Galloway Smashes Scottish Separatists with Stellar Speech in the Spectator

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes, I think it is quite possible Scotland could be in a relatively stronger position in Europe than RoUK; but you wouldn't be independent.

We'd be as independent as the UK currently is.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Y
However you would be free of the hated English so all would be well.

You do realise that despite you keep repeating this flawed mantra, it doesn't mean it is real.

Scotland is a multicultural country with migrants from all over the world.

We embrace multicultural diversity, just as the Scots are embraced throughout the world.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We'd be as independent as the UK currently is.



You do realise that despite you keep repeating this flawed mantra, it doesn't mean it is real.

Scotland is a multicultural country with migrants from all over the world.

We embrace multicultural diversity, just as the Scots are embraced throughout the world.

I agree with you entirely.

Some Scots are (currently) happy to embrace any level of migration and from anywhere in the world and any mad policies as long as you get rid of the English.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree with you entirely.

Some Scots are (currently) happy to embrace any level of migration and from anywhere in the world and any mad policies as long as you get rid of the English.

There is no "as long as".

There are many English people living in Scotland and they are welcomed and encouraged to take part in the referendum in September.

You appear to be deeply flawed in your analysis, possibly to far removed from the ground to make any salient and accurate point on the subject.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is no "as long as".

There are many English people living in Scotland and they are welcomed and encouraged to take part in the referendum in September.

You appear to be deeply flawed in your analysis, possibly to far removed from the ground to make any salient and accurate point on the subject.

do tell me, so I can be better informed

do you want

-to have your own (Scottish) independent currency or share some-one else's (pound, Euro, dollar etc)?

-do you want your own immigration policy or share EU's?

-do you want to set your own interest rates or let EU do it for you?

-do you want to set your own Scottish budget or let EU do it?

-do you want to set your own climate change / renewables policy of let EU do it for you?

-do you believe that small countries (say a few million people ) intrinsically have a higher per capita income than larger ones and so support the breaking up of EU nation states into say 100 smaller entities

kabayiri

BillJones wrote: »

They can leg their currency to the pound, or even just use pounds with no formal agreement.

Both methods require deep pockets in times of financial stress, such as was seen when the Uk were in the ERM, and were forced out when it became unaffordable.

Given that speculation was able to boot the UK out, they will likely be able to do the same for Scotland.

You also risk currency flight, have severe restrictions on interest rate policy, and so on.

Oil revenues will help, but it's a bit bizarre that the scots believe that they'll get to keep these. After the split the assets and debts will need to be negotiated over, and the like fields are not clearly anyone's. If we follow the border in a straight line from where it hits the coast at Berwick (a method that is likely to be seen as a decent starting point), then the fields are divided.

The energy income is also going to drop as the rest of the UK decides that it has no interest in paying for Scottish wind power at vastly inflated prices from a foreign country.

In short, the revenues needed to defend a currency peg, or informal union, are unlikely to be available post split. It will be very hard to fund it via borrowing, too, if the scots wish to issue debt in Sterling. Markets will demand quite a premium for foreign issuance, even if the scots take on and honour their share of UK national debt. If they don't, well, they will find it very hard to issue at all.

Has anyone crunched the numbers?

It would certainly require a period of serious austerity, but then I guess the Yes campaigners believe the path to a new independence is worth some pain; certainly ISTL has confirmed its an aspirational goal.

I concede oil revenues will only go so far.

I think the Yes campaign should at least reference a non-currency-union option, given the level of resistance to a currency union from Westminster. Then perhaps the Scottish voters would at least have some realistic expectations.

Genuinely, is there anything worthwhile in a currency union from a RoUK perspective? It just seems all risk and no return.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Can you advise a country which has become poorer in the last 300 years?

Venezuela.

:eek:

Oil rich; inflation at 60%.

Still, at least petrol is cheaper than water.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

.....I concede oil revenues will only go so far....

The interesting thing is that whilst the rest of the UK has (theorectically potentially whatever) oodles of shale energy, Scotland doesn't appear to have much at all. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Scots voted yes for independence thinking they were going to get their mitts on all that North Sea wealth, only to find that they had done themselves out of any share of the riches of the Bowland Basin?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10931689/Scottish-shale-gas-and-oil-no-game-changer.html

kabayiri wrote: »

....I think the Yes campaign should at least reference a non-currency-union option, given the level of resistance to a currency union from Westminster. Then perhaps the Scottish voters would at least have some realistic expectations...

I must admit I still don't really understand why the SNP opted for a currency union as Plan A. Seems rather pointless going to all that trouble to become independent and then surrender most of that independence the minute you've got it.

kabayiri wrote: »

....Genuinely, is there anything worthwhile in a currency union from a RoUK perspective? It just seems all risk and no return.

Let me think.....

No, can't think of anything worthwhile. All downside, no real upside.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Has anyone crunched the numbers?

It would certainly require a period of serious austerity, but then I guess the Yes campaigners believe the path to a new independence is worth some pain; certainly ISTL has confirmed its an aspirational goal.

I concede oil revenues will only go so far.

I think the Yes campaign should at least reference a non-currency-union option, given the level of resistance to a currency union from Westminster. Then perhaps the Scottish voters would at least have some realistic expectations.

Genuinely, is there anything worthwhile in a currency union from a RoUK perspective? It just seems all risk and no return.

The only thing I can see is that it could be a bargaining chip. We'll give you the pound in return for taking George Galloway back for example.

BillJones

DaveTheMus wrote: »

It's not about being ours...

Everything belongs to the UK just now. But if you're breaking it down to the economic activity and wealth created in each individual country, the revenue created from the rigs is in Scotland's coastal waters.

You keep saying this, but that's up for negotiation. As previously mentioned, if you follow the border in a straight line from where it hits the coast, the fields are split.

BillJones

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Deary me, why won't Cameron grow a pair and debate the subject?
Didn't he say he would fight for the Union "with every last fibre"

And if he did, you;d be squeaking and ranting about how he has no right to interfere in a scots issue...