Alex Salmond and Independence

I’ve just watched the Andrew Marr show which featured an interview with Alex Salmon. Normally I just turn him off because I’m not interested in knowing how Westminster is to blame for all the ills of Scotland, which is his usual theme and because his opinions don’t normally effect me at all. Given the independence referendum I thought I would give him a watch for a change.

God he has gotten fat hasn’t he? I mean he looks like a balloon animal.

So the positions he laid out are.

Keeping inside the Sterling zone but accepting borrowing limits by the bank of England. Scotland would be a couple of billion better off though somehow.

Staying in NATO.

Staying in the EU. There is a lot of good will in the EU towards Scotland, which means no one will object to this apparently.

Scotland to be nuclear free and the sub based to be closed. He thinks that the UK should base its nuclear deterrent in the US or better still give it up all together.

No referendum on the terms of independence for the rest of the UK. He seemed to say that agreeing to independence if the Scots vote for it means independence happens. The tricky part of what terms Scotland leaves on and what happens if there is a major disagreement or sticking point wasn’t touched on.

I think his strategy is bundle all the tricky questions into the negotiate after box. Then use the vote to demand Scotland leaves on whatever terms he sets. If any PM allowed that to happen we should shoot him as a traitor. He says the opinion polls are showing the SNP are winning the argument and the yes vote currently stands between 4 and 11 % adrift.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I’ve just watched the Andrew Marr show which featured an interview with Alex Salmon. Normally I just turn him off because I’m not interested in knowing how Westminster is to blame for all the ills of Scotland, which is his usual theme and because his opinions don’t normally effect me at all. Given the independence referendum I thought I would give him a watch for a change.

God he has gotten fat hasn’t he? I mean he looks like a balloon animal.

So the positions he laid out are.

Keeping inside the Sterling zone but accepting borrowing limits by the bank of England. Scotland would be a couple of billion better off though somehow.

Staying in NATO.

Staying in the EU. There is a lot of good will in the EU towards Scotland, which means no one will object to this apparently.

Scotland to be nuclear free and the sub based to be closed. He thinks that the UK should base its nuclear deterrent in the US or better still give it up all together.

No referendum on the terms of independence for the rest of the UK. He seemed to say that agreeing to independence if the Scots vote for it means independence happens. The tricky part of what terms Scotland leaves on and what happens if there is a major disagreement or sticking point wasn’t touched on.

I think his strategy is bundle all the tricky questions into the negotiate after box. Then use the vote to demand Scotland leaves on whatever terms he sets. If any PM allowed that to happen we should shoot him as a traitor. He says the opinion polls are showing the SNP are winning the argument and the yes vote currently stands between 4 and 11 % adrift.
Click to expand...

It's quite clear the Scotland will lose it's control over monetary policy. It's already clearly apparent from growth figures, regional employment figures that the business cycles are not alignment. It's like having the ECB deciding interest rates for the Euro considering Germany alone and ignoring all the other countries in the zone. This is effectively what's going to happen with Scotland.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
No referendum on the terms of independence for the rest of the UK. He seemed to say that agreeing to independence if the Scots vote for it means independence happens. The tricky part of what terms Scotland leaves on and what happens if there is a major disagreement or sticking point wasn’t touched on.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional case where the results of a referendum in Scotland are legally binding in any case, no referendum in the UK is legally binding, it's just a big feck off opinion poll. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Royal Assent is required, and it can be refused (even though I don't think that has happened since 1707 - but that's not the point). Even if granted, it could take up to 10 years or more for full independence to be unwound from Westminster.
 
WeasteDevil said:
There is no constitutional case where the results of a referendum in Scotland are legally binding in any case, no referendum in the UK is legally binding, it's just a big feck off opinion poll. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Royal Assent is required, and it can be refused (even though I don't think that has happened since 1707 - but that's not the point). Even if granted, it could take up to 10 years or more for full independence to be unwound from Westminster.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is the point. You always seem to think in these discussions that we're still a proper monarchy in a politically meaningful way.

We're not. If the Scots vote for independence, they get independence, because anything else would be an affront to democracy that would lack any sort of popular legitimacy. Lizzie Windsor's opinion on the matter will be irrelevant.
 
It doesn't matter a rat's arse if it's constitutional, or how much you capitalise Royal Assent, or what is technically the possession of the Crown according to a 1267 statute dictated by a man being dangled out of a castle window.

It's politically impossible to keep Scotland in the Union if their people vote to leave. There'd be riots in the streets, and you think the queen would take a stand? Her advisors spend their whole time trying to haul her into the modern era, not catapult her back to before the Magna Carta. Even if she did, all it would do is delay the formal process long enough for parliament to circumvent it.

She'll make a nice little speech starting "Eet is with great sedness..." and at the end of it all your legal boxes will have been checked.
 
All this talk of monarchy leads us to the really important question:
Who becomes King of Scotland?

tumblr_m95vf3LUGi1rdiojuo3_400.jpg
 
Plechazunga said:
It doesn't matter a rat's arse if it's constitutional, or how much you capitalise Royal Assent, or what is technically the possession of the Crown according to a 1267 statute dictated by a man being dangled out of a castle window.

It's politically impossible to keep Scotland in the Union if their people vote to leave. There'd be riots in the streets, and you think the queen would take a stand? Her advisors spend their whole time trying to haul her into the modern era, not catapult her back to before the Magna Carta. Even if she did, all it would do is delay the formal process long enough for parliament to circumvent it.

She'll make a nice little speech starting "Eet is with great sedness..." and at the end of it all your legal boxes will have been checked.
Click to expand...

Culloden!
 
Excal said:
All this talk of monarchy leads us to the really important question:
Who becomes King of Scotland?

tumblr_m95vf3LUGi1rdiojuo3_400.jpg
Click to expand...

It might help if you don't confuse the monarchy with the institution of The Crown. Even if monarchy was abolished, I really have no clue how you would remove the crown, a president would probably be placed in a 4 year term as head of the crown. It's too ingrained to unravel.
 
WeasteDevil said:
It might help if you don't confuse the monarchy with the institution of The Crown. Even if monarchy was abolished, I really have no clue how you would remove the crown, a president would probably be placed in a 4 year term as head of the crown. It's too ingrained to unravel.
Click to expand...

...this can't possibly have been addressed to me.
 
Maybe Scottish Tories should vote tactically for independence then?

Not that there are many Scottish Tories, but those that there are might just be happy to be out of the EU.
 
Independence isn't going to happen, the whole thing is a waste of time and money, but at least it will put the nutters back in their box for at least 20 years.
 
rcoobc said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ks-breaks-away-rest-UK-Theresa-May-warns.html

Is this the stupidest thing anyone has said about Scottish independence yet?
Click to expand...
It all sounds rather true, to me. The reality is, of course, that no one in the west faces a significant danger from terrorism, these days, but it sounds rather obvious to me that an independent Scotland wouldn't have the intelligence capabilities that the UK does.

It's a largely insignificant point but I'm sure we've seen, and shall see far more, points that are less credible, in the the debate.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It all sounds rather true, to me. The reality is, of course, that no one in the west faces a significant danger from terrorism, these days, but it sounds rather obvious to me that an independent Scotland wouldn't have the intelligence capabilities that the UK does.

It's a largely insignificant point but I'm sure we've seen, and shall see far more, points that are less credible, in the the debate.
Click to expand...


The thing is, whilst I agree that losing the services of MI5 and MI6 would increase the chance of terrorist attacks in Scotland..

a) MI5 and MI6 aren't simply going to ignore Scotland and
b) any increased terrorist risk will be offset by Scotland no long being part of the UK.. cus lets face it. Everyone hates us.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25088251

Scottish independence: SNP launches referendum white paper

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has launched the SNP's independence blueprint, calling it a "mission statement" for Scotland's future.

The 649-page Scottish government white paper promised a "revolution" in social policy, with childcare at its heart.

Former UK chancellor Alistair Darling called it a "work of fiction, full of meaningless assertions".

On 18 September, Scots voters will be asked the yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Launching the paper - titled Scotland's Future: Your guide to an independent Scotland - in Glasgow, the first minister said: "This is the most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published, not just for Scotland but for any prospective independent nation.‬‬‬

"But more than that, it is a mission statement and a prospectus for the kind of country we should be and which this government believes we can be.

"Our vision is of an independent Scotland regaining its place as an equal member of the family of nations. However, we do not seek independence as an end in itself, but rather as a means to changing Scotland for the better."

As well as making the case for independence, the white paper also set out a series of policy pledges which the SNP said it would pursue if elected as the government of an independent Scotland.

These included:
  • Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
  • Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament.
  • Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit.
  • It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort".
  • A new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the BBC to continue programmes and services.
  • Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.
  • A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.
  • Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".
Click to expand...
 
I mean, not to ask obvious questions or anything, but how are they financing all of this?

It's all pie in the sky. It doesn't make any sense. They're a country whose residents are already susceptible to needing the state, and yet they reckon they can invest hugely in public services regardless. It really is very odd.

I'm almost in favour of it being passed because I'd love to see how long it would last.
 
They can easily finance "being a country". They might not be able to finance their current living standards.

The Independence Depate is side tracked by the finance debate, but people will vote with their heads, not their hearts.
 
rcoobc said:
They can easily finance "being a country". They might not be able to finance their current living standards.

The Independence Depate is side tracked by the finance debate, but people will vote with their heads, not their hearts.
Click to expand...


They'll be living in shacks under these policies.

It'd be great if they go hard left though. Scotland would turn into a hotbed of lefties leaving England, and we could forget all about them.
 
They will be fine and can play the game all by themselves once they have their own independent central bank. It will make no difference at all though if they continue along the path of being members of the EU because that goes against everything that the SNP apparently stand for. If England are the first piece of the domino falling and they truly want to be independent and knock the EU on the head then I will up sticks and move there myself.
 
You are aware that many countries are net recipients of money from the EU? Given its small economy, Scotland would likely be one of these beneficiaries.

As for a Scottish central bank, what could it do. Salmond said he will keep the pound, so it will not be able to print money or set interest rate policy. It will probably be a financial regulator at best.
 
I think it's not quite realised how much Scotland is subsidised by London and the South East.

That said, if we both end up belonging to the EU independently of the other, we'll just finance them through that.
 
It really would be fascinating to watch it all play out after a Yes vote, as unlikely as it seems at the moment.
 
Scrumpet said:
It really would be fascinating to watch it all play out after a Yes vote, as unlikely as it seems at the moment.
Click to expand...


And not just for Scotland, but also for the UK as a whole.
 
It would probably hasten the departure of Northern Ireland. I'm not sure about Wales, despite Plaid Cymru and stuff I've never got the impression the Welsh really desire independence.
 
Count Orduck said:
It would probably hasten the departure of Northern Ireland. I'm not sure about Wales, despite Plaid Cymru and stuff I've never got the impression the Welsh really desire independence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most of those in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea have more in common with the urban areas of the north of england and the midlands than the inbred i-hate-everybody wankers in north wales.
 
alastair said:
I think it's not quite realised how much Scotland is subsidised by London and the South East.

That said, if we both end up belonging to the EU independently of the other, we'll just finance them through that.
Click to expand...


I'm not the most educated and I'm still forming my opinions on the whole thing (although I'm more and more leaning towards yes) but from what I know we're not subsidised by the UK.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm not the most educated and I'm still forming my opinions on the whole thing (although I'm more and more leaning towards yes) but from what I know we're not subsidised by the UK.
Click to expand...


The 'subsidy' argument by those who try to disparage Scotland is a shaky one, because you could take pretty much any region of the UK and claim that it receives more in public expenditure than it pays in tax. This is not only because a disproportionate amount of tax is paid in London (naturally, as the capital and largest city), but because lots of money that goes to the Treasury cannot be defined as having come from a particular region. It's so easy to manipulate the figures to suit your agenda. For example the SNP, on the other side of the coin, claim that Scotland pays more into the UK than it gets out, and it does this by ignoring the fact that not all public expenditure that Scotland benefits from is directed to Scotland, e.g. the military, the FCO, and other forms of national UK administration.
 
rednev said:
The 'subsidy' argument by those who try to disparage Scotland is a shaky one, because you could take pretty much any region of the UK and claim that it receives more in public expenditure than it pays in tax. This is not only because a disproportionate amount of tax is paid in London (naturally, as the capital and largest city), but because lots of money that goes to the Treasury cannot be defined as having come from a particular region. It's so easy to manipulate the figures to suit your agenda. For example the SNP, on the other side of the coin, claim that Scotland pays more into the UK than it gets out, and it does this by ignoring the fact that not all public expenditure that Scotland benefits from is directed to Scotland, e.g. the military, the FCO, and other forms of national UK administration.
Click to expand...


True, I think that's why there are a lot of people who are still undecided in this whole argument. Both sides are always going to sway the figures to suit their own agenda. From what I've read though, I think it's fairly clear that if we are subsidised at all, it's not to the point where we'd struggle to survive without being subsidised (and many say it's a myth that we are at all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.