Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

mystic_trev

An independent Scotland would struggle to support a viable banking sector in times of trouble, the credit rating agency S&P said on Tuesday dealing a blow to the Yes campaign.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd370aa4-caff-11e3-ba95-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zjKQW5OW

Of course it's all bluster 'cause Alex knows best!

Buzby

The choice is easy. We either stay with what we have, or try the alternative. The current scheme is unrepresentative and does not serve Scots well. The alternative will have an element of the unknown, but this is no reason to ignore or refuse to give if a try.

FWIW the Scottish Government has made some excellent decisions since it was formed and has worked well for most folk that live north of the border. Why should this end because of taking it to the next level?

The current nonsense being promoted to 'discourage' a YES vote is a case in point - it talks about how good the union is (was?) but with no proof that convinces. We now have an ex PM saying it is our right to have our full entitlements for pensions paid by The union because we're a basket case and need their backup to exist. I would hope this achieves the opposite!

ColdIron

Buzby wrote: »

The current scheme is unrepresentative and does not serve Scots well

Piffle

That is, of course, highly subjective. Objectively Scotland is well represented in Parliament by 59 elected MPs, as is Cornwall, Wales, the north and the south of England etc. If you want to talk about unrepresentative consider those Scottish MPs can vote on matters outside Scotland that do not affect them while Parliament has limited power over Scotland which has its own legislature comprising 129 MSPs

I'd say that Scotland was somewhat over represented

If the people you elect are not serving you well perhaps you should look at them rather than blame everybody else

Borrowedtune

"Yes" seems to be creeping upwards in the polls, so assuming - for the sake of argument - that there is a "Yes" vote, how quickly could/would independence come into effect ?


The only comparison I can think of is the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which I believe occurred within 6 months of the political decisions being taken.


We have Westminster elections scheduled for May 2015, so will the Coalition Government be able/willing to negotiate the terms of dissolution when they are electioneering mode ?


And any extended period of uncertainly would surely be viewed very dimly by the currency and stock markets, so any thoughts on hedging against this risk ?

zagubov

ColdIron wrote: »

Piffle

That is, of course, highly subjective. Objectively Scotland is well represented in Parliament by 59 elected MPs, as is Cornwall, Wales, the north and the south of England etc. If you want to talk about unrepresentative consider those Scottish MPs can vote on matters outside Scotland that do not affect them while Parliament has limited power over Scotland which has its own legislature comprising 129 MSPs

I'd say that Scotland was somewhat over represented

Yes the unionist party MPs vote on matters outside Scotland that do not affect them while Parliament has limited power over Scotland.

The SNP don't.

The "well-represented" Scots in the last few decades have more often been governed by political parties they didn't elect into power. Scotland's own legislature gets to spend a fraction of the money raised in Scotland.

rpc

Heng_Leng wrote: »

I'm not a fan of a monetary union but it is perfectly viable in the short/medium term.

The UK is an optimum currency area and that is not likely to change in the short/medium term regardless of the constitutional set-up.

I don't see what rUK would gain from a short term union. It would help out an independence Scotland an awful lot, but ultimately leaves rUK in the same place long term.

The fact that Yes seem to be moving towards a very temporary currency union makes it even less desirable to rUK in my view.

UKIP are regarded as swivel-eyed loons in Scotland and have 0% chance of getting a Scottish seat, so i have no idea where you get that idea.

They are making significant headway. I don't think that you can say a party with a predicted 10% of the vote are outcasts from Scottish politics - a Scottish UKIP seat (in any election) has the potential to upset the Scottish political landscape. You can ignore them while they have no seats, once they have one they need to be listened to.

Or does the democratic voice of the electorate only count when they vote for things you approve of?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tories-could-lose-scottish-mep-seat-to-ukip-1-3382833

Buzby wrote: »

The choice is easy. We either stay with what we have, or try the alternative.

It isn't that we can try the alternative - we would be committed come what may.

This isn't a marriage where we can have a trial separation, decide we don't like it and get back together.

If we become independent, we will be independent. End of story, no going back.

rpc

Borrowedtune wrote: »

"Yes" seems to be creeping upwards in the polls, so assuming - for the sake of argument - that there is a "Yes" vote, how quickly could/would independence come into effect ?

Yes say 18 months. A number of commentators say longer.

The real question is whether the Scottish Govt would prolong negotiations in the hope of a more favourable settlement, or accept what they get within that sort of timescale.

We have Westminster elections scheduled for May 2015, so will the Coalition Government be able/willing to negotiate the terms of dissolution when they are electioneering mode ?

It could really make a mess of things. It will also encourage a more hardline stance against Scotland I think - rUK voters will want to see all parties standing up for rUK interests and that means trying to push a settlement that benefits rUK.

Even worse, a small slip in the timescale would lead to a Scottish general election in May 2016 while the negotiations are ongoing. What would happen if a majority unionist parliament was returned? Constitutional crisis!

planteria

rpc wrote: »

Even worse, a small slip in the timescale would lead to a Scottish general election in May 2016 while the negotiations are ongoing. What would happen if a majority unionist parliament was returned? Constitutional crisis!

an interesting point...then i wonder whether we will let you back in;)

Archi_Bald

Buzby wrote: »

FWIW the Scottish Government has made some excellent decisions since it was formed and has worked well for most folk that live north of the border. Why should this end because of taking it to the next level?

I have no doubt they made some excellent decisions. But that by no means justifies the complete blue-eyed scenario that Salmond paints for an independent Scotland.

Just take one example: I watched quite a bit of Scottish Parliament proceedings over the last couple of days (on BBC Parliament). One shocking fact I learnt yesterday is that there are still over 800,000 people in Scotland living in fuel poverty. That is some 15% of the entire population of Scotland. Given the far-reaching powers the scottish government already has, there is just about no reasonable explanation for why this is still the case, though as usual, the SNP blame "Westminster" for it. Worse still, I cannot see any commitment in the independence white paper to eradicate fuel poverty. Just empty electioneering waffle along the lines:

The government of an independent Scotland will be able to use all the powers available to us to help people with their energy bills

This is just one great example that not even really burning issues are guaranteed to be dealt with.

Note I am not saying that fuel poverty in Scotland or elsewhere would be eliminated if Scotland stayed with the union. I am just saying that an independent Scotland won't solve all the real life problems for its people.

To me as an rUK person it is so obvious that there is a huge gulf between the SNP message and reality.

rpc

zagubov wrote: »

I think we can rule out a unionist party getting in power in Holyrood, regardless whether the negotiations were going well or badly.

I don't. I think if it becomes clear that some of the things promised in the white paper aren't going to materialise, there will be a backlash against the SNP.

It doesn't need a single unionist party to gain power at Holyrood to cause problems - all it needs is a unionist majority (which has occurred in every Scottish Parliament except the current one).

An academic might think the possible constitutional problems are interesting - I think they are rather worrying. We could end up in a right mess in the middle of the negotiations.