Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

planteria

DCodd wrote: »

And that is the problem.

After calls for Westminster to say if Scotland could have the pound or not. When the answer came and it was not what the SNP wanted to hear, they either ignored the answer or accused Westminster of being dictatorial!

God knows what the reaction would be if Westminster approached the EU and the EU announced that Scotland would have to apply for membership!

. which they, obviously, would.

planteria

Marazan wrote: »

Really? No speculation at all? Then you can answer me this question. - If the people of Scotland vote for independence on the 18th of September how long will it take for the vote on Scotland's membership of the EU to take place?

what do you mean, for EU Member States to vote on whether Scotland is allowed to join the EU?

planteria

TCA wrote: »

Until last week nobody had ruled it out and it stood as the SNP's preferred option. Did you really expect Salmond and co to immediately say "ok thanks, we'll just go for our own currency then"?

i expected that they already knew the answer, so they can carry on trying to pretend that it will happen afterall, or offer those that are being asked to vote a proper plan. they are, so far, choosing not to. apparently playing the 'game' that you suggest. i can't believe that people will find that to be acceptable and give the SNP their support.

planteria

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I am beginning to conclude that neither Salmond nor Sturgeon have actually any interest in staying within the EU. They are just saying it because the idea seems to go down well with their supporters. If they were serious, they could go on a charm offensive to the leaders of the other 27 countries, and they'd soon find out what the position of the leaders is. Though I would think it would be next to impossible at present to get any of the 27 to take any position other than the one Barroso has already communicated.

so the SNP are trying to sell the idea of independence to the people of Scotland on the basis of retaining the pound, and retaining EU membership, knowing that neither are actually an option?

Archi_Bald

Marazan wrote: »

So your answer is you don't know.

Correct. I don't think anybody knows how long will it take for the vote on Scotland's membership of the EU to take place. But the likelihood that it will be ages is extremely high. It's not going to be a simple yes/no - there are processes to go through, see the accession link I posted earlier.

Marazan wrote: »

Could Scotland start negotiation on the 19th of September? No-one knows. Does it literally have to wait until formal independence from the rest of the UK before it can even begin negotiations with the EU. No one knows.

There is no precedent for what would happen if Scotland votes Yes to independence.

It won't be the 19th of September, you can be sure of that. The other 27 countries aren't sitting there waiting for the result of the scottish referendum, and there won't be special accession rules for Scotland.

Marazan wrote: »

The EC is happy to investigate and give an answer, if only it was asked by the UK government.

I have asked that before but didn't get an answer: When were the UK government asked to ask the question? Why isn't Salmond up in arms about the UK government not asking the question? Not like him to hold back when he is unhappy, is it.

Not sure what answer other than the one Barroso has repeatedly given over the last year, and which has also been given several times in the European Parliament, anyone could expect, anyway.

planteria

black_taxi wrote: »

No Way Jose. Scotland is not Kosovo.
POSTED BY IAIN2MACWHIRTER ⋅ FEBRUARY 17, 2014

Rarely have I found myself left speechless by the comment of a politician, but the Jose Manuel Barroso’s attempt to compare Scotland with Kosovo left me in a state of spluttering incoherence. I have nothing against the people of Kosovo – indeed, I supported military intervention to stop genocide there in 1999.

But Kosovo is not in the European Union and has not even applied to join. It is a small, poor country with profound ethnic divisions and serious security issues. Scotland is one of the richest and most stable democracies in the European Union, has its own parliament, five world class universities, abundant natural resources and fishing grounds that the Spanish fleets have been trawling to extinction for decades.

Scotland fulfils all the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the EU – by definition because Scotland already is in the EU. Scotland has been part of the European Union since its creation in 1993 and has been subject to European law for over forty years. There is no precedent for a country being expelled from the EU, and the mere suggestion is contrary to the founding principle on which Europe is based: the right of all nations to self-determination.

Or will Mr Barroso be assuring the Russian President Vladimir Putin that it is “impossible” for Ukraine to join the European Union? Former communist countries like Bulgaria have recently been welcomed into the EU fold despite having serious economic problems and profound human rights issues, including recognised breaches of the European Convention. But not Scotland whose parliament incorporated the ECHR into its very constitution. It took a nanosecond for the EU to recognise the existence of countries like Latvia when they broke from Russian domination. Yet we are to believe that one of the oldest countries in Europe is to be blackballed.

Mr Barroso may think he is doing the UK a good turn here, but he will get precious little reward. It will make no difference to David Cameron’s determination to hold a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. But it will make the one country in the UK that supports the EU think seriously about the whole project. Even as the UK is threatening to leave, here is the president trying to prevent Scotland from staying in.

The president of the EU is going beyond his remit with this attempt to interfere with the democratic processes in a member nation – and remember Scotland remained a nation despite the union with England in 1707. It is the voice of a bureaucrat who clearly has no understanding of British and Scottish history. There can be only one possible response: no way Jose.

but the reason that Kosovo will not be accepted by Spain is the same as the reason that Scotland will not be accepted. similarities are not required.

planteria

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It won't be the 19th of September, you can be sure of that. The other 27 countries aren't sitting there waiting for the result of the scottish referendum, and there won't be special accession rules for Scotland.

agreed. and yet the SNP are selling the line, bought by some here it seems, that they will be able to just 'stay in' after all :doh:

Heedtheadvice

Wow what a long thread! Really though not anywhere near as long and as serious as the topic discussed deserves. Probably on of the most important decisions for the whole of the UK for many a year.

However I feel for the original poster who asked:

laser707 wrote: »

I am planning to move my SIPP and ISA account from HL. The two leading companies I want to go with ii and ATS are both based in Scotland. I am concerned about what would happen to my account should Scotland vote for Independence as I wouldn't want my finances to be based outside of the UK and its financial regulation.

Has anyone any thoughts about this?

Do you think my concerns are unwarranted?

First answer; lots of thoughts associated with this; and secondly No your thoughts correctly should be of concerns.

I have similar concerns with an ISA invested under UK 'rules' and pension income from both sides of the potential division! I too am worried.

As one poster has commented businesses do not like uncertainty as it is difficult to asses opportunities and risks. The same really applies to individuals.

In the posturing, promises, denials, SNP manifesto ('cos that's all it is) name calling and bluffing by the politicians there is very little clarity of virtually all points that need to be considered that would result from independence - well non that I see as being clear. In politics many argue black is white (and the reverse) and the results are usually somewhere in between with the odd outlier thrown in for good measure.

If there is a Yes vote then all we have (apart from the negotiations leading to independence), at the moment, is a short term SNP wish list. Whatever has been said the process would involve a lot of horse trading. i.e. uncertainty.

If there is a No vote we equally do not know what will be the full outcome other than many things will stay the same and many will change - the "Status Quo" is not ever going to be constant.

So given the level of uncertainty I would keep my powder dry for now but handy in case of need and monitor the situation and aim for risk reduction when activity starts.


I have not contributed to this thread before now and have read it all at length today. Some posters seem to also believe black is white etc. and that there are no greyshades inbetween plus a bit of xenophobic comment creeping in every so often. Perhaps just a few points?

1. Unlike parts of this thread the referendum is not a Scottish vs English thing although I can understand why it might be colouring the issue. It is a UK/Scotland thing with (effectively) all residing in Scotland able to vote irrespective of nationality of the individual. It has not been driven by the people in Scotland but rather the SNP government (who, like most UK governments, do not represent all in Scotland) but has become a logical extension of the continued voting pattern over recent years. Odd in some respects that those it affects (all in the UK) and those born in Scotland but not residing there have no say especially the latter who may be 'abroad' for a relatively short term.

2. We ought to be thinking, not just short term financial, but also long term issues. There is a definite difference culturally, legally and politically (shades only again) between Scotland (and parts of it) and England/Wales/N Ireland (and parts of them). Non of us are a cohesive mass. For many in Scotland issues really stem from a London centric system from government to press and media etc (everywhere else being "remote") and the confusion it then brings that it is an England vs Scotland issue. There are just as deep divisions between parts of the UK (such as the so called North South divide) but mostly it is between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. As Billy Connelly recently stated he has more in common with fellow working class people of some parts of the UK than many in Scotland ( I paraphrase) so will not get involved in public debate. Historically, recently and probably in the future much of Scotland will be left leaning politically and there is therefore a likeleyhood of that having a greater affect on Scotland's people in an independent Scotland. The SNP recognises this and includes many popularist wishes in it's manifetso but little of the unpopular or how the popular will be paid for and what will become of the country when oil runs out - whenever that will be.
So as has been alluded to in a previous post, get into power then sort out what is best for 'us' afterwards will be the SNP's approach (promise the earth - the politicians mantra?). Unionists highlight the risks create fear and vote No.
This need not be about the referendum do we not remember all politics works this way?

The end result (yes I have a vote) I believe that I have no certainty of what will happen under independence, can see many risks even with the rosy picture being painted by the Scottish Government, have no idea about how it would be paid for both as a result of the change and the 'sustainable' long term. At least I know the mess we are in and broadly how the UK works if we say No.

3. Many Scots (of various ethnic origins) think of themselves as British (possibly not always in that order) but often the impression is that Britain is England first with the other countries getting a passing mention. That, as well as the general cultural differences, often gives rise to misunderstandings where it tends to be 'centre' and 'bigger' first. {I cannot envisage anything other than it would be Edinburgh first under independence!} Thus, in a similar way, the name of banks is probably overstated, outside of marketing, but banks and finance is much more important in the City than in the rest of the UK hence the support given by Government in the recent crisis. It had nothing to do with head office function locations and will remain so. Ways will be found to work within or around the political conclusions. That may or may not be of benefit to a particular country's citizens.

4. The vote will be affected by some of the popular policies instigated by the devolved government of Scotland. I have personally benefited by the tinkering at the edges such as free prescriptions etc. and a lot is promised but it is not all sweetness and light. Why should those who govern overspending on a parliament building or overrun tram projects or who cannot stand up to Donald Trump fair better for Scotland than the Scots who have been over active in Westminster! After all whoever we vote for, we will still be governed by politicians and those who think they know best!

BTW well said Atush and Nimrod. Irrespective of the barrack room lawyers interpretations of the situations it looks like we would just need to have faith in the Scottish Government politicians to vote yes. hmmmm, if Wee Eck, The Fat Controller, Napoleon or Mussolini ( all descriptions I have heard) told me it was safe to jump over a cliff blindfolded......................:rotfl:

TCA

planteria wrote: »

but Every Single member state would have to agree. and it is, apparently, certain that at least 1 will not.

Apparently certain? Lol. Try not to be too definitive! Would you once and for all please post a link or quote the EU member state who said they will categorically veto Scotland's membership. As you keep saying, one veto is enough, so let's see it. No supposition. No assumption. No opinion.

planteria wrote: »

i can't believe that people will find that to be acceptable and give the SNP their support.

Seeing as you still don't get it, try another article from Iain Macwhirter:

Who's Afraid of Plan B?

It was the defining moment in referendum campaign; an event that will resonate through history; a milestone in Scotland’s relations with the rest of the UK. A Tory chancellor, George Osborne, riding into town, laying down the law, and then riding out again without even giving any TV interviews made even many unionists feel they had been slapped in the face. You shall not use the pound, end of. Scots always knew they were the junior partners in the UK, but it was a shock nevertheless to have it confirmed in such a blunt way. Telling people they can’t have something they already partly own, the pound, may win applause in Westminster and the London media, but it is bad politics in Scotland. And as if George Osborne wasn’t enough, there was the gleeful face of Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, on TV backing him to the hilt. Tories and Labour, united in telling the Scots to take a hike if they vote yes. How’s that for a sure fire vote-winner. The pools-win cry of celebration from Scottish Labour tweeters on the internet was also curiously short-sighted. Osborne deployed all the diplomatic subtlety of a British governor general talking down the leaders of an independence movement in an African colony. I hate to draw such antagonistic historical comparisons, but how else were people to take it, which ever side they vote on?

This was a diktat – allowing no room for negotiation. Osborne was saying: don’t think you can vote for self-government and expect England to cooperate. We will make you change money at the borders. You will be treated as aliens. We will disrupt trade rather than let you use the pound in Scotland. Not even Ireland was treated this way by the UK after the civil war. In 1928, when the Irish Free State came into being, a new Irish pound was minted. But this held parity with the English pound, and remained convertible on a one-to-one basis for the next half century. The UK pound remained legal tender in the Republic, even during a trade war in the 1930s. George Osborne may lack any sense of history, but surely the Liberal Democrats – who used to stand for Irish home rule – are aware of the historical resonances. And before the twitterati start quoting me out of context, I am NOT saying that Scotland should be compared with Ireland. Precisely the reverse. The governments of Eamon de Valera in the ’30s were insular and separatist. They defaulted on their debt to the UK in 1933 and tried to raise the drawbridge against the rUK. That kind of introverted nationalism is not something any responsible party would wish to emulate. Which is partly why the Scottish government has been so reluctant to spell out the nature of Plan B. Scotland does not want to cut itself off from trading links with the UK; does not want to be accused of reneging on its debts, or seeking currency isolation from the rest of Britain. The Scottish government has bent over backwards sideways and upside down to insist that it wants to maintain economic continuity – even agreeing to cede sovereignty to the Bank of England over interest rates and debt.

One of the more bizarre sights last week was the unionist, Danny Alexander, on Scotland Tonight chiding the Scottish government for not being nationalist enough. Having said that, the SNP and Yes Scotland cannot continue to behave as if nothing has changed. They can’t go on dismissing the Osborne threat as bluster and bluff, even though it almost certainly is. This is a new situation, and understandable that the nationalists don’t want to raise alternatives for the press to take a pop. The Scottish people are grown up enough to understand that this isn’t what the SNP want and that any arrangement is subject to negotiation. But they also want to hear someone fight Scotland’s corner. Anyway, plan B isn’t so scary when you look at it. Nicola Sturgeon suggested last week that the Scottish pound would “shadow” sterling – use the pound without a formal monetary union. This has contemptuously been called “dollarization” – the kind of currency arrangement you see in South America. But there are similar arrangements in Europe. Denmark has its own currency which is pegged to the euro, and has one of the most advanced economies in Europe. Norway has its own currency which floats against the dollar and euro. Switzerland has its own currency which isn’t pegged to anything. Many central european countries like the Czech Republic have their own currencies shadowing the euro. The point is that no currency, in the modern world, except perhaps the dollar, is completely independent. That went out with the gold standard. An independent Scotland “barred” from sterling would would announce on day one that it would continue to mint a Scottish pound on the basis of one-to-one parity with the pound. It would set up a central monetary authority to regulate the banks and authorise the printing of notes – which already happens. It would come to an arrangement with the UK for a share of coinage which would continue to circulate. It would not have to start issuing bawbees, though I suspect that many Scots might start using that term ironically. This is all the Scottish government needs to do at this stage – the rest is negotiation. Forget the jargon about ‘lender of last resort’, fiscal sovereignty, optimal currency zones. What matters to voters is that they won’t have to change currency at the border. George Osborne could come back and try to reject parity, but it would be silly. His complaint about the Bank of England underpinning the Scottish currency would no longer apply. It would be clear who was being unreasonable. As the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said a fortnight ago, Scotland’s economy is very similar to the rest of the UK’s, in terms of GDP per head, labour productivity etc..

An independent Scottish economy would not be like Greece – in fact it might be more like Switzerland, with a currency that it too strong rather than too weak. Relieved of the burden of UK debt, a Scottish pound based on extensive petroleum and renewable energy resources might tend to suck in funds, causing the Scottish pound’s value to rise. Provided Scotland received an advantageous rate of exchange, therefore, eventual euro membership might be worth considering to mitigate the tendency for the Scottish currency to rise. It would be at least two years anyway before a Scottish currency would be eligible to join the eurozone, by which time the EU may have changed out of all recognition. Not least because England without Scotland will almost certainly be in the process of leaving it after the 2017 in/out referendum. Scotland would almost certainly want to rejoin the EU, but a newly independent Scotland should do so in its own time. The EU would not want Scotland to stay out for long – it might give other countries ideas – so a Scottish government would have a strong negotiating position. The Scottish government just needs to have the courage of its convictions. It doesn’t have to go into too much detail; it just needs to offer some models, like Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, to reassure voters that Scotland would not collapse just because Gideon says No. Unionist politicians will jeer and rant, but they’re going to do that anyway.

The problem with the UK political parties is that they mistake Alex Salmond for the Scottish people. They regard the First Minister as a devious and wily so-and-so who jolly well needs to be put in his place. Can’t have his cake and eat it, oh no. We’ll show him. But what they fail to appreciate is that they are also addressing the voters who elected him FM by a landslide in 2011. Not all of them, by any means, are nationalists. But none like being scolded like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The Scottish government were taken by surprise last week. Perhaps naively, they believed the implicit assurance in Section 30 of the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement that both sides would play fair and would seek consensus. It’s not going to happen. We are in a new era. Who’s afraid of Big Plan B?

Archi_Bald

TCA wrote: »

Would you once and for all please post a link or quote the EU member state who said they will categorically veto Scotland's membership. As you keep saying, one veto is enough, so let's see it.

I know you have asked planteria to post a relevant link, but here is one, anyway: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu