Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Ulysses]

I am lead to believe....

 

By whom?

[Gorgiewave]

You do realise that the markets are jumpy because Westminster has zero plans in places for a Yes vote.

 

Anyway, we have lost over 2000 points in a day and markets have recovered, the stock market was created to make stock brokers money.

 

Why should Westminster have plans in place for a Yes vote? What Scotland does with its currency in the event of a Yes vote is not for Westminster to say.

 

They emphatically have no obligation to agree to a currency union. Even if 100% of people in an independent Scotland want one, Westminster needn't pay them any heed. Likewise, if France said "100% of French people want you to join the Euro so you have to", they would be laughed at.

[super_vlad]

So if in the unlikely event of a Yes votes the markets crash and that adversely impacts the independence pending Scottish economy we will all suffer for goodness knows how long before the SNP utopian state happens and we have a fairer society. That sounds very unattractive.

 

markets crash and rises in events everyday, its such a stupid argument to put forward for a No vote.

 

We have just came out of the worse depression in living memory, how much did it really effect our lives in the bigger picture.

[Mikey1874]

So if in the unlikely event of a Yes votes the markets crash and that adversely impacts the independence pending Scottish economy we will all suffer for goodness knows how long before the SNP utopian state happens and we have a fairer society. That sounds very unattractive.

 

yes that is what I'm saying - should have been a key part of the debate but SNP / Yes scared of that debate

 

10/15 years poorer would be my prediction but eventually the promised prosperity could be achieved

 

what happens meantime...

Edited September 15, 2014 by Mikey1874

[sarissa]

What will happen with VAT in the event of a Yes vote? If an independent Scotland joins the EU will the zero rate disappear and a minimum 5% rate be charged on current zero rated goods?

That would generate additional revenue, which could be used to increase tax thresholds to help the less well-off or reduce rates, making it essentially a zero-sum change.

[sarissa]

It goes back to whether you think Scotland will be grandfathered into the EU and will be afforded the same status and opt-outs as the UK enjoys. Realpolitik and logic says Scotland won't be.

You think the the EU will exile over 5 million of its citizens to a country beyond its protection where its laws do nat apply?

 

That is what makes Scotland's situation unique and a uniqe accomodation will be found.

[super_vlad]

Why should Westminster have plans in place for a Yes vote? What Scotland does with its currency in the event of a Yes vote is not for Westminster to say.

 

They emphatically have no obligation to agree to a currency union. Even if 100% of people in an independent Scotland want one, Westminster needn't pay them any heed. Likewise, if France said "100% of French people want you to join the Euro so you have to", they would be laughed at.

 

I'm sorry, i'm not sure if you are serious or not? The markets are not jumpy at no currency union, its the fact that there are not a single plan in places for anything. You don't think that WM should have at least put some planning in place? You think its acceptable ? Its they jobs to forward plan, i'm not asking them to put plans in place for aliens landing, but come on man, this is a ridiculous argument to be having.

[rossthejambo]

 

 

 

Why should Westminster have plans in place for a Yes vote? What Scotland does with its currency in the event of a Yes vote is not for Westminster to say.

 

They emphatically have no obligation to agree to a currency union. Even if 100% of people in an independent Scotland want one, Westminster needn't pay them any heed. Likewise, if France said "100% of French people want you to join the Euro so you have to", they would be laughed at.

 

Westminster aren't going to be unaffected by a Yes vote, currency union or not, of course they need to have plans in place.

 

[Don Draper]

Quite amusing segment from John Oliver (supposedly won't be available to UK viewers till tomorrow):

 

 

Also gives a nice flavour of how much coverage the issue has had from the US media.

[AyrJambo]

The Union of 1707. Scotland tried to found an empire in the Caribbean and lost 20% of national wealth. Its economy was rescued by having access to English markets.

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

[Gorgiewave]

Quite amusing segment from John Oliver (supposedly won't be available to UK viewers till tomorrow):

 

 

Also gives a nice flavour of how much coverage the issue has had from the US media.

 

I once saw John Oliver at the Fringe about 12 years ago. He closed his show by dressing as a penguin and dancing around. He's clearly not improved since then.

[JamboX2]

 

 

By whom?

 

Boy I know in RBS legal.

[JamboX2]

 

 

By whom?

 

Boy I know in RBS legal.

[JamboX2]

 

 

You do realise that the markets are jumpy because Westminster has zero plans in places for a Yes vote.

 

Anyway, we have lost over 2000 points in a day and markets have recovered, the stock market was created to make stock brokers money.

 

Totally agree. Why I've added Westminster and the treasury.

[super_vlad]

This nails it for how i feel.

 

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/yes-or-no-project-britain-is-already-****ed-paris-lees-007?utm_source=vicefbuk

[sarissa]

I see oil is sitting at $97 a barrel. Considering the snp are using a figure of $150 for their assumptions. It's a big difference.

It's not the SNP or ythe Yes campaign's figure - AFAIK the price forecast is from the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the output forecasts are fron Oil and Gas UK, the industry's trade association ( representing the companies that are investing massively in N Sea production facilities for the fiture)

[JamboX2]

 

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

 

Part of the yes argument is we won't be embroiled in conflicts abroad which aren't in our interests.

 

England going to War over Spain due to a ineptly led and terribly located Scottish trading post was perhaps not in English interests...

 

This is a thing we need to get used to in the event of yes. The world does not revolve around us. We will be a smaller voice with less weight behind it. Decisions won't always be made that suit us in NATO, the EU or the UN. When they don't we cant call foul and moan when we get no help or backing for our views.

[TheMaganator]

I am lead to believe that if Yes seem likely to win by 7am on Friday that Salmond will need to make a statement to the markets before 8 to prevent capital flight from Scotland when markets open.

 

There needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement to markets about the currency position or the markets will panic. Equally the Treasury, BOE and Number 10 must also have a statement on Scotland's position with the pound to stop this becoming people queuing at banks.

I do not think there's a thing that he can say that will stop the money leaving.

[sarissa]

Yes. In 1707 when Scotland agreed to the union of parliaments after the Darien Scheme effectively bankrupted us.

 

The South Sea Bubble scandal barely twelve years later bankrupted many times more investors, and IIRC lost them about 25 times as much in total as the Darien Scheme did.

[rossthejambo]

 

 

I do not think there's a thing that he can say that will stop the money leaving.

 

Robert Peston says otherwise.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29206398

 

 

[Gorgiewave]

63% of English and Welsh voters are against a currency union:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/15/independent-scotland-not-use-pound-english-welsh-voters

 

It doesn't seem likely the Westminster government would defy 63% of the English and Welsh electorates to allow a currency union.

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

 

Well, if a Wings over Bath says so, it must be right.

 

What you say neatly ignores that the biggest untapped market at that time for Scotland would have been, yes you've guessed it, England. The real boost to prosperity was the Act of Union which opened that market to Scottish goods and skills. It provided a huge boost to the economic and cultural life of Scotland and it let Scots into the running of a unified country that was the crucible for so many developments in industry, science, medicine and thinking.

 

The imagination, inventiveness and energy of the peoples of Scoland and England, when fused in a common purpose, changed the World mostly for the better.

 

We were then and are now far better together than apart.

[GBJambo]

 

It's not the SNP or ythe Yes campaign's figure - AFAIK the price forecast is from the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the output forecasts are fron Oil and Gas UK, the industry's trade association ( representing the companies that are investing massively in N Sea production facilities for the fiture)

 

Maybe so bit surely it would be more prudent to not place such a high figure on something that's price incredibly volatile

[Ulysses]

 

Boy I know in RBS legal.

 

That means no link to the source, then?

[BoJack Horseman]

Quite amusing segment from John Oliver (supposedly won't be available to UK viewers till tomorrow):

 

 

Also gives a nice flavour of how much coverage the issue has had from the US media.

 

I watched it earlier. I like Oliver, but he really does just waffle about nothing. It's for an American audience, quite clearly.

[Ulysses]

 

 

Robert Peston says otherwise.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29206398

 

That wouldn't be a problem for Salmond. All he has to do is say he intends to try to negotiate a currency union, but if he doesn't succeed the alternative will be to peg a Scottish pound to Sterling.

 

Easy enough for him to say and to mean, in fairness.

 

Even the cost of a peg is manageable. Peston reckons the overall cost is about ?35 billion (I thought a little closer to ?40 bn), but with ?15 billion in reserves already available, the Exchequer would need to borrow ?20 billion - which the BofE can lend to the Scottish Exchequer at a mutually advantageous rate in return for concessions on Trident.

 

Win win, surely?

[GBJambo]

 

 

That wouldn't be a problem for Salmond. All he has to do is say he intends to try to negotiate a currency union, but if he doesn't succeed the alternative will be to peg a Scottish pound to Sterling.

 

Easy enough for him to say and to mean, in fairness.

 

Even the cost of a peg is manageable. Peston reckons the overall cost is about ?35 billion (I thought a little closer to ?40 bn), but with ?15 billion in reserves already available, the Exchequer would need to borrow ?20 billion - which the BofE can lend to the Scottish Exchequer at a mutually advantageous rate in return for concessions on Trident.

 

Win win, surely?

 

Would people voting yes be happy that trident will remain scotland?

[GBJambo]

 

 

That wouldn't be a problem for Salmond. All he has to do is say he intends to try to negotiate a currency union, but if he doesn't succeed the alternative will be to peg a Scottish pound to Sterling.

 

Easy enough for him to say and to mean, in fairness.

 

Even the cost of a peg is manageable. Peston reckons the overall cost is about ?35 billion (I thought a little closer to ?40 bn), but with ?15 billion in reserves already available, the Exchequer would need to borrow ?20 billion - which the BofE can lend to the Scottish Exchequer at a mutually advantageous rate in return for concessions on Trident.

 

Win win, surely?

 

Would people voting yes be happy that trident will remain scotland?

[JamboX2]

 

 

That means no link to the source, then?

 

Sadly not. The peston link covers the basic idea. I'm told by this friend it's the general opinion that this may well be what is needed.

 

It'd appear as though it'd force Salmond to declare a favoured plan B with the Treasury saying Scotland is in till 2016 at the least and no more. Doubt they'll accept his terms too quickly.

[Rudolf's Mate]

63% of English and Welsh voters are against a currency union:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/15/independent-scotland-not-use-pound-english-welsh-voters

 

It doesn't seem likely the Westminster government would defy 63% of the English and Welsh electorates to allow a currency union.

 

Wonder if the Welsh will wait to see if Scotland vote yes and how it turns out before attempting it themselves!

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

Maybe so bit surely it would be more prudent to not place such a high figure on something that's price incredibly volatile

 

It might spike to $150 or above but likely only briefly and in response to such as sanctions on Russia. The bigger risk is the effect of shale gas in the US, some new fields in Texas or the North Slope and don't forget the Saudis; that will do for North Sea oil what cheap Brazilian coal has done for Scottish Coal - mothballing.

 

Also bear in mind that oil tax revenue is running at around ?4.5bn for the Scottish sector. A 50% increase is likely to yield around ?6 to ?7bn pa (Salmond and Swinney have promised Corporation Tax breaks to Big Oil). That is not a large proportion of the budget that an independent Scoland would need.

 

Planning an economy on a best case scenario is only going to lead to grief.

[Gabriel]

If it's a Yes vote, the enuing negotiations will make Nick Clegg's volte face on tuition fees pale into insignificance. It was messy and protracted getting the Union together, so there's no reason to think it will be easy extracting from it.

[GBJambo]

 

 

Wonder if the Welsh will wait to see if Scotland vote yes and how it turns out before attempting it themselves!

 

They have already come out and said they would not do it.

[Norm]

 

 

Would people voting yes be happy that trident will remain scotland?

 

I reckon if it means stability for the economy we could probably accept that payoff. As long as we don't pay Trident I could go along with it.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I reckon if it means stability for the economy we could probably accept that payoff. As long as we don't pay Trident I could go along with it.

So we'll get a stable economy & trident in our waters.

 

Do we not have that now & without having to borrow ?20bn?

[Norm]

 

So we'll get a stable economy & trident in our waters.

 

Do we not have that now & without having to borrow ?20bn?

 

Yes. But it's about a little bit more than just a stable economy and Trident though.

 

In fact, I'd say a stable economy, Trident in our waters and a ?20 billion loan for complete Independence seems not that bad really.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Normthebarman

[ArcticJambo]

I am lead to believe that if Yes seem likely to win by 7am on Friday that Salmond will need to make a statement to the markets before 8 to prevent capital flight from Scotland when markets open.

 

There needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement to markets about the currency position or the markets will panic. Equally the Treasury, BOE and Number 10 must also have a statement on Scotland's position with the pound to stop this becoming people queuing at banks.

 

One thing that I will hedge my bets on is that should a Yes vote prevail, the only folks that will stand to benefit immediately from any currency confusion will be the chancers that run & dictate the markets. Guaranteed. They'll have it worked out of that I have no doubt.

[GBJambo]

 

 

Yes. But it's about a little bit more than just a stable economy and Trident though.

 

In fact, I'd say a stable economy, Trident in our waters and a ?20 billion loan for complete Independence seems not that bad really.

 

I'd imagine it would piss off a lot of people who are voting yes mainly to remove trident from Scotland.

[IMac]

Am I the only person who couldn't give a flying **** about trident?

 

submarines are cool. that is as far as I care about it.

[Norm]

 

 

I'd imagine it would piss off a lot of people who are voting yes mainly to remove trident from Scotland.

 

Hopefully the people who have that as their main reason for Independence wouldn't be too many. I reckon you could sell it to them anyway with an "until the loan is paid off" timetable.

 

Personally, as long as we're not spending money on Trident, I'm not too bothered where they park them.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Normthebarman

[JamboX2]

 

 

One thing that I will hedge my bets on is that should a Yes vote prevail, the only folks that will stand to benefit immediately from any currency confusion will be the chancers that run & dictate the markets. Guaranteed. They'll have it worked out of that I have no doubt.

 

Couldn't agree more. A lot of spiving and speculating. The most amount of done up here since Rangers.

[The Mighty Thor]

 

One thing that I will hedge my bets on is that should a Yes vote prevail, the only folks that will stand to benefit immediately from any currency confusion will be the chancers that run & dictate the markets. Guaranteed. They'll have it worked out of that I have no doubt.

Yip. I'm sure a lot of people made a canny amount of cash out of the 'market uncertainty' last week.

 

It's nothing to do with better together it's what's better for profit.

[AyrJambo]

Well, if a Wings over Bath says so, it must be right.

 

AyrJambo, on 15 September 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

 

 

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

http://wingsoverscot...-darien-scheme/

 

What you say neatly ignores that the biggest untapped market at that time for Scotland would have been, yes you've guessed it, England. The real boost to prosperity was the Act of Union which opened that market to Scottish goods and skills. It provided a huge boost to the economic and cultural life of Scotland and it let Scots into the running of a unified country that was the crucible for so many developments in industry, science, medicine and thinking.

 

The imagination, inventiveness and energy of the peoples of Scoland and England, when fused in a common purpose, changed the World mostly for the better.

 

We were then and are now far better together than apart.

 

AyrJambo, on 15 September 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

 

 

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

Pretty universally agreed that English interests played a part in the disaster...

 

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/

 

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/dariencolony/index.asp

 

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/founding-darien-colony

 

Since this whole current debate is on the merits of the political union with England I think it's important to be aware of how and why it came about in the first place

[Rudolf's Mate]

 

They have already come out and said they would not do it.

 

The people or those in government?

 

It's hypothetical however Scotland vote yes and make a success of it then the Welsh people will ask for a referendum.

[Pistol1874]

 

 

The "too wee, too small" line that Sturgeon in particular is fond of, is a ridiculous strawman.

Yep. The question is 'Should Scotland be an independent country'.

'Could' doesn't come into it and no-one is saying that eventually Scotland couldn't be a successful country.

What is up for debate is SHOULD Scotland be independent, which is where the how and why must come in.

I haven't seen answers to those which satisfy my risk averse nature, or credible answers at all in some instances, and doubt we will now.

I can see why yes would try to twist the issue to make Scotland and her people look put upon or patronised, Salmond wants yes at any cost, but the issue is as I've outlined.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

 

 

 

The people or those in government?

 

It's hypothetical however Scotland vote yes and make a success of it then the Welsh people will ask for a referendum.

Cornwall for devolution first. The UK will probably resemble something akin to the United States if it is to have a long term future. Different areas have different cultures and social issues that the UK Govt never react to

[gorgiealf]

Awfy confused with all this chat from big Zander -

 

He bangs on about the 'lever of powers' he needs to fix things economically for us eg. control of monetary policy. He then confirms he wants to hand them straight back by surrendering the currency to a foreign power = UK who would set interest rates, exchange rates , have to sign off budgets and spending etc = what sort of Nationalist does that?

 

Ditto with his social and political levers. Why would he want to hand over 70% of our sovereignty to the EU? (if we got in). Scots law nae mair! His minimum bevvy price law will be decided by Brussels and Berlin!!

 

Thought his catch phrase was ' No one is better placed than the Scottish people to decide what is best for Scotland'. Brussels, Berlin and London will do the talking if Zander gets his way.

 

Seems like he's flogging seperation from the uk rather than independence. He won't give a fig once we're divided. He's got 6 public pensions to keep him in betting slips.

 

Oh well, in a couple of days, we could be under the yoke of the Weege for a long time to come. All pain and NO gain! So careful what you wish for cause ye canny take it back to the shops.

 

East Kilbride nae mair

Rosyth nae mair

Faslane nae mair

BAE nae mair

Standard Life nae mair (well tidlier than it was)

RBOS nae mair

HBOS nae mair

Lossiemouth nae mair

Ah could go on and .....

 

We live in bemusing times. Anyone up for taking Edinburgh Indy ??

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

You think the the EU will exile over 5 million of its citizens to a country beyond its protection where its laws do nat apply?

 

That is what makes Scotland's situation unique and a uniqe accomodation will be found.

You think Scotland will get exactly the terms it has now?

[GBJambo]

 

 

The people or those in government?

 

It's hypothetical however Scotland vote yes and make a success of it then the Welsh people will ask for a referendum.

 

Not sure to be honest. Shetland too can get their independence from Scotland!

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

AyrJambo, on 15 September 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

 

 

 

The Darien Venture was in part required because of English-imposed limits on Scottish trade. The geo-political world then was all about colonosation by European powers. England and the East India Company sabotaged investment in the scheme and offered no support ( the Union of Crowns had already taken place approx 100 years earlier ) because they were afraid of offending the Spanish.

 

Pretty universally agreed that English interests played a part in the disaster...

 

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/

 

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/dariencolony/index.asp

 

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/founding-darien-colony

 

Since this whole current debate is on the merits of the political union with England I think it's important to be aware of how and why it came about in the first place

 

None of the various machinations and intrigues of international relations in the 18th Century alters the fact that Scotland benefited enormously from the union; that much is documented. The Scotland we know today came about as part of the union. Most of the great Scots we laud today prospered in the union - Watt, Hume, Smith, Fleming and a host of others.

It has been Scotland's independence within the Union - in law, in education - that created the environment that allowed Scotland to flourish. Remember that at the time of Union, England was 14 times wealthier than Scotland - a gap that closed rapidly and nowadays is negligible despite the "poor, wee nation" rant from Sturgeon.

 

Will independence make all Scots happier, wealthier, healthier? It might but the crucial question is when? This year? Next year? 2020? 2030? Most of what I read says 10 to 15 years with austerity on the way.

 

Will that time-span satisfy the bulk of those tempted to vote Yes? In this day and age, I doubt it.