Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

innovate

incandescent wrote: »

Read it for god's sake.

To be fair to mikey45, a lot of what he says is what I heard Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon say in one form or another.

Albeit these two do know the difference between there and their, and would generally be in command of basic spelling.

As you say, if mikey45 is indicative of the Scottish electorate, god help Scotland

islandannie

mikey_45 wrote: »

£53 billion in taxes ye thats right. and you kept about the same plus more with our oil and gas. simples

That`s a bit egregious Mikey luv.

innovate

mikey_45 wrote: »

we have brought a lot to the world, and we are going to bring a lot more in the future.

You have captured my interest, mikey45, since you sound really passionate about your cause. Can you outline some of the things that Scotland couldn't bring to the world because it was part of the UK for the last few hundred years? And what are some of the things the world won't be getting from Scotland if Scotland stayed in the UK? I am genuinely interested.

incandescent

innovate wrote: »

You have captured my interest, mikey45, since you sound really passionate about your cause. Can you outline some of the things that Scotland couldn't bring to the world because it was part of the UK for the last few hundred years? And what are some of the things the world won't be getting from Scotland if Scotland stayed in the UK? I am genuinely interested.

It sounds like his major contribution will be to tell people like me - ie non-idiots - to "move to England".

He's a troll, and best ignored.

zagubov

incandescent wrote: »

Absolutely true, of course.

One of the things nobody is talking about is the reaction of the Scottish electorate to any post-referendum negotiations. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the rest of the UK would agree to everything the SNP has been promising.

So suppose we did end up out of the pound and the EU? What if we had to keep Trident? What if there was no lender of last resort? What if we couldn't keep British citizenship? What if the financial settlement made it obvious all that we'd be poorer?

How would the Scottish electorate deal with this? Would they need to ratify the negotiated settlement with another vote?

That would be a first! You should be grateful there's even one referendum - there never was in Czechoslovakia.

There'll be no keeping of Trident. The US won't trust it to be in a non-NATO territory. The mere threat of holding a referendum on EU membership would concentrate Germany and Spain's minds on being welcoming, for different reasons.

Look, it's your decision. I have no vote in this, nor should I be entitled to.

What I don't see here in these posts is the go-getting attitude I aways associated with Scotland when I lived there. Everybody seems to be channeling Private Frazer from Dad's Army.

Scotland's hand in negotiations is nowhere as weak as its foreign-owned media seem to want you to know.

Make the deal you need to further your self-determination whether within or without the union but, by heck, whatever it was that's robbed Scotland of its confidence in its ability to make its own decisions for its future, then it has a lot to answer for.

incandescent

zagubov wrote: »

That would be a first! You should be grateful there's even one referendum - there never was in Czechoslovakia.

There'll be no keeping of Trident. The US won't trust it to be in a non-NATO territory. The mere threat of holding a referendum on EU membership would concentrate Germany and Spain's minds on being welcoming, for different reasons.

Look, it's your decision. I have no vote in this, nor should I be entitled to.

What I don't see here in these posts is the go-getting attitude I aways associated with Scotland when I lived there. Everybody seems to be channeling Private Frazer from Dad's Army.

Scotland's hand in negotiations is nowhere as weak as its foreign-owned media seem to want you to know.

Make the deal you need to further your self-determination whether within or without the union but, by heck, whatever it was that's robbed Scotland of its confidence in its ability to make its own decisions for its future, then it has a lot to answer for.

So you think everyone else in the world will just cave to all of the SNP's demands? You are delusional.

The currency union issue alone would be absolutely toxic to any UK government. All of the parties have staked their reputation on saying absolutely unequivocally NO to currency union, and every poll has shown that the electorate of the rest of the UK oppose it, and thus would be very angry with any government that agreed to it. And that's before considering the unreciprocated liabilities a currency union would impose on the rest of the UK.

NATO? We'll see about that. Even the SNP are split on NATO. I certainly don't want to live in a tiny undefended country. I'm sure I'm not alone.

If the nationalists end up negotiating a deal that is completely different to what they have sold the electorate pre-referendum, then you can be absolutely 100% sure that we will end up with either legal challenges, another referendum or civil unrest.

rpc

incandescent wrote: »

If you are seriously comparing Luxembourg's economy to that of anywhere else on the planet, then you are only demonstrating your own lack of understanding.

Perhaps we should take a leaf from S&P? Their most recent paper on independence compared Scotland to pre-crash Iceland. This doesn't seem to have had quite the same level of publicity as the previous one that led Yes to erroneously claim we would get a AAA rating.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/uk-scotlandindependence-sp-idUKBREA3N01P20140424

zagubov wrote: »

There'll be no keeping of Trident. The US won't trust it to be in a non-NATO territory.

The SNP wish to join NATO, in order to be protected by the NATO nuclear forces.

There is a fair bit of speculation going around expelling Trident will annoy the US (and trouble France) enough to make NATO membership problematic. But who knows.

The mere threat of holding a referendum on EU membership would concentrate Germany and Spain's minds on being welcoming, for different reasons.

It may also encourage the main EU powers to make an example of Scotland and push the full European "deal" on us. There is already a lot of rhetoric trying to put down Cameron's "renegotiation" before it has begun.

What I don't see here in these posts is the go-getting attitude I aways associated with Scotland when I lived there. Everybody seems to be channeling Private Frazer from Dad's Army.

I'm sure you will see plenty of "go getting" from Yes. That attitude isn't something that you will see for just any Scottish idea. Some of us save our enthusiasm for the ideas we consider to be good ones.

I suspect there will need to be a lot of LCpl Jones on September 19th, whatever the outcome...

Scotland's hand in negotiations is nowhere as weak as its foreign-owned media seem to want you to know.

In comparison to what Scotland would be asking for, we have relatively little to offer. To deny trade with our neighbours because they didn't give us what we asked for would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

whatever it was that's robbed Scotland of its confidence in its ability to make its own decisions for its future, then it has a lot to answer for.

We will make our own decision. We just disagree internally about what that decision should be.

giffnockhibee

rpc wrote: »

We will make our own decision. We just disagree internally about what that decision should be.

Squabbling? Nobody does squabbling like us Scots. A post-Yes confrontation, between a faction-riven SNP and the Lanarkshire Cosa Nostra, would be ....interesting.

zagubov

giffnockhibee wrote: »

Squabbling? Nobody does squabbling like us Scots. A post-Yes confrontation, between a faction-riven SNP and the Lanarkshire Cosa Nostra, would be ....interesting.

Yeah, the unionists are always talking about giving Lanarkshire the choice to stay with the rUK if they vote against independence - no wait a minute, it's another county - I'll remember it in a moment.

rpc wrote: »

Perhaps we should take a leaf from S&P? Their most recent paper on independence compared Scotland to pre-crash Iceland. This doesn't seem to have had quite the same level of publicity as the previous one that led Yes to erroneously claim we would get a AAA rating.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/uk-scotlandindependence-sp-idUKBREA3N01P20140424


The SNP wish to join NATO, in order to be protected by the NATO nuclear forces.

There is a fair bit of speculation going around expelling Trident will annoy the US (and trouble France) enough to make NATO membership problematic. But who knows.

It may also encourage the main EU powers to make an example of Scotland and push the full European "deal" on us. There is already a lot of rhetoric trying to put down Cameron's "renegotiation" before it has begun.

I'm sure you will see plenty of "go getting" from Yes. That attitude isn't something that you will see for just any Scottish idea. Some of us save our enthusiasm for the ideas we consider to be good ones.

I suspect there will need to be a lot of LCpl Jones on September 19th, whatever the outcome...

In comparison to what Scotland would be asking for, we have relatively little to offer. To deny trade with our neighbours because they didn't give us what we asked for would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

We will make our own decision. We just disagree internally about what that decision should be.

What would Scotland be asking for that would hard to deliver?

The very risks that monetary union threatens about having to be lender of last resort to oversized banks would arise anyway if any financial organisations moved south, which many unionists warn about.

NATO accepts just about anybody that wants in. The only country I think they said no to was Russia which went off in a huff and formed the Warsaw Pact. Ireland doesn't need them, but Scotland's got 100% ice-free ports on the Arctic side of Europe.

It's the unionist parties creating any fog about EU membershjip with their diplomats in Spain briefing the local press, and refusing to clarify the legal situation, which apparently only they have the power to do. Leaving the EU would mean it'll shrink a little - not as much as it did when Greenland left (apart from area) but by as much as if Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia,and Cyprus all left.

No big deal, mind. 10 % of Germany's oil and about 25% of Spain's fish, plus coal, gas, uranium (nobody remembers this out loud), 1/12 of the world's laptops etc, 5 of the top universities and one of the world's top four per-capita producers of cited scientific papers. Don't let anyone kid you this would be like Europe excising a tumour, it would be more like losing a hand.

rpc

zagubov wrote: »

What would Scotland be asking for that would hard to deliver?

Most of the white paper

EU membership on current terms
Currency union
Retention of rUK defence contracts in violation of Whitehall policy
Top credit rating
An asset split that suits the needs of a newly independent country, without consideration being given to what the rUK want.

just for starters. None of those are within the gift of any Scot to give, yet they are the promises that we are being made.

The very risks that monetary union threatens about having to be lender of last resort to oversized banks would arise anyway if any financial organisations moved south, which many unionists warn about.

You don't see a difference between underwriting your own country's banks and those from a different country? In the first case, you at least have the job creation and tax income. You also have regulatory control, so can only really blame yourself

NATO accepts just about anybody that wants in.

Probably. But that doesn't mean that the US will readily accept having their nuclear plans upset and the French won't want to start a disarmament movement in the EU. They (plus the UK) all have vetoes and they may use that to attempt to encourage a newly independent Scotland to take certain directions. Who would blink first? I suspect Scotland (with our Government imposed time limit) will be in more of a rush.

It's the unionist parties creating any fog about EU membershjip with their diplomats in Spain briefing the local press, and refusing to clarify the legal situation, which apparently only they have the power to do.

It is true that the UK could get a ruling, but I'm not sure how much use that would be. Holyrood have identified two routes to membership and they both require unanimous agreement from existing member states. The white paper acknowledges that their is no automatic membership and relies on two articles of the existing treaties.

I'm not really sure what the commission would say other than "you can do it this way or that way" - they certainly can't promise how the EU members will vote.

Don't underestimate the amount of work required to become "EU compliant" - it is one of the reasons membership normally takes quite a few years. Scotland could surely get there faster, but there is an awful lot of work to do and that mean a lot of money to be spent.

Don't let anyone kid you this would be like Europe excising a tumour, it would be more like losing a hand.

I agree (although it might be more like a finger). But Europe will want Scotland to join on Europe's terms. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Scotland won't get in. The question is what the terms will be and the main Eurozone powers have been taking a much harder line in recent years. Some of them would love to break up the CTA and bolster the Euro with another strong economy.