[Closed] The effect of a Scottish Yes vote on the rest of the UK?

One possible outcome a few years down the line;

England "We're thirsty and there is another drought on"
Scotland "Well, we can sell you some water if you like. £10 a litre please"

One possible outcome a few years down the line;

England "We're thirsty and there is another drought on"
Scotland "Well, we can sell you some water if you like. £10 a litre please"

How exactly will you pump it though? As when Scotland switches off its nuclear reactors isn't there an energy deficit?

Plus think of the import tax as you will be outside the EU 🙂

What tyres for leaping Hadrian's Wall in Steve McQueen Great Escape style? (From England to Free Scotland.)

You'd probably want something fairly fast rolling, maybe a CX tyre as you'd have a good bit of riding to do once you landed to reach the border. Semi slick in summer or an intermediate in winter. Once you've landed you would be best joining the NCN route 68 and riding up to Kielder then over the border at Bloody Bush. You could take the A68 but I think you'd get stopped more easily on the main high way.

Made me laugh:

Meanwhile he is the only leader in the UK that actually achieved a majority in a recent election

He may have got a majority of seats, but the majority of the electorate didn't vote for him. That's funny given how much the Yes campaign bangs on about Scotland have a government in Westminster that they didn't vote for.

In the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election the SNP won 53.49% of the seats but only 44.04% of the voters actually voted for them.

Biscuit Powered - Member

God I envy the Scots.....

up sticks and move then, you only have to live there to be one 😆

AS constantly refer to the Westminster elite and he includes Milliband in this. Cameron knows he's too easy a target for AS's jibes at the "privileged English" who run the UK, hence he's kept a low profile. All three party leaders are coming up as its a show of unity, an attempt to send the message that the UK as a whole no matter of it's political colour would prefer Scotland to remain as part of the Union.

I remain staggered that whilst the UK sees that independence would be bad for us economically the Yes supporters are happy to ignore the reality that it's worse for them.

@scruff there is plenty of water in Wales

@Biscuit, you get the chance to change the Westminster mob every 5 years or so. EDIT: Or follow @hilldodgers excellent advice 😀

If its a Yes vote, I wonder how long it will be before some people (buses, small business etc) start rejecting Scottish notes........ My money is on not long

This can't be serious? Already happens and has been happening for years, despite being pounds sterling.

In some cases it happens now. Maybe the banks will say you have to change them into UKP and pay commission?

@Biscuit, you get the chance to change the Westminster mob every 5 years or so. EDIT: Or follow @hilldodgers excellent advice

Well, not really. I get to play a part in choosing which colour tie they wear, but I'm not silly enough to believe that there is any other difference. They all answer to the city of London. What the city wants the city gets, even to everyone else's detriment. Otherwise the sky will fall in etc.

You reckon it will be any different with Scotland and their big business? (I was going to write "financial sector", but then remembered it's all leaving)

It'll be worse, the smaller the country the more big business can push you around. And remember Alex's policies are deliberately aimed at attracting tax shy corporations, so SNP policy is 'worse' than Westminster's when it come to business tax.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if I was a Scot I would be happy to shake things up and take the chance. Seems like I'm not alone.

It'll be worse, the smaller the country the more big business can push you around.

Indeed. Why they'd want to leave a nation where the government leads the world in courageously standing up to big corporations is anyone's guess.

We need change, this is a change, let's do it?

We need change, this is a change, let's do it?

We need change, this is the only change we'll be able to achieve in a very long time, it's worth a go.

No sensible government will stand up to corporations, sensible governments work with them. Remember corporations keep the lights on and pay the bills. The NHS is nothing without corporations providing the power, computers, scanners, pumps, drugs, food, beds etc. Ultimately the best countries are the ones where private and public work together.

Credit Suisse's number crunchers seems to think going it alone may not be the best move but it is all just economic theory/guesswork so attribute as much credit as you choose....

Risk of an economic crisis: In our opinion Scotland would fall into a deep recession. We believe deposit flight is both highly likely and highly problematic (with banks assets of 12x GDP) and should the BoE move to guarantee Scottish deposits, we expect it to extract a high fiscal and regulatory price (probably insisting on a primary budget surplus). The re-domiciling of the financial sector and UK public service jobs, as well as a legal dispute over North Sea oil, would further accelerate any downturn. In our opinion, as North Sea oil production slows, we estimate that the non-oil economy would need a 10% to 20% devaluation to restore competitiveness. This would require a 5% to 10% fall in wages, driven by a steep rise in unemployment.

You're right. If it wasn't for all these corporations price fixing and paying next to no tax we'd all be a lot poorer and public services would be much worse.

(I really can't be arsed arguing properly about stuff like this in the face of such transparent acceptance of the status quo)

What price fixing, there is very little evidence of any. As for avoiding paying tax the SNP policy is aimed at encouraging that. The SNP is a very right wing party when it comes to corporation tax. Sure an iScotland might vote in another party but then when Grangemouth and the like start saying they'll fold unless more money is given to them, what do you think will happen?

I think things could be improved for the whole of the UK, but I don't see an iScotland having the answers. A whole UK has more power together than apart.

What price fixing, there is very little evidence of any.

One for a different thread perhaps but I'd start you off with energy and fuel prices. And then there's the stuff like construction companies colluding on competing bids for public contracts. I've no particular problem with companies paying less tax if that's government policy, but just allowing them to randomly evade/avoid tax is altogether different.

Yes, the whole UK has more power than Scotland on its own.
It's a question of who that power is used to benefit.

Say the UK has 100 power:benefit units and Scotland has 10. (maybe drop to 9 after independence?)
But only 8 of the UK's powerz (units - whatevah!) benefit Scotland.

Going it alone means Scotland receives more powerz!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to a yes vote, then we can get on with the time zone change, getting in more evening cycling/drinking time in the sun 🙂

I'm looking forward to a yes vote, then we can get on with the time zone change, getting in more evening cycling/drinking time in the sun

Surprised Better Together hasn't latched on to that one. "Independence will mean darker mornings! Think of the children!! "

What's the chance of this scenario:
1. Yes wins
2. The negotiations start. Likely to be messy but eventually come out with an agreement - e.g. currency, division of the debt, division of oil reserves.
3. rUK says, as this impacts the English, Northern Irish and Welsh wealth and prosperity (at a time when the future looks very uncertain), we think it should go to a referendum - as a condition of accepting the deal.

This is quite likely if there's any doubt rUK will lose out in the deal - as the voters would go mental if Westminster appeared to be giving away more than we felt was fair or reasonable...

We could end up in endless debates and referenda for the next 5 years... massive lack of certainty which in itself could drag us all down the pan...

You'd end up in this weird situation where on one hand annoyed rUK voters wouldn't want rid of Scotland as it would cost them but they wouldn't want to keep it as they think it's a resource drain. Similar to the immigrants stealing our jobs whilst also sitting around all day on benefits.

Similar to the immigrants stealing our jobs whilst also sitting around all day on benefits.

Maybe some do one and some do the other? Crazy immigrants.

This is quite likely if there's any doubt rUK will lose out in the deal - as the voters would go mental if Westminster appeared to be giving away more than we felt was fair or reasonable...

...and Scotland goes it alone, keeps the oil, leave the rUK with the debt, and establishes it's own currency or attempts to join the euro which the rUK vetos. As others have said, if the rUK doesn't like them leaving, there's nothing they can do about it, it's their choice. Short of a military occupation there's no way of forcing them to remain as part of the UK, English referendums or not, so the rUK has the choice of being grown up about it and getting the best deal possible, or it can throw it's dummy out of the pram.

What's the chance of this scenario:
1. Yes wins
2. The negotiations start. Likely to be messy but eventually come out with an agreement - e.g. currency, division of the debt, division of oil reserves.
3. rUK says, as this impacts the English, Northern Irish and Welsh wealth and prosperity (at a time when the future looks very uncertain), we think it should go to a referendum - as a condition of accepting the deal.

I think 2. is more likely to result in some sort of fudged compromise where no one is particularly happy but all the politicians, of whatever persuasion, can proclaim a "victory" and that they were right all along.

...and Scotland goes it alone, keeps the oil, leave the rUK with the debt, and establishes it's own currency or attempts to join the euro which the rUK vetos.

...has no tax and revenue system, no vehicle and driver licensing...

..has no tax and revenue system, no vehicle and driver licensing...

I'm sure they're capable of setting this up. They do have bureaucrats up there you know!

My point is: Scotland can't just become independent without a few key things being agreed with rUK - for e.g. Scotland can't just take all the oil just because they'd like to - any split has to be agreed with rUK first.

So an overall proposal of these key things has to be negotiated. Right now I think we're all assuming the Scottish parliament and rUK parliament will just agree these between them.

My point is that if rUK electorate feel this isn't in our best interests, we'll demand a referendum (or the current government will offer one so they don't get voted out).

I can't see how the Scottish parliament could stop the rUK parliament offering a referendum to its electorate.. but if we don't like the look of the split, we'll vote against and we'll be back right where we are, having endured years of stress and uncertainty which will likely have reduced investment and therefore economic growth...

Yes the rUK could have a (highly unlikely) referendum to accept a deal. But if it voted no what would it change? It's not going to force them to remain in the UK. It might delay things a bit, but Scotland would simply walk away and go it alone.

Right now I think we're all assuming the Scottish parliament and rUK parliament will just agree these between them.

I think we're all assuming that the two governments will act in a manner befitting two mature nations who are at peace and have the best interests of both at heart. The alternative is rather horrifying.

but Scotland would simply walk away and go it alone.

But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?

None of these things can be unilaterally decided by either Scotland or rUK governments - they're currently shared resources and will have to be allocated under a formal agreement between both sides...

But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?

None of these things can be unilaterally decided by either Scotland or rUK governments

Of course it can unilaterally decide to go it alone without accepting any of the debt, setting up it's own currency, and claiming the oil as it's own. What it can't do of course is dictate the rUK's and the international community's response, which would be rather stern. Wars have started over much less.

Who will be to blame if Scotland goes on its' merry way and it all goes horribly wrong? Hitherto, it has been relatively easy to blame the Westminster Crew. AS will claim all the kudos if it works but if it bombs...is he going to hold his hands up and fess up that it was a bit of a bodge/back of an envelope fudge?

I may be wrong, not having been privy to the detailed (proposed) fiscal policies of the SNP but it does seem to me that AS is spending the same revenue time and time again.

As such, it all seems like a house of cards. The dodgy rhetoric of both sides is unconvincing and the only thing that seems to have emerged to me, is a rather unpleasant kind of nationalism.

OTOH I can't say I don't agree with the anti London-centric sentiments.

AS will claim all the kudos if it works but if it bombs...is he going to hold his hands up and fess up that it was a bit of a bodge/back of an envelope fudge?

He'll still blame Westminster for not handing it over

I think there are many arguments flying around, some convincing some less so. FWIW I see not much of the narrow nationalism to be honest, but I'm aware some have and don't doubt its presence (egg throwing tribal idiots in Fife anyone).

However I have seen some great debates as well, and it has at least made everyone aware that there is something to be decided, and very few (of my ken) are sleep walking into this, and the turnout will be - I'd hazard - > 83% which is all you can ask for really.

Firmly in the "dinna ken" camp BTW..

Who will be to blame if Scotland goes on its' merry way and it all goes horribly wrong? Hitherto, it has been relatively easy to blame the Westminster Crew. Don't worry.....[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/independent-scotland-to-blame-cats-2013020658754 ]Alex has sorted all that out already[/url]

Similar to the immigrants stealing our jobs whilst also sitting around all day on benefits.

Going it alone means Scotland receives more powerz!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?

Not too difficult is it?

What it can't do of course is dictate the rUK's and the international community's response, which would be rather stern. Wars have started over much less.

I so wish I'd added "no military" to my list up there (I suspected you'd say you didn't want one)

debt - about the same share as the share of the assets we get

So long as you're clear about what is and what isn't an asset!

This thread was interesting till it lost it's way around the 3rd or 4th page and started talking about Scotland.

That wasn't the OPs question....

So long as you're clear about what is and what isn't an asset!

No, as long as the people doing the negotiations agree amongst themselves what is and isn't an asset. I won't be taking part

This thread was interesting till it lost it's way around the 3rd or 4th page and started talking about Scotland.

debt - about the same share as the share of the assets we get
oil - what's in our territorial waters as defined by international law
currency - don't know but I'd go with the smackerooni because where winning the euro millions might be great, how much better would it be if those millions were smackeroonis?
Not too difficult is it?

Not too difficult, take it or leave it ... 😉

One of my best mates has just taken a job in Abu Dhabi. I think I might follow him. At least they're already agreed on which oil belongs to which country in that part of the world 🙂

So has everybody here apart from jambalaya who wants to rewrite international law 😉

This is a quote from an FT article I've previously linked to:

Taken from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3Cq2h7sTX

International law assigns the rights to new discoveries to established states. It does not say how mineral rights should be assigned if such a state were to break up. To date, there are no international legal precedents for the secession of a resource-rich region in a democracy. The only secessions by resource-rich regions are Timor Leste, South Sudan and the break-up of the USSR. In each case the seceding populations had been imprisoned in repressive polities of which they manifestly did not wish to be a part. Given the chance of independence, they seized their freedom; the fact they had oil was incidental.

If it is established as a principle that local populations that turn out to be fortunately endowed can secede, there will be two consequences. One is inequality: it will create oases of wealth in deserts of poverty. The other is conflict: as in Nigeria, the dispossessed majorities will not graciously acquiesce to this precedent.

The debate over Scottish secession has been shamefully parochial. The vital consequence is not whether the rich regions of Catalonia and Flanders use independence as a precedent. It is whether regions of poor countries that become resource-rich are tempted to renege on fragile social contracts that share the wealth equally. The Scottish Enlightenment pioneered the concept of global justice: Scotland must now face its implications.

IANAL, but I suspect it's not as simple as you might hope.

^^ Quite.
So, assuming there's a yes vote, governments on both sides have to work out an agreement (without precedent and with no clear guidance from international law) on how to share the oil - existing reserves and potential new reserves.

Assuming both sides are happy with that agreement, will either side decide to put the agreement to a referendum to give it (the agreement) and themselves legitimacy in the eyes of their respective electorates...? who knows...

Not saying it's impossible but chance of it being simple, quick and without rancour between the negotiating parties and their respective electorates, well I wish everyone luck!

I'll just leave this here

If both sides have to agree the terms, post independence vote, anyone reckon it'll actually happen before the next millennium? The lawyers must be all voting yes, and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect!

I would like a nice big circular railway going between London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinbrough, Leeds, Ipswich(just for me) and back to London.

Then perhaps the folk who live at the top of tiny little island wouldn't feel so left out.

Will Britain still exist?

Will Britain still exist?

For a while yes, but ultimately erosion and plate tectonics will take their toll.

if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happening.

Not contemplating nuking it from orbit Molls?

if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happening.

Give it a couple of years and Aberdeen will be voting for secession!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100285785/scottish-independence-what-does-the-political-establishment-think-its-playing-at/

Spin - Member

For a while yes, but ultimately erosion and plate tectonics will take their toll.

Only if you vote Yes. Gordon Brown promises an end to boom and magma flow. Hmm, no wait, actually I checked the small print and he only promises to have a conversation about it, on a timeline.

Britain refers to the whole island. So I'll only be as British as a Spanish person is Iberian.

I'll have to call myself Welsh I suppose.

I'll stick with being called Yorkshire person as I'm very pc love.

if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28744490
Double summer time. Yes please.

Given the chance of independence, they seized their freedom; the fact they had oil was incidental.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28744490

Apparently yet another example of Scotland having less real control over their own affairs after independence - what's more, an example of where UK policy is currently set for the benefit of Scotland, where England might benefit from a different policy.

it's sort of funny that Yessers keep saying the vote is for independence and not a vote for a particular post-independence platform, and that the details of iScotland's march to equity and social justice can be worked out later, but all the same Yes Scotland has a policy on an issue as marginal as summer time zones.

It's sort of funny that Noers keep complaining that too many policies seem to have been decided already but also complain about "lack of detail" on what Yes means for Scotland.

If you're happy that they waste their time dreaming up plans for summer time zones while constantly dodging vital questions and peddling unsubstantiated pipe dreams on major issues I guess that's up to you.

So has everybody here apart from jambalaya who wants to rewrite international law

As we all know most of the oil/exploration rights have already been sold, so what we would dividing is the revenue stream from that. That can be divided however we want.

I think when the rest of the UK really latches on to the fact we will be worse off (and Scotland worse still) I really do anticipate quite a backlash. Perhaps just a question as to how much of that will be directed at Scotland and how much at Westminster, Better Together has quite a Labour orientated face to it and there is a body of Tory opinion that is very happy to see the prospect of fewer Labour MPs.

Its an interesting one Jambalaya. I've been giving this a bit of thought myself. If its a yes vote then I imagine it'll cause absolute chaos in the labour party. Which will embark on an 80's style implosion. But I don't know which way the outcome will go. They could conclude that:

a) Scotland (as well as large parts of the north) has completely rejected Blairite New Labour, so the Labour party needs to get back to being an[i] actual [/i] labour party, to try and recapture its core vote by actually representing their interests for a change, instead of just ignoring them and taking their votes for granted, and just being the tories with more convincing smiles

or

b) Now Scotland is gone, we are now in a mainly conservative country. So we need to be even more like the Tories. So lets carry on Blairs legacy, privatise everything, including the NHS, and dismantle the welfare state. But we'll not look like we're enjoying it as much as the Tories clearly are

I'd like to think the former, but I suspect, depressingly and predictably, it'll be the latter

Scotland (as well as large parts of the north) has completely rejected Blairite New Labour

Really?

I'd accept that they (narrowly) rejected Brownism, which was far, far from NL territory, and I don't think that you could allege for one minute that Ed is anywhere close to NL in outlook or policy.

Put his brother back in and I reckon they would walk the election.

to try and recapture its core vote

That's not what they need - they need to capture the 50% or so of people who can't be arse to vote. Most people lean left, because they aren't that rich, so it should be easy enough.

Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided. That ought to prompt some new political thinking from Westminster but I expect the usual denial.

If the one thing a yes vote achieves for rUK is killing the outmoded, regressive two-party political system, it might just have been worth it.

Surely it's time to ditch all the coloured-tie and propaganda crap and get down to some serious pragmatism?

That ought to be the case in a post yes scenario, but never underestimate the depths to which Westminster will sink, even if it hurts the rUK to do so.

Yeah, sorry Molls. Thats what I meant. Convince people who should be natural labour voters to actually vote. Which will actually have to involve being more than just a poor imitation of the tories, with a wafer-thin veneer of a social conscience.

Say what you like about Alex Salmond, but he's got people out voting, who wouldn't normally be arsed

the union is deeply divided

What is the problem people have in Scotland? They certainly get a lot of spending so can't be that. Just don't like being controlled from a far away place? Having Scottish PMs doesn't seem to help.