[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted in 9 of them

Another way of looking at that - the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted [b]when what they wanted agreed with the rest of the UK electorate[/b].

Another way of looking at it is that the way Scotland votes has almost no influence:

[img] [/img]

bencooper - Member

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

*I use this as shorthand for "people living in Scotland/England" - place of birth or family background has nothing to do with it.

I don't think so personally, I think there will be a great deal of resentment in the event of either a no or a yes vote.

Mr Salmond certainly hasn't helped by saying things like this about the UK to other nations:

"An independent Scotland, as an equal member state, will bring a positive, cooperative voice to the EU, in contrast to the often sullen, disengaged voices that have spoken on our behalf since Margaret Thatcher's speech in this city more than a quarter of a century ago.

On an unrelated note I also saw this today and thought it was quite interesting:

"The idea that Ukip's popularity in much of the rest of the UK represents a fundamental divergence in British social attitudes appears to be based on little evidence. This is especially important at the moment given the context of the referendum. There is a striking level of support for Ukip policies among Scottish Conservative and SNP voters. It appears from this data that the principle difference is in party affiliation rather than social attitude."

Overall, 68.4 per cent of those surveyed backed Ukip's headline pledge to impose stricter immigration controls.

Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems.

the UK has had plenty of experience of gov without an outright majority (especially in terms of votes cast)

FPTP does not give a majority in terms of votes cast we all know this How many hung parliaments have we had for you to consider them many?Can I have this as percentage please so we can see what you mean by many - is it less than 10 % - less than 5 % ? Whatever it is is it not many it very few and extremely rare.

Your website ask a question that is easy to answer

Whichever party got the most seats in Scotland [ via the flawed FPTP system] gets the most seats in UK and forms the govt as it would in Scotland were it independent - its not that hard to get is it?
I hope you would mark that poorly as well as it sophist at best and quite possible specious.

Scotland has had the government it voted for

All of Scotland?

What about the Borders? Since when have they got the government they voted for? How about the Highlands and Islands, have they got the government they voted for?

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect, who act to benefit the City.

We all know some constituencies [ unless we have a north korea style election] will vote for other parties who do not win.
I assume we all know why a constituency is different from a country

If you do not perhaps we should start with something easy like say which is you arse and which is your elbow 😉

Not really - Imagine if Bavaria threatened to leave Germany every time it didn't get the government it wanted in Berlin 🙄

What about that idea merits roley eyes?

OK i have imagined it now what is your point/scribble?

OK i have imagined it now what is your point/scribble?

I thought that was pretty clear - Scotland has differing patterns of voting. Some areas will therefore not get the Government they voted for. How small do you break the a country down before you decide the democracy is local enough?

Imagine if Bavaria threatened to leave Germany every time it didn't get the government it wanted in Berlin

Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

Yorkshire never gets the government it wants, it's own based in York.
When it happens Yorkshire will be run a federal system with each Riding (and South Yorkshire)would have its own MP's that meet once a month. Preferably in the back room a good pub (there are so many a rotation system of public houses would really bring representation to your area). Decent Yorkshire beer only will be served. They'd to ave pay for thier own pints tough.

bencooper - Member
Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions? Won't catch on, they wouldn't use the powers to adjust things like tax to reflect local conditions even if you gave them the opportunity, would they?

bencooper - Member
Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

+1

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions?

True, Gordi hence the words, "kind of like" rather than just "like". There are similarities though leaving aside the most fundamental difference that you note correctly.

Ben, in addition to those extra ST costs associated with MOD in Scotland how about other areas. How honest has AS been about all of this. How about setting up the tax scheme? (The one that will be "monitored/managed" by the rUK as part of the CU). So are those Chartered Accountants simply scaremongering. When they say things like

The Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland (ICAS)......questioned claims in the White Paper that set-up and running costs for a new tax system would be “a small proportion of an independent Scotland’s total budget”.ICAS said “less complex” changes to the tax system in New Zealand cost about £750million and a breakaway Scotland could expect the outlay to be “significantly greater”.

The report, called Scotland’s Tax Future: Taxes Explained, said: “[b]The White Paper falls short of the informative and detailed financial memorandum that might be expected to accompany even the smallest piece of parliamentary legislation at Holyrood or Westminster at the moment[/b].

Do we just add another B to get bullying, bluffing, blustering bean-counters now?

Scotland has differing patterns of voting. Some [b]areas[/b] will therefore not get the Government they voted for. How small do you [b]break the a country down[/b] before you decide the democracy is local enough?

How honest has AS been about all of this

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions? Won't catch on, they wouldn't use the powers to adjust things like tax to reflect local conditions even if you gave them the opportunity, would they?

Indeed!

We all accept countries have rights that areas within a country dont

Go on then...

An interesting article about the English-in-Scotland thing:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-fall-guys/

I think he's got an interesting point - the difference in voting intention between Scottish-born and English-born might well be a generational thing.

The difference in voting yes might be a lack of reality thing. 😀

Or a class/wealth thing - if your father-in-law owns a 300-acre highland estate, like David Cameron's, you're probably more inclined to want to keep the unruly Scots in their place 😉

Really, though, I think the Scottish/English thing is overplayed - most English-born people I know are voting Yes. Though that's probably skewed by the kind of people I know.

Go on then..

No one is really confused about this not even you.

No junky - its not a scribble, its a bloody fair question, you've asserted that there's some magical and mythical difference between a 'country' wanting independence from the kingdom/state/sovereign nation of which it has been politically embedded for several hundred years, and a 'region' demanding the same

I don't see it!

If the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland? (and of course as we've already discussed without any adequate answer, why shouldn't the islands have the right to F' off and take their huge oil and fishing rights with them)

If the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland?

I have said there is a difference between a nation state that is part of a union wishing to have independence from the union and a region wishing to have independence from a country. Regions are different from countries and I really dont believe a word you say and i dont believe you believe much of what you say - though of course you no longer say that in your profile now you are no longer Zulu *

I also find it unlikely that you require an explanation of the difference between states that used to exist and no longer do with ones that still exist.
you are many things but stupid is not one of them.

There is no engaging in debate with you but you love to try and act all sincere and wounded or whatever you think is required to get a response. I will happily keep giving long winded explanations of why I wont engage, why your question is silly and why i dont believe you are confused but without actually answering you 😉

* I’m me, and no-one else but me, my comments do not reflect on anyone but me, and are not the opinion of my employer, my family and friends, and more often than not even my own opinion

http://singletrackworld.com/members/zulu-eleven/profile
** I wont I will get bored soon

All this talk about magic and myths Ninfan are you trying to prove that Scotland and Scots do not exist.Maybe these people can help you out
[url= https://www.mebyonkernow.org/ ]Link [/url] 😉

Regions are different from countries

Why?

I mean really - why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal. That's why there are so many disputes about sovereignty all voe rthe world.

molgrips - Member
...I mean really - why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal...

I think even the so called "Proud Scots" would argue with you on that.

the difference between [u]states that used to exist[/u] and no longer do with ones that still exist.

Its an interesting point you make:

[i]i) That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land

iii) That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain

[/i]

So, like you say, states that used to exist and no longer do - like Scotland - don't have a right to call themselves a country or leave the union - I'm glad we're now both in agreement!

😀
Nicely played but i am still fairly sure it still exists as a country despite what that - i assume it is the act of union- said.

Own laws being an obvious one and also - and I am sure this will appeal to you - passing the tebbit cricket test 😛

ninfan - Member

If the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland?

And who says they don't?

If they can get a majority of the locals to agree to leave the UK, they can piss off any time they like.

On Question Time there was the expected "why can't we have a referendum about whether Scotland is allowed to stay ?".

And who says they don't?

Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either. The UK parliament has to allow them to leave. Likewise those other ancient Kingdoms. If Scotland had a right to unilaterally declare independence it would have tried to do so decades ago. That's why the Scots where so unhappy when Mrs Thatcher broker her (non) promise, they weren't given permission to consider leaving.

Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either.

You are completely right - but that just underlines why Scotland has to leave. A union where one party isn't free to leave isn't exactly a union of equals.

It pretty much sums up the No campaign, though. There's no positive case being made for why Scotland should want to stay in the Union, apart from the most vague "better together" waffle. It's all about how the rUK will make things harder for an independent Scotland.

@ben - we are better together as we are a larger country so enjoy economies of scale in so many areas. We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links. Pointing out that Scotland would be worse off as a small independent nation and that the actual shape of that nation organisationally, its currency, its finances and it's relationships with its neighbours isn't actually known or knowable isn't negative campaigning, its pointing out a glaring truth.

My bank account and 50% of my pension is managed and administered in Scotland (Livingstone and Edinburgh). If there is a yes vote I'll move the lot as there no clarity as to the regulatory framework or what protections I may have, I imagine the existing providers will offer me a UK managed alternative rather than loose the business. Why take the risk that it will "all be worked out" sometime in the future. If you want to see that as a negative reason campaigning then so be it. Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.

Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.

Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.

We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links

Which we already have with Ireland, France, Germany and other EU countries. An independent Scotland would be in the same position. Again, the only thing risking that would be for the UK or rUK to leave the EU.

@ben fair enough on the EU point but I imagine others would not agree. You'd rather be in the EU with the euro than outside the EU, as you know I think that's actually your choice ?

I think most Scots would value the ability to work South of the border above being able to work in France/Germany etc. I appreciate the likelihood of Scots not being granted the right to freely live and work in the UK is negligable but you never know. I do anticipate a material grass roots backlash in the event of a Yes vote.

The UK parliament has to allow them to leave.

I agree that would be the commonly argued and held belief - however there we get into an interesting discussion on the true extent of parliamentary supremacy, and whether a parliament can ever bind its successors, which is an ongoing constitutional dialogue that has never been successfully 100% put to bed - There's certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament's power to legislate.

Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.

Ah, And since when has anyone suggested abandoning EFTA or the EEA - implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as [i]project fear[/i], non?

Sorry to go back a bit but I had to go and do some work:

Scotland is a country so asking how to divide a country is a different questions all together- no one is suggesting breaking down a country here - its moving the goalposts to get us to discuss a similar but not identical area
We all accept countries have rights that areas within a country dont

Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.

So the question of how far back or how small you go is valid as we're rewinding the clock - do we go back to 18th Century boundaries, or 15th Century or 12th Century?

implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as project fear, non?

As would implying that Scotland leaving the Union would end free trade 😀

There's certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament's power to legislate.

Winnie Ewing's words when she opened the Scottish Parliament (or, to be more accurate, reopened) were a nod in that direction.

Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.

Use that argument, and the map of Europe would look very, very different.

The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are. Not where they were in the 12th Century or where they have been for the longest time.

The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are.

By your argument, the 62M people of the UK agree what the boundary of the UK is so we shouldn't fragment that. Because that's where the borders are now.

The concept of the Islands gaining independence from Scotland has been ridiculed on here

It's ridiculed because it's a spoiling tactic by Tavish Scott, the Lib Dem MP, which has minimal local support. nevertheless, if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

[quote=bencooper ]

Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either.

Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?

if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

i) Does the referendum have to be Scotland wide or just Shetlands wide?

ii) What proportion of their 'natural resources' do they get to keep?

[img] [/img]

Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?

England has far more MPs at Westminster than Scotland, so yes - if English MPs decided that England should leave the Union, Scotland would not be able to stop it if we wanted to. The contrary is not true.

@ben - I think we have to give you that last point. Sadly, begrudgingly 😥

It is interesting as in my mind without any doubt an independent England would be far richer than is the UK now. I would not be for it all but its worth noting. My argument for England to remain in the UK is largely emotive which in my view is exactly the same as the Yes/No referendum.

Ah, so the issue is simply that you're smaller and you're complaining that means you're not equal?

And what if Borders / D&G clearly votes No within an overall Yes vote? Is that a referendum to split from Scotland and remain with rUK?

By that logic, Scotland should already be independent from the UK.

Anyway, no - the referendum is being held on a country-wide basis. Scotland is the country unit here.

That would be in the same way that the UK elections you don't like the result of are held on a country-wide basis? It seems you're quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you're not part of that minority.

bencooper - Member

Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.

Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.

We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links

Which we already have with Ireland, France, Germany and other EU countries. An independent Scotland would be in the same position. Again, the only thing risking that would be for the UK or rUK to leave the EU.

So over the course of this thread, we've gone from iScotland would likely leave the EU, to no-one knows what would happen as it's unprecedented, to our new position of definitely will remain in the EU with no doubt whatsoever.
Care to show me a copy of this new contract Ben?

And you pretend not to be an acolyte of Salmond...

It seems you're quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you're not part of that minority.

I'm happy* not getting the result I want, as long as the process is fair and democratic. At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.

As I've said before, if the UK introduced a federal system of government with proportional representation, I'd lose almost all interest in Scottish independence.

*for a given value of happy 😉

[quote=bencooper ]At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.

Are we back onto the House of Lords thing again?

if the UK introduced a federal system of government

How would that be different from what you've got in place already? (bearing in mind here that you don't use many of the powers available, like setting different tax levels!)

proportional representation,

We had a referendum on that, and it was roundly rejected - including in Scotland, remember?

I appreciate the likelihood of Scots not being granted the right to freely live and work in the UK is negligable

[quote=ninfan ]

if the UK introduced a federal system of government

Apparently because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution. It seems Ben et al would actually be happy with just a constitutional change which made no practical difference whatsoever.

because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution.

Ah, project fear again!

'Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

jambalaya - Member

'Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

In your opinion, is that likely to happen? No, I didn't think so either.

Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

I already have dual citizenship 🙂

Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.

Devolution isn't a federal system - it's a bodge on top of a first-past-the-post system. I assume - perhaps optimistically - that if the UK had a properly accountable democratic system of government then the other stuff I want* would happen as well.

*see the Green party manifesto for a list.

Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

FWIW - as it affects me - rUK has said there response is dependent on iS response but the worst must be an Ireland type scenario

the worst would be me having to choose to naturalise here - i assume after 35 years they might just let me.

Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios about countries and regions and what of re a vote.

because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution

[quote=bencooper ]Devolution isn't a federal system

According to the sources I checked the difference is that the central government can withdraw the devolved powers, so clearly given you're in favour of one but not the other that's the bit you're bothered about.

[quote=Junkyard ]What do you mean purely theoretical - its a real power they can withdraw it.....can i say straw man pretty please

Hang on, I saw a good response to that recently - oh here we go:

Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios

I miss elfinsafety he would have been fun on this subject.

"its the class war innit"

@kona/@duckman - yes I appreciate the UK has been one of the most flexible countries in terms of dual nationality. The Dutch for example do not allow you to hold citizenship of another EU country. Mrs T tried to downgrade the citizenship of the Falkland Islanders in the years running up to the war. So unlikely yes but possible.

@ben, very good again, on a roll today

[quote=aracer ]Junkyard  » What do you mean purely theoretical - its a real power they can withdraw it.....can i say straw man pretty please
Hang on, I saw a good response to that recently - oh here we go:
Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios

They clearly can withdraw the power so it is an actual power. Its theoretical what if only if we discuss whether they will or they wont ;whether they can is not theoretical they can end of debate.
An amusing sidestep that almost glossed over your wrongness 😉

aracer - Member
"bencooper » At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic."
Are we back onto the House of Lords thing again?

Go on then, convince us that load of freeloading parasites are democracy in action.

(You'll notice I have no bias 🙂 )

Apparently because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution. It seems Ben et al would actually be happy with just a constitutional change which made no practical difference whatsoever.

Or happy with a change that makes you worse off than before - main levers now controlled by a foreign government. Brilliant, but at least "we chose that."

Not a bad chat on all this here

http://www.politicscymru.com/en/cat2/article9/

Are you saying that currently scotlands main levers are not being controlled by the foreign country and they got the govt they voted for 😉

It is interesting but to put it bluntly if the UK can takea way the power it is devolution if they cannot it is federalism
It is a fudge of apiece
Interesting and yes there are similarities

Living together is similar to being married but it is not being married.

Devolved is a bit like federalism but it is not federalism
Not really any wriggle room.

Can you have devolved federalism ? Genuine Q btw? Cannot think of anywhere.

molgrips - Member
...I mean really - why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal...
I think even the so called "Proud Scots" would argue with you on that.

Go on then.

You really need a dictionary Molly

This is what happens if we all feign confusion over the meanings of words we all understand.
Granted it is not trolling but I have no idea what it or what purpose it serves.

[quote=Junkyard ]They clearly can withdraw the power so it is an actual power. Its theoretical what if only if we discuss whether they will or they wont

OK, let's do that then. There's not a cat in hells chance of them doing so IMHO. Under what circumstances do you think such power will be withdrawn?

Not only has it happened, it was the Lords who did it:

http://www.scottishenergynews.com/lords-axe-holyroods-power-over-scottish-renewables/

So that's the unelected House of Lords removing powers from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament.