Osbourne says no to currency union.

International laws define the EEZ, according to the equidistance principle. Under UNCLOS III states are supposed to reach a sensible solution, but when there have been disputes it’s been the equidistance principle that’s been used to settle the dispute.

If Scotland does go independent there are going to be a lot of lawyers getting very,very rich, I can see some of these arguments going on for years, and it will be the Scottish tax payer and British tax payer who will be paying. What a waste of money and time!

What a waste of money and time!

The once in a life time chance to move away from the morally corrupt boys club of Westminster politics and start something new and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society. You’re right total waste of time.

bencooper – Member
“You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest.”
Deal. Most Scottish mountains are 90% squelchy bog, you can have those bits

No way – don’t give away the bits I ride on. 🙂

But just think, if the North of England comes to us, you can have our access laws too. No toffs with shotguns telling you that you can’t ride here. Will we be hearing Cumbrian cries of FREEDOM!….. 🙂

konabunny – Member
“I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies.”
Which one?

Tanganyika.

…..chance to move away from the morally corrupt boys club of Westminster politics and start something new and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society.

I agree with the sentiment, but your view seems rather narrow. Is independence the right/best/only solution to the problem.
If there are other/better options, or independence eventually delivers more of the same [Scotland’s very own morally corrupt boys and girls club], kjcc25 may be right.

This posted previously seems to sum it up:

something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.

PS: I don’t know the answer to the problem 🙂

No guarantees of anything, but it will be what we make it. Certainly no chance of Scotland being able change Westminster politics.

Let’s assume (or hope) there’s no Currency Union, and Scotland simply uses the £ ie The Panama solution.

That sounds good to me.

I wonder how mortgage rates in Panama compare to those in the USA?

Looks like they are ~2% higher than in the US, and harder to obtain (bigger deposit needed).

If Scotland goes the same way, that’s quite a price hike.

The cost of a mortgage also depends on how much you pay for property. What’s the average house price in Panama compared with the US?

but when there have been disputes it’s been the equidistance principle that’s been used to settle the dispute.

Always? Maybe someone should tell the Dutch, the Germans have taken some of their territory.

I’d love mortgage rates to soar by 2% and be harder to get – it would finally cause a price correction which has been a bubble fuelled by low boe rates this last decade.

and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society.

With a foreign country with an in-built right-wing majority in control of your currency? Good luck with that.

If the interest rates and income tax soar then there will be an exodus of exactly the sort of people they need to tax more to fund this. I know of many people from work who already have a plan B sorted to relocate to London.

With a foreign country with an in-built right-wing majority in control of your currency? Good luck with that.

So, what we’ll get with a no vote then?

Is independence the right/best/only solution to the problem.

No, but the problem is the ballot isn’t about the best way to run Scotland. It would be better with three or four options on it. Why aren’t there more options? Because it’s a nationalistic principle not a pragmatic one.

With 3 or 4 options how would you decide which “won”? Go with the one option that had the highest number of votes even if that was only 25.1%?

In any case, wasn’t it David Cameron that ruled out a third option?

Why aren’t there more options?

You can blame that on David Cameron. No Devo Max on the ballot paper was his decision…. Oh how funny it will be when that backfires.

Would either of you have liked devo max on the ballot paper?

Did Salmond want devo max on the ballot paper?

I wouldn’t have chosen it, but I think it would have been the most popular choice. However, its irrelevant. The sort of “Devo Max” that most folk want(ed) isn’t possible under the current structure of the UK. It would have demanded a fully federal solution, requiring a UK-wide referendum, and I don’t think the majority of voters in England would have wanted it, nor seen the point of it.

There’s a lot of folk think that he did. I rather think he didn’t and actually painted Cameron into a bit of a corner in a way that he had to refuse to offer it.

I too think that it would have been the clear winner by a long way. I still would not have voted for that option, but i’d have been satisfied with it.

No Devo Max on the ballot paper was his decision….

But the SNP’s mandate, as per the 2011 manifesto, was for an independence referendum, not one on further devolution.

You remember that word? Mandate?

Mandate, mandate, mandate, mandate!

Alex is so keen on using it currently that its a shame to forget what he went to the polls offering you in order to get elected…

😆

. I rather think he didn’t and actually painted Cameron into a bit of a corner in a way that he had to refuse to offer it.

So not really Cameron’s fault then?

…. Oh how funny it will be when that backfires.

I fail to see anything funny about the result however it goes.

Mandate, mandate, mandate, mandate!

No mandate didn’t seem to stop the tories now did it?

I think the Bettertogether side rejected the second question/ Devo max option as they believe that would require a second referendum in England Wales and Northern Ireland

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28996005

For a bit of light relief, I did find this funny. Puns come thick and fast. Shakespeare would be proud.

athgray – Member
Would either of you have liked devo max on the ballot paper?

Can’t speak for them, but I would have preferred something along those lines.

I think the UK needs restructured with the removal of the top layer and more decentralised power. From what I can see the North of England is in a similar position to Scotland.

Not an option offered though, so we’ll take what we can get and work from there.

Hopefully the ripples caused by an independent Scotland will invigorate democracy in the rest of the UK, but how you handle that is up to you lot.

At least you will have learnt how the establishment uses the tools of a controlled media with breathtaking dishonesty, and the benefits of using social media to counter it – that’s if they don’t find a way to censor the internet citing paedophilia or terrorist concerns.

If Scotland wins the Referendum, it’s FaceBook we have to thank…

more decentralised power

Serious question here

Given the revelations over the indifference shown by locally elected officials over a long period in Rotherham that have hit the headlines this week (and apparently SOS are due to reveal a similar story in Glasgow in tomorrows paper) do you think that further decentralisation is perhaps not just a panacea, but a thoroughly dangerous move? (I make this comment not just referring to Scotland, but the wider context too)

ninfan – Member
…do you think that further decentralisation is perhaps not just a panacea, but a thoroughly dangerous move?

Democracy is an imperfect tool.

Rotherham looks to me like a failure of administration, showing the lack of a powerful and objective independent audit process happening as a matter of routine.

There should be no hiding place for corruption, and entrenched maladministration is a form of corruption. (That’s IMO, of course)

Can’t speak for them, but I would have preferred something along those lines.

You have previously talked about the neverending cause for independence. Excuse me for saying I don’t believe you.

If Scotland wins the Referendum

Not quite sure what you mean by this????

citing paedophilia

The only person that has been citing paedophilia is you. You described Westminster as a collection of slimebuckets previously harbouring paedophiles, currently harbouring paedophiles, and will continue to harbour paedophiles unless Scotland gets independence.

it’s FaceBook we have to thank..

I prefer to put my faith in more than social media.

So, what we’ll get with a no vote then?

Not at all. With a no vote Scotland gets a say in decisions which affect the currency and their interests have to be taken into account. Not the case if you vote yes.

Epicyclo – yes, however it certainly opens serious questions about the system of local government and locally elected officials having oversight over, for example, child protection issues and police funding – the figures coming back like Lancashire having in the order of 100 recent prosecutions and South Yorkshire having none, say that something must be wrong with the system as it is.

That type of devolved power isn’t doing anyone any good!

Given the whole farce of the Dame Butler Sloss inquiry into the alleged paedophile ring at Westminster decentralisation of power doesnt seem any more dangerous than the current situation, and could be a whole lot better with more people feeling their vote matters, their opinions are listened to and people taking clear responsibility for what happens in their area.

athgray – Member
You have previously talked about the neverending cause for independence. Excuse me for saying I don’t believe you.

That’s fine, but if you care to look through my previous posts, you’ll see that I have several times stated a preference for a federated UK, in which each part had its powers fixed and not removable by the federation, ie the Federation derives its powers from its constituent parts and not the other way round.

I also think Scotland is quite capable of going it alone, in or out of the EU, NATO etc, and it is quite an exciting prospect, and more attractive the closer it gets.

With a no vote Scotland gets a say in decisions which affect the currency and their interests have to be taken into account.

You do know that the festival is over in Edinburgh. Just the fireworks to come….

Democracy is an imperfect tool.

Trouble, it usually comes on two legs.

I prefer to put my faith in more than social media.

Agreed. Although there’s no denying the power of social media in spreading ideas, truth, and unfortunately lies. That’s not just a reference to the referendum. The number of people I see popping up on my newsfeed that believe any old tripe and don’t bother trying verifying it, is frankly worrying.

As good as social media is for spreading ideas and movements, it’s still deeply flawed. The argument for traditional news media is that they act as gatekeepers, verifying before publishing. That falls down of course when news providers are in favour on one goal or another.

Although I can’t see Scotland turning out like some of the other examples of political change from the past couple of years which have been at least in part, fuelled by social media.

That’s the big problem, though – we don’t have an impartial and balanced mainstream media. Social media has big flaws, but it is fantastic at telling the stories the mainstream media don’t want to tell.

For example an official No campaign person was arrested yesterday for assaulting a female Yes supporter – no mainstream sources have covered it yet. It was a kick to the stomach, obviously less serious than an egg.

I trust social media far more than I trust mainstream media. Far fewer vested interests.

…..if Scotland wins the Referendum

If Scotland is the only country voting, how can it lose?
I thought it was “yes” Scots vs “no” Scots, not Scotland vs the other 3 countries in the Union.

I thought it was “yes” Scots vs “no” Scots

Well, and the Labour activists bussed up from down south and paid £25 per day to knock on doors for Better Together 😉