Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them (then again, I don't know many hedge fund managers). Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here's what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain. Less uncertainty all round and a more credible position.
I do, including a fellow poster in here! (As in know many HF managers)
This has been explained in detail in many times, but the DO rejects discussions on the basis of his 3Bs precisely because it is the elephant in the room. The conditions are very simple and very clear. You cede national sovereignty over monetary AND fiscal policy when you enter a CU. Failure to do so, commits all parties to failure as the € has shown. The goals of policy independence and a CU are mutually incompatible* There is no ambiguity here unless of course you are a European where politician expediency trumps logic and economic reality on a fairly regular basis.
Hence Mark Carney's complete clarity on the issue of ceding national sovereignty.
Here is the ultimate contradiction. The cornerstone of yS is not to be independent at all. Oddly (IMO) they seem scared to debate genuine independence. Why? Because they know it's not in Scotland's best interests.
Google Martin Wolfe's piece in the FT this week. He is a mate of your advisor Stiglitz but even he realises the incompatibility here.
haha well spotted, 😳 switch that obviously!bencooper - Member
In this campaign TV and media coverage has been verging mostly to pro yes, and the no camp is gaining ground at remarkable pace in spite of that.
Are you sure you've got that the right way round?
Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ? I just read in a piece of research about Oil fields (Chevron:Rosebank and Total:Laggan-Tormore and 12 other oil companies) that they where likely to remain with the UK or perhaps even independent of both Scotland and the UK
Yes, I'd heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.Tongue in cheek surely?!
Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?
A Yes vote is unlikely lead to straightforward agreement on this - with the added complication of Shetland as a separate actor to Scotland and rUK.
Happy days 😯
Remember it's not about Alex.
We'll he's the one making all the promises that everything will be rosy after a YES vote.
A grown up conversation COULD have happened around a potential Scottish Monetary Authority, but that requires grown ups.......
Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires
Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.
Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?
Well, between Scotland and the rUK it's relatively simple - there's a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can't be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.
This puts the border where it already is - there's a border for administrative purposes already.
When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they'd probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.
Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain
It was never uncertain. There is no independence for Shetland movement and never has been, no matter how desperate you get to try and make one up. As per my previous post - well, it is you after all so accuracy isn't expected...
It took 20 years to get a Scottish parliament, and the parliament was set up in such a way that there wasn't meant to be an overall majority
Jesus H. Christ, you lot bang on (incorrectly) about how Scotland never gets the government it votes for and then when a new layer of government is installed to make Scots the most represented people in the universe (most levels of elected officials) and a form of PR installed that makes the parliament painfully representative of voting trends, you make out that it's some sort of London conspiracy to prevent majoritarian government! a voting system that was reasonably representative of Scottish votes would never have seen majoritarian Scottish government because the popular vote was so spilt - up to the last few years when labour (having seen off the Tories) flushed themselves down the toilet.
On a sporting note has there been any discussion about the 2016 Olympics,
it will be a blow for the curling but otherwise no big deal
But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9151646/Scotlands-oil-rich-Northern-Isles-tell-Alex-Salmond-We-might-stay-with-UK.html ]Just blown that one out of the water![/url]
Just blown that one out of the water!
Er, with a 2-year-old Torygraph article about a report written by a couple of MPs? No poll in Shetland, no campaign on the ground calling for Orcadian independence?
It's Tavish Scott - he's the only person in Shetland who ever mentions the idea, and as a Lib Dem MP I'm sure we can all guess why.
Just blown that one out of the water!
Ahahahahaha Tavish Scott trying to stir shit up, again. 😮
Mr Godden said the pre-vote stance of the anti-independence parties to reject sharing the pound after a Yes vote was also a ‘scaremongering tactic’.He said: “The oil assets in the North Sea are coveted by Westminster and have been a major underpinning of the pound’s strength over the last 40 years - and will still be seen as crucial for the future.
“The pound needs the oil assets and would not wish to lose it. England is likely to be the loser, not Scotland. Furthermore, even if Westminster somehow refuses to cooperate with Scotland over the continued sharing of the pound, there are plenty of small countries that have successful independent currencies.
[url= http://www.yesscotland.net/news/top-energy-and-defence-figure-why-ive-switched-no-yes ]Top energy and defence figure: Why I've switched from No to Yes[/url]
A Tory who gets it:
[img] 
[/img]
For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask
What a total pillock - is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?
My God what a MONSTER!
[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: "It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn't it?"
First Minister: "That's OK, I'm perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There's no harm meant."
Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?
Well, between Scotland and the rUK it's relatively simple - there's a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can't be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.This puts the border where it already is - there's a border for administrative purposes already.
When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they'd probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.
Not arguing with your main points, but once again, there's a real lack of clarity about fundamental technical matters which will be the result of a Yes or a No.
There's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.
Coupled with the motivator of significant oil wealth at a time when everyone's suffering from globalisation and feeling rather skint...
It's hardly a recipe for peace, harmony and stability is it? Oil does have a habit of leading to neighbourly disgruntlement...
It's really not good for people to be asked to make such a major decision without any clear steer on what the impact of their vote will be
rebel12 - Member
Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires
Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.
That pig isn't going to fly, dream on. You a voter up there?
brooess - MemberThere's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.
Pure fantasy- there's no desire for independence in Shetland despite what some seem to want to believe, and there's no conceivable UK/Scotland border which will put a significant amount of north sea oil into UK waters, the conventions on sea borders are well established. Even the No campaign haven't significantly monged that particular scare, it's too thin even for them.
richmtb - MemberFor all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:
Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask
What a total pillock - is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?
My God what a MONSTER!
[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: "It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn't it?"
First Minister: "That's OK, I'm perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There's no harm meant."
Meanwhile he still has not and cannot answer those questions.
There's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.
Well, of course. A border is agreed by negotiation between the two countries - we're not two countries yet, and the Westminster government refuses to discuss such things, so how can we be certain about those things?
What we can do is look at where the administrative border already is, look at the precedents in international law, and make the perhaps rash assumption that both sides can negotiate sensibly after the referendum.
I don't think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn't Scotland's.
Just because it's funny, and for the sake of clarity, here's Johann Lamont talking about these "new powers" earlier this year:
Rebel12's mask has fairly slipped, he is across on the English thread comparing AS to a child molestor.
That's funny because that's also a comment that's trending on the @BritNatAbuseBot.
bencooper - Member
I don't think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn't Scotland's.
It's the United Kingdom's oil at the moment, look at what happened when South Sudan split from Sudan. If my understanding is correct, South Sudan has the majority of oil reserves within its border, yet Sudan retained a 50% share.
The Sudan situation is pretty different - for one thing we're hopefully not going to have a long and protracted civil war.
But more importantly South Sudan's only way to get the oil out (and hence get the 98% of government income it needs) is the pipeline through Sudan. Sudan has South Sudan over an oil barrel, and so can demand a share of the revenues.
That's not the situation with Scotland.
Particularly given you still don't seem to understand the concept of CU
I understand it fine thanks, and THM comments on what would be required were exactly the point I was trying to make. If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom. The "our pounds too" line would fall over too as it would be clear than the UK would 'share the pound' but the cost of doing so would make the proposition unappealing.
If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom
You mean like this;
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279454/CM8815_2901849_SA_SterlingUnion_acc.pdf ]Currency Union[/url]
They should maybe publicise it a bit more. Is it available on the BT website?
Clegg, Cameron and milliband all not attending pmq tomorrow to come up to Scotland... Doesn't look desperate in the slightest!
- apologies for an on-topic link
Have they not worked out what happens when they visit? Did AS not offer to pay GO's bus fare up here anytime he wanted to come. As an aside,I recently put up pictures of the main players in politics in the UK for my S4's, Nick Griffin got more recognition that Cleggy. 😆
bencooper - MemberThe Sudan situation is pretty different - for one thing we're hopefully not going to have a long and protracted civil war.
But more importantly South Sudan's only way to get the oil out (and hence get the 98% of government income it needs) is the pipeline through Sudan. Sudan has South Sudan over an oil barrel, and so can demand a share of the revenues.
That's not the situation with Scotland.
Okay, so what's to stop a region declaring independence every time a significant mineral resource is discovered?
@aracer - interesting, as I've said all along all these things are predicated on both sides being able to negotiate sensibly. I don't think it's going to be that dramatic, though - Scotland's oil is important for propping up Sterling, Scotland is the rUK's second largest export market, it's in no-one's interest for this to be acrimonious.
But we'll see.
The Sudan situation is pretty different - for one thing we're hopefully not going to have a long and protracted civil war.
Indeed, I am hoping for short sharp and decisive 👿
Hopefully in the event of a yes Scotland will take a reasonable amount of debt for a reasonable amount of oil. If Scotland does try and walk away from the debt I can see the UK delaying, possibly indefinitely, independence and that is going to cause one hell of a conflict.
But we'll see.
I have to admit in a way I'm looking forward to you voting yes, just to see what does actually happen (and the reaction as people realise what they've actually voted for).
Scotland is the rUK's second largest export market,
@ben, is this really true ? If that is the case the UK needs to get to work on some other countries. We cannot surely export more to 5m Scots than we do to the US or France or Germany.
BTW I looked up that ratio, appreciate its widely used but like all these single stat indicators used in isolation it can produce odd results. If you for example simple remove the top 1% of earners it will show a much better result but a country would be far worse off overall if that where to occur. France and Italy are fairer than the UK but much poorer.
(and the reaction as people realise what they've actually voted for).
Do you think that much will change for the Scots in the short term?
I'm expecting a fairly protracted & gruesome negotiation, which may possibly be enlivened by another European financial crisis.
[And in a similar vein, a Secondary school near me was arranging to become an Academy, two days before the 'Academisation' was due to be completed, on the 1st September, a load of Pikeys moved onto the playing fields.
Funnily enough the Academy plans have been put on hold whilst the nice County Council people evict the Gypos.]
@ben, is this really true ? If that is the case the UK needs to get to work on some other countries. We cannot surely export more to 5m Scots than we do to the US or France or Germany.
You need to appreciate the difference between GDP, and GNP (& apologies if you do already). Quite a lot of apparent rUK exports to iS would melt away anyway
I suspect that in the general divvying up of Company HQs (and their attendant Statutory reporting lines), and locations for production then Scotland will find that her GDP is not what was hoped or promised.
@ben, is this really true ? If that is the case the UK needs to get to work on some other countries. We cannot surely export more to 5m Scots than we do to the US or France or Germany.
I know, it's surprising - just had a quick look and according to [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28916642 ]this[/url] the rUK sold £62.7bn to Scotland in 2013. According to [url= http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/24/uk-trade-exports-imports ]this[/url] exports to the US were £31.7bn, Germany £27.5bn.
So actually I think Scotland is 1st unless you count all of the EU together. It's more complicated also as those Guardian figures presumably include exports from Scotland.
seosamh77 - Member
Clegg, Cameron and milliband all not attending pmq tomorrow to come up to Scotland... Doesn't look desperate in the slightest!
How on earth did Salmond arrange that? 🙂
jambalaya - Member
...I can see the UK delaying, possibly indefinitely, independence and that is going to cause one hell of a conflict.
Surely the UK has learned something from Ireland?
@blurty, yes I don't think this really can be true. I remember earlier in this thread someone quoted a stat about New Zealand manufacturing (being high % of GDP) and when I looked into it the NZers count Electricity Generation and making Cheese from Milk as manufacturing rather than Utilities and Agriculture for example !
@ben £62 billion - that's £12,400 for every man woman and child. For a 2+2 family that says they buy £50,000 worth of stuff from the UK every year ! It just doesn't make sense to me.
£1240 - you've lost a decimal place somewhere
The debate above about who'll take what share of the oil, the debt, where will companies currently based in Scotland base themselves etc etc is a really fundamental point... it appears that neither the Independence campaign or the Stay Together campaign have, at any time tried to:
a) negotiate a quantified proposition to present to the electorate, other than 'independence' e.g. before the vote, they should have agreed on things like Scotland will use xx as it's currency, current oil reserves will be split x/y%, national debt will be split x/y% and presented this to the electorate as a proper proposal.
b) actually presented their figures/forecasts for things like taxes, interest rates, GDP, GDP per capita (stating the assumptions underlying their forecasts)
Instead, both campaigns seemed to have relied on ideology and emotion, nothing concrete which allows people to make an informed choice (and to hold their leaders to in 5/10 years time if it doesn't work out well)
This is pretty poor of both sides of the campaign IMO - asking the Scottish people to make a massive, massive decision with an impact for a generation on Scotland and rUK but not actually set out in any detail what they're actually voting for (or against)... just a vague promise that 'things will be better...'
Best thing that can happen now IMO is for a No vote followed by massive pressure on both sides to be develop a concrete, quantified proposal, backed up with a detailed business case, to be voted on in a few years time...
[b]broess[/b] +1.
Interesting article in the FT a few days ago about the implications of the oil ownership debate.
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Cp5tmPjK ]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Cp5tmPjK[/url]