Team Scotland' side of the negotiations to comprise people from all parties. Remember that after a Yes vote a lot of the Scottish politicians currently campaigning against independence will have to change tact and work to get the best deal for their country. You'd probably have the likes of Jack McConnell, Henry McLeish, Alastair Darling etc involved, It's the only sensible way it could be done.

 

"Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said unionist politicians would be invited to take part in the negotiations for Scotland to leave the UK if people voted for independence next September."

 

http://www.heraldsco...-yes.1382191221

Edited November 26, 2013 by Jamboross

[Alba gu Brath]

"It's our oil" has played a significant part of SNP thinking for decades.

 

Same applies to UK. Don't see them sharing it with Ireland or France.

[smallfaces]

40Bn barrels already out and 24bn still to get...plus more as technology advances. They started removing 40yrs ago...plenty of time from now until done imo.

 

Does the 24 billion barrels include the 240 million from the Rosebank field?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...oject.html?_r=0

 

Let's not count our chickens just yet.

[Das Root]

 

 

Does the 24 billion barrels include the 240 million from the Rosebank field?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...oject.html?_r=0

 

Let's not count our chickens just yet.

 

 

They're just looking for more tax concessions, same as any company kicking off a new large scale project.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Das Root

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

You decide on that Geoff.

Cool, you can take my word for it then.

[JamboX2]

 

 

It's fortunate that independence day would be in 2016, the same year as the Scottish parliamentary elections would be regardless of the outcome!

 

May 2016. Not March. 2 months of a government in Scotland elected for handling the affairs of devolution as was in 2011, not foreign affairs, welfare and taxation policy.

[Alba gu Brath]

Iain Gray covering himself in glory...

 

:facepalm:

 

http://youtu.be/uC4hwVd47FE

Edited November 26, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Are you implying that the driver for most of the yes vote is greed rather than self determination? If so that's baffling. Surely, if you accept a desire for self-determination is the key driver - however much you may disagree with it - once you accept that principle, it is scotland's oil. Which makes your argument quite petty.

It was the SNP's slogan in the 1970s.

[Das Root]

 

Cool, you can take my word for it then.

 

 

What was that you said about one line replies? I shall take that as you were purporting a theory only

[Angry Haggis]

 

Iain Gray covering himself in glory...

 

:facepalm:

 

http://youtu.be/uC4hwVd47FE

 

 

Jesus H....

[2NaFish]

 

 

It was the SNP's slogan in the 1970s.

 

uh huh? if you accept self determination....etc. in fact, just reread my post above because it answers your response. unless you really believe greed is the driving force then your point is just bitter.

 

or it could be you actually believe a soundbyte trumps a nationalist party's belief in self determination. which is it - a nationalist party's raison d'etre or a number sticker?

[mullen13]

The Green Brigade will all be voting yes. No it is then....

[JamboX2]

Iain Gray covering himself in glory...

 

:facepalm:

 

http://youtu.be/uC4hwVd47FE

 

Well answered by Sturgeon. Gray has a point - which again he voices poorly - there is a disconnect here, and a failing to point out, that Norway's model of oil fund does not spend domestically. It saves. Therefore everything is paid for by general taxation outwith oil revenue. Is that their aim, to be honest it sounds it's not. That answer suggest money from oil will be used to pay down the deficit to 3% and then after that be paid into a fund. In no way will it equal anything Norway has. The ship for that has sadly sailed. However, the question is do we invest to save it or invest in industrial diversification away from a reliance on oil and gas.

[TheMaganator]

http://conservativefriendsoftheunion.com/2013/11/26/white-paper-claims-ruk-students-would-still-be-charged-tuition-fees/

I expect many many more of these contradictions & gaffs to come out as people start going through the White Paper.

[Das Root]

http://conservativefriendsoftheunion.com/2013/11/26/white-paper-claims-ruk-students-would-still-be-charged-tuition-fees/

I expect many many more of these contradictions & gaffs to come out as people start going through the White Paper.

 

 

Let me see, the No campaign say Scotland will have a challenge getting into the EU and the Tories want to pull the Uk out of Europe. Both of those or either would render Davidson's argument meaningless.

 

Comedy gold that this is what she is focussing on given her Westminster branch shafted all the students down south

Edited November 26, 2013 by Das Root

[henry]

 

 

 

Let me see, the No campaign say Scotland will have a challenge getting into the EU and the Tories want to pull the Uk out of Europe. Both of those or either would render Davidson's argument meaningless.

 

Comedy gold that is what she is focussing on given her Westminster branch shafted all the students down south

 

The Tories said there would be a vote, nobody said they wanted to pull out of Europe....... Democracy in action, let the voters decide.

[Das Root]

 

 

The Tories said there would be a vote, nobody said they wanted to pull out of Europe....... Democracy in action, let the voters decide.

 

 

The SNP want a referendum on independence because they want independence...none of them went to stay in the union.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

What was that you said about one line replies? I shall take that as you were purporting a theory only

More like I couldn't be arsed looking up inflation rates and bond yields in certain countries!

[Das Root]

 

More like I couldn't be arsed looking up inflation rates and bond yields in certain countries!

 

 

A standard No response when facts are required

[djf]

Right i'm not an economist so bear with me but the 2 gripes i'm seeing on twitter today concern EU membership and a future currency union with the rest of the UK. Are there any reasons beyond a completely bizarre show of vindictiveness from another EU state/Westminister why these two things would not be a formality for an independent Scotland?

[JamboX2]

Anyone watching Newsnight Scotland? Brewar is tearing Salmond apart. I've not seen him this flustered in a while. From currency to energy he's waffling. He's just said he'll not take Scotland's share of the debt we've raised on spending here and that on green energy without Welsh and English subsidy up here the lights go off in England... It's a really poor performance from him for once. Not worryingly bad, but poor nonetheless.

 

I really think this paper may put us at a disadvantage. We, as Scots, seem to be coming across as demanding things, which the other side hold legally, and therefore are at their beheast. More I hear about this Sterling-zone, the more it sounds laughably bad. Why even bother with it? Surely if we get a seat or two on that MPC board we'll be a minority on it and it'll still set things up to benefit the rUK more than us. It just sounds daft and halfbaked. Something thought up on the hoof.

 

I am still to read a lot of the paper, had a read through the foreward and international dimension section, but it does seem to have a lot of holes. I mean this could be torpedoed with the UK government saying, well we've seen the SNP Government's position, and we wont be accepting the currency zone.

[JamboX2]

Right i'm not an economist so bear with me but the 2 gripes i'm seeing on twitter today concern EU membership and a future currency union with the rest of the UK. Are there any reasons beyond a completely bizarre show of vindictiveness from another EU state/Westminister why these two things would not be a formality for an independent Scotland?

 

Because nationa interests to an outsider are generally viewed as narrow minded vindictiveness. To the other side it's seen as a coup. The EU-rebate, to us, a great saving on EU membership, to the rest of the EU, a narrowminded act of the self-interest. If the UK don't want making sterling an international currency for two nations which they have less political control on, then it won't happen because they won't agree to it.

 

To me, as a Scot, Sterling-zone is a terrible idea. Douglas Fraser, BBC Scotland correspondent tonight - "...sterling isn't an asset, you can't get an 9.4% share of it" and on debt repudiation "...to say we wont take the debt will be taken dimly by the bond markets, who you need to fund a deficit". It's not in their gift to deliver, it's open to negotiation. I just can't see why you'd want to tie ourselves to it once independent. The Nordics who do best, Norway and Sweden and Denmark, are macroeconomically and currency wise, sovereign. This idea of tieing ourselves to it may prove to be an irreversible ledstone.

 

Currency union needs to have a permanent nature to it. Otherwise it's not credible. Therefore to say it's temporary or you're iffy on it is to say it's not serious. Hence why many Eurozone nations joined through either a united political will or a referendum on it to show such intent. So it's not right when Cannavan, Harvie etc all say, yes just now, but it'll only be temporary.

Edited November 26, 2013 by JamboX2

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

A standard No response when facts are required

Ha!

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

Because nationa interests to an outsider are generally viewed as narrow minded vindictiveness. To the other side it's seen as a coup. The EU-rebate, to us, a great saving on EU membership, to the rest of the EU, a narrowminded act of the self-interest. If the UK don't want making sterling an international currency for two nations which they have less political control on, then it won't happen because they won't agree to it.

 

To me, as a Scot, Sterling-zone is a terrible idea. Douglas Fraser, BBC Scotland correspondent tonight - "...sterling isn't an asset, you can't get an 9.4% share of it" and on debt repudiation "...to say we wont take the debt will be taken dimly by the bond markets, who you need to fund a deficit". It's not in their gift to deliver, it's open to negotiation. I just can't see why you'd want to tie ourselves to it once independent. The Nordics who do best, Norway and Sweden and Denmark, are macroeconomically and currency wise, sovereign. This idea of tieing ourselves to it may prove to be an irreversible ledstone.

 

Currency union needs to have a permanent nature to it. Otherwise it's not credible. Therefore to say it's temporary or you're iffy on it is to say it's not serious. Hence why many Eurozone nations joined through either a united political will or a referendum on it to show such intent. So it's not right when Cannavan, Harvie etc all say, yes just now, but it'll only be temporary.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8398-currency-wars-the-empire-strikes-back

[jambos are go!]

Anyone watching Newsnight Scotland? Brewar is tearing Salmond apart. I've not seen him this flustered in a while. From currency to energy he's waffling. He's just said he'll not take Scotland's share of the debt we've raised on spending here and that on green energy without Welsh and English subsidy up here the lights go off in England... It's a really poor performance from him for once. Not worryingly bad, but poor nonetheless.

 

I really think this paper may put us at a disadvantage. We, as Scots, seem to be coming across as demanding things, which the other side hold legally, and therefore are at their beheast. More I hear about this Sterling-zone, the more it sounds laughably bad. Why even bother with it? Surely if we get a seat or two on that MPC board we'll be a minority on it and it'll still set things up to benefit the rUK more than us. It just sounds daft and halfbaked. Something thought up on the hoof.

 

I am still to read a lot of the paper, had a read through the foreward and international dimension section, but it does seem to have a lot of holes. I mean this could be torpedoed with the UK government saying, well we've seen the SNP Government's position, and we wont be accepting the currency zone.

 

Absolutely. Does not seem to relish being asked questions he has to answer- unlike FMQs. What a surprisingly good day for the NO campaign

[ArcticJambo]

Are they going to re-ready the old Royal HIgh School chamber should Scotland render a 'yes' vote ?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8398-currency-wars-the-empire-strikes-back

That is a very good article and I like that Kerevan has highlighted the risk premium. That is fine too for moderate, centre-left or centre-right governments. However, what it does not say is that even if Scotland reforms tax in ways that are desirable, it has to work within the same overall parameters of revenue collection and borrowing. That is anti-democratic in the sense that policy elsewhere can restrict the wishes of the electorate.

[Das Root]

 

That is a very good article and I like that Kerevan has highlighted the risk premium. That is fine too for moderate, centre-left or centre-right governments. However, what it does not say is that even if Scotland reforms tax in ways that are desirable, it has to work within the same overall parameters of revenue collection and borrowing. That is anti-democratic in the sense that policy elsewhere can restrict the wishes of the electorate.

 

 

Why don't you post that on the article as a question and see what comes back?

[Das Root]

 

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8398-currency-wars-the-empire-strikes-back

 

 

Very good article. Puts to bed many No arguments imo.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Why don't you post that on the article as a question and see what comes back?

Because I have no interest in posting on that site.

[Gizmo]

Well answered by Sturgeon. Gray has a point - which again he voices poorly - there is a disconnect here, and a failing to point out, that Norway's model of oil fund does not spend domestically. It saves. Therefore everything is paid for by general taxation outwith oil revenue. Is that their aim, to be honest it sounds it's not. That answer suggest money from oil will be used to pay down the deficit to 3% and then after that be paid into a fund. In no way will it equal anything Norway has. The ship for that has sadly sailed. However, the question is do we invest to save it or invest in industrial diversification away from a reliance on oil and gas.

 

The interest on a fund could probably start to pay off the deficit if our higher GDP per capita didn't pay it off (and in a much quicker time-frame than rUK would manage). If you'd listened closely only surplus revenue (revenue accrued above the Scottish Govt's conservative estimations of oil revenue in it's budget forecasts) will be invested in the fund - so we would not be paying for everything from general taxation.

 

We are already investing heavily in renewables in advance of the oil/gas fields becoming depleted. Scotland would be energy rich if independence. At present, it is in the precarious position of being part of a UK which is a net importer of energy, with all the security and political problems that could present.