Scotland Watch

[biffvernon]

Just don't leave Lincolnshire out. In fact it might be better is London and it's commuter belt became an independent nation, leaving the rest of us to create a better world.

[RenewableCandy]

I can back-up Steve on this one, having lived in Scotland.

Money is a movable feast and can be sorted-out if the problem-solving will exists. Wanting a government that lines-up with one's own culture is fundamental.

Ah and the latest No advert has been lambasted as condescending (but is that really News any more)?

[UndercoverElephant]

I can back-up Steve on this one, having lived in Scotland.

Money is a movable feast and can be sorted-out if the problem-solving will exists. Wanting a government that lines-up with one's own culture is fundamental.

Of course having a government that lines up with one's own culture is fundamental. And of course there are cultural differences across the UK, as Steve has described. But if you think the issue of what currency you use is any less "fundamental" then you are seriously mistaken.

Alex Salmond and the rest of the nationalists have not campaigned on "what your heart wants" or "having a government that lines up with one's own culture." Of course people care about that; it goes without saying. But you think they don't care about their standard of living, their ability to afford imports, the level of spending their government is able to make on public services and all the other things that are currency-dependent?

I don't want to sound patronising, but the only conclusion I can some to is that a lot of people posting in this thread simply do not understand this issue. You do not understand what having to run your economy at a surplus implies, let alone when you're having to do so at the same time as setting up all the institutions required to be an independent nation. You don't understand what not having your own central bank means for Scotland's financial sector, or what not having a financial sector means in the short and medium term future for Scotland.

In short, it's not just about "having a government that lines up with one's own culture." Absolutely fundamentally it is about what price you are willing pay for that privilege. There may well be a small minority who'd be willing to pay anything at all, but we are talking very small indeed. That's why Salmond is telling a pack of stinking lies about how they'd be better off!!

Recall, this is the same person who once said that "sterling is a millstone around Scotland's neck"! Yes, his reasons for wanting independence are "cultural", not economic. And that is dangerous, because it means he simply doesn't engage his brain when it comes to the economic issues, and instead just blurts out whatever sounds good at the time.

[RenewableCandy]

The Barnett Formula ensures that Scots get on average more public money spent on the per person than do us sassenachs. They will of course lose this on becoming independent. But HMG is not a charity, and as everyone here agrees, is somewhat biased towards the welfare of those in London and the SE. Which begs the question why is the Barnett formula still in use??

The most obvious explanation is that Scotland actually could be better-off as an independent country, and England correspondingly worse-off without them, and that HMG (Westminster) knows this. The B.F. is therefore a sweetener and looked-upon by HMG (Westminster) as a price worth paying.

Now it is of course still possible that the Scots might make a total hash, a la 1690s, of their new-found financial responsibilities, but my educated guess is that this is by no means inevitable and that HMG knows this.

It is of course also possible that an independent Scottish currency may be deliberately sabotaged by HMG's friends in the City, but that's another story. The Scots might try running 2 currencies in parallel first, after all that has not been unusual in history.

[UndercoverElephant]

The Barnett Formula ensures that Scots get on average more public money spent on the per person than do us sassenachs. They will of course lose this on becoming independent. But HMG is not a charity, and as everyone here agrees, is somewhat biased towards the welfare of those in London and the SE. Which begs the question why is the Barnett formula still in use??

There is no bias towards the welfare of those of London and the SE. What an absurd thing to say!!! I live in Hastings, which is about the most run-down place in south-east England. We're in "special measures" from the EU - the only place in the south east. The "bias" you're talking about is towards people of a certain class, certain types of employment, etc... The poor in the south east are treated with exactly the same level of contempt by the Westminster powers as the poor everywhere else. The only difference is that there are quite a few places in London in the south-east where there aren't any poor any more, because they've been priced out!

The most obvious explanation is that Scotland actually could be better-off as an independent country

But what are you basing this on? You're just making it up. You're just saying "it must be so", without explaining why.

It is of course also possible that an independent Scottish currency may be deliberately sabotaged by HMG's friends in the City, but that's another story.

I don't think the powers you are talking about would need to deliberately sabotage an independent Scottish currency. I can imagine some of them might "help it to struggle", but it would be in severe trouble from day one. But in order to understand why, you need to look carefully at the details, and that's exactly what you and the other people arguing with me in this thread do not do. It's also what Mr Salmond doesn't do.

[SleeperService]

Good points above especially where they touch on 'personalised' bias against certain types of citizen.

IIRC Independent Scotland would be the 16th richest country with the UK as a whole two or three places lower. The position of a Scotless UK was repeatedly ignored by the speaker on the radio. It may have been Alistair Darling but I only caught part of the broadcast.

It seems as though the Yes Vote Group are intent on keeping the pound and being rather more prudent than Westminster. That could cause Westminster problems down the line if the Markets see the Scotpound as being rather more attractive than the Westminsterpound. A sort of Eurozone crisis in miniature....or the other way around of course.

Sorry about the speling but I'm using my phone to type this.

As a last thought a good result would have a large majority going one way or the other, a bad result is a narrow margin?

[UndercoverElephant]

a bad result is a narrow margin?

Any result with a narrow margin is likely to store up problems in the future of one kind or another, yes. A narrow yes would leave the nationalists struggling politically before they even reached actually independence, and a narrow no would mean the nationalists wouldn't really accept the result and the issue won't go away for very long.

[Little John]

It's looking like, whichever way it goes, it's going to be a very tight margin. Latest poll results show the "Yes" lead had dropped from 13 points to 4.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08 ... 34780.html

[Tarrel]

It's looking like, whichever way it goes, it's going to be a very tight margin. Latest poll results show the "Yes" lead had dropped from 13 points to 4.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08 ... 34780.html

I'm guessing you mean the "No" lead?

[Little John]

Yep, my mistake.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, as I already said, I'm actually rather hoping for a yes win. It would be a fascinating political spectacle watching Salmond and his cronies actually dealing with the realities of negotiating the terms of independence, while the people who voted yes find out just who was bluffing, and who wasn't.

One thing we know for certain is that there is going to be a general election in the UK, including Scotland, before actual independence could happen (i.e. when negotiations have actually been going on for quite a while, and a lot of the hard realities have well and truly dawned). For me, this sounds like first class entertainment.

[vtsnowedin]

Well, as I already said, I'm actually rather hoping for a yes win. It would be a fascinating political spectacle watching Salmond and his cronies actually dealing with the realities of negotiating the terms of independence, while the people who voted yes find out just who was bluffing, and who wasn't.

One thing we know for certain is that there is going to be a general election in the UK, including Scotland, before actual independence could happen (i.e. when negotiations have actually been going on for quite a while, and a lot of the hard realities have well and truly dawned). For me, this sounds like first class entertainment.

Yes that would be fun to watch if your own personal fat wasn't in the fire. If it happens what parts of the present government will the Scots chose to leave behind and what others will they just change the letter head on the stationary and carry on?

[vtsnowedin]

CSPAN just had on a rebroadcast of Mondays debate between Darling and Salmon. This was the first time I had seen either of them.
I thought Salmon won it handily.
The most telling shot came from the audience. Question was "If we are better off together why are we not better off already?".
Darling wouldn't let the currency question go even though Salmon repeatedly answered it well. Salmon missed an opportunity when Darling asked what an Independent Scotland would do if North sea Oil revenues dropped a half million pounds. The obvious answer is " the same thing a united UK will do as voting NO will not keep that from happening.
Both are politicians and were promising no cuts to NHS and pretending that their side could actually do that.
I'm glad I'm a safe distance.

[Tarrel]

CSPAN just had on a rebroadcast of Mondays debate between Darling and Salmon. This was the first time I had seen either of them.
I thought Salmon won it handily.
The most telling shot came from the audience. Question was "If we are better off together why are we not better off already?".
Darling wouldn't let the currency question go even though Salmon repeatedly answered it well. Salmon missed an opportunity when Darling asked what an Independent Scotland would do if North sea Oil revenues dropped a half million pounds. The obvious answer is " the same thing a united UK will do as voting NO will not keep that from happening.
Both are politicians and were promising no cuts to NHS and pretending that their side could actually do that.
I'm glad I'm a safe distance.

Interesting times though, whichever way you look at it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, as I already said, I'm actually rather hoping for a yes win. It would be a fascinating political spectacle watching Salmond and his cronies actually dealing with the realities of negotiating the terms of independence, while the people who voted yes find out just who was bluffing, and who wasn't.

One thing we know for certain is that there is going to be a general election in the UK, including Scotland, before actual independence could happen (i.e. when negotiations have actually been going on for quite a while, and a lot of the hard realities have well and truly dawned). For me, this sounds like first class entertainment.

Yes that would be fun to watch if your own personal fat wasn't in the fire.

I'm not sure that it is. Not much of it anyway.

If it happens what parts of the present government will the Scots chose to leave behind and what others will they just change the letter head on the stationary and carry on?

Don't understand the question. The "present government" is a UK government made up of MPs elected from all parts of the existing UK, including Scotland. If Scotland were to become independent there would have to be some sort of one-off negotiated agreement as to what happened immediately after, and I suspect it would be another election both in Scotland and the remaining UK. If you're talking about the civil service, which is the non-elected body of people who actually carry out the instructions of the elected officials, then all of those are based in London and I fully expect them to remain so. Nobody will "just change the letterhead [to Scottish] and just carry on".

The really big fear of some people south of the border is that the loss of Scotland will condemn us to permanent tory rule. I used to think this too, but I've been convinced otherwise during the course of the independence debate. If anything, I think the shock to the unwritten British constitution of Scotland leaving would so shake things up that the political left would be forced to re-invent itself. I don't think it would be the disaster some people believe it would be.