Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Alba gu Brath]

I did as well. It was interesting to see someone other than me acknowledging the strong conservative streak in the Scottish body politic that would be able to reassert itself if it didn't have to be identified with southern English Toryism. I do not buy the idea that Scotland is more leftist or more social democratic than England.

 

Wonder why you think this?

 

When, in recent decades, has Scotland voted for a right-of-centre party? New Labour may have leaped to the right to win middle-English votes - not central belt Scottish votes btw - but the core vote here remains left of centre. All countries, even leftie-Norway, have their conservative streaks but a 'strong conservative streak' is still just a streak. Further, the SNP manifesto is left of centre and they won a landslide on it. How did the Tories and UKIP fare?

[Alba gu Brath]

Maxwell's article (the first one) should be considerd by many in this vote. His points on the currency position and the effects that'll have for the economic policies of the Scottish Government are very important.

 

As I've said consistently, if you view independence as a chance for real substantial economic change, then currency union doesn't fit that. The compact will be a straightjacket and in my opinion unworkable as it's undemocratic. And yet, the Finance Secretary says it must be a permanent thing to work, ruling out any idea this is temporary or short to medium term. For me it's a non-starter.

 

My friends in Finland, Germany, France and Spain would be interested to hear that they're neither 'democratic' nor 'independent' on account of them sharing a currency.

 

I could also ask that would us voting 'no' mean more power over our own affairs and 'certainty' in matters pertaining to Europe?

Edited November 30, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[Gorgiewave]

No it's not. You tried this once. You were wrong. Please stop trying to sell this as something more than it is. It's just tawdry.

 

Yes, it is. You know it fine well.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Would this not have been considered?

The fiscal pact is definitely considered. It is in the paper. Whether 2 has been considered is unknown. Given the failure of regulation that helped cause the first crash, you would hope that the BoE is more switched on than the FSA.

[Das Root]

 

The fiscal pact is definitely considered. It is in the paper. Whether 2 has been considered is unknown. Given the failure of regulation that helped cause the first crash, you would hope that the BoE is more switched on than the FSA.

 

 

With 1 I would assume 2, have to consider the folks that wrote the paper know more than you Geoff.

[Das Root]

 

 

Yes, it is. You know it fine well.

 

 

Can you provide accurate examples?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

With 1 I would assume 2, have to consider the folks that wrote the paper know more than you Geoff.

People used to think like that about the Bible.

[Ulysses]

Wonder why you think this?

 

When, in recent decades, has Scotland voted for a right-of-centre party? New Labour may have leaped to the right to win middle-English votes - not central belt Scottish votes btw - but the core vote here remains left of centre. All countries, even leftie-Norway, have their conservative streaks but a 'strong conservative streak' is still just a streak. Further, the SNP manifesto is left of centre and they won a landslide on it. How did the Tories and UKIP fare?

 

I'm not alone in thinking it - Neal Ascherson said as much in the article you linked. Conservatism got a bad name in Scotland, and I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland who would be comfortable voting for a Merkel-ist party aren't comfortable voting for a bunch of English Tories.

 

I think your description of Norway as "leftie" (and of SNP policies as "left of centre") merely serves as an example to illustrate the length of the shadow cast over British politics by Margaret Thatcher.

[Ulysses]

The starting point of the independence movement has been the alleged essential difference between Scotland and England....

 

 

No it's not.

 

But if there's no essential difference between Scotland and England (i.e. the most populous of the countries that make up the UK) what is the point of being separate and independent?

[Das Root]

 

People used to think like that about the Bible.

 

 

Equating yourself to Jesus?

[Das Root]

 

 

 

 

 

But if there's no essential difference between Scotland and England (i.e. the most populous of the countries that make up the UK) what is the point of being separate and independent?

 

 

Because we choose to be.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Equating yourself to Jesus?

No, Brian Coen.

[Gorgiewave]

Because we choose to be.

 

So, not a "just cause" but "just because".

 

I'll look up your sources tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gorgiewave

[Ulysses]

Because we choose to be.

 

We? Who are we?

 

If that separation is based purely on choice, then by extension it is logical for parts of Scotland to opt out of that choice. It is also logical for parts of Scotland to decide to be independent of both the UK and Scotland. But "we" (whoever "we" happen to be) aren't offering those choices. Since Scotland isn't essentially any different to (say) Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, the same choices should be offered to the people who live in those areas. But they aren't, because some arbitrary "we" won't offer them.

[Das Root]

 

 

We? Who are we?

 

If that separation is based purely on choice, then by extension it is logical for parts of Scotland to opt out of that choice. It is also logical for parts of Scotland to decide to be independent of both the UK and Scotland. But "we" (whoever "we" happen to be) aren't offering those choices. Since Scotland isn't essentially any different to (say) Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, the same choices should be offered to the people who live in those areas. But they aren't, because some arbitrary "we" won't offer them.

 

 

I'm different to you, you're different to Geoff, should each of us be an independent nation?

[Gorgiewave]

We? Who are we?

 

If that separation is based purely on choice, then by extension it is logical for parts of Scotland to opt out of that choice. It is also logical for parts of Scotland to decide to be independent of both the UK and Scotland. But "we" (whoever "we" happen to be) aren't offering those choices. Since Scotland isn't essentially any different to (say) Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, the same choices should be offered to the people who live in those areas. But they aren't, because some arbitrary "we" won't offer them.

 

It's effectively the "Jolene" syndrome: we'll become independent "for the same reason a dog licks its thing": because we can.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gorgiewave

[Das Root]

 

 

So, not a "just cause" but "just because".

 

I'll look up your sources tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

 

 

You read it the way you want to. Look forward to your examples. Buenos noches.

[Gorgiewave]

We? Who are we?

 

If that separation is based purely on choice, then by extension it is logical for parts of Scotland to opt out of that choice. It is also logical for parts of Scotland to decide to be independent of both the UK and Scotland. But "we" (whoever "we" happen to be) aren't offering those choices. Since Scotland isn't essentially any different to (say) Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, the same choices should be offered to the people who live in those areas. But they aren't, because some arbitrary "we" won't offer them.

 

An Admin. to be proud of, Uly.

[Das Root]

 

 

It's effectively the "Jolene" syndrome: we'll become independent "for the same reason a dog licks its thing": because we can.

 

 

But you won't technically...you don't live here. You have no say in this referendum.

[kingantti1874]

Ditto....

 

 

The most surprising thing is, I'm not in the least bit surprised by that poll, and I should be, given that every other poll seems to suggest about 55% no 25% yes give or take a % age pointhere or there.

 

Then you start to think about the reason why, that's because the nation is largely apathetic about the whole thing and only those with a keen interest didn't turn off the TV, I have subsequently read more snippets of the white paper and what an utterly pathetic prospectus for such an important decision. That was the first big opportunity to get people of the fence and frankly it's not worth the paper it's written on. Instead of an SNP wish list, IT should have been focused entirely around economics and post independence elections. I for one would have little support for SPL policies. Most people dont care about trident, Many people agree with the "attack" on welfare.. You can't debate the question of independence on secondary issues and policies, especially when posts if the people your trying to convince fundamentally disagree

 

A wealthier Scotland has opportunities to take positive decisions, a poorer Scotland does not. Instead it reads like a little boys Christmas list trying to be all Things to all men..

Edited December 1, 2013 by kingantti1874

[2NaFish]

 

 

 

 

 

But if there's no essential difference between Scotland and England (i.e. the most populous of the countries that make up the UK) what is the point of being separate and independent?

 

I took issue with it being the starting point, as though some anti-english bitterness were the root. That there should be an essential difference somewhere isn't my gripe.

 

My other issue is why should it just be englishness that Scotland is different from. Surely any other country in the UK would be worthy of that essential difference. But GW is trying to simply equate Scottish independence with anti English bigotry. GW doesn't like it, therefore its the devil.

Edited December 1, 2013 by 2NaFish

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I don't think it is an anti-English sentiment, it is an anti-Westminster sentiment that is in play.

 

Which is why I find the White Paper so surprisingly bland. It essentially offers Westminster lite at Holyrood with a childcare gimmick.

[Alba gu Brath]

I'm not alone in thinking it - Neal Ascherson said as much in the article you linked. Conservatism got a bad name in Scotland, and I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland who would be comfortable voting for a Merkel-ist party aren't comfortable voting for a bunch of English Tories.

 

I think your description of Norway as "leftie" (and of SNP policies as "left of centre") merely serves as an example to illustrate the length of the shadow cast over British politics by Margaret Thatcher.

 

No, you're not alone but two people thinking it does not a majority make.

 

Again, while conservativsm does exist in Scotland it very much a minority entity. If xenophobic, free-market, anti-Europe, racist politics carries much weight with Scots then why don't the Tories, UKIP and BNP do well. Even the mainstream Tories cannot shake the tag of 'nasty party' with their leaders at best being labelled 'the local matron who judges the jam at a country fete'

 

As to your point re 'nations'. Scotland is one of the oldest nations on earth with probably the oldest national emblem, the Salitre. We have an identifiable national culture and iconography - one that is world famous. We have an international 'brand' that other 'proper' independent nations would love to have. We should make hay while the sun shines.

 

But, yes, culture can vary within a nation. Even 'Gaelic culture' was wide and varied. Did the Gaelic speaking shepherds and forresters of Stirlingshire or Aberdeenshire - a culture alive to within living memory - share the same 'culture' with the Gaelic speaking fishers and guga-hunters of tree-less Lewis?

 

Sure, we are both different and alike in various ways to all our neighbours but that's the nature of nationalism. As to your points about regions within the nation - then yeah. Independence is just the start - local and community independence is just as important. That's why crofter and island buy outs are the way to go not to mention the Foundation of Hearts. Independence and internationalism is the way forward.

 

Talking of UKIP...

 

Ukip 'wiped out' north of the Border after its Scots leader is sacked

 

http://www.heraldsco...sacked.22833054

Edited December 1, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Conservatism in Scotland has always been confused during and post Thatcher because Thatcher wasn't a "conservative". She was a radical. Conservatives are anti-change by nature. Thatcher personified change and would brush aside the flak, irrespective of the outcome. Only a number bought into the message like Forsyth, a phenomenally able politician but portrayed as a creature of the night by the Scottish media.

 

If Thatcher had not beaten Heath in 1977, Scotland would not be anywhere near this referendum but then Britain would still be in managed decline mode as well.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

But you won't technically...you don't live here. You have no say in this referendum.

 

In such light nor does David Cameron

[Das Root]

 

 

In such light nor does David Cameron

 

 

Ah that old chestnut. I would imagine oor Dave has a bit more sway than Gorgie, however equally I would imagine Gorgie would have the balls to take on Salmond in a debate on the future of the union.

 

Salmond of course winning no matter the opponent

 

[syndicalist]

If London doesn't have the power isn't that a far greater representation as to why the union is broken? Their power house, their bastion of progress and success is a place where the havenots have even less than in other regions...and these places are considered less affluent than London itself.

Well, which way do you want it. It is the power house so I want independence or it isn't the power house so I want independence. The Nationalists repeatedly say that London is a drain on Scotland (and rUK) and I don't believe that to be true. It was a mantra I repeated in the Thatcher years, until I looked at the facts. If I was voting yes I would want to do so for the right reasons, not because of something I said so often I believed it to be true.

[Das Root]

 

 

The most surprising thing is, I'm not in the least bit surprised by that poll, and I should be, given that every other poll seems to suggest about 55% no 25% yes give or take a % age pointhere or there.

 

Then you start to think about the reason why, that's because the nation is largely apathetic about the whole thing and only those with a keen interest didn't turn off the TV, I have subsequently read more snippets of the white paper and what an utterly pathetic prospectus for such an important decision. That was the first big opportunity to get people of the fence and frankly it's not worth the paper it's written on. Instead of an SNP wish list, IT should have been focused entirely around economics and post independence elections. I for one would have little support for SPL policies. Most people dont care about trident, Many people agree with the "attack" on welfare.. You can't debate the question of independence on secondary issues and policies, especially when posts if the people your trying to convince fundamentally disagree

 

A wealthier Scotland has opportunities to take positive decisions, a poorer Scotland does not. Instead it reads like a little boys Christmas list trying to be all Things to all men..

 

 

So you say people are apathetic but end with that the WP should have focused on one thing only...not really going to tap into anyone's interest that economists surely?

 

It had to be a general discussion paper to have something for each sector to relate to. The details can come over the next ten months and be focused during the independence negotiations.

[jambos are go!]

Here is the first big opinion poll following the White paper.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516317/Poll-reveals-just-QUARTER-Scots-want-leave-UK-following-launch-referendum-campaign.html

 

56%NO

27&Yes

17% Undecided

 

Virtually unchanged except the number of Undecided has dropped from around 25%. On this evidence the YES campaign could win over all of the undecided voters and still lose decisively.

 

We need to see other polls to get a fuller picture IMO.

[Das Root]

Conservatism in Scotland has always been confused during and post Thatcher because Thatcher wasn't a "conservative". She was a radical. Conservatives are anti-change by nature. Thatcher personified change and would brush aside the flak, irrespective of the outcome. Only a number bought into the message like Forsyth, a phenomenally able politician but portrayed as a creature of the night by the Scottish media.

 

If Thatcher had not beaten Heath in 1977, Scotland would not be anywhere near this referendum but then Britain would still be in managed decline mode as well.

 

 

So Thatcher saved the UK?

[Das Root]

Here is the first big opinion poll following the White paper.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516317/Poll-reveals-just-QUARTER-Scots-want-leave-UK-following-launch-referendum-campaign.html

 

56%NO

27&Yes

17% Undecided

 

Virtually unchanged except the number of Undecided has dropped from around 25%. On this evidence the YES campaign could win over all of the undecided voters and still lose decisively.

 

We need to see other polls to get a fuller picture IMO.

 

 

We need to wait 6mths imo.

[Das Root]

Well, which way do you want it. It is the power house so I want independence or it isn't the power house so I want independence. The Nationalists repeatedly say that London is a drain on Scotland (and rUK) and I don't believe that to be true. It was a mantra I repeated in the Thatcher years, until I looked at the facts. If I was voting yes I would want to do so for the right reasons, not because of something I said so often I believed it to be true.

 

 

So London is just getting on with things and the rest of the UK is just poor?

[syndicalist]

So London is just getting on with things and the rest of the UK is just poor?

I don't really understand your post. People who live in London, the most diverse city in the world, are not saying all their problems are down to you.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

So Thatcher saved the UK?

Thatcher saved the UK economically but gave birth to its destruction politically.

[syndicalist]

Thatcher saved the UK economically but gave birth to its destruction politically.

and I'd argue, its destruction economically

[Das Root]

I don't really understand your post. People who live in London, the most diverse city in the world, are not saying all their problems are down to you.

 

 

London does draw down a considerable amount of money and it is the powerbase of the UK. Do you accept that?

 

Equally I have no concern to change how London operates, I just wish to be separated from it.

[JamboX2]

I disagree. With a ten year commitment the markets know exactly the term while Scotlans can introduce their new currency on a known timeframe.

 

Any sign of a lack of commitment for a long term period will bring doubt. The Czechs and Slovaks shared a currency which had a time limit of a number of years, in the world of free markets it lasted 5 weeks. The other issue with the Government's position is to have the Scottish debt liability sectioned off into a separate account, in the name of the UK government to pay down. Why? Because they fear what the markets will doubt their ability to pay down the debt on a good credit rating. I doubt that the UK government will be too interested in that.

 

I did as well. It was interesting to see someone other than me acknowledging the strong conservative streak in the Scottish body politic that would be able to reassert itself if it didn't have to be identified with southern English Toryism. I do not buy the idea that Scotland is more leftist or more social democratic than England.

 

Scottish small c-conservatism is based in an adherence to not readily challenging the institutions of Scottish society. There's muted debate on the role of the catholic church in education, a muted debate on the influence of the oil industry on the proposed fiscal position of an independent Scotland, little said on the ineptitude and nepotism of Scotland's local councils and a complete lack of looking to a liberalising of the Scottish state. It's a very small c conservative, Brownite statism in Scotland. Which should come as no surprise due to the ideological rigidity of the Labour party and the SNP.

 

What's needed, both on the left and right of Scottish politics, is a look to being more liberal, empowering communities and individuals in running their affairs. Be it through stakeholder models with the private sector on the right or more communal co-operative models in communities with residents owning their properties and managing them. That'd be truly innovative and shake the age old structures in Scottish society.

 

London has the highest rates of poverty in the UK. 80% of people living on the living wage live in London. If you are sick and living on a low wage in London you have to pay ?7.50 for a prescription, if you're a millionaire in Scotland your prescription is free. If you are paid the minimum wage in London you have to pay your children's tuition fees which means your children don't go in to higher education. If you're a millionaire in Scotland your children's tuition fees are free. Still you claim London has the power. Vote yes and pay your own way.

 

Some of London Boroughs have obscene poverty. To characterise this debate as a debate between an impoverished Scotland and a land of $ millionaires in London is wrong. Especially from a Scottish Government who made swinging cuts to anti-poverty programs since 2007... tad hypocritical.

 

Neither do I. This is, as they say in Spanish, "a truth as big as a cathderal". The starting point of the independence movement has been the alleged essential difference between Scotland and England, yet the proposals summarised in James Maxwell's articles are little more than a boring middle-of-the-road, not remotely radical election pledge.

 

"The headline pitch - to provide 1140 hours of free care to all Scottish three and four years olds by 2024". Well that's fine by me, but that's the "headline pitch"? This is like an alcoholic drug addict hell-raiser with 100 convictions saying "I've totally turned my life around: I now eat an apple a day". Well, that's good, but it's not turning anybody's life around.

 

I'll receive my copy of the proposals on Thursday and I hope to read it over the weekend.

 

Totally agree. Apart from wee amendments to welfare here and there and a cut in corporation tax there's little of the radicalism independence is supposed to promise. Trident removal is as radical as it gets. But even that's open to compromise as the Guardian's Severin Carrell said there was flexibility in the position due to the NATO sweatner of "if you have nuclear ships and weapons they can dock in Scotland so long as we don't know". It's not a radical vision, it's a centrist one.

 

Nothing in it suggests a radical departure from business as usual politics. Which, imo, it had to.

 

My friends in Finland, Germany, France and Spain would be interested to hear that they're neither 'democratic' nor 'independent' on account of them sharing a currency.

 

I could also ask that would us voting 'no' mean more power over our own affairs and 'certainty' in matters pertaining to Europe?

 

Haha, I never said they weren't either of the two. They have political independence, in terms of the majority of domestic policy and in foreign affairs to an extent. However, they do share and pool their sovereignty economically and in some ways foreign relations. They are democratic as well. However, they lack total influence and control over their currency position and interest rates. Rates are set to suit the hot spots of the Eurozone economy, so the cost of living in the fringe rises - Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Italy and Portugal - to prevent the Benelux-German- French economies from over heating.

 

It prevents economies doing what suits them better. Greece, Spain and Portugal is tied to mass austerity as leaving the Euro would percipitate a collapse in international confidence in that currency, which the Commission, Germany and France cannot abide the thought of. If not in the euro, devaluation, reallinging interest rates, printing money and default could all be options open to them. Yet it's not.

 

Why should Scotland tie herself to what the Yes side are consistently moaning about - an overheated south-eastern property bubble? Come independence why be convergent when what is being argued is needed is divergence and a new way. That disconnect is a bit glaring imo. Plus you can work very well cross border with different currencies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - all paragons of the Yes side all have differing currencies, and their prosperous, why deny us that?

Edited December 1, 2013 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

London does draw down a considerable amount of money and it is the powerbase of the UK. Do you accept that?

 

Equally I have no concern to change how London operates, I just wish to be separated from it.

 

In a way though you'll still be tied. The economics will still favour London in a currency union.

[syndicalist]

London does draw down a considerable amount of money and it is the powerbase of the UK. Do you accept that?

 

Equally I have no concern to change how London operates, I just wish to be separated from it.

It is the only UK "region" that pays in more than it takes out on a regular basis.

 

It is hard to see how Scotland can be separated from London when it is the home of Scotland's largest bank, and the home of the Bank of England that features large in the White Paper. There are other reasons that your wish will not be granted, but I'd be here all day and I want to get to the Rob Roy in London, England to watch the match with some London Jambos.

[Das Root]

 

 

In a way though you'll still be tied. The economics will still favour London in a currency union.

 

 

I disagree and as advised it has a limited time period attached. No matter how you try to argue otherwise, thats the way it's going to go. Even with no currency union...and rUK would be mad to ditch that idea, Scotland is its second biggest market afterall...Scotland can still use Sterling, rUK can either work with us or stand idly by and watch.

 

This explains it rather well imo.

 

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

 

 

WHAT DOES SCOTLAND GIVE UP IF WE KEEP THE POUND?

 

Keeping sterling means we will continue to have the same interest rates as the rUK. Reason: If we tried to set lower interest rates, money would flow out of Scottish banks and head south and if we had lower rates rUK would cut theirs to stop the reverse happening.

 

The problem here is that the rate of interest we end up with ? which will still be set by the Bank of England - may not suit independent Scotland. Traditionally, interest rates have been higher in the UK than the rest of Europe in order to fight inflation generated by the City of London and the over-heated economy of the English South East. That hurt Scottish business and wallets. Staying with sterling after independence could leave us with the same problem.

 

There is a second issue: keeping the pound means we have a common exchange rate. So if the pound goes up in value against foreign currencies like the euro and dollar, Scottish exports will be hurt. A Scottish central bank would not be able, say, to devalue to boost Scottish sales abroad.

 

However, Scotland inside the UK currently has to live with interest rates and the exchange rate set by the Bank of England. In that sense, keeping sterling after independence makes us no worse off. When Darling, Carmichael and Jones pretend to worry about independent Scotland being disadvantaged by the currency link they happily ignore just such "disadvantages" hold true at the moment.

 

Where a currency union trumps the current set-up is that it should properly include separate Scottish representation on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, which sets interest rates. Scottish representation should help ensure the rate set takes into account Scottish needs.

 

One reason that Carwyn Jones seems worried by a common currency zone is that he thinks that Scots representatives on the Monetary Policy Committee might demand an interest rate that disadvantaged Wales. Clearly Mr Jones is not aware the Bank of England already (and habitually) sets rates that are not in the interests of Wales. Surely it would be better to use the advent of Scottish independence to reform the Monetary Policy Committee to have representation from all the UK nations and regions

Edited December 1, 2013 by Das Root

[syndicalist]

I disagree and as advised it has a limited time period attached. No matter how you try to argue otherwise, thats the way it's going to go. Even with no currency union...and rUK would be mad to ditch that idea, Scotland is its second biggest market afterall...Scotland can still use Sterling, rUK can either work with us or stand idly by and watch.

 

This explains it rather well imo.

 

http://www.newsnetsc...re-strikes-back

 

Another piece that starts from the flawed premise that rUK suffers at the expense of a privileged London (and the South East) I don't think Salmond believes that and I don't think Scottish Business community believe that. Still, it does prove the point that Scotland, even an independent Scotland, will not rid itself of Londo. And why should it, other than to satisfy some deep rooted prejudice among certain sections of the nationalist political movement.

[JamboX2]

I disagree and as advised it has a limited time period attached. No matter how you try to argue otherwise, thats the way it's going to go. Even with no currency union...and rUK would be mad to ditch that idea, Scotland is its second biggest market afterall...Scotland can still use Sterling, rUK can either work with us or stand idly by and watch.

 

This explains it rather well imo.

 

http://www.newsnetsc...re-strikes-back

 

England's largest is the EU. Which uses the Euro, Danish and Swedish Krone and still some Eastern European currencies. Scotland also trades here. Does it put us at a disadvantage? Put it another way, ?350bn worth of trade with the EU, ?50bn with Scotland. Should we not just adopt the Euro?

 

I really think this currency union is not going to work and will be a fiscal straightjacket to Scotland setting our economy to match the service dominated industry of England. In the ? it's optimal and set considering us as a main concern, to go from that to maybe just two seats on the MPC setting the interest rate setting out the Scottish stall as a separate position doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.

[Alba gu Brath]

 

 

Why should Scotland tie herself to what the Yes side are consistently moaning about - an overheated south-eastern property bubble? Come independence why be convergent when what is being argued is needed is divergence and a new way. That disconnect is a bit glaring imo. Plus you can work very well cross border with different currencies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - all paragons of the Yes side all have differing currencies, and their prosperous, why deny us that?

 

Good points but like I've said before, the currency is a red herring. I don't have strong feelings either way. On one hand I'd probably like a Scottish Pound eventually but equally I travel a lot in Europe and enjoy using the Euro in most places I go.

 

You neglected Finland again. A small nation similar to Scotland in many ways but who have the Euro and who are still prosperous. Equally, you could argue for different currencies in the same nation state - Germany or the US for example. Even within Germany wages and living standards in much of the old East are way below that of the west and south.

 

The current arguments over retention of the pound are just part of the scare tactics. If Salmond advocated moving immedietedly to a Scottish Pound or adoption of the Euro (where did the Lib Dems go on that one??!!) then we'd have no end of scare stories to contend with. Certainly the governor of the BoE seems relaxed about the prospect.

 

Deep down, we all know that these issues would soon be cleared up upon a Yes vote. Real politik dictates that a valuable and resource-rich Scotland with a ready-made international identity and reputation, not to mention many friends, would not be sidelinded., Even Cameron, for all his bluster, would not want to look churlish.

 

David Hayman made a good point in his speech to the Radical Indi conference. To paraphrase him, 'look at who is lined up behind the no camp and look at who is lined up behind the yes camp and then choose sides'.

http://radicalindependence.org/index.php/2013/11/30/video-david-hayman-reads-the-radical-independence-declaration/

[Das Root]

 

 

Another piece that starts from the flawed premise that rUK suffers at the expense of a privileged London (and the South East) I don't think Salmond believes that and I don't think Scottish Business community believe that. Still, it does prove the point that Scotland, even an independent Scotland, will not rid itself of Londo. And why should it, other than to satisfy some deep rooted prejudice among certain sections of the nationalist political movement.

 

 

And that's your opinion, others have a different one. Doesn't make either wrong, just depends which one will win out.

 

Scotland would be a very good partner for London to have, but flourish without being controlled by it.

 

I do not believe a currency union will leave Scotland still under external control, others do, again we will see who is right but the ongoing necessity to push everything down this economic argument just bores me.

 

The debate is about so much more, I would wager those who try to restrict things only have the intention to stifle this debate in the hope of killing it.

 

Never going to happen, 2014 will be a great year and kick off a movement to make Scotland into a great independent nation we can all be proud of.

[Das Root]

 

 

England's largest is the EU. Which uses the Euro, Danish and Swedish Krone and still some Eastern European currencies. Scotland also trades here. Does it put us at a disadvantage? Put it another way, ?350bn worth of trade with the EU, ?50bn with Scotland. Should we not just adopt the Euro?

 

I really think this currency union is not going to work and will be a fiscal straightjacket to Scotland setting our economy to match the service dominated industry of England. In the ? it's optimal and set considering us as a main concern, to go from that to maybe just two seats on the MPC setting the interest rate setting out the Scottish stall as a separate position doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.

 

 

Ok so Scotland goes Euro...now that's first and second market in Euros...how long until rUK is forced into the Euro given it is now the only region with the pound and surrounded by the Euro on all sides.

 

With 2017 round the corner, it will be a cold sweat in Tory HQ and fierce negotiations to ensure Scotland does not go down that route.

 

Or do you think all rUK business that trade external to that would wish to do all transactions in a foreign currency with all those charges required to do so...and all because their government couldn't reach a simple agreement with a country who wanted to make one?

 

Bye bye Tories, hello Labour. Sounds like a great plan from Cameron

Edited December 1, 2013 by Das Root

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I'm not alone in thinking it - Neal Ascherson said as much in the article you linked. Conservatism got a bad name in Scotland, and I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland who would be comfortable voting for a Merkel-ist party aren't comfortable voting for a bunch of English Tories.

 

I think your description of Norway as "leftie" (and of SNP policies as "left of centre") merely serves as an example to illustrate the length of the shadow cast over British politics by Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Fry, author & nationalist also believes that a Yes vote will reignite the Tories here. That's one of the reasons he's voting yes.

 

Scotland historically has been a country of hard workers & apparently in the late 18 early 1900s we used to look down on London as many were out of work & 'work shy'. More people voted Tory here in the last general election than voted SNP in 2007 when they formed a minority government.

 

Vote Yes to get rid of the Tories is just another flawed logic & reason to vote Yes.

 

People hoping the Commonwealth & Ryder cup will be such a boost to the Yes camp to get then over 50% need to think again.

 

Good to see the latest poll sees Yes at the same % it has always been. This door that has 'been opened that cannot be closed' argument doesn't hold. Support has not changed. Why do the Yes camp think that is?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I'm not alone in thinking it - Neal Ascherson said as much in the article you linked. Conservatism got a bad name in Scotland, and I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland who would be comfortable voting for a Merkel-ist party aren't comfortable voting for a bunch of English Tories.

 

I think your description of Norway as "leftie" (and of SNP policies as "left of centre") merely serves as an example to illustrate the length of the shadow cast over British politics by Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Fry, author & nationalist also believes that a Yes vote will reignite the Tories here. That's one of the reasons he's voting yes.

 

Scotland historically has been a country of hard workers & apparently in the late 18 early 1900s we used to look down on London as many were out of work & 'work shy'. More people voted Tory here in the last general election than voted SNP in 2007 when they formed a minority government.

 

Vote Yes to get rid of the Tories is just another flawed logic & reason to vote Yes.

 

People hoping the Commonwealth & Ryder cup will be such a boost to the Yes camp to get then over 50% need to think again.

 

Good to see the latest poll sees Yes at the same % it has always been. This door that has 'been opened that cannot be closed' argument doesn't hold. Support has not changed. Why do the Yes camp think that is?

[flecktimus]

Here is the first big opinion poll following the White paper.

 

 

http://www.dailymail...m-campaign.html

 

56%NO

27&Yes

17% Undecided

 

Virtually unchanged except the number of Undecided has dropped from around 25%. On this evidence the YES campaign could win over all of the undecided voters and still lose decisively.

 

We need to see other polls to get a fuller picture IMO.

 

If i am reading the figures correctly the Better together have lost 3% to undecided since September.

[Das Root]

 

 

If i am reading the figures correctly the Better together have lost 3% to undecided since September.

 

 

There's no point, even with ten months of the campaign still to run and even though 2014 is when things will properly kick off in terms of money te spend and events that will run, as the polls are showing similar then it's game over and we should all just accept the status quo

 

Fiddle me a new tune, I'm in it for the long haul. A poll in August 2014 will have far more bearing than one in August 2013 imo.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

If i am reading the figures correctly the Better together have lost 3% to undecided since September.

According to a Curtice lecture I went to undecideds tend to make up their mind on the day & vote for the status quo.

 

To have gained no support despite the White Paper launch & being in government is utterly appalling.

 

KM is even trying to abolish an essential part of Scots law that makes us different from English law in an attempt to woo female voters who can see right through him. It hasn't worked.

 

Interesting that 2/3 of unemployed are voting Yes. Hopefully the economy picks up & we get more people into work.