[Closed] This Scottish Business

If Scotland wants a divorce, fine. As long as England wont have to pay maintenence or listen to the whinging if it all goes wrong. I'm not sure anyone's really thought it through.

It is a bit jingoistic. I mean sure, Scotland doesn't share the South East's tory leaning, but neither does the rest of the UK. The only reason it's being discussed is because the Scots have a different label and can be considered 'different' to the rest of us, because they were born in a particular part of the UK.

If it were Northern England asking for independence they'd be laughed at - why?

How much English money went in to developing those oil fields that they think they are entitled to? What about the refineries?

They were paid for by the oil companies (some state-owned to start with) who then went on to make massive profits because of them. Are you really saying the oil industry lost the English taxpayer money?

If it were Northern England asking for independence they'd be laughed at - why?

If Northern England want to join an independent Scotland, I'm sure they'd be very welcome.

I'm sure they'd be very welcome.

I doubt that.

I doubt that.

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

It is a bit jingoistic. I mean sure, Scotland doesn't share the South East's tory leaning, but neither does the rest of the UK.

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

Gotcha! If that's not anti-English then what is? 😀

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

But it is annoying, lazy stereotyping,

😐

While walking the dogs it struck me that I was being a little unfair on wee 'eck. So I want to put the record straight. As an Independent State, Scotland will prosper and perform significantly better than the RUK. Thanks to the policies laid out in Scotland's Future. Thanks also to the generous offer of a currency union, Scotland will abdicate responsibility for monetary policy to the people he was chastising on Newsnight last night. Given the inevitable weakness in the RUK that will follow in absolute and relative terms, Scotland's interest rates will be set too low. Furthermore with the rush of new businesses to Scotland attracted by lower rates of tax and wonderful childcare, pensions and other welfare benefits, labour will be attracted, consumption will rise and so will prices. Oh dear. But wee 'eck knows what he is doing and will have learnt from germanys mistakes in the past. He will authorise fiscal transfers from Scotland to those poor folk South of the border (presumably we will be able to call it that then) in order to create a better equality of economic performance and allow for the correct levels of interest rates to be set for Scotland.

May I be the first to thank him and my friends in Scotland for this wonderful gesture in advance. That is a noble response and we will be very grateful I am sure. Gee, what a guy.

seems that some of the scotch are a bit conflicted about this

[img] [/img]

At Parkhead last night.

I don't get it.

Personally hope the Scots go for independence and wish them well. It seems a shame the argument is almost solely about money.

(Double post)

Gotcha! If that's not anti-English then what is?

It's anti-[i]southern[/i]-English 😉

Actually, it's a joke based on a Guy Ritchie movie.

Doesn't an independent Scotland have to take NI with it? I mean it was all the Scottish border reviers that got kicked out of Scotland and planted in NI that are the source of the trouble in the first place.

We could even have two Untied Kingdoms. North Untied Kingdom and South Untied Kingdom. Like North and South Korea.

Another question. If the SNP loose the vote will they shut up or just have another go until they get the correct answer?

I don't get it.

I grew up in the borders with a real sense the history of the trouble and strife caused by warring between England and Scotland.

EDIT: unless of course you're suggesting that one option is for Scotland to continue using Sterling, but for the RUK to control it? But that's totally insane.

Every speculator under the sun would be betting against this currency union and only the most foolhardy of politicians would think they would have any chance against that.

Ireland was in a currency union for a long time with the rest of the UK and its economy did not develop very much until it broke with it as part of preparation for the EURO as I understand it.

konabunny - Member
I don't think you have thought through what you are saying. There's nothing to speculate against - there's only one currency.

Alternatively knowledge of what happened in Cz and Slovakia may lead to a different conclusion? Their monetary union (with nothing to speculate against????) lasted less than 6 weeks. Perhaps that's a part of these mythical powers these traders and rating agencies have? 😉

I notice there are quite a number of people who are resident in England who are very keen to see we subsidy sucking Scots set free.

If you are one, would you please contact your MP and tell him you want rid of us?

And point out the advantages to the Tory party of getting rid of all those left leaning loonies in one hit, as well as never having to endure another Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

Please, pretty please... 🙂

David Dimbleby did suggest to Alex Salmond his best bet was to let the English vote rather than the Scottish 😆

Who's face is that on the saltire?

Mel Gibson?

Northwind - Member
@THM- That's already been discussed and dismissed in the independence thread. This "Danish position" has been open Yes campaign policy for some time. They've been so secretive about it that Salmond discussed it on Newsnight last year. Don't believe everything you read, even when you want to

You are correct NW, but then I was fooled by Nicola and her honesty claim and stupidly expected to be able to believe what I read in SF. So on page xii at the start, she/her friends write, "we can remove Trident from Scotland for good." only later to clarify this with the "confidential basis caveat."

Bare with me, its very hard to read this stuff and not get confused. Still I am sure its clear to the layman - no nuclear weapons in Scotland apart from the ones that are hidden away on a confidential basis.

How do you spell transparency, tranpreacy, transperancy...oh forget it? Will the hidden nukes be an asset protecting Scottish territories or a dangerous liability I wonder? 😉 At the very least, it allows the Guardian writers to get their knickers in a twist!

I grew up in the borders with a real sense the history of the trouble and strife caused by warring between England and Scotland.

Really? Really? Did you?

Yes. Not much knowledge of the history of the borders? It was a bit crap in our part of the world then.

Breaking the link with sterling

In the 1970s, the European Monetary System was introduced. Ireland decided to join it in 1978, while the United Kingdom stayed out.[4]

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism finally broke the one-for-one link that existed between the Irish pound and the pound sterling; by 30 March 1979 the parity link between the two currencies was broken and an exchange rate was introduced.[5]

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was a system introduced by the European Community in March 1979, as part of the European Monetary System (EMS), to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability in Europe, in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro, which took place on 1 January 1999.

I think stirring up nationalism is always a dangerous game to play as at the heart of it is marking your group out as something better/better off without the others

Not read any of the above.

Apparently Scottish land want to have their own armed forces too. Thats going to work well isnt it...

An interesting conversation with my FiL last night. He works for a massive American oil company and is an european director of his employer(been in long enough to have been a human shield courtesy of Saddam) He summed up the whole oil will leave Scotland debate thus... "We have depots in Mogadishu(sp) and Baghdad because they are close to the oil, can you see Aberdeen getting rougher than that?"

Having started this thread I would just like to say its been really useful to me in considering all of the issues around the independence sitaution. Personally, I don't agree with it per se, but I would strongly support more and better, devolved government for everyone.

The reason I don't support it, is that I think the impact both sides of the border is so unpredictable, and potentially catostrophic as to make it unwise, on the act in haste repent at leisure principle. Therefore if it were to go ahead I for one would want it to be on longer term and managed step by step basis. It is also for this reason that I think that the entire population of the UK should be engaged in the decision.

Finally regarding my apology: I feel that sometimes argument is mistaken for and even becomes belligerance. It is actually a very good technique for testing views and theories. It works well right up to the point where testosterone takes over and sense leaves the room. Bottom line is both make and listen to argument, but don't be too proud to admit when you're wrong. This forum would be the better for that, and far fewer people would suffer the ban hammer if that were understood.

RIP Fred and TJ

The reason I don't support it, is that I think the impact both sides of the border is so unpredictable, and potentially catostrophic as to make it unwise, on the act in haste repent at leisure principle

I do agree with this to some extent - some issues worry me (not least of which that about 50% of my customers are in England). But the bigger worry is that this referendum isn't a choice between independence and the status quo - there are strong indications that if the referendum says no, there will be retribution from Westminster - rewriting or scrapping the Barnett formula, attempts to pull powers back from the Scottish parliament. There seems to be a dangerous assumption that a no vote will still lead to more devolution.

RIP Fred and TJ

I'd be very surprised if TJ wasn't reading and laughing at this - I'll ask him tomorrow 😉

(not least of which that about 50% of my customers are in England).

Ben - Why would that be a problem?

Ben - Why would that be a problem?

It's unlikely that it would be a problem - but theoretically if there were currency problems, border issues, something like that. Unlikely, but possible if Westminster decides to spit the dummy instead of negotiating sensibly.

However I think the impacts on my business of the UK leaving the EU would be much larger and much more likely - if it suddenly became as difficult to import from Germany as from the USA, it'd be a big pain.

So actually in a balance of risks, I think independence would be the better risk to take.

BermBandit
The UK goverment would be repreenting the UK people in any negotiations after a yes vote. Do you mean that there should be a UK wide referendum? IF so what would happen should Scotland vote yes but the rest of the UK vote no? I think this would be the worst possible outcome. Personally I believe the referendum as proposed is fair, and that after a yes vote its incumbent on both governments to negotiate a fair settlement.
I agree with you that devolution of power within the other areas of the UK is a good thing. Devolution of power away from a financial/political elite would be even better.

Bencooper- retribution from Westminster is already underway, with a significant re-trenching of public service jobs back into the (much more expensive) SE.
If Scotland votes No and thus stays in the union, we will be severally punished for our insolence in daring to challenge the status quo. That alone should be a good reasdon for voting yes. Add in the Scots ability to make our own lives better, when unshackled from the SE, then I can see a lot of good in the plans.

Ben, I agree. If not retribution then some form of backlash and that is risk and a pity. There are certain politicians who evoke sometimes irrational responses and wee 'eck is one of them in many peoples' minds. His deceit and bare faced lies makes people angry and yesterday was more of the same IMO.

I spoke to my mate "very good sportsman" Grey in Edinburgh last night and he hates wee 'eck with a passion. Like many people his preference is/was for devo max but prefers the status quo to full independence. For him and those like him, this is a vanity show and given the (wrong) question, is not in Scotland's best interests in fact the whole thing in his mind is a step backwards. Plus like you Ben he fears some form of political response that will be less-than-positive.

We both ended by agreeing that Scotland deserves better than Salmond. It would be a great pity if a no vote did indeed reduce the extent of/inhibit further devolution of powers and responsibility. The old law of unintended consequences!!!

devolution of power within the other areas of the UK

We have already been there -
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004 ]Devolution Referendums 2004[/url].

The NE was chosen as the first due to the strong local identity, I know how true that is as it's where I'm from. It was booted right out. People did not want another wasteful layer of Government.

Do we just keep asking the question until some gives the answer some want to hear?

So how will Scotland get a better leader than Salmond? By voting for him or her.

A vote for independence is [u]not[/u] a vote for the SNP.

Though the white paper doesn't help matters by mixing independence ideas with SNP party promises.

I agree Ben on the vote and mixing SNP policies into this document but in that case, they were in a no win situation to be fair. Plus today in PMQ there was an SNP guy ranting on about CMD not getting involved. Like you, CMD reminded him that this is not SNP v Tories but the SNP politician didnt seemed convinced. He needed a little talking to from the Speaker.

I wonder if Salmond hadn't got so big for his boots whether Scotland could have actually got a devo max vote and most people would have been better off. Probably a distant dream now.

CMD reminded him that this is not SNP v Tories

No, but neither is it SNP vs. the No campaign. It's the Yes campaign vs. the No campaign.

So the debate should be between the leaders of each campaign - and Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

But Alastair Darling refuses to debate with Blair Jenkins.

Blair who? Sorry!!!!!

Sympathies though Ben, it is a bit of a mess in the end. Politicians eh?!? Scotland really does deserve better.

Winston You could always reduce westminsters roll in government no need for devolution to mean extra tiers of government.

Scotland really does deserve better.

We all deserve better - the Westminster system is broken, which is why a majority don't even bother to vote any more.

We have already been there -
Devolution Referendums 2004.

The NE was chosen as the first due to the strong local identity, I know how true that is as it's where I'm from. It was booted right out. People did not want another wasteful layer of Government.

Do we just keep asking the question until some gives the answer some want to hear?

I thought it was due to them being given no real powers and just pushing things around from various quangos and councils.

Funny we got police commissioners without anybody asking if we wanted them?

It's unlikely that it would be a problem - but theoretically if there were currency problems, border issues, something like that. Unlikely, but possible if Westminster decides to spit the dummy instead of negotiating sensibly.

However I think the impacts on my business of the UK leaving the EU would be much larger and much more likely - if it suddenly became as difficult to import from Germany as from the USA, it'd be a big pain.

So actually in a balance of risks, I think independence would be the better risk to take.

You're making the assumption that EU membership is a given - I'd say it's probable, but don't underestimate the possibility of Spain spitting its dummy, either.

I doubt very much either Westminster or Edinburgh would make much trouble over border issues, either - despite the joking on here about rebuilding the Wall I don't anyone is realistically expecting border controls, and without controls massive smuggling would be inevitable were there not a customs union. I'd be more concerned about regulatory differences, which could make life complicated in a lot of sectors.

mogrim - Member

... and without controls massive smuggling would be inevitable were there not a customs union.

Can I do people smuggling ... smuggling the Geordie across the border.

From the perspective of living I doubt it will make much difference Scotland being independent. I doubt there will be any issues being part of the EU for example or going to Sainsburys.

Then there is the fact that due to EU regulation/law there is not that much you can do as a government due to EU standardisation. Most of it is tweeking.

Suppose there will be lots more civil servants as a whole new structure will have to be set up for those things like tax and embassies that are done centrally.

Will it not seriously screw up the pensions of all those civil servants?
Will the Scots govt be on the hook for these? The UK govt can't be liable for any pensionable service following the divorce.