A united Ireland is inevitable one day. But realistically we are looking at 40 years plus down the line either way.
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.
A united Ireland is inevitable one day. But realistically we are looking at 40 years plus down the line either way.
Probably not wrong, though I wouldn't push that line of reasoning if I were the SNP, people will work out it's in everyone's best interest to keep everything united.
The part about it being in everyone's interests are true to be fair, due to the trading Scotland and England do, and would continue to do if the referendum went through. Unfortunately this will probably discourage a lot of people on the fence but I'd be surprised if the same stance on the currency union was kept by Westminster if Scotland voted yes. Seems more of a scaremongering tactic than anything else.
If Scotland created their own currency and pegged it to the pound there would be bugger-all Osborne could do about it. They wouldn't have any influence on it's rate of course, but that would start them off, and they could look at it again in 10 or 20 years.
Or the same, but with the Euro, or the dollar.
Or be creative, sign up for the EEC, but then link the Scottish pound to the renminbi. I've no idea why but I'm sure something interesting would happen.
Or the same, but with the Euro, or the dollar.
Or be creative, sign up for the EEC, but then link the Scottish pound to the renminbi. I've no idea why but I'm sure something interesting would happen.
I can't see the British government agreeing to a currency union in the event of Scottish independence. It would be immensely unpopular among the British (minus Scotland, obviously) electorate because the UK would seemingly be getting nothing out of it, but would be taking on risk. A new Scottish currency pegged to to the pound would probably be Scotland's best and only real option.
Although I imagine a lot of English people would prefer if their trading with Scotland -a major trading partner- continued unaffected. If Scotland created their own currency then I imagine there'd be a lot of disruption. Certainly more than with a currency union.
I think the reaction to Scottish independence in the rest of the UK would be something along the lines of 'feck them, let them go it alone'. English people wouldn't admit it but a lot of them would feel a sense of rejection and some of them would be actively willing Scotland to fail so that the Scottish nationalists would see how good they once had it. So the remaining part of the UK taking on risk to assist Scotland would be very difficult to sell to the electorate, even if there is an economic argument for it where trade is concerned.
Perhaps, although if the whole thing made sense then I could see heads coming over hearts in the end. There's definitely a major risk in the SNP's plan, and I do think they should announce some plan B whether it be to apply for the euro or set up our own pound which seems like the next most likely option since it'd maybe help to convince more voters, but I still think that Westminster would eventually agree to the union in the end due to the level of trading Scotland does with England. Some English may want to see Scotland fail, which I personally find a little bit pathetic considering the majority of us are more pro-Scottish than anti-English, but if they were aware that their best option after independence was to agree to a currency union then I imagine they'd be alright with it.
Alistair Darling, leader of Better Together for example, is on record as saying something along the lines of it being logical or desirable should independence happen. The guy may be a muppet who's led his campaign very poorly, but it shows that a lot out there do agree a currency union would be the best option and it strikes me as a major scaremongering tactic which they wouldn't carry out in the end.
Would Scotland be readily accepted into the Euro zone?
It's a bullshit idea. I'm all for self-determination of peoples, and if Scotland vote yes on the referendum then with genuinely no bitterness whatsoever I will wish them well in becoming a thriving, independent country. I mean, Scotland was independent of England for about a thousand years prior to unification, so it's not as if the two have always been together.
But if they're independent, then they're independent. None of this "halfway house" bollocks. They don't get subsidised by the UK. If they can join the EU -- as I'm sure they'll want to -- then brilliant, that'll help everyone out, but I don't see why any country should claim it wants to govern itself but still expect an umbilical cord.
If they want to peg their currency to the pound then that's fine. No one can stop them, after all, and it's their currency to do with as they wish. They could peg it to the price of cheddar if they wanted. But the whole reason the UK stayed out of the Eurozone was to maintain its own fiscal sovereignity, and not let its monetary policies and ability to set its own interest rates be harmed by outsourcing those decisions to Germany. So I cannot see why they'd be happy to let that happen now, by allowing another -- totally independent -- country get in on the act and dilute the power they have over their own currency.
But if they're independent, then they're independent. None of this "halfway house" bollocks. They don't get subsidised by the UK. If they can join the EU -- as I'm sure they'll want to -- then brilliant, that'll help everyone out, but I don't see why any country should claim it wants to govern itself but still expect an umbilical cord.
If they want to peg their currency to the pound then that's fine. No one can stop them, after all, and it's their currency to do with as they wish. They could peg it to the price of cheddar if they wanted. But the whole reason the UK stayed out of the Eurozone was to maintain its own fiscal sovereignity, and not let its monetary policies and ability to set its own interest rates be harmed by outsourcing those decisions to Germany. So I cannot see why they'd be happy to let that happen now, by allowing another -- totally independent -- country get in on the act and dilute the power they have over their own currency.
In the long run, a separate currency is probably still better for both sides. If the rest of the UK one day requires itself to print money for some economic magic, an independent Scotland would suffer as a result. This also applies in reverse, the rest of the UK effectively taking on the risk of an independent Scotland with nothing in return.* The trade between the two countries is just one small point as a consequence of a currency union. Ask those in the Euro, including Greece and Ireland.
An independent Scotland without the ability to print its own money, impose monetary policy and with the lender of last resort as the Bank of England - independent? Politically, this is like the Euro in a lot of ways of course, but if Scotland wants to join the Euro, then why not just enter into a currency union with the Euro, and not the UK?
On the debt and walking away - in theory, the rest of the UK could theoretically propose walking away from the UK, leaving Scotland as the last remaining state in the UK, and we leaving all the debt with them instead. That reasoning doesn't sound sensible, either, does it?
In practical terms, what share of debt would be left with an independent Scotland would be down to international case law and negotiations - but it is important to note that there is an obligation by default (by both sides) as successor states. Scotland can in theory negotiate it away to zero, but it would have to offer something in exchange. In terms of what an independent Scotland might have as a debt obligation, one possible measure might be something like "what portion of the debt was spent in Scotland" or "debt per capita". Or something along those lines.
* Of course, Scotland can offer something in exchange for the Bank of England being the lender of last resort, but politically, it wouldn't be independence at all, and it would still carry risks on both sides.
It's far more reasonable for Scotland to walk away from the debt than the other way around. The debt rests with Parliament after all. Leaving Scotland with the debt would be like buying a house you can't afford, marrying someone, kicking them out of the house, divorcing them and then making them pay for the house.
I'd imagine that with a currency union, the entire point is that it remains very similar to how it currently is. Instead of England having to adapt to their 2nd largest trading partner changing their currency to something completely different, things stay the same in that regard and it doesn't affect businesses at all. Ideally we'd be in a position where we'd be better off without any sort of currency union, but when it's actually the best option for both countries at the moment then I really don't see the problem with it. There are major politicians on the Better Together side on record as saying that it's logical and desirable, and the denying of the currency union just strikes me as a scaremongering tactic.
When Scotland is England's 2nd biggest trading partner, it could be argued that it's a lot more than a small point. The point is that Scotland don't seem to want to enter the Euro at the moment, so are going for this option in order to try and minimise change.
The rest of the UK could do that, but it's a moot point when you consider that the rest of the UK isn't try to leave, and it's us. It's not particularly sensible, but if the union intends to threaten us by denying us a share of assets or a currency union, then we're going to pull out the debt card. It wouldn't happen and we'd take our share if we did leave, but at the same time the UK can't expect us to take a share of debt while not giving us any assets or this currency union.
More to the point, would the Union Flag have to be redesigned?
I could see them just leaving it the same to be honest since it's such a well known flag, although it'd be interesting to see what happened.
I don't get it. The SNP tell everybody they're planning to keep the pound, then moan when Westminster says no. Perhaps they should have asked The Government/Bank Of England before they came out with all this stuff?
Tail trying to wag the Dog!
Tail trying to wag the Dog!
Eh, they have. Mark Carney, the governor of the bank of England, made a speech on the issue the other week. The basic crux was that it was possible and could be negotiated, but some ceding of national sovereignty would have to occur, ie the English set the interest rates. Ideally we'd be completely free of that, but when it makes sense to both countries to opt for the currency union then it's the best option.
Even though a currency union would still happen if we voted yes probably, I do think it'd be wise for the SNP to now come up with some sort of Plan B to try and assure undecided voters who feel that it's too big a risk with this latest announcement. Even though their currency union plan should work, it's one mistake they made; no matter how likely it was, they should have come out at the start with some plan B just in case this wasn't going to work.
I didn't know Carney had made a speech on it.
Must have missed the news that day! Were they consulted before the plan was made public though?
The propaganda war should be interesting to follow over the next few months.
Something similar happened after Irish Independence in the 1920s. The Irish pound was pegged to the British pound for the next 60 years. In the aftermath of independence, officials from the Irish central bank did approach the Bank of England with a proposal that they become lenders of last resort. Not surprisingly, the BoE told them to take a hike.
I didn't know Carney had made a speech on it.
Were they consulted before the plan was made public though?
The propaganda war should be interesting to follow over the next few months.
I'm not sure if they were consulted properly. I think a lot of it was an assumption that the SNP made based on the fact that a currency union is largely sensible. While I'd agree, I do think it'd now be a good time for them to announce some sort of plan B. They may look weaker in doing so, but there are a lot of undecided voters who just won't want to take the risk after the latest news. They should have done so at the start, but I think they largely assumed that the UK would agree to the move. Unfortunately though, the UK clearly want to put a lot of fear into Scottish people so have said they intend not to implement it instead. Osbourne's speech was more of a reaffirmation of their intentions though, as opposed to a complete, direct denial. I still expect Wesminster would change their mind if it did go through, but with the No campaign as favourites to win right now, despite the ground the Yes campaign has been making lately, they'll use this as a tactic to try and stop the gains Yes have been making.
The propaganda war should be interesting. The SNP will continue to claim this is a bullying tactic. While that's true, they do need to now come up with some sort of Plan B to reassure undecided voters who are considering voting for yes. The No campaign will continue to try and talk about the risks, and will continue to say that a currency union won't happen without ever completely denying the possibility of it. Unfortunately I can see a lot of Scots who are unsure and just want plain and simple information becoming a bit sick of the whole thing.
There's still very little for the UK to agree to a currency union. The UK's economy would still be larger and it would be absorbing the risk of the Scottish economy to a certain degree. If a Scottish bank wants to go wild with crazy trades, the UK absorbs a lot of the risk. What does it get in return? Reduced FX risk with Scotland. That's a terrible trade.
Salmond has already said that Scotland would pay back its share of the debt, even though it doesn't technically have to - for good reason. This is the only real bluff in the statements made by politicians in the last few days. A new nation that is perceived to have ignored its debt obligations (while benefiting from it in the past), refused a currency union by one of its largest trading partners? Scotland will be looking at Greece-like bond rates.
The Treasury has already stated it will guarantee all the debt, regardless of the result of the referendum. The UK is capable of paying back the debt without Scotland, although more years of pain will of course be rubbish. But as stated above, Scotland could easily be in a worse position when it comes to issuing bonds (well, if it uses the pound without a currency union, it won't even be able to do so).
That was in my mind when I posted earlier. Pegging to the pound would simply allow them to move on politically, giving them time to develop systems to support and control their own truly independent currency. The jocks are quite capable of doing that, good luck to them.
Where would these major risks in our economy be? We've got more than enough in the way of resources to survive on our own, as is shown by the fact that with our figures alone compared to the rest of the UK's we've got higher GDP per person. Even without oil, or main resource, a lot of figures are fairly similar. There's no reason to believe that a currency union entails the risk of joining with a country which is going to collapse. We've got enough to ensure that it's not going to happen.
If they say no to the union, the trade will be a big issue on it. Something like £60bn is traded each year, and presuming people would want that to continue, without the currency union transaction fees would be added on which would cost a lot of UK businesses both in Scotland and England. Not to mention that the UK would further struggle with their balance of payments deficit without resources we have such as oil. There are reasons for them to say no to this, but overall I'd say the positives of a currency union outweigh the negatives.
Osbourne has basically stated what we know, in that they intend not to enter one, but Mark Carney did say that despite some ceding of national sovereignty it is possible. Alistair Darling, leader of Better Together, is on record as saying it's logical and desirable. Not to mention the hypocrisy of David Cameron refusing the risk of debating with Salmond with the excuse that he doesn't have a vote, but happily getting Osbourne involved by trying to push issues most of us already know.
A big one is the banks - Scottish banks would no longer fall under the FSA, but either the Bank of England underwrites them at the expense of the UK taxpayer (hah!) or doesn't, opening itself to systemic risk. Either way, the pound would need to factor in the risks associated with the fact that an independent country is faffing around with its currency with less control. It would cost the UK more to raise money through bonds.
Every country has a risk of defaulting or falling into trouble. Even the US - you wouldn't have thought that way a few years ago! Countries with vast resources have fallen into trouble into the past. You cannot say it won't happen. It might, and the UK will be paying for that risk.
Transaction fees? Seriously? That is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things in the economies of the rest of the UK and Scotland. As stated above, the UK would be absorbing additional costs and risks - real ones, too, in the bond markets - when it comes to raising money. Which is quite a bit bigger than transaction fees.
Politically, it would never sell in the UK. UK taxpayers indirectly taking the hit for Scottish citizens? This wouldn't fly at all.
You are underestimating the importance of being in control of a currency. With a currency union, the UK may find its ability to influence monetary policy diminished in some way. It will find that some of it is under the control of an independent nation who might have monetary policy contrary to what it tries to set. Some countries in the Eurozone have found, to their detriment, their economies dictated by Germany. And on the flip-side, some countries in the Eurozone have found, to their detriment, their economies dragged down thanks to countries like Greece. All of this has an indirect cost.
It's not helped by the fact that the pound is one of the most important currencies in the world, backed by a country with a large economy that has never defaulted. The UK will be unwilling to lose any control to an independent nation. It's one of the reasons why another mooted union between the US and Canada (and maybe Mexico) is infeasible - the US would take the lion's share of the benefits, but it would be less than before as it will have lost control over its currency - and the US dollar is the gold standard.
Of course it's possible, but the UK will need something in return. I think it will need a lot in return, quite frankly. Why else has it been Scotland who's asking for it - not the UK?
You might also want to read the rest of Darling's comments, by the way. Keep reading - he is suggesting that, under a currency union, as an example, Scottish people might one day wake up to find the UK has changed the tax laws in "independent" Scotland.
Every country risks falling into trouble - of course that's true. That would include the UK as it is anyway considering the countries recent financial woes. I'm not trying to say we're going to operate perfectly for the remainder of the time, but for us the risks of staying within the union are as large as the risks of going independent. So perhaps we could fall into trouble, but we operate well financially meaning it's fairly unlikely.
Try telling small businesses in the UK that transaction fees are merely a rounding error when it would probably be fairly massive to them if they're already struggling to get by. It might not be massive figures wise, but a lot of these businesses would in all likelihood be affected by it.
I can't say I know too much about the bonds stuff. Obviously I don't claim to be a financial expert at all, I'd only claim to know the basics, but I've not really heard this issue of bonds being brought up a lot so far in the whole thing. Even though it would perhaps come into play, a large part of the whole idea of the currency union is that not a lot would change, so I'm not sure why additional bonds would suddenly have to become involved if we're sharing a currency.
You say that the UK don't want their currency to be controlled by an independent country, but that could happen anyway if we went independent in that Scotland would merely say that they're as entitled to the pound as the rest of the UK are, and could simply attempt to use it without the rUK's consent. If that were to happen, wouldn't it make more sense for rUK to negotiate a currency union instead of us simply using it, which would only cause further problems?
The UK haven't been asking for it because they're more than happy to create this uncertainty. One of the major grey areas for the people of Scotland is currency. If undecided voters are given the green light on a currency union, which assures little change and things remaining the same, then they're a lot more likely to vote yes. There's a reason that Osbourne has left this issue for so long. Westminster has been more than happy to let this uncertainty over the union brew. It's also no coincidence that his announcement comes at a time when poll support for the Yes vote has been increasing.
I know Darling has said a lot against the union: the point was merely to explain that their are major Better Together people out there who have admitted that it's logical and desirable. Preferably I'd rather Scotland could run it's own affairs without any interference in monetary issues, but if it works out to be the best option for both countries for now then I'm happy to secede some national sovereignty in order to ensure a stable currency that works for both countries.
Lloyd's would be interesting in the event of separation, it's technically a Scottish Bank.
I have said all along that there are big assumptions being made by the Nationalists about the terms of separation they propose. It always looked like a wish list to me.
Here we have an example of something which seems like a good idea for Scotland but offers no benefit for the rest of the UK. If Scotland is pushed out of the pound then its financial service businesses would likely as not move across the border. This is probably why all the parties in the UK have signed up to preventing the currency union.
Following Scottish independence the rest of the UK will try to feck Scotland out of every penny it can.
Here we have an example of something which seems like a good idea for Scotland but offers no benefit for the rest of the UK. If Scotland is pushed out of the pound then its financial service businesses would likely as not move across the border. This is probably why all the parties in the UK have signed up to preventing the currency union.
Following Scottish independence the rest of the UK will try to feck Scotland out of every penny it can.
Of course these companies would be affected. But harsh as it sounds, this is cherry-picking. The impact will be felt over the whole of the UK, not just those who deal between the two countries. It makes no sense just to consider a few of the aspects.
OK, I'll simplify things for you. The UK - and pretty much every country, barring the likes of North Korea (maybe?) - borrows money. A lot of money. The UK raises money by issuing bonds - kind of like an IOU - upwards of £100b (I think) every year. People like traders, funds and other countries buy these bonds. The UK repays these slowly, with interest.
Of course, each country is different. The UK is very likely to repay, but a country like Zimbabwe is unlikely to do so. Consequently, the interest rate charged on UK bonds is lower than Zimbabwe's, to factor in stuff like defaulting, sanctions, etc. (because investors will want higher returns to offset the fact that the money might not arrive from Zimbabwe in the end). The UK is likely to repay due to the strength of its economy and history of repaying debt. Zimbabwe... Less so. This is another word for "risk" in many ways.
So what happens under a currency union? The UK will find itself suddenly not in control of a not-insignificant part of its economy that is backed by the pound. The currency union agreement will likely say something along the lines of "monetary policy can change only if the Bank of England and (hypothetical) Central Bank of Scotland agree". So what happens if the two disagree (not outlandish, given they are now competing countries)? The UK will find itself hamstrung by this, so it has less control over monetary policy. Scotland might also decide to do something economically stupid (maybe only with hindsight), which will hurt the pound.
(I'd note that a lot of this can apply in reverse, as a negative to Scotland, the difference being that as the bigger future nation, England is better-equipped to recover.)
All of this adds up to higher "risk" for the UK. What happens when risks increase? So does the interest rate on bonds. The UK then finds itself effectively being able to borrow less from the markets. This has a knock-on effect on the rest of the country - the government can't spend as much, so needs to cut costs; international companies based in the UK also take similar hits...
Scotland can concede this and maybe offer more control, but that is less "independence" and more "vassal state". And politically impossible in Scotland.
True, nothing is stopping you from using the pound without permission. You can use the US Dollar, the Japanese Yen, or even Bitcoin if you so desire. However, you will be at the mercy of UK monetary policy. If the UK one day decides to print more money, Scotland will take the inflation hit, even if Scotland is comparatively OK. Scotland wouldn't be allowed to print pounds (in the UK, that would be a criminal offence and the notes considered counterfeits... If another country did that, it could be considered an act of war. Nazi Germany tried to do this with the pound), so it couldn't stimulate its economy if it needed to (i.e. Greece). If Scottish banks fell into trouble, the Bank of England would not lend as a lender of last resort - so it would more easily go bust (although I think that practically, the Bank of England would lend some money due to systemic risk and the fact that the two countries still share close ties).
And, of course, it wouldn't be considered "independence".
The thing is, I don't think it will be "some" sovereignty. I think it will be a lot. At worst, it will be in proportion to the sizes of the economy.
I think the most sensible thing would be for Scotland to setup its own central bank and its own currency, pegged to the pound (maybe with some range) - maybe even 1-1. Over time, the pound sterling would be phased out, and the peg removed. The central bank will let you apply to the EU as one of the criteria, and Scotland would be able to set its own monetary policy. It would then be fully independent as can be. Scotland will inevitably need something like a central bank anyway, should it become independent, so you may as well get started on planning. Of course, it's not easy setting up a central bank... Which is presumably one of the reasons why the White Paper doesn't mention it as their first choice.
There are already Scottish pounds in circulation, albeit not of legal tender in the rest of the UK, so some mechanism already exists. This isn't really the same as a new currency, though, as Scotland has to pay the Bank of England an equivalent amount in pound sterling (or something like that). They're just changing the pictures on the notes in an environmentally-unfriendly way.
I'd like to know where you're getting this information. The polls I've seen suggest the opposite - that the "Yes" vote has been hovering between the 30-40% bracket (depending on the pollsters) for the past year, with the "No" vote somewhere between 40-50%. I'm not trying to denigrate your point or anything, but I just want clarification on that.
I also get the impression you're strongly in favour of independence
My opinion is irrelevent because as an Englishman living in Ireland I obviously don't get anywhere near a vote. I still think it was very, very cheap of the pro-independence lobby to stop any Scot living outside of Scotland from being able to vote, though. I've Scottish friends who live in London -- the capital city of their own country, for now at least -- who are prevented from voting because it would be "too difficult" to organise. Obviously, the real reason is that Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are less likely to vote "Yes".Whatever the voting results, I wish Scotland and the Scottish people the best.
In fairness, I think if I received this advice, I'd probably be compelled to say no to a currency union. Although I suspect the move is partly intended as a scare tactic, it also seems to make a lot of sense.
On a personal note, I'm slightly baffled that only Scottish people get a vote on whether they stay in the UK or not. Surely the decision impacts on everybody in the UK, therefore all UK citizens should get a vote?
I'd like to know where you're getting this information. The polls I've seen suggest the opposite - that the "Yes" vote has been hovering between the 30-40% bracket (depending on the pollsters) for the past year, with the "No" vote somewhere between 40-50%. I'm not trying to denigrate your point or anything, but I just want clarification on that.
I also get the impression you're strongly in favour of independence
Whatever the voting results, I wish Scotland and the Scottish people the best.
You're correct with that info. One of the more recent polls suggested though that support has increased around 5% though, and it's clear that the tide has been turning from a yes vote being very unlikely to possible. The problem with Better Together has been that they've had a poor campaign full of negativity without actually giving any Scots genuine reasons as to why we should remain in the union. For example, after the SNP launched the White Paper, the Better Together campaign criticised it for it's uncertainty. That's fair enough - except for the fact that Better Together have given little to nothing as to the positives of voting no; merely the negativity and a general "too wee, too poor" attitude, which contrasts with the Yes campaigns more positive attitude towards Scotland. That's not to say they don't exaggerated some things regarding our future if we voted yes, but a lot have become fed up with Westminster and the idea of going it alone and being run by our own people is a positive one to them.
I've been one of those who was undecided on the issue for a long time. I liked the idea of voting yes, but was sceptical. The political argument is fairly basic; many believe Scotland should be run by a government it elects, instead of largely being run by a Tory government we ultimately don't want. Devolution has it's positives, but ultimately Westminster can take a lot of our oil revenue, while implementing policies like the bedroom tax that we don't want here, and we have nuclear weapons that a large number of Scots don't want and that we don't really need.
It's the economic argument that's the more complex one and I'm not really an expert on a lot of it, but the general impression I've gotten is that we pay our way in the UK and with our resources we're capable of surviving. Add in the oil that's yet to be extracted, as well as the potential that comes from an oil fund, and we're more than capable of surviving.
It's this currency issue now that's a major sticking point. I still think there are a lot of benefits to the currency union and it's clear that it's at least in part being said no to by Westminster to put fear into a lot of Scots, although there's now a lot of uncertainty on the issue and it'll be interesting to see what the SNP do with their plan B.
Appreciate the sentiment though. I'd say the more vocal Scots are anti-Westminster as opposed to anti-English. If it goes through then I'd hope we maintain good relations with England since I've not got anything against them. While I'm in favour, I'd say there are much stronger supporters out there; I've only recently converted and it took a long time for me to be convinced by independence. This is a major sticking point now, although I'd expect a plan B such as launching our own currency could possibly work for us.
I agree that Scots living in England should really get the vote. I'd say they're probably less likely to vote yes, although I could still see there being some who feel strongly enough about their home country to vote for it, even if they're not living there at the time. But I do agree that more would sway towards no from outside.
Well I'd certainly disagree that all UK citizens should get the vote, although I do agree that Scottish people not currently living in the country should be able to. The whole thing would be completely pointless if the whole of the UK could vote. You can't have a referendum for the independence of a country when only 10% of the voters are actually from that country. If the possibility of Scotland leaving negatively affects people in rUK, then it'd be the government to blame for allowing the referendum to go ahead in the first place. I understand the sentiment that England, Wales and NI could be negatively affected by something they don't have a say in, but the whole idea of having a referendum for a country when only 10% of people voting are from that country is a bit pointless.
Isn't Great Britain the country, and Scotland a region of that country? It's technically no different from Cornwall deciding they want independence and only allowing Cornish residents to vote.
If England decided to bugger off and leave the rest of the UK to fend for itself, I'm sure the Scots would want a say in it.
If England decided to bugger off and leave the rest of the UK to fend for itself, I'm sure the Scots would want a say in it.
But Cornwall doesn't have much of a national identity. It doesn't have it's own national football team, it's own national flag, it's own national history, and it's not a devolved region. Scotland is a part of Great Britain, but most people would recognise that we're largely recognised as a country. As the people of that country, we've got a right to advocate our own independence if we choose to do so. It's then up to Westminster to decide whether to grant us a referendum on the issue, which they have. If you give someone a referendum on independence, the point is that they should be the ones to decide.
Try telling them that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism
I agree that Westminster gave you the right for a vote, and it's up to you. I just think it's odd that the rest of the UK didn't get a chance to air their views on how it would affect them.
I'm not really bothered if Scotland stay or not, the only issue i have is over the currency funnily enough. I don't want to foot the bill in the unlikely event that Scotland have a Greece style collapse. I also get the impression that Salmond is more concerned about cementing his own legacy than the overall will of the people, but that's not really something I can back-up, it's more a gut feeling.
I suppose most areas will have some level of nationalism, but Scottish nationalism is undoubtedly much bigger than Cornish nationalism.
Yeah, the currency is a real issue now, but I don't think we'd have a Greece style collapse since we're a region in the UK that already operates well on our own resources and would be well set to survive with plenty of oil resources as well. The actual currency we'd use is an issue. I think there's still benefits to having a currency union, but there's clearly positives and negatives to it. Our own currency would be the next best option, and there are a lot out there who think it's the best stance for us to take. The SNP's stance on it now is that if we take debt, we're entitled to assets, and that would include part of the BoE.
I don't mind Salmond. I wouldn't trust him fully, but he's undoubtedly one of our best politicians and he's far better than the vast majority of Scottish ones out there. As well as that, I trust him more than Westminster politicians like Cameron who attempts to put across this idea of British nationalism and unity when he clearly just wants us to stay to stop any disruption. Not to mention the fact that he won't debate with Cameron on the principle that he doesn't vote, but he's more than happy to be the Prime Minister of our country.
Did we ever actually change the wording of the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
Whether I think it should or whether I think it's a good idea is a very different thing.
Over and above those that have done their homework, I still maintain that there are many that will vote with their hearts rather than their heads and whilst it's somewhat cringeworthy I can see why Salmond goes about his business the way he does.
Whether I think it should or whether I think it's a good idea is a very different thing.
Over and above those that have done their homework, I still maintain that there are many that will vote with their hearts rather than their heads and whilst it's somewhat cringeworthy I can see why Salmond goes about his business the way he does.
On the point about the right of Scotland to ask the question of independence, consider all other examples of regions that have broken away from the sovereign state to which they had previously belonged. Since the start of the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, all of the newly independent countries to have been formed have done so in the aftermath of serious violence and conflict, often coupled with political oppression and genocide. These are South Sudan (2011), Montenegro (2006), East Timor (2002), Palau (1994), Eritrea (1993), Bosnia (1992), Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia (1991). The newly formed ex-Soviet states in 1991 were obviously formed in the aftermath of decades of brutal totalitarian oppression, and virtually all examples of break away countries since WW2 relate to colonial territories breaking away from their colonial masters or matters of war.
In the modern age, it is unprecedented for a peaceful and prosperous region to break away from a peaceful and prosperous democratic nation state. Such a thing just doesn't happen. Especially when you consider that the United Kingdom has existed for so long.
The Scottish nationalists paint the picture that the relationship between Scotland and the UK is different because the UK is a 'union of countries', but in a legal and political sense, this is misleading. It's a union of nations maybe, but so are almost all countries/nation states. It makes as much sense for Scotland to declare independence from the UK as it does for the Catalan region to do so from Spain, or Brittany from France. That's why I think independence is madness. A region breaking away from a country to form its own independent nation state should be more than some little experiment based on national pride or the sentiment of a group of people 'wanting to go it alone', it should be something that arises as a necessity in the wake of violence, genocide, oppression, the denial of human rights etc. The nation state is not something that should be so easily undermined.
In the modern age, it is unprecedented for a peaceful and prosperous region to break away from a peaceful and prosperous democratic nation state. Such a thing just doesn't happen. Especially when you consider that the United Kingdom has existed for so long.
The Scottish nationalists paint the picture that the relationship between Scotland and the UK is different because the UK is a 'union of countries', but in a legal and political sense, this is misleading. It's a union of nations maybe, but so are almost all countries/nation states. It makes as much sense for Scotland to declare independence from the UK as it does for the Catalan region to do so from Spain, or Brittany from France. That's why I think independence is madness. A region breaking away from a country to form its own independent nation state should be more than some little experiment based on national pride or the sentiment of a group of people 'wanting to go it alone', it should be something that arises as a necessity in the wake of violence, genocide, oppression, the denial of human rights etc. The nation state is not something that should be so easily undermined.
Last edited:
Yes, the question now is the far more neutral: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"