Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

TCA

Archi_Bald wrote: »

There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement that says that independence means Scotland can have whatever they wish to have.

My reference to the Edinburgh Agreement was in respect of the daft comment you appreciated about unilateral separation. That aside, did you expect Salmond to just agree to everything that the unionist balloons throw at him? Osborne sets foot in Scotland only to make this announcement, takes no questions from the Scottish press, then !!!!!!s off. How did you think that would be received?

You can expect more of the same from Salmond so get used to it. The mass outrage from south of the border at his apparent bullying is hilarious. Bullying? Laughable. If the rest of the UK don't want a formal currency union, then there won't be one and Salmond can say what he wants. Don't know why the Englanders are getting their knickers in a twist. He's certainly winding you up excellently.

There's hot air blowing in both directions and they're just getting started.

Archi_Bald

There was no daft comment that I appreciated. It is obvious that Salmond is only after his interests and wanting to progress unilaterally.

TCA wrote: »

If the rest of the UK don't want a formal currency union, then there won't be one and Salmond can say what he wants.

There is presently a formal currency union, and there is no objection from south of the border to continue it if Scotland doesn't leave the UK.

Salmond must absolutely love that the debate is now centred on currency and EU membership. Beautifully distracts from other massive issues for which there isn't a workable independence plan, such as defence and pensions, for which he hasn't got any workable solution either.

TCA

Archi_Bald wrote: »

There was no daft comment that I appreciated. It is obvious that Salmond is only after his interests and wanting to progress unilaterally.

Beautifully distracts from other massive issues for which there isn't a workable independence plan, such as defence and pensions, for which he hasn't got any workable solution either.

Did you expect him to look after someone else's interests? If he gets a Yes vote, under the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement, both sides agreed to respect the result of the referendum and to negotiate constructively and with mutual respect. That's not unilateral anything.

The Westminster parties sought to avoid any pre-negotiation, both because it could play into the SNP's hands and remove uncertainties, but also there was a fear that articulating the distinctive interests of the rUK might antagonise Scots. We now have one, very important piece of pre-negotiation re a currency union: no negotiation at all. We keep hearing from Cameron that the independence debate is an issue for the Scots alone, so it's much appreciated when his Chancellor makes a special trip north to tell Scotland what it can't have!

As for no workable solutions for defence and pensions, just point me to the bits in the White Paper you find unworkable.

grey_gym_sock

atush wrote: »

If the rest of the UK doens't have a vote, looks kinda unilateral to me.

if scotland votes for independence, then there will a lot of negotiation about the details, followed by an act of parliament formalizing the separation.

unilateral independence would be when somewhere declares themselves independent in defiance of the will of parliament. i'd have thought you'd be familiar with the concept, as an american.

innovate

TCA wrote: »

The Westminster parties sought to avoid any pre-negotiation, both because it could play into the SNP's hands and remove uncertainties, but also there was a fear that articulating the distinctive interests of the rUK might antagonise Scots. We now have one, very important piece of pre-negotiation re a currency union: no negotiation at all.

Are you for real?

So you are saying that it is ok for Salmond to say, without any negotiations, that Scotland will keep the Pound. But it is not ok for other people to state their position on the subject without negotiations?

Similar on the EU debate.

Why should other opinions be suppressed whilst he is allowed to have free range? Not exactly a grown up approach to a debate, never mind to a democracy, is it?

TCA

innovate wrote: »

Are you for real?

So you are saying that it is ok for Salmond to say, without any negotiations, that Scotland will keep the Pound. But it is not ok for other people to state their position on the subject without negotiations?

Similar on the EU debate.

Why should other opinions be suppressed whilst he is allowed to have free range? Not exactly a grown up approach to a debate, never mind to a democracy, is it?

Congratulations. You've just summed up exactly what George Osborne has done. To amend your own phrase "So you are saying that it is ok for Osborne to say, without any negotiations, that Scotland will not keep the Pound".

Salmond has put forward a proposal and his preferred approach for the currency. The Scottish Government has requested discussions on all topics, including the currency, in the event of a Yes vote. Discussions have been refused at every turn. And there's no debate. Osborne has just dictated and his approach hasn't been appreciated.

In reality Salmond knows he won't get his currency union but that's what the majority of Scots would be in favour of. The idea of a new Scottish currency would be far harder to sell. If he's seen fighting for what the public want then he thinks he gains kudos. Osborne and co telling Scotland what it can't have has potentially been a gift for Salmond. The fact that his manner annoys rUK is of no consequence to him.

Salmond will need a plan B for the currency but you've got to expect him to make some sort of fight for his plan A first. He obviously can't make demands on anything, so I don't know why you're getting so upset. It's only bluster. If the UK government would talk to the Scottish Government then it would bring a lot more clarity to the options. More expressions of "thou shalt not" will not be well received.

innovate

Where does Salmond offer any discussion about using Sterling. He says it's the best alternative (surprise surprise) and that there are no arguments against it. You are trying to make him look like a proper gentleman, when in effect he doesn't even appear to know how a gentleman would conduct himself.

Then if, as you say, Salmond does know he doesn't get the Pound, why do you still defend him? Why do you think it is ok for him to deceive his followers with unobtainable promises?

I honestly do not get why you think it is ok for Salmond to say "though shall" whilst it is not ok for Osborne or anyone else to say "though shall not".

Let's remember that this whole issue was started by Salmond. It is therefore up to him to convince the masses of his ideas. Where his ideas involve commitments from people outside his envisaged Scotland, he has to convince those people that they will want to make the required commitments. So far, I have not seen him to make any efforts whatsoever to convince anyone outside Scotland that we would like to give up anything in favour of an independent Scotland. That is going to be his downfall unless he can work a miracle and convince us of his ideas.

JohnRo

TCA wrote: »

As for no workable solutions for defence and pensions, just point me to the bits in the White Paper you find unworkable.

All the bits where the Bullingdon Club get told to butt out.

TCA

innovate wrote: »

Where does Salmond offer any discussion about using Sterling.

Then if, as you say, Salmond does know he doesn't get the Pound, why do you still defend him? Why do you think it is ok for him to deceive his followers with unobtainable promises?

I honestly do not get why you think it is ok for Salmond to say "though shall" whilst it is not ok for Osborne or anyone else to say "though shall not".

The Scottish Government has repeatedly requested discussions with the UK government on all topics. That's a matter of record. Salmond said yet again in this recent development that he's still willing to discuss it. You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that it was Osborne who first said "you can't keep the pound". Salmond has stated his party's preference for the pound and a currency union, so he's bound to keep extolling the virtues of his position. Osborne holds all the cards so I fail to see why you think Salmond can demand anything. He can't, but it won't prevent him from pressing his point.

By the way, I'm not defending Salmond's viewpoint or his policy on currency, I'm defending his right to fight for what he wants in the face of being told in a very arrogant, dictatorial manner, that Scotland can't have it.

lvader

Asking to keep the pound is like asking for a divorce while at the same time insisting that the joint bank account stays in place.

Asking to stay in the EU is like asking for a divorce while insisting to stay part of the spouses family.