Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The first one that comes to mind is the way the UK used anti-terrorist laws against Iceland during the credit crunch to freeze their UK assets.

I vaguely recall this.
What was the eventual outcome.
How has Iceland recovered?

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Looking at influence in the EU, Norway is not a member and both Finland and Denmark have 7 council votes and 13 Euro MPs.

Contrast this with France, Germany and the UK which have 29 council votes (the only three with this many) and 74, 99 and 73 Euro MPs respectively.

So looking at this statistically, as we have a similar populations to Norway, Finland and Denmark, if we were to have a similar council votes and MP's, we would have significantly more direct influence in the EU on Scottish matters than we have as 8% of the UK influence.

Is this a reason why the UK wishes to keep the union as they will see their influence reduce?

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Surely you can micro-slice that in any way you like. What about Yorkshire, why should they put up with decisions made by Lancastrian MPs? Why should Surrey voters have Socialism imposed on them by Northern voters?

Why should Waverly voters put up with the oppressors in Kingston?

It all seems rather petty and I honestly don't see the benefit.

SCOTLAND IS NOT A COUNTY

You (as an Englishman I presume) are comparing a country with a county.
I know they are similar in their word construction, they also have a similar population but that's about it.

You see it as petty (as you presumably do not have the experience or exposure to understand the situation), I however see it as an opportunity to have greater control over our destiny.

Here's a hypothetical and unrealistic theory, If you truly think it's petty, What would your position be if the UK government was controlled from Holyrood?

chewmylegoff

The fact that Scotland is legally a country is really rather irrelevant to the entire debate, don't you think? The fact that something is demarcated as a "country" rather than a "county" is not a compelling argument (other than for an idealogist) for it to be "independent". The fact remains that in an independent Scotland a significant minority of the population (if not a majority of it) will always be unhappy with the result of the general election and people at differing ends of the country will feel nothing in common with each other. You cannot resolve this issue unless you break the UK down into 60 million or so "independent" countries. You don't always get who you want in power and independence will make no difference to this fact.

Independence is a game for politicians to play. They don't care about what is best for voters. The SNP has demonstrated that it will do or say anything and fundamentally change its policies in order to get people to vote for its ideological goal. It is trying to dress up an ideological argument as a logical one- the fact is that even if independence would make every man, woman and child in Scotland worse off the SNP would still want independence. That alone coupled with the fact that they are politicians makes it difficult to trust/believe anything they say as ultimately it is likely that they want indepence because they think that they would get to run an independent Scotland.

Personally I can't see how it would make any particular difference to my life if Scotland became independent although I also cannot see how it would make the lives of Scottish people any better. Western democracies tend to all have the same sort of standard of living and the same sorts of social problems.

I think independence would be a massive anticlimax for everyone except for whichever political leader (it seems logical that Salmond would win a general election in the wake of any "yes") ends up gaining more power as a result.

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I vaguely recall this.
What was the eventual outcome.
How has Iceland recovered?

It hasn't recovered. It's doing much better than it would have if it didn't have it own currency to devalue and own interest rates to set. This is why I'm aghast at Scotland wanting independence in name only. Real independence (as the Icelandic people found) comes from being able to manage your own finances, something you cannot do if you share a currency with larger partners (as Greece, et al found within the Euro).

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is this a reason why the UK wishes to keep the union as they will see their influence reduce?

Does the UK wish to keep the Scots more than the Scots want to keep the UK?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/scotland-independence-english_n_3898845.html

"This is not the first time that research has found greater support for Scottish independence in England than north of the border. A survey last year found that 26% of Scottish voters want to break up the United Kingdom, compared to 29% in England.
The same survey suggested that 46% of Scottish voters wanted the United Kingdom to stay together, whereas only 40% in England felt the same. "

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Does the UK wish to keep the Scots more than the Scots want to keep the UK?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/scotland-independence-english_n_3898845.html

"This is not the first time that research has found greater support for Scottish independence in England than north of the border. A survey last year found that 26% of Scottish voters want to break up the United Kingdom, compared to 29% in England.
The same survey suggested that 46% of Scottish voters wanted the United Kingdom to stay together, whereas only 40% in England felt the same. "

Take poll's with a pinch of salt.
I showed a poll above which had the Yes vote at 38%, whilst the no vote was at 47%

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

It hasn't recovered. It's doing much better than it would have if it didn't have it own currency to devalue and own interest rates to set. This is why I'm aghast at Scotland wanting independence in name only. Real independence (as the Icelandic people found) comes from being able to manage your own finances, something you cannot do if you share a currency with larger partners (as Greece, et al found within the Euro).

As I research, I'm seeing other examples that having an independent currency is better for fiscal autonomy such as the Finland example.

I wonder if this is to not "scare" off people who are cautious of a different currency.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The fact remains that in an independent Scotland a significant minority of the population (if not a majority of it) will always be unhappy with the result of the general election and people at differing ends of the country will feel nothing in common with each other.

To be fair, in Scotland we operate a Mixed Member Proportional Representation, meaning the governments are formed on the basis that the elected MP's mirror the overall proportion of votes received.

In addition as I stated earlier, the weighting of everyones vote in Scotland is increased 11 fold, so yes, there will always be people who vote and get a government they did not personally vote for, but the likelyhood would be greatly increased (unless you are a conservative voter it seems)

angrypirate

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

SCOTLAND IS NOT A COUNTY

You (as an Englishman I presume) are comparing a country with a county.
I know they are similar in their word construction, they also have a similar population but that's about it.

You see it as petty (as you presumably do not have the experience or exposure to understand the situation), I however see it as an opportunity to have greater control over our destiny.

Here's a hypothetical and unrealistic theory, If you truly think it's petty, What would your position be if the UK government was controlled from Holyrood?

As long as the government had MPs from similar sized constituents from everywhere in the UK (oh hang on, Lib Dems and Labour rejected that), then I dont really care what town / city the government sit in.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

To be fair, in Scotland we operate a Mixed Member Proportional Representation, meaning the governments are formed on the basis that the elected MP's mirror the overall proportion of votes received.

In addition as I stated earlier, the weighting of everyones vote in Scotland is increased 11 fold, so yes, there will always be people who vote and get a government they did not personally vote for, but the likelyhood would be greatly increased (unless you are a conservative voter it seems)

Everyone's vote will count 11 fold more...except for all the people who vote for a party which doesn't achieve an overall majority whose votes will count for nothing.

We will get to see whether the SNP are hofficially cynical and corrupt of there is a yes vote as presumably the SNP as the incumbent party in Hollyrood will get to design the electoral system for an indepedent Scotland. Given they have already demonstrated that they are prepared to expand the electorate when it appears likely to benefit them, my bet is that they will do all they can to fix any new electoral system in their favour.

mystic_trev

… on projected Oil revenues.

[The OBR’s] forecast for the whole of the UK oil and gas receipts are £3.5bn in 2016 – this compares to the £6.8bn that the SNP’s Scottish government has been basing their premises upon and their claims for independence,” the chancellor told the Commons as he delivered his Autumn Statement.

zagubov

Okay, I'm underwhelmed by how intemperate some of the posts are.
Or how certain so many are about what will happen. We can't do more than guess based on polls with a bit of an eye on their track record of underestimating the nats

I think everything will be dull compared with these fanciful predictions.

There will be a narrow result. If no, the SNP will be voted in in the Scottish election, as there's nobody else running.
If yes, the SNP will run Scotland for the months between independence day and the first election, probably winning the election if the other parties haven't rebranded.

The Scottish wings of the unionist parties will want their parent parties to negotiate a fair separation deal to help gain voter support in the new government.

Negotiations will begin and there will be much give or take. Retaining the Bank of England will be a big ask and I don't know if that's the best way forward. Luxembourg and Switzerland have massive banking sectors considering their size as countries/ economies.

I suspect that some assets can't be divided easily and will be a replaced by a reduction in debts.

As regards NATO and the EU, that's not so important. Ireland's shown that NATO's not necessary. Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland don't need it either.

The EU could be tempted to lay down difficult conditons for entry but would be aware that Scotland may join its North Sea neighbours in EFTA so I suspect that rather than lose Europe's biggest oilfields and a stack of fishing grounds they'll be reasonable about welcoming Scotland. Otherwise no big deal for either side if Scotland doesn't join. It'll still be in the EEA, and have some cash in pocket too.

The rUK won't notice Scotland's left.

Not a very exciting scenario, but hey ho that's everyday life.