SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

pqrdef

So will this independent Scotland be joining the eurozone? Seems to have worked well for other countries.

Shakethedisease

See No 3 :- I guess they'd have to ask the voters.

The procedure: Five steps to independence
1. A Bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament authorising a referendum.
2. The referendum asks the people of Scotland to approve the executive entering into negotiations with the British government over the future of the nation.
3. If the referendum is passed, the two administrations discuss terms of independence – covering issues including the division of assets and debt, the future of North Sea oil and Scotland's membership of international bodies.
4. Legislation for a second referendum, which, technically, can be authorised only by Westminster.
5. The final referendum asks the Scottish people if they want independence on the negotiated terms.

Oh and this didn't take very long either..

" Cameron offers major concessions to Salmond "

The Government has acceded to the Scottish National Party leader's demands for immediate authority to borrow at least £300m annually from the Treasury to help boost Scotland's economic recovery. Mr Salmond had been demanding the change – in the face of resistance from Westminster – during the passage of the Scotland Bill, which will devolve a number of economic powers from London to Edinburgh.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-offers-major-concessions-to-salmond-2280807.html

What are the Tories so scared of ? Why are they so determined to keep Scotland and Salmond 'sweet' ? For Labour it's obvious ( votes ). Most English I know can't wait to see the back of the Scots, in a mostly quite friendly way I might add ( my OH is English ). But it's hardly a vote winner for the Tories is it ? Hmmmm...

Right, fed up with this thread now. Though we do live in interesting times ( to turn a phrase ).. Am off to do some work.

chewmylegoff

It would be a bit odd if a party called the conservative and unionist party started pushing for Scottish independence, wouldn't it?

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-offers-major-concessions-to-salmond-2280807.html

What are the Tories so scared of ? Why are they so determined to keep Scotland and Salmond 'sweet' ? For Labour it's obvious ( votes ). Most English I know can't wait to see the back of the Scots, in a mostly quite friendly way I might add ( my OH is English ). But it's hardly a vote winner for the Tories is it ? Hmmmm...

Cameron needs to keep Salmond sweet else he will be able to use it to strengthen the independence viewpoint.

Imagine if Cameron didn't concede, Salmond would be able to say "We are the elected party in Scotland, yet Westminster is restricting our development and growth plans" etc etc etc.

The SNP understandably are using their majority and the fact they can push through a referendum now they have a majority government to improve the devolution allowance.
Either way they win.

As for your question as why Westminster wants to hold on to Scotland (including the Tories) it's a valid one.
What is the factor that makes Westminster so keen to hold onto Scotland? Indeed, you could consider that the Strength and reasons of Cameron's desire to campaign against Independanceis are directly proportional as to why Scotland should become independant.

For me personally, it will only be after independance that the Scottish vote will fully be counted.
As you can see from the election statistics, the people of Scotland don;t want the Conservatives (11.7% of seats) or the Lib Dems (3.9% of seats), yet, that is who really is in power

Prudent

I am sorry I am beng really dim here and am clearly missing something. Can someone please explain why the Conservatives want to keep Scotland part of the union? As far as I can see they win very few Scottish votes - which must impact on their overall gains during an election. The oil does not seem to belong exclusively to Scotland anyway. Scotland gets all kinds of perks such as tution and prescriptions that England does not enjoy - at a national cost to the taxpayer. Futhermore if Scotland became independent the same rule would apply to English students as E.U. students and they could all enjoy free uni tution here. I am sure that would appeal to many middle class Conservative voters.

harz99

Shakethedisease wrote: »

See No 3 :- I guess they'd have to ask the voters.



The procedure: Five steps to independence
1. A Bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament authorising a referendum.
2. The referendum asks the people of Scotland to approve the executive entering into negotiations with the British government over the future of the nation.
3. If the referendum is passed, the two administrations discuss terms of independence – covering issues including the division of assets and debt, the future of North Sea oil and Scotland's membership of international bodies.
4. Legislation for a second referendum, which, technically, can be authorised only by Westminster.
5. The final referendum asks the Scottish people if they want independence on the negotiated terms.

The trouble is the above makes no reference to the voters - the registered electorate in Scotland- and only refers to "the people of Scotland" and "the Scottish people".

The inference being that only people of Scottish birth deserve/will get a say, and as everyone knows the registered electorate of voters in Scotland contains many more than simply Scots born people.

Point 4 uses the word "technically"; there is no technically about it - that is the requirement.

Shakethedisease

Clever Alex..

Alex Salmond is prepared to compromise on the Scottish independence referendum by including an extra question on giving Holyrood much greater financial freedom while remaining part of the UK.The Scottish first minister said he would talk to other parties about offering the voters a second choice known as "fiscal autonomy" within the UK, rather than a straight yes or no vote on Scotland moving to complete independence.

The re-emergence of the so-called "devolution max" option - staying in the UK but with significant autonomy for Scotland - confirms that Salmond wants to give the referendum as much political legitimacy as he can, allowing him to kill off a unified, cross-party opposition campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/08/scotland-independence-vote-financial-autonomy?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Kills off the block grant from Westminster ( and all the moans about it ), dilutes opposition to full independence from other parties and unionists.. and from what I've read, the so-called 'Devo-max' has very positive showings in the scottish opinion polls. Nicely done..

So perhaps a not so bitter 'divorce' after all.

GingerFurball_2

dunstonh wrote: »

If Scotland had left the union say 5 years ago, it would now be bankrupt and probably going cap in hand again to England as it had to when the Union started.

As Iceland had to pay for the Icelandic banks. Scotland would have to cover the Scottish Banks which would have been re-registered under them. Could you imagine that Scotland alone could handle the debts of Royal Bank of Scotland or HBOS?

I love this 'Scotland couldn't have afforded to bail out the banks' argument. The UK government couldn't afford to do it either.

chewmylegoff

Yes it could, as evidenced by the lack of a gilt strike.

Shakethedisease

I read this elsewhere that seems to explain things quite well, but I have no idea what it all means tbh.

The RBOS Merchant Bank loss makers with the CDO toxic loan bundles were all registered as English companies trading in the City of London and London Quay. The profitable parts of RBOS, such as traditional retail and high street banking were Scottish registered and headquartered in Edinburgh. In the year after the crash this part of the Scottish finance and insurance sector grew by 7%, according to CBI Scotland. NatWest and its subsidiaries remained an English registered company.


As for HBOS – again it was the high level of toxic CDO exposure in the Halifax Bank section (again, an English registered company) that brought about its downfall. This was made worse by Brown and Darling’s clumsy attempt to shore HBOS up with Labour’s great Lloyds TSB take over which turned a solvent Lloyds Bank into another fiscal basket case