You've just outlined the problem in big letters. Portugal is tied to a currency that doesn't serve its economic needs (and for Scotland it's even worse since they will have absolutely no say in the £).
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's nothing to do with being "free". We're not slaves nor we do we think that's how we're classed.
We want to be in control of our own country. We want people making the best decisions for Scotland in Scotland and not a Westminster/Tory government that we didn't vote for. Scotland doesn't vote for Tories yet it's run by them. Their history in this country is the reason we don't vote for them and the very reason many want rid of them by being independent and ensuring they never get to control us again. Or, to use the well known line... there's double the amount of Panda's in Scotland as there is Conservative MP's. We'll bring in a certain amount of money and it'll get sent to London, divvied up and we'll get a share back. With Independence that wouldn't be the case. We'd control our own budget. Given our relatively small percentage within the government we often don't have a say or control on certain policies we as a country reject. Again, post Independence that isn't an issue. With Scotland gone the Tories would stand a very good chance of beating out Labour at every election yet David Cameron is up in Scotland begging us to stay. Why is that? Many little Englanders claim they subsidise us yet they too are desperate for us to stay though claim they don't care (yet one then wonders why they're so passionate about the whole thing).
Instead of posting about Trident and why so many are against it (ignoring the morality of it all) I've put a pic below which sums it up quickly with numbers.
Another positive in the Independence camp is we'd no longer enter into illegal wars where our citizens lose their limbs or lives as well as costing us a fortune financially. The thousands of lives lost on the other side shouldn't be ignored either.
The oil off our shores is worth over 1 trillion. We'd receive 90% of the the tax revenue not to mention that Westminster has blocked action in the west of the country because it'd interfere with their fecking submarines. We'd be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe with a fairly low population. Salmond says we'd be the wealthiest nation in the world to have declared for independence. We're a resource rich country yet these are the very things that people in England or No voters tell us won't last forever. How can these things be spun as a negative? As Nicola Sturgeon has said, we're debating about whether Scotland has "lots of oil or lots and lots of oil". The financial times have said that Scotland is one of the 20 wealthiest countries in the world and could expect to start life with healthier finances than the rest of the UK.
“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country” - David Cameron
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ome-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html
Ultimately, by voting No you're keeping the fate of the country in the hands of a Tory government in Westminster. Leaving ourselves open to more cuts and these "extra powers" promises reneged on. I strongly believe that in the event of a No vote the Tories will hammer us because they know we don't have the backbone to go it ourselves and they'll have us exactly where they want us. Even today there's stories in the press of how these powers being offered are upsetting Tory MP's who'll fight against it as well as Boris Johnson's comments on Scotland (and he's a guy who many think could be the next leader of the Tories).
There's no doubt negatives to it as well. I wouldn't try and suggest otherwise but I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and that is not to mention that there's also negatives to voting No. We're currently living the No vote and it's hardly inspiring. All IMO and I have no doubt that pretty much everything here will either be disagreed with, sneered at, laughed at or simply ignored but that is actually something that I love about this whole referendum. It's inspired a lot of healthy debate which I and many others have enjoyed. It's been refreshing.
I like the trident vs training/building breakdown. Even though it's a little superficial (marketing always is) I wish this type of analysis was done more often in other instances. It can be quite eye opening how money is spent on stupid stuff while neglecting essential things.
That is never going to happen, it's ridiculous to even suggest so, you will be a foreign country.
If they mention "Too close to call" one more time on the tv I'm going to spew
They did this during the US election where Obama won by a country mile
They did this during the US election where Obama won by a country mile
So that gives away your ability to set your own interest rates and it only works through working together with Westminster. Are you happy about that? Does that give you the "being in control of your own country" feeling?
Anyone who used the internet knew it was never going to be close. But it does look like there could be some fight in this one.
Agree the media has massively blown it's load all over this story . Newsnight which for the most part is pretty sane used the word WAR!!!. And this one of the strangest things I've seen in T.V. where they just went out onto the streets and filmed two random people having a argument(It really wasn't a argument).
This show is called NEWSnight I watch it to hear the news and then at best to hear from a expert on the situation. I need a TV to watch two random people talking rubbish I can simply walk outside to do that.
I'm going to say whoever wins will win easily
There, have that you "Too close to call" twots
There, have that you "Too close to call" twots
Having no control over their interest rates will destroy what ever economy they think they will have.
They won't have a say in it, it will just be, "this is what it is" so depressed housing market, they can't change it, over heating economy, they can't slow it, need get some cash into the system, they can't do it without borrowing.
The whole yes argument is like the collective 6th form debating clubs of Scotland have been let loose on the general public.
Ah, so not my actual post then, which as I said was symbolic of your posting in this thread.
Surely to be truly I dependant you have to have control of your own currency
There is this idealised view that they will be independent but with the safety blanket of evil England there to support them with the stuff they can't do by themselves.
Which is basically what it boils down to.
It's nothing to do with being "free". We're not slaves nor we do we think that's how we're classed.
We want to be in control of our own country. We want people making the best decisions for Scotland in Scotland and not a Westminster/Tory government that we didn't vote for. Scotland doesn't vote for Tories yet it's run by them. Their history in this country is the reason we don't vote for them and the very reason many want rid of them by being independent and ensuring they never get to control us again. Or, to use the well known line... there's double the amount of Panda's in Scotland as there is Conservative MP's. We'll bring in a certain amount of money and it'll get sent to London, divvied up and we'll get a share back. With Independence that wouldn't be the case. We'd control our own budget. Given our relatively small percentage within the government we often don't have a say or control on certain policies we as a country reject. Again, post Independence that isn't an issue. With Scotland gone the Tories would stand a very good chance of beating out Labour at every election yet David Cameron is up in Scotland begging us to stay. Why is that? Many little Englanders claim they subsidise us yet they too are desperate for us to stay though claim they don't care (yet one then wonders why they're so passionate about the whole thing).
Instead of posting about Trident and why so many are against it (ignoring the morality of it all) I've put a pic below which sums it up quickly with numbers.
Another positive in the Independence camp is we'd no longer enter into illegal wars where our citizens lose their limbs or lives as well as costing us a fortune financially. The thousands of lives lost on the other side shouldn't be ignored either.
The oil off our shores is worth over 1 trillion. We'd receive 90% of the the tax revenue not to mention that Westminster has blocked action in the west of the country because it'd interfere with their fecking submarines. We'd be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe with a fairly low population. Salmond says we'd be the wealthiest nation in the world to have declared for independence. We're a resource rich country yet these are the very things that people in England or No voters tell us won't last forever. How can these things be spun as a negative? As Nicola Sturgeon has said, we're debating about whether Scotland has "lots of oil or lots and lots of oil". The financial times have said that Scotland is one of the 20 wealthiest countries in the world and could expect to start life with healthier finances than the rest of the UK.
“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country” - David Cameron
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ome-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html
Ultimately, by voting No you're keeping the fate of the country in the hands of a Tory government in Westminster. Leaving ourselves open to more cuts and these "extra powers" promises reneged on. I strongly believe that in the event of a No vote the Tories will hammer us because they know we don't have the backbone to go it ourselves and they'll have us exactly where they want us. Even today there's stories in the press of how these powers being offered are upsetting Tory MP's who'll fight against it as well as Boris Johnson's comments on Scotland (and he's a guy who many think could be the next leader of the Tories).
There's no doubt negatives to it as well. I wouldn't try and suggest otherwise but I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and that is not to mention that there's also negatives to voting No. We're currently living the No vote and it's hardly inspiring. All IMO and I have no doubt that pretty much everything here will either be disagreed with, sneered at, laughed at or simply ignored but that is actually something that I love about this whole referendum. It's inspired a lot of healthy debate which I and many others have enjoyed. It's been refreshing.
No sneering from me Pinky just serious debate and questions as to your ideas. Personally I think it's a huge leap into the unknown and if it was me I'd have been happier if Salmond had not be so economical with the truth. I can see why he's done it because his share of the vote would have plummeted had he been honest with the voters.
I admire the fight for being in control of your own destiny but it has to be a fight with a realistic chance of winning. Personally I can not see it working due to the costs involved. The NHS costs in Scotland are already vastly expensive and will only grow and it must be a worry for you that there is already a funding gap of £400-£450m in the next two financial years, 2015-17. Your welfare costs are huge with so many services given away freely and a population spread out over the country. The currency issue leaves you still answerable to Westminster which is exactly what you don't want. There are HUGE question marks over Salmond's value of the oil and with that being your main source of funding you could be heading for disaster with no way back.
But if you're going into it with your eyes wide open and in possession of the full facts then good luck. Personally I'm struggling to think of why Cameron etc is fighting so hard to keep you...we could be better off without you so I'm tempted to tell you to vote YES.
But Alex Salmond says they're entitled to it. So they must be able to have it, right.......
Frankly as far as negotiations go, the ball is very much in Westminsters court. Scotland is a part of the UK, seeking independance - regardless of the referendum result there is no obligation to actually go through with it.
Now I am sure that if there is a YES vote then Cameron will keep his promise, but it does mean that whoever is negotiation will seek to get the very best deal for the UK. No concessions, discounts or mates rates - if Scotlant wants the BBC, they can pay at a fair commercial rate for it like any other country. If they want the pound, but a currency Union is not in UKs best interests (why would it be?) then there should be no such Union. It must be in the interests of both parties - you don't just go up demanding a currency Union if there is no benefit to the other party.
Scotland WILL take its share of national debt as to do otherwise would be disastrous, and furthermore it is quite within Cameron's powers if Salmonds demands are unreasonable, to tell him to stuff it and walk away from the negotiation table.
One thing I am sure on is that for most UK taxpayers, it has always been a bit frustrating to look at Scotlands higher public spending and free tuition fees. Seeing Scotland now wanting to break apart the Union and the UK adds to that frustration. With this in mind, if Scotland does become independent the. I expect there will be a lot of bitterness from the south, directed at them. It is therefore in the interests of any and all UK politicians to ensure that they don't do anything (in negotiations) that the public would regard as giving the Scots a good deal. That isn't to say to deliberately try to give them a BAD deal either - simply that we need to look after our own interests and only agree to something if it is for our benefit as well as Scotland's.
Now I am sure that if there is a YES vote then Cameron will keep his promise, but it does mean that whoever is negotiation will seek to get the very best deal for the UK. No concessions, discounts or mates rates - if Scotlant wants the BBC, they can pay at a fair commercial rate for it like any other country. If they want the pound, but a currency Union is not in UKs best interests (why would it be?) then there should be no such Union. It must be in the interests of both parties - you don't just go up demanding a currency Union if there is no benefit to the other party.
Scotland WILL take its share of national debt as to do otherwise would be disastrous, and furthermore it is quite within Cameron's powers if Salmonds demands are unreasonable, to tell him to stuff it and walk away from the negotiation table.
One thing I am sure on is that for most UK taxpayers, it has always been a bit frustrating to look at Scotlands higher public spending and free tuition fees. Seeing Scotland now wanting to break apart the Union and the UK adds to that frustration. With this in mind, if Scotland does become independent the. I expect there will be a lot of bitterness from the south, directed at them. It is therefore in the interests of any and all UK politicians to ensure that they don't do anything (in negotiations) that the public would regard as giving the Scots a good deal. That isn't to say to deliberately try to give them a BAD deal either - simply that we need to look after our own interests and only agree to something if it is for our benefit as well as Scotland's.
I don't think it would play out like that at all. I think it would be very much a negotiation and both sides would cut some of the bullshit in the end. Westminster's hand wouldn't be as strong as you think in my opinion. If they were seen to be so completely uncooperative, it'd push a lot of people who voted No to the other side. People wouldn't just tut and moan at Cameron, it'd be a complete mess.
In the nicest way possible, why would Cameron care about pushing people who voted no, if the result has already been decided as a yes?
Again as a UK taxpayer/TV license payer I would be rather annoyed if we just gave Scotland the BBC without charging them a fair market value for it (as an example).
Both parties will want to look after their own interests - I'm just saying that some of Salmonds demands strike me as completely unreasonable and of absolutely no benefit to rUK (like the BBC example).
The threat of not taking national debt is empty because it is an unreasonable suggestion and negotiations wouldn't progress until Salmond conceded on it.
Agreed. And as Scotland would be a just another foreign country the likes of Germany, Spain, France etc would not stand for any favouritism being shown to Scotland.
I'm not saying it would be independence on Salmond's terms, it would be a compromise.
The significance of pushing No voters to the other side after the vote is that Scotland wouldn't be divided country. If the Scots vote for independence every Scot is going to want the best deal for Scotland. On the other hand, basically everyone in England would be behind the British government. For as much as people claim they don't care what the Scots do, a lot of people will be feeling quite spiteful if they vote Yes. We're already seeing "don't come crawling back to us" appearing in this thread. That's why it would be such a mess.
You also have to consider how it would play out internationally. Creditors shat themselves at a god damn poll. What's going to happen if it's actually a Yes vote? What effect would a long bitter separation have on them?
I really don't think Cameron has the stomach for it.
Cameron's only concern should be the British people that can and will vote for or against him in the next election (assuming he keeps his job if Scotland vote yes)
If he comes across as weak during the negotiations, the Brits that feel bitter will vote against him in droves.
Hmm. Maybe. But it could also galvanise an 'I told you so' reaction from the No voters.
Anyway, Cameron will be gone if it's a Yes vote.
Long, drawn out negotiations don't help either side. However I - and I imagine a lot of the UK - would be outraged if Scotland were given a generous "deal" to the detriment of rUK, just to get the negotiations over with ASAP. This can partially be considered as spite towards a Scottish nation which decided it didn't want to be in the UK anymore, or as looking out for our own interests.
Looks like things are moving ahead at the border....
The ECB goes by majority vote, so Portugal has 1 of 18 votes. In practice, everyone is constantly negotiating with each other, so it goes down to diplomacy and politics. However, 1 in 18 is still something.
In a UK-Scotland currency union, however, how would it go? The UK would have the biggest share, of course - and since the UK would only be thinking about the UK, it would basically mean that whatever the UK decides, Scotland must follow. Needless to say, this isn't independence. To give Scotland a say, it must give it a disproportionate level of influence - which would carry very large risks for the UK. You'd have a scenario where Scotland can hold up the UK if it needs to do something urgent to fix its monetary policy. This will never be acceptable to the UK.
If the UK (with Scotland) was truly like a republic and had 18 "states", then it might be fairer because no "state" can hold >50% of the vote. But we don't have that scenario.
An independent Scotland right now does have a say in monetary policy, although they say it is dominated by London and Westminister. Which I think is fair, but it's still more than they will realistically get under a currency union - which is 0 - unless, of course, Scotland gives up a lot in return.
Looks like things are moving ahead at the border....
Made me laugh that.
They said they were just trying to inject a bit of fun into the proceedings !!
. The "republic of Ireland" isnt just another foreign country to the UK. People from the "republic of Ireland" have always had the right to vote in UK elections and have always had a right to reside in the UK. (British people have the right to vote in Irish General elections but not presidential or constitutional referendums)
They wouldn't be viewed as foreigners. In my opinion there would be a Scotland act like the Ireland Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_Act_1949
Apparently this is being changed. Smaller countries will have even less of a say from next January.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...our-ecb-automatic-voting-rights-30495787.html
Not quite, those countries are a part of the EU and Scotland according to anyone else other than Salmond will not be. We'll have stronger connections to all the countries mentioned. Scotland really will be an unconnected foreign country.
What remains of the UK would be very keen to keep relations close. It would make no sense for either side to alienate the other as trade partners. As I have said in a post above something like the Ireland Act 1949 would be passed to keep the two countries close.
If they passed a Scotland Act similar to the Ireland Act they would be much close than the other EU countries.
After all, 16-18 year olds are allowed to vote.
I see Nick Clegg is now saying that the "West Lothian question" will be looked at now.
About time too.
How absolutely absurd that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote in matters that relate only to England.
About time too.
How absolutely absurd that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote in matters that relate only to England.
It's about time we had a federal system whereby each country is responsible for its own laws, finances, healthcare etc. but the major issues like defence, foreign policy etc. are centralised and overseen by a UK parliament.
That way everyone gets to decide what happens in their own country, but with the friendship and support of the other countries.
That way everyone gets to decide what happens in their own country, but with the friendship and support of the other countries.
A lot of them are actually quite clued up on it all. It's energised a lot of people. Besides, if you can get married, join the army or be a parent at 16 I don't think it's quite worth the outrage a lot of people will have you believe.
Yeah, always confused me that one, about time it was changed.
That explains it then.
I don't understand what all that's about at all.
English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters etc but they can be a decisive vote on ours ??
Crazy world.
It's one thing asking a soldier or parent their say, quite another the 6th form debating society previously mentioned. I'm not saying they can't have an opinion, but at that age it tends to be idealistic rather than realistic.
Anyway, a far more interesting question to answer is what are the downsides for the rest of the Union if Scotland breaks away?
The question I have for the yes voters, is where do you think your defence equipment, personnel, structures, logistics, command structures, competitive pay will come from?
As someone who has served, I can tell you that that you won't be getting any of rUK's military equipment or structures. You may inherit some bases that the British Military will have had to vacate as it relocates south, but how will you fund the upkeep of these?
You won't be getting any of the regiments, even Scottish ones, from the British military as serving soldiers/airmen/airwomen/sailors swear allegience to the Crown and rUK's Government. Nevermind the fact that nearly all serving members of the military personally want to remain in the British Armed Forces.
In order to entice soldiers made redundent or fresh out of rUK's military you would have to pay some pretty decent wages even for the lowest ranks, which admittedly isn't hard compared to what we get, but how would you fund this?
How would you afford weapons for those you do manage to recruit? Defence costs only rise these days from the humble rifle to the latest high tech kit, they are only getting more expensive than they were say 5 years ago. And then throw in life time costs, as equipment gets more expensive as it ages, how will you fund that?
Training is eye wateringly expensive as is setting up systems from scratch, which you will be doing, how will you fund that?
How will you protect your fishing resources?
How will you protect your oil platforms?
How will you guard against terrorism?
How will you ensure the sovereignty of your skies?
However, if Scotland does leave rUK it will most likely be very beneficial to the north of rUK as we will likely be building or reopening old bases there along with the civilian infrustructures and civilian jobs that go along with that.
As someone who has served, I can tell you that that you won't be getting any of rUK's military equipment or structures. You may inherit some bases that the British Military will have had to vacate as it relocates south, but how will you fund the upkeep of these?
You won't be getting any of the regiments, even Scottish ones, from the British military as serving soldiers/airmen/airwomen/sailors swear allegience to the Crown and rUK's Government. Nevermind the fact that nearly all serving members of the military personally want to remain in the British Armed Forces.
In order to entice soldiers made redundent or fresh out of rUK's military you would have to pay some pretty decent wages even for the lowest ranks, which admittedly isn't hard compared to what we get, but how would you fund this?
How would you afford weapons for those you do manage to recruit? Defence costs only rise these days from the humble rifle to the latest high tech kit, they are only getting more expensive than they were say 5 years ago. And then throw in life time costs, as equipment gets more expensive as it ages, how will you fund that?
Training is eye wateringly expensive as is setting up systems from scratch, which you will be doing, how will you fund that?
How will you protect your fishing resources?
How will you protect your oil platforms?
How will you guard against terrorism?
How will you ensure the sovereignty of your skies?
However, if Scotland does leave rUK it will most likely be very beneficial to the north of rUK as we will likely be building or reopening old bases there along with the civilian infrustructures and civilian jobs that go along with that.
The whole set up needs looked at even if Scotland decide to stay. England tend to get little of the benefits the rest of the UK get, we get taxed more, pay for prescriptions, water, Council Tax, University fees etc.