Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

TCA

ColdIron wrote: »

Yup, it's been a good debate but I'm out of here

My final observation is that if I was a Scottish voter with my hand hovering between Yes and No I'd want a lot more clarity and honesty than Salmond appears willing to give before exchanging membership of the UK for the uncertainty of whatever it is he's offering

Fair comment. A lot of what Salmond is offering cannot be substantiated as it requires negotiation with the UK (who don't want to entertain the prospect of a Yes vote) or the EU (who can only be directly engaged by a member state, the UK, see previous brackets), so it'll likely still remain a very large leap of faith for Yes voters.

I think regardless of Salmond's bluster, the vote will come to down to whether the Scots feel that they will be better off governed from Edinburgh than Westminster. The No campaign would do well to provide some sort of vision as to life in Scotland following a No vote. The status quo might not cut it.

planteria

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

no, not agreed. (does that settle it? )

fiscal union is needed to make monetary union workable. and they're trying to tack the fiscal union on afterwards, in a crisis. (which is a funny way to go about it.)

but that says nothing about how many countries join the monetary union. there's no reason why all EU members have to.

agreed, it's all !!!! about face. complete shambles. but the direction of travel will be towards more integration. that is consistently clear.. it may be that there will be a 'core EU' with fiscal and monetary union, and others in an 'EU light', but either way, that is how it has to head. even the people who went about it in the funny way have to see sense. the countries that remain in/join the monetary union will wind up having to accept fiscal union too.. it's a one way street. the UK, with or without Scotland as part of it, will have to decide to unite further with the new, closer EU, or move out of it. continuing as we are is not going to be an option.

planteria

TCA wrote: »

Indeed. And if Scotland is such a worthless drain on UK resources, I'm surprised any English politicians are for the union at all. The Tories especially would fare much better without the Scottish Labour support to trouble them at elections.

agreed. that's why i hope, but don't expect, Scotland to leave our EU member state

planteria

markwilkinson wrote: »

Its getting boring now. Give the vote to the English tomorrow, Scotland would be out on its !!!!.

i think you are right. and that it is wrong that English, Welsh and Northern Irish people don't have a direct say on the matter. apparently we are supposed to get involved by telephoning people we know in Scotland:):)

planteria

ColdIron wrote: »

Yup, it's been a good debate but I'm out of here

My final observation is that if I was a Scottish voter with my hand hovering between Yes and No I'd want a lot more clarity and honesty than Salmond appears willing to give before exchanging membership of the UK for the uncertainty of whatever it is he's offering

your final observation is a wise one ColdIron. if Alex Salmond gets this through, via the path he is taking now, it will be amazing. it would require Scotland to vote for independence based upon a whipped-up anti-English sentiment. i can't see it happening. but i hope i'm wrong.

TCA

planteria wrote: »

i think you are right. and that it is wrong that English, Welsh and Northern Irish people don't have a direct say on the matter. apparently we are supposed to get involved by telephoning people we know in Scotland:):)

Or holding hands at the border. :rotfl::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26072572

If he got 100, never mind 100,000 people, I'd be surprised.

planteria

TCA wrote: »

I think regardless of Salmond's bluster, the vote will come to down to whether the Scots feel that they will be better off governed from Edinburgh than Westminster. The No campaign would do well to provide some sort of vision as to life in Scotland following a No vote. The status quo might not cut it.

i agree, but it is heading towards a choice between "'What you know' and 'What we don't even want to try to tell you about'. sensibly, the "status quo" is likely to be the only real option imo. but fingers crossed.

TCA

Back to the currency union briefly, there are views other than Salmond's being aired this week in the Yes camp:

Key members of Yes Scotland are expected to use an official board meeting to argue that adopting a new currency should be considered instead of Salmond's vision of sharing sterling in the long term with the rest of the UK (rUK).

But the First Minister shows no signs of changing his mind. In a speech tomorrow, he will repeat his argument that the pound is "as much Scotland's as the rest of the UK".

Senior figures such as Yes Scotland chair Dennis Canavan have backed a new currency but recognise that sterling would likely be in place on day one of independence.

Supporters of replacing the pound have so far accepted the SNP's longer-term currency union policy on the grounds that the Scottish Government has a mandate to pursue its favoured option.

But interventions last week by Chancellor George Osborne, shadow chancellor Ed Balls and LibDem Cabinet Minister Danny Alexander have shifted the goalposts.

All three said they would refuse to agree a formal currency and urged Salmond to come up with a "plan B".

Senior Yes campaigners believe holding the currency union line is untenable and must be revisited.

It is understood Scottish Green co-convener Patrick Harvie, Scottish Socialist Party co-convener Colin Fox and Canavan want the currency issue raised at tomorrow's Yes advisory board meeting in Glasgow.

It is believed the option of a new currency will be discussed. A Yes source said: "Nobody likes what Osborne said, but his speech cannot be ignored. Going into a referendum campaign with a policy that has been ruled out is not a great strategy. There's a patent need to discuss an independent currency."

Another Yes insider said: "If the Scottish Government wants to have a strong negotiating position, it has to have a fall-back position.

"We need a broader perspective, rather than just one option. There are a range of voices saying we need to keep the independent currency option open."

planteria

TCA wrote: »

Or holding hands at the border. :rotfl::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26072572

If he got 100, never mind 100,000 people, I'd be surprised.

i'm happy to hold your virtually hold your hand TCA, but i still want you to be foolish enough to vote for Alex Salmond's rebuffets;)

i've said more than enough too. good luck to all whatever happens. but we'll still be better at football:footie:.

oh, and i want to know what laser707 thinks of his thread:think::)

planteria

TCA wrote: »

Senior Yes campaigners believe holding the currency union line is untenable and must be revisited.

they are very obviously very right.

TCA wrote: »

It is believed the option of a new currency will be discussed. A Yes source said: "Nobody likes what Osborne said, but his speech cannot be ignored. Going into a referendum campaign with a policy that has been ruled out is not a great strategy. There's a patent need to discuss an independent currency."

there is. to get a Yes vote without a proper plan would be incredible. it would require mass idiocy. and if there is mass idiocy North of the border, laser707 ought to get his money out sharpish:)