Alex Salmond and Independence

[Lu Tze]

Rather different indeed. A new state virtually guaranteed to be politically stable, with advanced systems of justice and democracy, and financially solvent to boot. The EU would put up no hoops for them to jump though at all.

If Spain did try and block access how do you think the Catalans would react? 'Oh fair enough, we're fecked'? People don't think that way when provoked, they would flock to the independence movement. However Spain is so economically dependent on the EU they will do nothing to upset it anyway.

Ok then, I suppose there's nothing to argue about then. You'll just be instantly allowed in with no procedures and no vote and no opposition. Bullshit. Spain have publicly declared they're not ruling out a veto, which is as close to saying they'll do it as is politically acceptable. Any why would they care what the Catalans think, the Spanish government isn't planning on giving them a referendum any time soon. Both major parties have made that clear.

 

[x42bn6]

Rather different indeed. A new state virtually guaranteed to be politically stable, with advanced systems of justice and democracy, and financially solvent to boot. The EU would put up no hoops for them to jump though at all.

None of this is known at all... It's not even known which currency is going to be used, nor who will be in control of its monetary policy. This should have been obvious for any independent state, except that Yes for some reason really wants a currency union.

Also, if Scotland wants to join the EU, it needs to have full control over its central bank and monetary policy - which means no currency union.

In this sense, what Yes is proposing is contradictory.

 

[NewDawnFades]

The EU question hasn't been a huge part of the debate for two reasons. Firstly Better Together won't go on about it too much on account of the rise of euro scepticism down south - in fact the "you won't really be sovereign because you'll still be in the Europe" argument is made as much if not more. Most importantly though, threatening to force a nation to leave the EU simply for voting for its own sovereignty makes - at least until September 19th - people not care about whether we are in the EU. This movement is about improving our democracy and deciding for ourselves so the argument (while the economic damage could be huge) convinces very few undecideds.

 

[x42bn6]

The EU question hasn't been a huge part of the debate, I'd say for two reasons. Firstly Better Together won't go on about it too much on account of the rise of euro scepticism down south - in fact the "you won't really be sovereign because you'll still be in the EU" argument is made far more. Secondly threatening to force a nation to leave the EU simply for voting for its own sovereignty makes people not want the EU so much, obviously.

It's not really a threat or anything - it's just that giving a seceded state an automatic elevation to EU status would set a very dangerous precedent (imagine the UK creating a toxic legal entity at Land's End with all its debts and making it secede). This is why there are things like the EMU convergence criteria and requirements to join the EU exist. It's more a statement of "it's not as straightforward as Salmond suggests".

Existing Scots will probably retain UK passports (despite what Theresa May says) so they will still retain some of the benefits of the EU via their UK passports. Children of existing Scots will also probably get UK passports under British nationality law. So it's not all doom and gloom.

 

[ThierryHenry]

The online dominance of the Yes campaign is outstanding.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

What happens if I go to university in Scotland, starting from next year?

You pay the same fees you would for any other UK university, I'm afraid. In Scotland your fees can be paid in full by SAAS, but you need to be either "Scottish" or from an EU country that isn't part of the UK. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students have to pay up to £9,000. You can thank the current UK Government for that.

However, if Scotland gained independence then technically the rest of the UK would be seen as just another EU country, and that means that you would be eligible to have your fees paid for by SAAS. The SNP are trying to prevent this from happening, though, but EU lawmakers say that it would be illegal to try and stop it.

 

[ThierryHenry]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...gland-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html

Pensions giant Standard Life threatens transfer to England if Scotland votes for independence

Standard Life, the pensions and insurance giant, has said it is planning to shift large parts of its business to England in the event of a "Yes" vote in next week's Scottish referendum.

The Edinburgh-based FTSE 100 company said that "if there was a need to do so", it would make drastic changes to its business structure to cope with Scotland seceding.

In a market update to investors and customers, it promised that in the event of a "Yes" vote, Standard Life may move to ensure:

• New regulated companies are created in England from which to do business
• All transactions with customers outside of Scotland continue to be in stirling
• Customers outside of Scotland are subject to UK tax laws
• Pensioners and investors will be covered by UK regulation
• The company continues to be listed on the London Stock Exchange

Standard have around 6,000 employees in Edinburgh.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

This is one of the most boring debates I can recall. I really don't care if Scotland stays or leaves. Plymouth will see a surge in jobs when we relocate Trident.

 

[Member 39557]

You pay the same fees you would for any other UK university, I'm afraid. In Scotland your fees can be paid in full by SAAS, but you need to be either "Scottish" or from an EU country that isn't part of the UK. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students have to pay up to £9,000. You can thank the current UK Government for that.

However, if Scotland gained independence then technically the rest of the UK would be seen as just another EU country, and that means that you would be eligible to have your fees paid for by SAAS. The SNP are trying to prevent this from happening, though, but EU lawmakers say that it would be illegal to try and stop it.

Good, I hope the EU enforce it if Scotland leaves the UK. One of the most annoying things about the current UK set-up is Scottish students getting free education whilst their UK counterparts have to pay through the nose. It'll be interesting to see if they can continue to afford it if/when they leave too.

 

[Member 39557]

Rather different indeed. A new state virtually guaranteed to be politically stable, with advanced systems of justice and democracy, and financially solvent to boot. The EU would put up no hoops for them to jump though at all.

If Spain did try and block access how do you think the Catalans would react? 'Oh fair enough, we're fecked'? People don't think that way when provoked, they would flock to the independence movement. However Spain is so economically dependent on the EU they will do nothing to upset it anyway.

None of this is known at all... It's not even known which currency is going to be used, nor who will be in control of its monetary policy. This should have been obvious for any independent state, except that Yes for some reason really wants a currency union.

Also, if Scotland wants to join the EU, it needs to have full control over its central bank and monetary policy - which means no currency union.

In this sense, what Yes is proposing is contradictory.

Salmond has stated that Scotland won't pay its share of the UK debt if they're not allowed to keep the pound. I'm not sure how financially solvent that will make them. Any possible future creditors probably won't consider a nation that doesn't pay its debts.

The EU probably wouldn't look favourably on recruiting a new small nation that has an ongoing debt dispute with a current EU member either.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

Salmond has stated that Scotland won't pay its share of the UK debt if they're not allowed to keep the pound. I'm not sure how financially solvent that will make them. Any possible future creditors probably won't consider a nation that doesn't pay its debts.

The EU probably wouldn't look favourably on recruiting a new small nation that has an ongoing debt dispute with a current EU member either.

What reason is Salmond giving for Scotland not paying it's share of the UK debt ?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Good, I hope the EU enforce it if Scotland leaves the UK. One of the most annoying things about the current UK set-up is Scottish students getting free education whilst their UK counterparts have to pay through the nose. It'll be interesting to see if they can continue to afford it if/when they leave too.

To be fair, England could have had something similar if it didn't spend it all on vanity projects such as aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles. You can't blame Scotland for rUK politicians refusing to offer the same. University funding in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the same as prescriptions. Both are free in Scotland, because that's where the Scottish Government has decided to spend.

 

[Member 39557]

What reason is Salmond giving for Scotland not paying it's share of the UK debt ?

Something along the lines of the UK getting all the assets of the currency, so we should also get all the liabilities!

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

Something along the lines of the UK getting all the assets of the currency, so we should also get all the liabilities!

Not knowing anything about it, is that true or is he just trying to hold us to ransom ?

 

[Member 39557]

Not knowing anything about it, is that true or is he just trying to hold us to ransom ?

I think it's just posturing at the moment, probably designed to make the UK government back down over the pound in the event of a yes vote. I haven't looked into it properly to be honest but It'll make things interesting if they do vote yes.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I think it's just posturing at the moment, probably designed to make the UK government back down over the pound in the event of a yes vote. I haven't looked into it properly to be honest but It'll make things interesting if they do vote yes.

Eck's just flapping his gums and trying to play hardball. The reality is that regardless of the currency decision, Scotland will need to take its share of the debts if they vote "yes". Not just for reasons related to any future credit ratings but also because rUK wouldn't agree to it and we'd end up at a deadlock, so the EU would have to get involved to force a solution. That solution will obviously be taking on liabilities that reflect the asset share.

 

[Walrus]

Still can't believe that 50% of Scots are giving up on 300 years of joint British identity, innovation, struggle and triumph. Our people thought, fought, died, and dominated the world together(admittedly, this is nationalistic claptrap), and 50% would give it up over the bloody Conservatives being in power for a few years and Saint Salmond's bollocks about how much easier you'll have it without an internationally relevant economic, military (by comparison) and financial powerhouse backing you up. Two of our last three PM's have been Scottish for fecks sake. I also can't believe the narrative that's been spun about Westminster not representing Scotland. Well shit, you're living in a democracy, your preferred party isn't going to be in power at all times. Insanity.

Also: What a fantastic way to ensure Scottish voices remain forever irrelevant in international affairs. You'll be less internationally relevant than Minnesota.

I agree with the sentiment of this. My girlfriend is Scottish and so I have done quite a fair bit of reading on all this (she lives with me in England and so is not allowed a vote, which she is rather upset about as well).

We have had labour in power for the past 20 odd years, then as soon as the Tories get elected, its like the peasant in Monty Python going "You're the Prime Minister? Well I didn't vote for you!". Scottish basically rebelling over the fact that one time, the Tories have been elected and they dont like it. Scotland has its own devolved parliament for this reason and all the talk is of devolving more powers to them anyway (in the event of a No vote) - what possible gain do you have over becoming independant?

My only concerns as an Englishman are that Scotland leaving, makes the UK weaker as a whole. It means the UK has a lesser voice in international politics - Russia and China already want us off the UN Security Council - and a weaker nation generally. It also saddens me to see the United Kingdom breaking up after hundreds of years of what has been a largely successful Union.

From the point of view of the Scots I just cant get my head around it. The entire "Yes" campaign seems to be based on a large number of assumptions around currency, EU membership, politics etc which other leaders have all been quick to oppose. Salmond seems convinced that as soon as the Scots declare independence that the rest of the world will simply applaud them and give them free stuff as a reward (pretty much). There is an assumption about Scotland keeping 90% of the North Sea Oil, assumptions about keeping the Sterling, assumptions about EU membership and relations with the EU/America... all the while promising massive increases in public spending. It quite simply doesnt add up.

Either way, there is no going back with something like this. This isnt a computer game where you can try independence, and if it doesnt work out in a few years, just reload from an earlier point. I think the vast majority of Brits will agree that if Scotland votes to leave the UK, they have made their bed and they can sleep in it. I dont say that in an aggressive way but rather that I dont want England/UK bailing them out if it all goes tits up.

 

[Member 39557]

To be fair, England could have had something similar if it didn't spend it all on vanity projects such as aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles. You can't blame Scotland for rUK politicians refusing to offer the same. University funding in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the same as prescriptions. Both are free in Scotland, because that's where the Scottish Government has decided to spend.

The Scottish people continue to get the benefit of said Aircraft carriers and Nuclear missiles, yet still get free education to boot. I'm not blaming Scotland for it, I was just expressing my annoyance at the situation.

 

[NoWinNoFee]

Scotland will have to pay their share of debt if they go independent, Scotland benefited from this debt when they was apart of the union, you can't go to a supermarket, get loads of food, eat it all and ay we are not going to pay for it.

£ is a UK currency, they are voting to potentially to leave the UK, you can't just pick something up that doesn't belong to you and take it with you, why would a 'so called' independent nation share a currency with another nation anyway? A Security belt if it all goes tits up ie:- the bank of England (and British tax payers) having to bail them out? That's not going to happen is it, there will be uproar in Britain if we shared currency with potentially foreign nation that unstable.

 

[x42bn6]

Not knowing anything about it, is that true or is he just trying to hold us to ransom ?

The thing about currency is that it's both a unit of measurement and a state institution - not an asset in the strictest sense. Any gold reserves the UK has, for example, are assets, and are probably going to be split on a fair basis - or, at least, that's where the negotiations will start. But sterling isn't quite the same.

It's a unit of measurement in the sense that it's just something we base the price of things on. The UK only has limited control over its value anyway - the ultimate arbiter of the value of the pound is the open market. The UK can of course influence it by monetary (and to a limited extent, fiscal) policy. But in this sense, sharing the pound makes about as much sense as sharing the metre or kilogram. 8.3% of the metre wouldn't make sense.

More importantly, it's a state institution - which an independent Scotland will be leaving. It will have no right to its control - in the same way that they will have no representation in the UK parliament, or any sort of proportional control on the UN Security Council or NATO.

There is no existing currency union in the UK, either. The hint is in the name - union - multiple sides. There is no independent Scotland at the moment, so there is no currency union "asset" to be shared. A theoretical currency union will be a new, bilateral agreement - probably signed in advance of independence - between the two independent nations. Much like any sort of trade agreement, or immigration agreement that both sides might find mutually beneficial, for example.

It's pretty much scaremongering, really. Not taking the debt might not be seen as a default in the legal sense, but the very fact that Salmond is making this threat suggests that an independent Scotland has a moral - if perhaps not legal - obligation to take the debt - so the punishment (in the form of borrowing rates) will be reflected in a similar way. Not default rates - but bad rates nevertheless. In addition to that, the UK technically owns everything that Scotland owns at the moment, so if they want to play the "no assets, no debt" game, it could get very ugly - not only would an independent Scotland be debt-free, but asset-free, too.

Although if that happened, I think the UK would just pull the plug on Scottish independence. Which could of course would be ugly, but from the UK's perspective, even a little foreign control over monetary policy is a very big deal - bigger than pulling the plug on independence - and one that should have been blatantly obvious after seeing what has happened after nearly a decade of financial crises.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Can we please refrain from the child-like talking down "don't come crawling back to me crying when everything goes wrong" attitude?

The entire "Yes" campaign seems to be based on a large number of assumptions around currency, EU membership, politics etc which other leaders have all been quick to oppose. Salmond seems convinced that as soon as the Scots declare independence that the rest of the world will simply applaud them and give them free stuff as a reward (pretty much). There is an assumption about Scotland keeping 90% of the North Sea Oil, assumptions about keeping the Sterling, assumptions about EU membership and relations with the EU/America... all the while promising massive increases in public spending. It quite simply doesnt add up.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the No campaign are basing everything they have on facts and the Yes campaign are just guessing. On every point you've made the evidence given by both sides are assumptions. They're assumptions because no one can give a concrete factual definition of what the results will be for any given subject simply because each decision being made hasn't been made before. There are similar examples internationally, but there are too many differences in variables to say that the same will happen here.

It's up to both sides to draw their assumptions from a pool of industry experts and analysts, and both sides have done that. The point about keeping 90% of the North Sea Oil comes from calculating the legal line when drawing up boundaries, not the median line that was used in 1999 when drawing up fishing boundaries after devolution. One example of assumptions being made on both parties, and both parties have fair backing to support their claims. The Yes campaign have professors of European law, and even a former President of the European Parliament in Pat Cox saying that Scotland would be guaranteed membership simply based on precedent. The No campaign have cited members and the President of the European Council as rejecting the idea of Scottish membership to the EU. However, they recently got in trouble for saying that Jean Claude-Juncker has warned that an independent Scotland would need to leave the EU, when they had actually said nothing like that at all. The Yes campaign have also been in trouble for mis quoting people.

See? It's hardly a case of one side being right and the other side being a bunch of fools who are just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. All of it is assumptions until the negotiations actually begin.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

The Scottish people continue to get the benefit of said Aircraft carriers and Nuclear missiles, yet still get free education to boot. I'm not blaming Scotland for it, I was just expressing my annoyance at the situation.

I know mate. If you blame anyone it should be the UK Parliament as a whole. That includes Scottish MPs who vote on matters that don't affect their constituencies.

 

[Walrus]

It's disingenuous to suggest that the No campaign are basing everything they have on facts and the Yes campaign are just guessing. On every point you've made the evidence given by both sides are assumptions. They're assumptions because no one can give a concrete factual definition of what the results will be for any given subject simply because each decision being made hasn't been made before. There are similar examples internationally, but there are too many differences in variables to say that the same will happen here.

It's up to both sides to draw their assumptions from a pool of industry experts and analysts, and both sides have done that. The point about keeping 90% of the North Sea Oil comes from calculating the legal line when drawing up boundaries, not the median line that was used in 1999 when drawing up fishing boundaries after devolution. One example of assumptions being made on both parties, and both parties have fair backing to support their claims. The Yes campaign have professors of European law, and even a former President of the European Parliament in Pat Cox saying that Scotland would be guaranteed membership simply based on precedent. The No campaign have cited members and the President of the European Council as rejecting the idea of Scottish membership to the EU. However, they recently got in trouble for saying that Jean Claude-Juncker has warned that an independent Scotland would need to leave the EU, when they had actually said nothing like that at all. The Yes campaign have also been in trouble for mis quoting people.

See? It's hardly a case of one side being right and the other side being a bunch of fools who are just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. All of it is assumptions until the negotiations actually begin.

There are indeed some assumptions made on both sides, although I would say the Better Together campaign has done what is largely considered to be a terrible job all round.

The point however is that we can say with pretty much certainty, what the future of the rUK would be without Scotland, and we can say with certainty what the future will hold in the event of a No vote - that more powers will be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
What we cannot say with any certainty is what the future holds in the event of a Yes vote. If it were my country and myself in that position, that prospect would be more than a little bit scary. Yes, it is exciting to be branching out on your own - free, unshackled, to make your own place in the world. But if it were me, I would want a few more concrete assurances about key areas such as EU Membership and Currency, to name but a couple. I feel that Salmond is painting a very nice and vivid picture of an independant Scotland, but that thats all it is - a picture in his mind, and I dont see how he, or Scotland, as the means of making that a reality.

Maybe a lot of the online demographic are simply too young to have any recollection of real economic crisis (I certainly am), but look around the world at recent failed states, at the conflicts in Ireland, look back a bit further to the 70s with hyper-inflation or to the more recent global recession. Im not saying that *this is what will definitely happen* - but when there is what I would regard as a substantial risk, I would want more assurances and contingency in place.

I just look at the entire situation and think about the risk:reward balance, and the risk seems to far outweigh the reward - which is that you get to have your own elected government in place (even though you already have a devolved scottish parliament).
The fact that the vote is so close is worrying in itself - a clear majority either way would at least give an impression of the Scottish people having a clear idea in their mind about what they want for their future. In the event of either a Yes or No vote now, it appears that there will still be half a country of people who are not satisfied - and what then? Its just a scaled down version of the current "we didnt vote Tory" situation.

 

[NoWinNoFee]

If Scotland go independent would Britain lose the Shetland, Orkney and the Outer Hebrides too?

Is it bad to say i would probably miss saying these beautiful islands are no longer part of my country more so than mainland Scotland? I've never been, but always wanted to visit the Isle of Skye, would be my ideal retirement location.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

The point however is that we can say with pretty much certainty, what the future of the rUK would be without Scotland, and we can say with certainty what the future will hold in the event of a No vote - that more powers will be devolved to the Scottish parliament.

I get a lot of what you are saying but I just wanted to highlight this point, since there have been no guarantees whatsoever that more powers will be devolved. Scotland has been 'promised' more devolved powers. One of the main reasons why the independence movement has grown again has been because of a lack of trust in Westminster politics. The Better Together campaign had a chance months ago to promise these powers, and it was the Devo Max choice that the Yes campaign wanted on the ballot box. The Prime Minster rejected the proposal then, and whether or not they are serious about their promise now is irrelevent because the damage has been done.

I absolutely agree that the Yes narrative of "everything will be awesome" is false, but we need to think about why this idea has been created. The original narrative from the Yes campaign was about removing dependence on a Westminster held government that didn't hold any interest in people living outside of the City. The more recent narrative from the Yes campaign on being optimistic about the future of an independent Scotland is just a reaction to the overly negative agenda from the BT campaign. From day one the Better Together campaign was orginally about how an independent Scotland wouldn't last and we'd all be forced to eat our own children after six months. It was bizarre to see every story manipulated in the press to be made out to somehow prove that independence would be a terrible thing when they story was about nothing of the sort. And so, Wee Eck's Magical Bouncy Castle Funland of Scotlandshire was created. I think that both sides are pathetic because of it.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

If Scotland go independent would Britain lose the Shetland, Orkney and the Outer Hebrides too?

Is it bad to say i would probably miss saying these beautiful islands are no longer part of my country more so than mainland Scotland? I've never been, but always wanted to visit the Isle of Skye, would be my ideal retirement location.

I believe Shetlanders and Orcadians (?) want to be affiliated with Norway. The majority dont consider themselves Scottish even...

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I believe Shetlanders and Orcanians (?) want to be affiliated with Norway. The majority dont consider themselves Scottish even...

All I've read says that the Islanders don't want to split from Scotland, but are demanding more control over their expenditure. Since they hold a lot of power the Scottish Government would be fools not to let them have it. However, since politicians generally are fools...

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-isles-where-Viking-blood-still-flows.html

A rather interesting article.

 

[Walrus]

I get a lot of what you are saying but I just wanted to highlight this point, since there have been no guarantees whatsoever that more powers will be devolved. Scotland has been 'promised' more devolved powers. One of the main reasons why the independence movement has grown again has been because of a lack of trust in Westminster politics. The Better Together campaign had a chance months ago to promise these powers, and it was the Devo Max choice that the Yes campaign wanted on the ballot box. The Prime Minster rejected the proposal then, and whether or not they are serious about their promise now is irrelevent because the damage has been done.

I absolutely agree that the Yes narrative of "everything will be awesome" is false, but we need to think about why this idea has been created. The original narrative from the Yes campaign was about removing dependence on a Westminster held government that didn't hold any interest in people living outside of the City. The more recent narrative from the Yes campaign on being optimistic about the future of an independent Scotland is just a reaction to the overly negative agenda from the BT campaign. From day one the Better Together campaign was orginally about how an independent Scotland wouldn't last and we'd all be forced to eat our own children after six months. It was bizarre to see every story manipulated in the press to be made out to somehow prove that independence would be a terrible thing when they story was about nothing of the sort. And so, Wee Eck's Magical Bouncy Castle Funland of Scotlandshire was created. I think that both sides are pathetic because of it.

I agree that the BT campaign got things all wrong and it hasn't helped. Sadly it is stereotypical of modern negative politics and part of the reason why I harbour a bit of a dislike for more or less every political party now.

But the various pros and cons of the YES and NO campaigns shouldn't be what decides people's votes - it should be the actuality of the situation, and of what is likely to occur with either outcome, and like I said before I just fail to see the risk:reward ratio as being anywhere near in favour of independence. You gain self governance on a national and international scale, but you lose the inherent benefits of being part of one of the modern day semi-superpowers and an important voice in global politics.

Those are the certainties - the uncertainties are almost exclusively negative. If only one of the "what if..." scenarios came true it would be disastrous for a fledgling country and economy.

Finally, whilst there is no legal or written contract to say that more powers will be devolved to Scotland in the event of a NO vote, nor is there any legal obligation to actually honour the result of the referendum; nonetheless for any political party to backtrack on what has been agreed upon at this stage would be political suicide, and cause huge anger and tensions on both sides of the border, and as such should not really be considered a potential outcome.

 

[Walrus]

I believe Shetlanders and Orcadians (?) want to be affiliated with Norway. The majority dont consider themselves Scottish even...

All I've read says that the Islanders don't want to split from Scotland, but are demanding more control over their expenditure. Since they hold a lot of power the Scottish Government would be fools not to let them have it. However, since politicians generally are fools...

This was another area I wanted to bring up but I haven't really got enough knowledge. However I have seen articles claiming that up to 75% of the North Sea Oil could be seen as belonging to the islanders rather than the Scottish mainland.
More interestingly however would be the political ramifications if the islands DID demand more powers or even independence - it would be utterly hypocritical for any Scottish politician to deny these requests after potentially securing and lobbying for their own independence.

 

[Penna]

All I've read says that the Islanders don't want to split from Scotland, but are demanding more control over their expenditure. Since they hold a lot of power the Scottish Government would be fools not to let them have it. However, since politicians generally are fools...

When we went to Mull a few weeks ago, lots of the people we spoke to were English - and they lived there and owned property and businesses. We were surprised at how many non-Scottish people there were. They included the owner of the house we were renting and the one next to it, the postman, all the shopkeepers I spoke to (actually, one was French) and a farmer I met.

I believe Sir Paul McCartney owns an enormous amount of land on Mull, too?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

This was another area I wanted to bring up but I haven't really got enough knowledge. However I have seen articles claiming that up to 75% of the North Sea Oil could be seen as belonging to the islanders rather than the Scottish mainland.
More interestingly however would be the political ramifications if the islands DID demand more powers or even independence - it would be utterly hypocritical for any Scottish politician to deny these requests after potentially securing and lobbying for their own independence.

You're right, it's about 63%. Which is why the Scottish Government would need to be veeerrrryyyyy nice to the islands when they want to negotiate their own devolution of expenditures.

When we went to Mull a few weeks ago, lots of the people we spoke to were English - and they lived there and owned property and businesses. We were surprised at how many non-Scottish people there were. They included the owner of the house we were renting and the one next to it, the postman, all the shopkeepers I spoke to (actually, one was French) and a farmer I met.

I believe Sir Paul McCartney owns an enormous amount of land on Mull, too?

It's because those areas are so diverse that many see themselves as Shetlanders or Islanders and not so much Scottish, English, Norwegian etc. Although I'm only basing that on a few articles so I'm probably wrong as usual.

Don't forget that Sir Paul also gave us that awful Mull of Kintyre song. *shudders*

 

[TheReligion]

I don't think those voting YES have really thought this through.

Anyone with a brain can see it would be a disaster for Scotland, and the UK, for them to leave. Makes no sense.

 

[Pink Moon]

Scotland doesn't want to be a superpower who's influencing global politics to the level of the US or the UK. We just want to be a successful, safe, thriving country who can use our own resources for our own benefits, instead of having it squandered by Westminster on wars and weapons. That's fairly simplified admittedly, but your post massively misunderstands the aims of many Scots, and what we'd like to see from this.

Exactly. I don't care if we're not asked what we think of the next US/UK invasion or any of that.

I understand some of the risks put forward by those against indpenedence such as currency and defence. I don't understand the shit people like Cameron spouts about how it'd "break his heart" to break up this country and how he "loves his country more than his party". That's all well and good, Dave, but why is that an incentive for me to vote No? If anything, if it makes you heartbroken I'm all the more tempted to vote Yes! The arrogance of the "big three" from Westminster coming up a week before the vote as well. All that's likely to do is anger people further.

 

[Pink Moon]

I don't think those voting YES have really thought this through.

Anyone with a brain can see it would be a disaster for Scotland, and the UK, for them to leave. Makes no sense.

Why would it be a disaster for Scotland?

 

[Tarrou]

I'm trying to figure out why Betfair has a yes vote at 3.20, no at 1.45, when the polls are fairly even. Can anyone shed some light on that? Should I be backing a yes vote for value here?

 

[#07]

Why would it be a disaster for Scotland?

Well there are several reasons why it would be a disaster for everyone in the UK.

For Scotland in particular Alex Salmond has made some very dangerous statements about the national debt. The best way to establish international credit is to establish a national debt and repay it on time as Alexander Hamilton, himself from Scottish stock, showed in creating the U.S. national bank. Salmond is veering dangerously clear to the Christina Kirchner position of saying 'no way we won't pay'. On day one, Scotland will need international credit and without it it could find itself in serious difficulty in terms of meeting the costs of basic government functions.

Also Salmond has pinned a lot of hope for the future of Scotland on energy. However, North Sea investment is underpinned by the UK Treasury. In the last two budgets there have been incentives to try and get the North Sea going again after corporation tax receipts dropped, and the Wood Review and its recommendations are the latest attempt from the UK government to do this. To my knowledge, the SNP have never made clear how they will step into the breach left by the UK Treasury in getting investment in the North Sea if they demand 100 per cent of the oil and gas. Then there's the wind...yes Scotland has lots of it but most of those projects are subsidised by UK bill payers. If people in England, Wales and N.I. stop helping to support those projects then how would Scotland afford them? The UK government has estimated that Scottish energy bills would have to rise by up to £189 to maintain the same level of support for wind and other renewable projects that they currently get, if you take away the part of the subsidy that also comes from the rest of the UK.

Then you get into the currency argument. Can Scotland use the pound? Yes. Can it demand a formal currency union? No. Scotland would be relying on a foreign central bank for its currency, a foreign central bank that is not interested in setting interest rates to support the Scottish economy. As we have seen in the Eurozone that's a recipe for disaster. Also, what about Scottish banks? Is a foreign central bank going to be lender of last reserve for a Scottish bank if it gets into trouble?

I could go on. But the idea this will all be plain sailing is simply untrue.

For everyone in the UK it will be very tough. Just the uncertainty over who will pay back what of the national debt will increase mortgage rates and borrowing costs. That could kill the UK's economic recovery while its still taking babysteps.

English people who take the view that we can just wave goodbye to Scotland, and it will all be ok are kidding themselves, too.

Everyone on the island of Britain will suffer if there's a 'yes' vote.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I keep reading this, usually with some comment that accepting Scotland would upset the Spanish because of the Catalans. Never a mention of what the Catalans might think of that though.

Ok, the EU accepted the Czech republic when it split from Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia too for good measure. They accepted the Baltic states when they split from the Soviet Union, and they accepted Croatia and Slovenia when they split from Yugoslavia. Given Scotland's geographic position both Nato and the EU will fall over themselves to invite them in.

That depends on whether RUK decides to let them or not. If the deal being laid out by the SNP became the terms of separation and if these measures were forced on RUK then I would expect Scotland to be black balled from entry until the RUK is satisfied.

 

[NoWinNoFee]

What i hate being English is why we have to bend over backwards for the union, we have to be politically correct all the time. English tax payers get less even though we pay more, we can't be patriotic and if we do ie:- England songs playing during World Cups on the radio, Scottish/Welsh/Irish phone up complaining - England don't even have a national anthem, we use the British one when England play, we don't even have an English government.

I say when do we English get a vote on Independence?

 

[x42bn6]

I'm trying to figure out why Betfair has a yes vote at 3.20, no at 1.45, when the polls are fairly even. Can anyone shed some light on that? Should I be backing a yes vote for value here?

Odds go where the money is and aim to make a profit for the bookmaker. They're not objective "facts" on the ground - polls are more objective than that.

Odds can be used as very rough approximations to true probabilities, but nothing more.