Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

 

I am not laughing. However, you and I both know that during the 2 years of negotiations a compromise and settlement will be agreed on all matters including currency. We will become England's top importer just as Ireland is just now. It will be in the intents of both countries to agree on currency. What you mean is that currency is the tool the Unionists have been using to beat us into submission.

 

You do know that "agreement" is not a position arrived at unilaterally. The needs of the population of England will have to measured against those of us in Scotland. The needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few; that is the one certainty in this unfortunate adventure.

 

[red21]

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

 

I was made redundant twice in three years...so a massive effect for me.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Mr Osborne will not be around much longer. He will go, once he has been proven wrong.

Either Osborne or Balls will be Chancellor for the next few years. They have both ruled currency union out. Salmond cannot dictate policy to the rest of the UK.

[Independence]

I hope by us you mean Yes voters and not "Team Scotland" .

 

You do get the markets won't wait 2 years? Or that investors won't either?

 

The world isn't like that anymore. He British government had a day at most prior to bailing out RBS, not a few weeks.

 

What's needed is a statement from both parties as to the intent to form or not form a CU. If Whitehall, to which I've no doubt they will stick to their guns, then Salmond will need to outlay his plan b. If there is a plan b then he's effectively lied to the Scottish electorate on there being no need for a plan b since this whole thing began.

 

Wow are you saying we should believe everything the Tories have said. Astonishing.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Independence

[JamboX2]

 

 

Mr Osborne will not be around much longer. He will go, once he has been proven wrong.

 

Will Mr Swinney and Mr Salmond if they are proved wrong?

[jambo1185]

 

 

I am not laughing. However, you and I both know that during the 2 years of negotiations a compromise and settlement will be agreed on all matters including currency. We will become England's top importer just as Ireland is just now. It will be in the intents of both countries to agree on currency. What you mean is that currency is the tool the Unionists have been using to beat us into submission.

 

England/Uk do not currently import most of their good from Ireland. Not even close. Ireland's main import partner is the UK I.e. They are hugely reliant on the Uk for trade. Not the other way around.

 

If you are saying that Scotland's main trading partner will be the UK I agree, but we will be reliant on them for trade to a far greater extent than they will be on us. Scotland will not be, and will never be, the UKs main trading partner.

Edited September 15, 2014 by jambo1185

[Independence]

That's some gestation period - over 200 years!

 

You know it is the patronising attitude of the Unionist camp that has won the day for the Yes camp. Thanks, Geoff keep chuckling.

[AyrJambo]

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.

 

The Scotland that we know today?...............

 

Resource-rich but not able to manage those resources

Governed from afar by those not elected here

Gradual and systemic erosion of industry

Almost no large Scottish companies left

Even now a mixture of bribes and threats to try and stop self-determination and strangle it at birth

 

The union was built on lies, subterfuge and threats. The main English motive was territorial control to help advance its colonial conflicts and land grabbing.

Invasion, attrition and war hadn't worked but manipulation of the Crown and bribes to Scottish landowners to sell out their fellow countrymen did.

 

That is all in the past. it was a different world then. The union brought undeniable benefit to Scots but at some cost to collective self-confidence.

Britishness was cemented in 2 world wars but since 1945 I think it's plain to see that the union has had decreased relevance to most Scots ans is now actually a drag on Scottish aspirations.

 

It's run it's course. Time to move on to something different

[Maple Leaf]

Its amazing how other small independent countries manage. We truly are the baby of all countries who need too be looked after as we simply wouldnt be able to function in the real world on our own and never will.

The population of Scotland really shouldn't enter into the discussion. There are numerous successful, independent countries about the same size, or smaller, than Scotland.

 

Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Uruguay, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, to name just a few.

 

I think the debate has moved beyond questioning if Scotland could be a success, to asking what is the best thing to do for the Scots as well as the rest of the UK. Even if No prevails on Thursday, I believe that there will be widespread agreement across party lines that maybe it's time for this 300 year-old Union to undergo a make over. If there isn't such an agreement, I can see the discussion quickly turning to "What year should we target for the next referendum?"

[TheMaganator]

 

 

You know it is the patronising attitude of the Unionist camp that has won the day for the Yes camp. Thanks, Geoff keep chuckling.

You haven't won the day and you likely won't,

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You know it is the patronising attitude of the Unionist camp that has won the day for the Yes camp. Thanks, Geoff keep chuckling.

Go back and read what you posted please. That is why I laughed at it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Wow are you saying we should believe everything the Tories have said. Astonishing.

 

Answer the two points put to you.

 

The implication of your point is I should buy what Salmond and Swinney are selling. Which I don't.

 

Each side have put a gun to the nations temple. Should be a blast if yes wins.

[GBJambo]

 

 

You know it is the patronising attitude of the Unionist camp that has won the day for the Yes camp. Thanks, Geoff keep chuckling.

 

Have I missed something. Has the referendum already happened?

[jambo1185]

 

 

 

You won't get a (sensible) answer to this question.

 

I know AR, I know.

[Nookie Bear]

 

 

Who is this ?

 

 

Are you even old enough to vote?

[Nookie Bear]

 

 

As it always has been and as most countries are. The SNP was born before the ink was dry on the Act of Union. Every country is divided to a certain extent. However that is why we have democracy and elections. Nothing wrong with a divided country as long as it doesn't go down the road of Northern Ireland and we haven't.

 

But there is a massive religious divide so...

[Gabriel]

In the light of a 'Yes' result, can someone state what currency solution would be best economically for rUK businesses? I'm not interested in political machinations, or conditions being attached, simply what would be best for companies trading as of next week?

[Boaby Ewing]

Allan Little of the BBC has been very impressive tonight.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Dave de le Noir

[deesidejambo]

You know it is the patronising attitude of the Unionist camp that has won the day for the Yes camp. Thanks, Geoff keep chuckling.

 

It works both ways. Alex Salmond claiming he represents the "Sovereign Will of the Scottish People" is patronising and insulting. He does not represent me nor 50% of the voters for a start. He is not some sort of Messiah that represents "the people". He is a politician that represents a certain section of the voters.

 

He also does not represent "Team Scotland". We are not a "team", ask Lyndsey Sharp. We are a divided nation and the wounds will take a long time to heal, but the scar will remain.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

In the light of a 'Yes' result, can someone state what currency solution would be best economically for rUK businesses? I'm not interested in political machinations, or conditions being attached, simply what would be best for companies trading as of next week?

 

There is no perfect answer to that.

 

If I was a Scottish or UK only business - doesn't really matter.

 

If I was a business operating both sides of the border - same currency is much more preferable to reduce costs.

 

However, that is for trading. The other major issue is that most business have some sort of debt to fund capital. The cost of that borrowing is fundamental to the survival of the business so therefore the lowest interest rate possible is the most desirable outcome. That's why the currency union means more to iScotland than rUK. Salmond knows that in the short term, Scottish businesses would face higher funding costs outside of a currency union as the markets will lend at a higher interest rate until there is a credibility factor.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[Gabriel]

There is no perfect answer to that.

 

If I was a Scottish or UK only business - doesn't really matter.

 

If I was a business operating both sides of the border - same currency is much more preferable to reduce costs.

 

However, that is for trading. The other major issue is that most business have some sort of debt to fund capital. The cost of that borrowing is fundamental to the survival of the business so therefore the lowest interest rate possible is the most desirable outcome. That's why the currency union means more to iScotland than rUK. Salmond knows that in the short term, Scottish businesses would face higher funding costs outside of a currency union as the markets will lend at a higher interest rate until there is a credibility factor.

 

Thanks.

[BoJack Horseman]

Who is this ?

 

The, um.. Prime Minister?

[Don Draper]

Apart from the fact that it's a cringe-y Americanism, I really don't get the seethe with this 'Team Scotland' stuff. If that's the kind of thing that offends you, you'd be better off not getting out of bed in the morning, to be honest.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I should also add that it is probably easier to "separate" when interest rates are low.

[fabienleclerq]

Sorry if it's been covered but what's peoples thoughts on if the vote is very close (looking likely) that pretty much by a few votes half the country can decide the future of the other half?

 

Imagine a 51.1% winning margin either way and in actual fact if some don't vote, you could have less than half the country deciding for the rest. Should the percentage be set higher?

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

 

The Scotland that we know today?...............

 

Resource-rich but not able to manage those resources

Governed from afar by those not elected here

Gradual and systemic erosion of industry

Almost no large Scottish companies left

Even now a mixture of bribes and threats to try and stop self-determination and strangle it at birth

 

The union was built on lies, subterfuge and threats. The main English motive was territorial control to help advance its colonial conflicts and land grabbing.

Invasion, attrition and war hadn't worked but manipulation of the Crown and bribes to Scottish landowners to sell out their fellow countrymen did.

 

That is all in the past. it was a different world then. The union brought undeniable benefit to Scots but at some cost to collective self-confidence.

Britishness was cemented in 2 world wars but since 1945 I think it's plain to see that the union has had decreased relevance to most Scots ans is now actually a drag on Scottish aspirations.

 

It's run it's course. Time to move on to something different

 

Bannockburn was 700 years ago, the Union was 300 years ago, Thatcher was 30 years ago and yet they are still cast up as reasons for independence today. Why not look to the future and give us a plan, a roadmap, a reason, something other than "trust us". Dominic Littlwood has forged a nice career in TV exposing charlatans who ask the gullible to "trust us".

 

"Resource rich". Do you know the value of these resources - not to the companies that will exploit them but to the Exchequer?

 

Oil, I'm sorry to say, is not the panacea it is claimed. ?6bn per annum is a generous estimate. Do not be seduced by the ?1.5tn quoted frequently by the Salmond and Sturgeon - that is the total wholesale value over 35 years (all being well).

 

Renewables - the sources we have occupy three of the top four in the list of sources in energy in terms of cost per megawatt and can only exist with huge subsidy by consumers - English consumers.

 

Whisky - ?1bn a year on a good year.

 

People - the brightest and best will continue to leave, to adventure - its the Scottish way.

 

"Scots lacking in self-confidence." Really? Scots are disproportionately represented in key roles in all walks of life throughout the UK. How many PMs have been Scots? How many key Cabinet Posts have been filled by Scots? How many leaders in boardrooms, in finance and the military are Scots? We might be many things but we do not lack confidence.

 

Voting No is not a lack of confidence. Quite the opposite, it shows we are confident in our abilities in our skills, in our cultural identity (or, more likely, identities) and our place in the world. We do not need the false promises of an ersatz independence.

[TheMaganator]

Apart from the fact that it's a cringe-y Americanism, I really don't get the seethe with this 'Team Scotland' stuff. If that's the kind of thing that offends you, you'd be better off not getting out of bed in the morning, to be honest.

For me, it just fits the narrative that No voters have been subjected to throughout this debate :

 

If you're voting No you are less Scottish, anti-Scottish or one of two words now banned on here.

 

It's rotten and apart from anything else just adds to the deep division we're seeing

[fabienleclerq]

Also could someone tell me if a CU is beneficial to the rUK or it doesn't make a differance? Are they going to cut their nose off to say no or is it just the case it doesn't benefit them?

[Malinga the Swinga]

The smug grin that Salmond wears on his face is beginning to annoy me. Started as a 70% Yes, but am now 95% No. The lack of detail from Yes campaign is startling; they really want us to wing it and take a punt on destroying a success story that has lasted over 300 years, and hope a bunch on political lightweights can somehow muster up the intelligence and experience to run a country.

 

Guys like Sillars, Howie, and even Salmond worry me because they simply don't command respect in the outside world. Sillars is a dinosaur in political terms and his speech at the weekend was a shocker. Howie showed last night on the BBC that he is not suitable to govern. Rolling your eyes and looking bored when the opposite side are speaking is childish and looks pathetic.

[Gabriel]

Sorry if it's been covered but what's peoples thoughts on if the vote is very close (looking likely) that pretty much by a few votes half the country can decide the future of the other half?

 

Imagine a 51.1% winning margin either way and in actual fact if some don't vote, you could have less than half the country deciding for the rest. Should the percentage be set higher?

 

Unfortunate, but with all parties knowing that when entering the referendum process, there is little point moaning in hindsight.

[BoJack Horseman]

Apart from the fact that it's a cringe-y Americanism, I really don't get the seethe with this 'Team Scotland' stuff. If that's the kind of thing that offends you, you'd be better off not getting out of bed in the morning, to be honest.

 

Because it implies his team, the Yes team, is the voice of Scotland. Why isn't a No voter part of 'Team Scotland'. It's quite exclusionary; I can see why they're getting their backs up about it.

[fabienleclerq]

 

 

Unfortunate, but with all parties knowing that when entering the referendum process, there is little point moaning in hindsight.

 

I'm wasn't moaning, I was just pondering today that its not particularly fair either way.

[Coco]

 

 

There is no perfect answer to that.

 

If I was a Scottish or UK only business - doesn't really matter.

 

If I was a business operating both sides of the border - same currency is much more preferable to reduce costs.

 

However, that is for trading. The other major issue is that most business have some sort of debt to fund capital. The cost of that borrowing is fundamental to the survival of the business so therefore the lowest interest rate possible is the most desirable outcome. That's why the currency union means more to iScotland than rUK. Salmond knows that in the short term, Scottish businesses would face higher funding costs outside of a currency union as the markets will lend at a higher interest rate until there is a credibility factor.

 

Those companies competing with Scottish companies might like a strong Scottish petro-currency!

[Arnold Rothstein]

Also could someone tell me if a CU is beneficial to the rUK or it doesn't make a differance? Are they going to cut their nose off to say no or is it just the case it doesn't benefit them?

 

The lender of last resort element is one aspect that would surely not benefit the rUK. Still not had an answer from Independence on why he thinks it would.

[deesidejambo]

Sorry if it's been covered but what's peoples thoughts on if the vote is very close (looking likely) that pretty much by a few votes half the country can decide the future of the other half?

 

Imagine a 51.1% winning margin either way and in actual fact if some don't vote, you could have less than half the country deciding for the rest. Should the percentage be set higher?

 

"Majority Rule" is not Democracy. In fact it can be the opposite if not used wisely, as is the case here. Either way - the nation is now divided and whoever loses out on Thursday will feel alienated in their own Country and their needs not respected.

[BoJack Horseman]

The smug grin that Salmond wears on his face is beginning to annoy me. Started as a 70% Yes, but am now 95% No. The lack of detail from Yes campaign is startling; they really want us to wing it and take a punt on destroying a success story that has lasted over 300 years, and hope a bunch on political lightweights can somehow muster up the intelligence and experience to run a country.

 

Guys like Sillars, Howie, and even Salmond worry me because they simply don't command respect in the outside world. Sillars is a dinosaur in political terms and his speech at the weekend was a shocker. Howie showed last night on the BBC that he is not suitable to govern. Rolling your eyes and looking bored when the opposite side are speaking is childish and looks pathetic.

 

Once again. YOU ARE NOT VOTING FOR PEOPLE. YOU ARE VOTING FOR THE FUTURE OF SCOTLAND.

 

[MODEDIT]

[Malinga the Swinga]

 

Also could someone tell me if a CU is beneficial to the rUK or it doesn't make a differance? Are they going to cut their nose off to say no or is it just the case it doesn't benefit them?

 

CU makes no sense to the UK if Scotland votes Yes. We are the ones choosing to leave, yet wee aleck believes we must get his way. All UK politicians say No to this as have The B of E, but Salmond dismisses them and says, trust me.

 

 

The only way the U K will accept C U is if the terms are so bad for Scotland, it would be suicide to take them, so what is plan B. According to Salmond, there is no plan B? Very worrying.

[Gabriel]

The smug grin that Salmond wears on his face is beginning to annoy me. Started as a 70% Yes, but am now 95% No. The lack of detail from Yes campaign is startling; they really want us to wing it and take a punt on destroying a success story that has lasted over 300 years, and hope a bunch on political lightweights can somehow muster up the intelligence and experience to run a country.

 

Guys like Sillars, Howie, and even Salmond worry me because they simply don't command respect in the outside world. Sillars is a dinosaur in political terms and his speech at the weekend was a shocker. Howie showed last night on the BBC that he is not suitable to govern. Rolling your eyes and looking bored when the opposite side are speaking is childish and looks pathetic.

 

Given where you are now and what you say, what on earth had you 70% 'Yes'?

[TheMaganator]

More powers & Barnet being preserved - guaranteed

 

[fabienleclerq]

 

 

 

CU makes no sense to the UK if Scotland votes Yes. We are the ones choosing to leave, yet wee aleck believes we must get his way. All UK politicians say No to this as have The B of E, but Salmond dismisses them and says, trust me.

 

 

The only way the U K will accept C U is if the terms are so bad for Scotland, it would be suicide to take them, so what is plan B. According to Salmond, there is no plan B? Very worrying.

 

Why does it make no sense to the UK though?

[Gabriel]

I'm wasn't moaning, I was just pondering today that its not particularly fair either way.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but I listened to a radio programme today where people were already moaning about this before the result is in.

[deesidejambo]

Once again. YOU ARE NOT VOTING FOR PEOPLE. YOU ARE VOTING FOR THE FUTURE OF SCOTLAND.

 

[MODEDIT]

 

I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, you need to evaluate, in the event of Yes, which specific people will run the new Scotland. Thats a relevant part of peoples decisions. Candidates being Salmond, Sturgeon, Lamont, Davidson etc.

[scott herbertson]

Allan Little of the BBC has been very impressive tonight.

 

watched that - very impressed indeed - without saying which side I'm on

[RosscoC]

More powers & Barnet being preserved - guaranteed

 

 

I thought Nick Clegg would have learned his lesson on signing pledges that will never happen.

[BoJack Horseman]

I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, you need to evaluate, in the event of Yes, which specific people will run the new Scotland. Thats a relevant part of peoples decisions. Candidates being Salmond, Sturgeon, Lamont, Davidson etc.

 

That will be up to the Scottish people to decide, and those people that you have listed are far from immortal.

[scott herbertson]

I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, you need to evaluate, in the event of Yes, which specific people will run the new Scotland. Thats a relevant part of peoples decisions. Candidates being Salmond, Sturgeon, Lamont, Davidson etc.

 

surely the candidates could also include Brown, Darling, Alexander etc?

 

Hard to evaluate until you see who stands?

[BoJack Horseman]

More powers & Barnet being preserved - guaranteed

 

 

NOW VOTERS CAN MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE

 

Shame about those that have already sent their postal votes, eh?

[Malinga the Swinga]

 

 

 

Given where you are now and what you say, what on earth had you 70% 'Yes'?

 

The feeling of being our own nation I guess. It was the heart ruling the head. The more I listened and read about the campaigns, and being pragmatic, then the head makes the decision, not the heart. Yes has simply failed to convince.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I thought Nick Clegg would have learned his lesson on signing pledges that will never happen.

It'll happen. You can be sure of that.

 

If it doesn't we'll be independent within a matter of a few years. No point winning the battle just to lose the war

[deesidejambo]

surely the candidates could also include Brown, Darling, Alexander etc?

 

Hard to evaluate until you see who stands?

 

Indeed but the point was that the people who will ultimately govern are an important part of the decision. Cameron will be booted out of the Tories in the event of a Yes so he can come up here and stand - after all he will have handed Scotland the Independence so he should be popular!