Scottish independence

Forever

jm2926 wrote: »

If you had asked me 20, 10 or 5 years ago what I thought of Scottish independence, I would have said it was unnecessary, an additional overheard with no benefit. On Thursday I will be voting yes, because Westminster is so London/SE centric, affecting everywhere else in England, Wales, Ni and Scotland and i would rather live in a country where our vote counts and makes a difference.

At the moment it doesn't matter how we vote, we get the government England votes for. We have different issues e.g lower population density and need different policies. This isn't personal, you can have a great relationship with your neighbour without the need to share intimate space.

Some points:

Firstly, 2 out of our last 3 prime ministers have been Scottish.

Secondly, in a democracy, many people across the UK don't get the politicians they voted for. That's how democracies work.

Another way of looking at this is that I didn't vote for Gordon Brown. But I didn't start demanding that England should become independent because of it.

Finally, Scotland wants to join the EU. They will have a lot less influence in the EU than they currently have in the UK.

kingrulzuk

3 Days to go for IScotland

Chadsman

Chadsman wrote: »

Would a pro-independence voter be good enough to explain something to me...?


SNP policy is to seek a currency union- from the Scottish government white paper monetary policy would "be set according to economic conditions across the sterling area". Why would an independent Scotland want rUK interfering in its monetary policy when sterlingisation could achieve the same result?


If the monetary policy requirements of of iScotland and rUK would be identical at all times why bother with a currency union when the monetary policy decisions made by rUK would be the right ones for iScotland. Scotland would be free to vary the fine detail.


If the policy requirements of iScotland and rUK would differ at times why should rUK moderate its policies according to the needs of a foreign nation in ways that may be to the detriment of rUK? Will iScotland be offering some sort of compensation to rUK for changing policies to satisfy iScotland?

No reply yet...


Suppose Scotland were granted a currency union and at some point the monetary policy needs of Scotland and rUK were pulling in the opposite direction which way is the BoE monetary policy committee going to vote- rUK or Scotland?

rpc

Chadsman wrote: »

Suppose Scotland were granted a currency union and at some point the monetary policy needs of Scotland and rUK were pulling in the opposite direction which way is the BoE monetary policy committee going to vote- rUK or Scotland?

That is inevitable - it is a stated aim of Yes to take our economy in a different direction.

Can't find the reference at the moment, but over the weekend Alex said that the currency union would, in practice, be that Scotland had a veto over any decisions involving the Bank of England.

More likely, Scotland would get 1 theoretical vote against 11 theoretical rUK votes and the "currency union" would be little more than free insurance for Scotland's debt and banks while Scotland gets no effective say in any decisions whatsoever. It could be worse in that Scotland could be held to borrowing limits harsher than the UK.

We'd have less economic sovereignty than we do now! Not to mention that I doubt rUK would want to give us that underwriting for free.

Isn't it interesting to see that the NHS discussion died off after a few verifiable facts about the Scottish NHS (and the alleged risks to it) were posted. I have seen that on several forums now...

Archi_Bald

rpc wrote: »

More likely, Scotland would get 1 theoretical vote against 11 theoretical rUK votes and the "currency union" would be little more than free insurance for Scotland's debt and banks while Scotland gets no effective say in any decisions whatsoever.

It is not going to happen. None of the 3 main parties would survive the next rUK general election if there was even a hint of them going away from their stated position on the currency matter. If any of them tried to con the electorate and changed their mind after they got into government, a vote of no-confidence and new elections would follow.

Aside from that, a currency union just wouldn't make any sense, and it would not be in the best interest of rUK, however often Salmond says it would. He might be successful in bullying half of the population of Scotland but rUK won't be bullied by anybody.

Voyager2002

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Aside from that, a currency union just wouldn't make any sense, and it would not be in the best interest of rUK, however often Salmond says it would. He might be successful in bullying half of the population of Scotland but rUK won't be bullied by anybody.

I disagree... a currency union would be the most sensible arrangement, so long as economic policies in rUK and in Scotland were sufficiently similar for it to work. In other words, as Mr Carney pointed out recently currency union is not compatible with complete national sovereignty, but a reduction in sovereignty in return for "free insurance" for the banking sector and a range of other benefits would be a sensible compromise.

I do agree with your first paragraph: there is a risk that a 'Yes' vote would be followed by politicians on both sides acting like spoilt teenagers and refusing to make the compromises that would be necessary.

Chadsman

Sensible for whom? I could say I meant to buy a lottery ticket last weekend with the winning numbers but I forgot to do it. The most sensible solution would be for Camelot to give me £5million- I wont ask for the full jackpot, I'll give them credit for beating me down.


Eventually different economies will always diverge because their governments have different policies. Once upon a time UK had a very similar economy to the Republic of Ireland until they gained independence, at the credit crunch Ireland needed a bailout but the UK didn't because in the past their governments had made different decisions.


Why should rUK moderate any of its policies to satisfy the needs of any foreign country? Why should rUK guarantee Scottish debt?


If there were a yes vote Scotland would have a weak hand even if the wished for date for independence were scrapped. If Scotland says they want a particular shopping list of assets and other terms but rUK says sorry you cant have it what is Scotland going to do- invade rUK?

rpc

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It is not going to happen. None of the 3 main parties would survive the next rUK general election if there was even a hint of them going away from their stated position on the currency matter. If any of them tried to con the electorate and changed their mind after they got into government, a vote of no-confidence and new elections would follow.

I should have been clearer - I mean the likely structure of a currency union should the UK decide to to the mother of all U-turns and agree one.

I firmly believe that it will not happen and that we will float our own currency. Of course, if that were the public line now then Yes support would drop significantly.

Mark Carney's "incompatible with sovereignty" statement, I assume, makes such a proposition incompatible with the rUK electorate.
At the very least, I would expect a referendum in the unlikely event that rUK decides to support one in principle. Polls so far have shown an opposition to the idea and I would expect that opposition to harden when details of how it would work emerged.

Aside from that, a currency union just wouldn't make any sense, and it would not be in the best interest of rUK, however often Salmond says it would. He might be successful in bullying half of the population of Scotland but rUK won't be bullied by anybody.

But it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people (well, about half of us) so rUK will just have to do it! Because of stuff and everyone will give us exactly what we ask for, there is never any give and take and no "red lines" for anyone but Scotland.

Of course, if it is a Yes and if Westminster still says no currency union then the SNP can continue to blame all of Scotland's problems on Westminster for years to come. Even now, they have powers to do quitie a lot of what they propose but refuse to use them. Presumably, that would detract from the image of a Scotland rendered weak and powerless by the union.

jimjames

Something that has shocked and surprised me is how anything that is seen as negative to the Yes campaign is being portrayed as scaremongering, biased or co-ordinated by Westminster - or all 3. You only need to see the demo at the BBC yesterday claiming bias in their reports. How can any reasoned debate take place when any comment or fact that isn't supporting "Vote Yes" is shouted down as being lies or bias yet SNP make claims like NHS privatisation that isn't backed by any reality.

Maybe I've been consumed by the bias too but I've yet to see anything that demonstrates why independence is better. As above suggesting that you don't like the results of an election so want to breakaway isn't really very democratic. Not knowing what currency you'll use or the costs of setting up a new state seem to be inconveniences that SNP don't want to answer.

A few examples of such comments on RBS and FT forums here:

http://www.ftadviser.com/2014/09/03/investments/uk/how-scottish-independence-could-affect-your-cash-sklfCpHLmMdozK2ZaAC44O/article-1.html

https://www.rbs-communities.co.uk/t5/Everyday-Banking/Scottish-Independence/m-p/3899#M224

Finally it would be interesting to understand the logic behind the claims that Westminster/Tories are blackmailing to get Scotland to stay in the Union. Of all the parties they are the ones who would benefit from Scotland leaving and almost guaranteeing that they will be in permanent government in rUK after independence.

rpc

jimjames wrote: »

How can any reasoned debate take place when any comment or fact that isn't supporting "Vote Yes" is shouted down as being lies or bias yet SNP make claims like NHS privatisation that isn't backed by any reality.

Reasoned debate isn't their objective, winning is.

Finally it would be interesting to understand the logic behind the claims that Westminster/Tories are blackmailing to get Scotland to stay in the Union. Of all the parties they are the ones who would benefit from Scotland leaving and almost guaranteeing that they will be in government in rUK after independence.

I find it utterly distateful that one day he criticises Cameron for talking to businesses and asking them to state their view, when the next day he has arranged to talk to businesses and ask them to state their view.

Hypocrisy on steroids.

Business for Scotland are tiny in comparison to the likes that support the Weir Group letter, the Kingfisher letter, etc.