and the site receives a small commission
An Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter fracster
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...dependence-english-voters-oppose-shared-pound
I'm surprising that so many are against Scotland continuing to use the Pound...I don't think it will provide the independence, but nobody can prevent anyone from using a currency anyway...
It is interesting that the press/SNP seem to talk about sharing the Pounds which to me would be a big no no....
I can definitely understand a lot of the other outcomes except for when a no vote giving more control over scottish raised taxes, i don't agree with that at all.
I'm surprising that so many are against Scotland continuing to use the Pound...I don't think it will provide the independence, but nobody can prevent anyone from using a currency anyway...
It is interesting that the press/SNP seem to talk about sharing the Pounds which to me would be a big no no....
I can definitely understand a lot of the other outcomes except for when a no vote giving more control over scottish raised taxes, i don't agree with that at all.
- Messages
- 84
Surely Scotland is part of the EU as a part of the UK, therefore if they leave the UK they'll have to apply to join the EU. And in the terms of EU membership they'll have to take the Euro?
Also, why hasn't Salmond let Scots in England vote? Is he frightened that those working in England won't vote for independence?
Also, why hasn't Salmond let Scots in England vote? Is he frightened that those working in England won't vote for independence?
Tringa
Numpty of the Day'
- Messages
- 5,866
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One of the clearest things to come from this thread, and almost any other discussion I have heard on the independence debate, is there is still a lot of confusion over some elements of the basic structure of an independent Scotland and the figures involved.
There is less than a month before the referendum and, for example, we don't if Scotland will
automatically be a new member state of the EU, get some form of fast track entry or have to apply as a completely new member,
use the £ within a framework of fiscal union, use the £ in the way Panamas uses the $, or some other currency.
In late May this year the Yes campaign announced that independence would mean each person in Scotland would be £1,000/year better off. At almost the same time, Better Together said each person would be £1,400/year better off by staying in the UK.
As someone who worked in central government for over 25 years I know how to present your case in the best light, but given the importance of this issue, these two claims should have been crawled over to allow an independent assessment of their accuracy. Both cannot be correct.
How are state pensions in an independent Scotland going to be managed? National Insurance contributions collected from the working age population now, pay for today's state pensions.
If the vote is for independence, then NI contributions collected in the rest of the UK are not going to pay the pensions of those in an independent Scotland. How will Scotland finance this and how is the transition to be managed?
How will North Sea oil be divided if the vote is “Yes”? Along median lines as outlined in the Geneva agreement on natural resources under the sea or by some other arrangement reflecting investment or population?
I realise that not every question can be answered now but there appear to be a number of very large and important issues that have not been even partially addressed.
This may look as if I am against Scottish independence. I'm not, if it would be better for Scotland. I can see the case emotionally for independence but a very important factor, possibly the most important for the man or woman in the street, is the financial impact and that is along way from being clear.
The above also looks as if I'm having a go at only the Yes campaign. To a large extent that is inevitable – the Yes campaign have to set out how things would be better. However, Better Together haven't done much to properly support their case either.
Looking forward to tonight debate, even though I feel there won't be many answers.
Dave
There is less than a month before the referendum and, for example, we don't if Scotland will
automatically be a new member state of the EU, get some form of fast track entry or have to apply as a completely new member,
use the £ within a framework of fiscal union, use the £ in the way Panamas uses the $, or some other currency.
In late May this year the Yes campaign announced that independence would mean each person in Scotland would be £1,000/year better off. At almost the same time, Better Together said each person would be £1,400/year better off by staying in the UK.
As someone who worked in central government for over 25 years I know how to present your case in the best light, but given the importance of this issue, these two claims should have been crawled over to allow an independent assessment of their accuracy. Both cannot be correct.
How are state pensions in an independent Scotland going to be managed? National Insurance contributions collected from the working age population now, pay for today's state pensions.
If the vote is for independence, then NI contributions collected in the rest of the UK are not going to pay the pensions of those in an independent Scotland. How will Scotland finance this and how is the transition to be managed?
How will North Sea oil be divided if the vote is “Yes”? Along median lines as outlined in the Geneva agreement on natural resources under the sea or by some other arrangement reflecting investment or population?
I realise that not every question can be answered now but there appear to be a number of very large and important issues that have not been even partially addressed.
This may look as if I am against Scottish independence. I'm not, if it would be better for Scotland. I can see the case emotionally for independence but a very important factor, possibly the most important for the man or woman in the street, is the financial impact and that is along way from being clear.
The above also looks as if I'm having a go at only the Yes campaign. To a large extent that is inevitable – the Yes campaign have to set out how things would be better. However, Better Together haven't done much to properly support their case either.
Looking forward to tonight debate, even though I feel there won't be many answers.
Dave
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Well they couldn't contribute we have been over this. The Scottish Navy for example won't have have any tankers so they can't operate over the horizon. "I think you acutely said there isn't a need from them to go very far." Scotland won't be able to support a major seagoing NATO exercise. They won't have anything to bring to the party. This may be resolved in the future.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
There won't be fiscal Union, well they couldn't promise that as no agreement had been reached with Westminster. I'd suggest that would require a referendum in the UK.
To me it is very simple, without control over their currency there won't be financial and fiscal independence. Frying pan into the fire type scenario.
To me it is very simple, without control over their currency there won't be financial and fiscal independence. Frying pan into the fire type scenario.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's one simple reason for all of this, which is that the Westminster government refuses to discuss any of the details until after the referendum.
On the other hand, the Edinburgh agreement commits both parties to work constructively together to sort out the details, in the best interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK, if the Yes vote prevails.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And yet 90% of the members of NATO don't have nuclear weapons, and some of them (Germany for example) are as strongly anti-nuclear as Scotland if not more so. How peculiar is that?
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The current Secretary General of NATO Anders Rasmussen is Danish. Denmark is a small country about the same population as Scotland and has no nukes. The next in October this year will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg who is Norwegian. Norway, population about the same as Scotland has No Nukes.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How much can Iceland bring to the party? They don't even have a navy. But they're NATO members. Or Luxembourg, say. How much support to a major seagoing NATO exercise could they provide?
There is absolutely no minimum level of military capability which is required to join NATO and I think it's a bit silly to suggest there is. NATO is about the collective commitment to do what you can, not about how much you can do.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suspect if the need arose Scotland could hire some.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Not when there is a global financial meltdown and they can't control their currency...They won't have enough money to pay for it, and they can't just print some more. They'd be totally dependent on which ever currency they decide to use...
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,573
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
These countries have never had them nor had a policy of being anti-nuclear, per se. SNP has always been anti nuclear weapons yet is prepared to be part of an organisation that has the nuclear umbrella at it's core. Somewhat hypocritical.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,573
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Germany opted not to manufacture nuclear weapons as part of the nuclear proliferation treaty. However the USA store 60 nuclear weapons at Ramstein and Buchel airbases for use by German Air Force tornados. All the detail is in Wikipedia.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,573
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is an active poll on LBC showing 82% against Scotland sharing the pound. It is hardly surprising. To use the pound as a currency is one thing, but to expect the Bank of England to become, in effect, a guarantor for the currency of a foreign country is an entirely different matter. If I was an English taxpayer I would consider such a proposal to be outrageous.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What *exactly* was the question?
Do you think it's fair for the Scots to spend beyond their means, go bankrupt, and expect the English taxpayers to bail them our? I'd be against that, but I suspect that wasn't the actual question.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,573
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tringa said: ↑
"One of the clearest things to come from this thread, and almost any other discussion I have heard on the independence debate, is there is still a lot of confusion over some elements of the basic structure of an independent Scotland and the figures involved."
.....
I realise that not every question can be answered now but there appear to be a number of very large and important issues that have not been even partially addressed.
Stewart replied "There's one simple reason for all of this, which is that the Westminster government refuses to discuss any of the details until after the referendum."
What Tringa said is of immense importance and reveals a serious lack of information available to the public who are being asked to vote. Sounds like they are being asked to take a leap in the dark.
Whether this lack of information is down to the simple reason that Stewart mentioned or to some other reason matters not. The point is that if there is basic information unavailable then that amounts to a serious flaw in the Yes campaign. People cannot sensibly be asked to vote Yes on the basis that the detail will be sorted out post referendum.
If you went into a shop and asked the price of something only to be told that will be sorted out after you agree to buy it I don't think you'd hang about too long.
"One of the clearest things to come from this thread, and almost any other discussion I have heard on the independence debate, is there is still a lot of confusion over some elements of the basic structure of an independent Scotland and the figures involved."
.....
I realise that not every question can be answered now but there appear to be a number of very large and important issues that have not been even partially addressed.
Stewart replied "There's one simple reason for all of this, which is that the Westminster government refuses to discuss any of the details until after the referendum."
What Tringa said is of immense importance and reveals a serious lack of information available to the public who are being asked to vote. Sounds like they are being asked to take a leap in the dark.
Whether this lack of information is down to the simple reason that Stewart mentioned or to some other reason matters not. The point is that if there is basic information unavailable then that amounts to a serious flaw in the Yes campaign. People cannot sensibly be asked to vote Yes on the basis that the detail will be sorted out post referendum.
If you went into a shop and asked the price of something only to be told that will be sorted out after you agree to buy it I don't think you'd hang about too long.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,573
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is on the LBC website http://www.lbc.co.uk/
For the purpose of that poll I don't think the wording of the question matters much, but the huge percentage against Scotland using the pound is indicative of English feeling and the political parties will know that matters in times of election.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not forgetting that Scotland 'owns' about 8.9% of the Bank of England, continuing to use an asset that you own a share of makes sense unless you are going to sell off your share of the asset. LBC = London radio? Up here in Scotland we are finding it impossible to get the truth from main stream media, I hate to think what codswallop the folk in London are being fed.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suspect English feeling will be whatever WM decides they want it to be (relating back to my previous post) unless the people of England stop believing what the BBC and the rest of the msm tell them..
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why not? the Bank of England is doing exactly that! short of cash? no problem we'll just print some more, they call it quantitative easing nowadays. As for global meltdown I suspect that's not just around the corner so 'we' would most likely have built or bought some by then. What was it you think we'd need them for in that scenario?
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tringa said four things -
The financial state of an iScotland claims of both sides earlier this year - UK gov claims blown out of the water by the guy who's figures they misquoted, then blown out of the water again by the next guy who's figures they switched to.
A report commissioned by a national Newspaper, written by Patrick Dunleavy shows the Scottish gov figures to be quite accurate and iScotland to cost far less than WM claims. With the potential for departments to be far more efficient than WM similar.
Pensions - YOUR PENSION is SAFE, anyone who has paid into a UK government pension will have their pension paid by the UK government. The UK minister for pensions has guaranteed this.
Oil - will be split on geographical boundaries as per international law, equates to about 90/10 split in Scotlands' favour. Incidentally the new Clair field North of Shetland has been described by BP as 'massive' and is apparently good for at least 35 years in it's own right.
Last and least the pound - has been covered on this thread so many times I cba going over it again.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You may be right. The actual question asked was "Should An Independent Scotland Be Able To Keep The Pound?" which is so utterly lacking in context as to be meaningless.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Two ways to answer this.
Firstly it's a faulty analogy. You're not buying an off the shelf product from a shop. It's more like determining the price of an extension to your house (something I know a bit about at the moment, unfortunately!), where you commit to using a specific builder before all the details are ironed out. Indeed some of the big issues may only come to light later - for example if the dig for the foundations throws up some unpleasant surprises, or if you find there's asbestos in the old flues. In those circumstances you have to trust that the supplier will be reasonable. Both parties know that whatever price is "agreed" at the beginning won't be the final price. But strangely enough many people voluntarily commit to this process every year, and it works.
Secondly, the Edinburgh Agreement commits the shopkeeper to charging you a fair price. You might discover later that, in retrospect, you couldn't really afford it, but that's a different issue. It has to be a fair price.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here's what I think is the biggest irony of the whole debate.
One of the main arguments put forward by those in the No camp boils down to the fact that they don't trust the Westminster government to negotiate a fair settlement for Scotland. And yet their response to this is to conclude that it would be better to be governed by this untrustworthy Westminster government.
Conversely the Yes camp want to get shot of the Westminster government, because they don't have Scotland's interests at heart, and yet they are willing to trust them to behave reasonably and honourably in the independence negotiations.
It's a rum old world.
One of the main arguments put forward by those in the No camp boils down to the fact that they don't trust the Westminster government to negotiate a fair settlement for Scotland. And yet their response to this is to conclude that it would be better to be governed by this untrustworthy Westminster government.
Conversely the Yes camp want to get shot of the Westminster government, because they don't have Scotland's interests at heart, and yet they are willing to trust them to behave reasonably and honourably in the independence negotiations.
It's a rum old world.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Stewart I don't think the negotiations will be carried out among politicians, at least not solely WM will have to vote on it though. A.S. has said the Scottish gov will have a team of negotiators and experts from all areas, business and finance, civil service and medical. In the end the two sides will come to a pragmatic if not an amicable agreement because everyone knows that regardless of the state of the nations we all still live side by side and trade/life goes on.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, yes. But some of the rhetoric from the No camp doesn't seem to believe it.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
And how would you pump fuel to the ship at sea ? You need a purpose built ship for this at the moment you can't rent one. Not even Marsek have the capability.
It's just not fuel, but also good fuel stores and ammunition.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why does all this trivial detail matter? It's not important to the issue of joining NATO.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nick I refer you to my earlier answer to JP
It is as likely as George Robertson's invasion from space that we would need any kind of long range naval capability in the next few years and, as Stewart has already pointed out to you there are countries in NATO who don't even have a navy let alone 'over the horizon capability'. Accept that this is a non issue, move on.
It is as likely as George Robertson's invasion from space that we would need any kind of long range naval capability in the next few years and, as Stewart has already pointed out to you there are countries in NATO who don't even have a navy let alone 'over the horizon capability'. Accept that this is a non issue, move on.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And I've been saying the same things as you, even though I'm not on your side!Stewart have you got a camera on my computer? that's three times today you've posted an answer seconds before me!
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats not entirely correct, most NATO members do have access to US Warheads, and they do have the kit to deliver them, that includes Germany, Norway and Denmark. They may not 'own' the things, although even that is slight of hand rather than reality.
NATO is an alliance that has nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort. If Scotland prohibits these weapons from it's territory, in effect they row themselves out of the alliance.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
The trivia matters because Scotland couldn't support NATO in a seagoing defensive operational capacity. The devil is in the detail.
The problem is the 'Say Yes' brigade consistently want to skip over the details and proclaim. It's not an issue, we will sort it in the future etc etc.
The deadline to the vote is ticking away. The question of Sterling - v- Euro has still not been determined. The SP has been told by the Bank Of England that they won't be getting the Sterling.
The manifest for the future of Scotland is contained in a document with less pages ( and detail ) than Lord of The Rings.
So many issues remain unanswered, ignored or not understood.
Trivia matters, detail matters...............
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Personally, I think the SNP and the Yes campaign know the answers to the questions you're asking already. The problem they seem to have is that they know that the answers are unpalatable to the majority of voters and to be honest with the Scots would lead to a No vote.
If they can sit on the answers and let emotion sweep them through, then they will hit the Scots with a great deal of bad news. Unfortunately, it's too late then, there's no way that the SNP will let the Scots have another vote on the reality.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,673
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Horses**t! The BoE has no say in the matter and Mark Carney is on record as saying the BoE will do as requested after any negotiations.
Last edited: