606v2 Rugby Fans Scottish Independence Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

 v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).
 
If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.
 
It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:
 
1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?
 
2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.
 
If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.
 
What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.
 
Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

[21st Century Schizoid Man]

I would rather have this braw laddie for Scottish PM than Wee Gordy Broon :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk

be careful what you wish for. Scottish Labour will win the next election under a yes vote and my money would be on Brown to re-enter politics.

why is that? SNP would stand no chance?

The reason is this.

The SNP are an Independence Party. They are not a party which delivers. Their sole goal has been independence, good or bad. Whether the people are richer or poorer.
W
Scots see through him, they may vote yes but they aren't all snp voters.

The Labour Party however is the party of the nation. They hold what 41 out of 59 seats and it is a big diff once the top dogs of scottish politics return to the top table in Scotland. The best labour politicians go to Westminster currently, the best snp politicians go to holyrood.

Salmond cannot deliver on his promises. He can't offer high public services akin to Nordic countries with USA style taxation rates. Don't insult our intelligence. People aren't complete idiots.

If he wins then I doubt he will even be leader come official independence.

People aren't necessary loyal.... Churchill was voted out within months of WWII ending, even though they held him as the saviour of the nation.

Once negotiations start and people realise currency is screwed, EU membership is years down the line and tough choices will have to be made you'll see old hands like brown and alexander return to Scotland to take over. If brown doesn't take over than alexander should... He was Blair's choice for next leader of the uk Labour Party, well respected and I think he can help Scotland make the choices it needs to make however hard they may be.

Are you quite mad ?    Brown or Alexander .  Who in theie right mind would want either of those lying incompetents ?   Brown helped destroy the economy and Alexander organised an electoral catastrophe.    Take it you don't want 'Bendy Wendy' Alexander as a sibling double act into the bargain ?  

Scottish labour won 41 out of 59 seats in Scotland 2010. The snp barely garnered more votes than the Tories. Do you honestly think that the people see the scottish parliament as the most important part of scottish parliament, the highest office. It is not, at least not yet.

So you'd rather have salmond then. Fine but be careful what you wish for.

I don't have a vote, I emigrated. I am a no supporter but understand why some may want to vote yes and whilst it would hurt, if that's what my countrymen want then so be it.

But read between the lines please.

There is no paradise off the coast of Skye. There is not 100 years of black gold left. We will not achieve monetary union with England, we will have to wait for EU membership and eventually take up the euro, the FS industry will up sticks to rUK and we won't simply refuse all proportional debt.

I respect anyone who says FA, I hear what you say, but I still think my heart says yes. But anyone who believes this tripe that independent Scotland is some nirvana with 74 virgins then my advice is get off the crack and open your eyes.

Not following that at all - is it only me that is confused here ?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajd4R-9BEIw

No bias, none at all, nothing to see

[quinsforever]

Sadly, I hear bookies are paying out already on a NO win

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Sadly, I hear bookies are paying out already on a NO win

That is disappointing - I was looking forward to seeing you munch your way thru your Holland Park mansion

[fa0019]

What I really don't get on this forum is the so called 'expert' financial, defence and legal opinions that seem to be gathered from the rabidly loyalist, fanatically anti-Scottish, pro-establishment at any cost, right wing London media.    Someone above even quoted a piece from the Express ffs.    What next Nigel Farage via the Daily Fail?     These same people do not appear to have a remit in the referendum.   I disagree with Radge but at least he has a vested interest - although quoting Gordon 'Light Touch' Brown when discussing finance was bizarre to say the least.

Outside of the national right wing obvious no voters.

For independence

Sunday Herald.

Against independence

FT
Economist
Scotsman
Guardian
Herald

They're all wrong right.

you could through in all the academics, economists, scientists etc who back no. but that would be boring as the list would be too many.

When I see the yes campaign bring out a reputed academic they didn't pay off (stiglitz) then I'd be impressed. The real reason is that when you take out emotion and you weigh up the pros and cons from a political and financial point of view, its a poor case at best and at worst, its sheer lies spat out by the Yes campaign.

Here's one: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/no-economic-or-moral-grounds-for-rejection-of-currency-union/ - are you truly "impressed"?  No, of course you're not, cos I could list a hundred and it still wouldn't change your opinion - and I'm afraid that's all you can offer, just a view.  I'm out

Ok so I will give it a stab, not a complete numpty in this field as I am an Econ postgrad.... Not an expert but not completely talking out my backside.

A - how are the economies so similar? Scotland will be 15% based solely on oil revenues, the rUK next to nothing, even currently it's about 1%. One with major holdings in oil will be subject to swings in oil revenues, oil prices and therefore USD exposure. The rUK has no such exposure. They are far different. Economies heavily influenced by commodities are subject to vast swings in revenue generation making them volatile.

B - the central bank ie rUK that's to supplement any misgivings to the GBP. So they have to cater for these swings in the oil market at a proportion of 9:1 even though it's all exposed in Scotland?

C - he says the risks for looking after Scotland are unsubstantiated. Ok so forgive me but didn't the treasury bail out RBS in 2009 to the tune of 45bn gbp. Until then it was a scottish bank. All taxpayers money. So that is not a risk?  How is that not a risk of going again?

D - he talks about how strong Scotland has been... Forgets to mention under the credit crunch they would have gone bust had they been independent, no ifs no buts.  With a balance sheet 10* their GDP they would have been no way they could have survived.

E- he says that Westminster has no moral right to deny Scottish business. Hmm, do we have a moral right to Ireland or to France, or perhaps Germany. They will be bigger trading partners to rUK then Scotland, far more important. Once the union is broken up the BoE has no moral obligation towards a foreign country who chose to leave.

F - Westminster shouldn't have the interests of the Scottish people in their hearts. They do at the moment as we are one country, break away and what rUK should look after us for old time sake. One foreign country amongst the other 200 odd. We have strong historical ties to Canada, AUS, SA, NZ, IRE, India, Pakistan, Nigeria but they don't get the odd bail out whenever they ask us for a fiver. As part of the IMF sure but no kore than all the other members.
If it was in the best interests of the UK to join the USD should they do so?

G - if it's so good why are their so few if any major nations that have pegged currencies? Denmark probably the most high profile, the rest are nearly all developing 3rd world nations. Even Denmark says they should join euro, that it's been very expensive pegging to it, that they have had to harm their own country financially to maintain a balanced budget and a peg. They themselves don't have a commodity based economy either which is an important distinction.

H - it still doesn't address the point that if Scotland tanked, the rUK would have to rescue it with its own money. That is a fact. We have seen in the euro that even though they are meant to keep balanced budgets they don't and it's why they have had so much problems, they have no incentive to keep a balanced budget as what's the penalty, there have been no penalties and those who went bust, hey they got a nice big cheque.

As long as

Did you actually read about this guy or read an article and then say ah, backs me up, bing!

Does actually quote him does it.

If you read about him, he actually doesn't say monetary union is the best alternative. He actually said.... There may be good reasons why the rUK may reject monetary union with an independent Scotland but that the reasons the UK treasury gave in their letter in March did not explain this. What he said was that the letter didn't state what was in the interests of the rUK and whether it would be in their best interests. He has not looked at all the options in full, what he said was that

Even if it had, this british people are very sceptical over keeping anyone afloat. Why should anyone pay for your neighbours extensions? They didn't join the euro, had their been fiscal cohesion then maybe it might have been but the UK people still wouldn't have wanted it.

In the end look you can always always find some guy who will support you... This article is over 6 months old, it's nothing new. You will find any scientist to support whatever claims you make out if you search long enough but the tide, the tide so so great against it.

Perhaps mark carney is wrong, perhaps the (unpaid by any side unlike stiglitz) Nobel prize winning economist krugman is wrong, the BoE, the economist, the FT, the heads of every economics dept in Scotland, the IMF, the heads of research at goldman Sachs, deutsche, soc gen, credit Suisse etc  are wrong. But your argument at the moment has the backing of a couple of chaps coming in 1s and 2s. Ou side comes in with hundreds. As I said I'm not an expert, I had experience in looking as such things but that was a long time ago but in the end it's all theory. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist and this is the new wave, perhaps. But I'd be willing to bet against it.

Your move chief.

[ME-109]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

[quinsforever]

Sadly, I hear bookies are paying out already on a NO win

That is disappointing - I was looking forward to seeing you munch your way thru your Holland Park mansion

was a two stage process...YES...then get Sterling.

i will be genuinely sad if its a NO.

[quinsforever]

and its a battersea bedsit these days ASBO

[Sin é]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

[ME-109]

Having said that conjecture, inaccuracy and incorrect conclusions...maybe he is an expert after all.

[Sin é]

Some really interesting programmes on Irish TV about our struggle for independence and the different views.

Did you know that James Joyce was a rabid nationalist 'who asked nothing from England but her departure.'?

[fa0019]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Easy to criticise. Can you formulate your own opinion?

[ME-109]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Easy to criticise. Can you formulate your own opinion?

Sure...see what HammerofThunor said....just to note I said more or less the same a few pages back. Independence will come down to what people want. Will it be economically tough...possibly (but then again it might not be). If that is what is important to people (economy, health, defence etc) then people will vote based on that. If it isnt they wont. Good luck to them either way.

[quinsforever]

That's 10 seconds of everyone's lives they are never going to get back. Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious.

[fa0019]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

It is a british bank. But it's also a Scottish bank. Had it not gone bust a few years ago with its headquarters in Scotland, with its strategy dictated in Scotland, with its bosses all from Scotland it would have been a Scottish bank. Now as it's 85% owned by UK govt, it is a british bank because the Scottish government wouldn't be able to buy it if they even wanted to.

So it did most of its work outside of Scotland, doesn't mean it's not a Scottish bank.

Before the bail out

The headquarters was in Scotland
The CEO was Scottish
The chairman was Scottish
The strategy was controlled from Scotland

And you're trying to laugh at my assertion it was not a Scottish company.

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks all without doubt generate most of their earnings outside of the USA... They are still American.

Hsbc is a british bank... Or is it a Chinese bank to you?

ENI is an Italian oil firm... How much oil is actually in Italy? How much of it is refined in Italy, yet they pay their taxes in Italy, why because they are an Italian company.

[fa0019]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Easy to criticise. Can you formulate your own opinion?

Sure...see what HammerofThunor said....just to note I said more or less the same a few pages back. Independence will come down to what people want. Will it be economically tough...possibly (but then again it might not be). If that is what is important to people (economy, health, defence etc) then people will vote based on that. If it isnt they wont. Good luck to them either way.

So no then.

[ME-109]

That's 10 seconds of everyone's lives they are never going to get back. Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious.

Only trying to help you understand Quins. It seems to be something you were struggling with. Think of it along the lines of "Sunningdale for slow learners"...you'll get it one day.

[ME-109]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Easy to criticise. Can you formulate your own opinion?

Sure...see what HammerofThunor said....just to note I said more or less the same a few pages back. Independence will come down to what people want. Will it be economically tough...possibly (but then again it might not be). If that is what is important to people (economy, health, defence etc) then people will vote based on that. If it isnt they wont. Good luck to them either way.

So no then.

I am not Scottish, so I wouldnt dare to tell them what they should or shouldnt do. As an Irish person I am more disposed to the Yes vote but its up to them (those who have a vote at least).

[SecretFly]

I know I probably keep coming back to this George Galloway chappie - one of the prominent voices in the No camp - and he really is an intriguing figure.  This not so much about YES or NO but more about simply a man who seems to be able to talk so passionately, so articulately and yet openly and freely contradict his supposed impassioned and trenchently held ideals so very casually indeed.  I've just been listening to quite a bit of him on YouTube there when I had little else to do....and he's a wonder to humankind.

Now that it's quiet here I'll just give a taster of what I mean.  And again, this really is more about the man himself than me trying to crunch a NO vote or support a YES one.  This is just about how we don't necessarily think of how conflicted a single person can be until we find the quotes.

This is what he said when supporting the No camp recently in a panelist setting:

George: "They [SNP] fought for it [Independence] despite everything and anything that was happening.  When London was burning under the blitz, their poet Laureate, McDermot, said; 'London is burning, I don't care.'  They said it was England's war.  They want you to re-fight a battle 700 years ago between two French speaking kings with Scottish people on both sides. I prefer to remember a rather more recent battle, when this small island of English speaking people stood alone.  And if we had not stood but capitulated, like others had done before us, we'd be having this meeting this evening in German, if we were going to have it at all.
And not one person asked in that Summer and Autumn of 1940 and into 1941, if the pilots who were spinning above us, defending us from invasion, from the barbaric hoard, ask whether the pilot was from Suffolk or from Sutherland.  We were people together on a small piece of rock with 300 years of common history.  And that's what they want to break up.  And all the rest in balderdash.

Another recent panel show:  "How could you not break bonds by breaking up a country of English speaking people, a small island which has been together for 300 years, which has done many great things, some bad things, the greatest of which in the last battle of Britain was when, united, we stood alone against Hitler, Fascism - we stood alone in the world."

So far so patriotic - especially the bit about how united the British stood 'alone' in the 2nd World War against tyranny.

Now back to an earlier interview last year:

Interviewer:  Let me ask you this.  Are you proud to be British?"

George: Being British is an accident of birth.  Do you know, if you forgive me, that's just the patriotism which Dr Johnson called the last refuge of the scoundrel.  I'm proud of many things that British people have done and ashamed of others.  I'm proud of many things that French people have done and would be ashamed of others.  I'm a humanbeing.  I'm a believer in God.  I'm a European person.  I'm a Scottish person of Irish background who lives in Britain.  But all of these things were accidents of birth. So frankly, my country, as I say in my book, I'm not the only one - my country is the future.

Interviewer:  Tony Blair, you see, he believes that Britain can and must be a force for moral good in the world.  That's what he says.  And he says that's going to take a mix of soft power and hard military power... to achieve good, to work towards stability, security, democracy for the world.

George: Well a fat lot of good it's done.

Interviewer:  But what I want you to think about is this.  You opposed him on Iraq.  You've made that very plain today.  But do you see no circumstance where British intervention can be a force for moral good?

George: No, I don't.  The only force for moral good would be an internationally agreed one.  The idea that the world is a white man's burden, and only Uncle Sam and Johnny Bull are quite white enough to shoulder it, is a deeply offensive one.  I come, as I told you, from an Irish background.  Once I told my grandfather, who was Irish, that the police had said that the British had an empire so vast that on it the sun never set, my grandfather answered that's because God would never trust the British in the dark.

So not so bright on the patriotism idea of moral noble Britishness at that point a year ago - untill he needed to get a speech or two ready for the Scottish Independence campaign of this year.  A very singular man who could have such opposing views in such a few short years.  He doesn't seem to get it that after listening to one speech, people can go and research some archived speeches and see do the opinions match up.  Maybe we're all guilty to an extent of constant revisionism of ideas but seldom have I seen such a champion of the art as old George..

[SecretFly]

Oh it's not quiet at all..You're all still up and still bellyaching

[ME-109]

Some really interesting programmes on Irish TV about our struggle for independence and the different views.

Did you know that James Joyce was a rabid nationalist 'who asked nothing from England but her departure.'?

Missed the start of it but its a good one. More historical and factual than all the recent revisionist dross going about....

[Sin é]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

It is a british bank. But it's also a Scottish bank. Had it not gone bust a few years ago with its headquarters in Scotland, with its strategy dictated in Scotland, with its bosses all from Scotland it would have been a Scottish bank. Now as it's 85% owned by UK govt, it is a british bank because the Scottish government wouldn't be able to buy it if they even wanted to.

So it did most of its work outside of Scotland, doesn't mean it's not a Scottish bank.

Before the bail out

The headquarters was in Scotland
The CEO was Scottish
The chairman was Scottish
The strategy was controlled from Scotland

And you're trying to laugh at my assertion it was not a Scottish company.

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks all without doubt generate most of their earnings outside of the USA... They are still American.

Hsbc is a british bank... Or is it a Chinese bank to you?

ENI is an Italian oil firm... How much oil is actually in Italy? How much of it is refined in Italy, yet they pay their taxes in Italy, why because they are an Italian company.

It was governed by the Bank of England.

Any company that is based in England, NI, Wales & Scotland are British companies (or UKish companies if that helps you get my meaning better).

For instance, Guinness is now a British company, not an Irish one.

[SecretFly]

Some really interesting programmes on Irish TV about our struggle for independence and the different views.

Did you know that James Joyce was a rabid nationalist 'who asked nothing from England but her departure.'?

Missed the start of it but its a good one. More historical and factual than all the recent revisionist dross going about....

James Joyce was a guy who couldn't write a letter to Santy.  It was a front, his profession, for his real job of spying on France for the Americans.  Nora Batty..I mean Barnacle wrote all his novels.

And I learned all that at a Revisionist Summer School in Galway called Peg Sayers - National(Secondary?) School Scourge or Russian Propagandist Apologist?

[fa0019]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

It is a british bank. But it's also a Scottish bank. Had it not gone bust a few years ago with its headquarters in Scotland, with its strategy dictated in Scotland, with its bosses all from Scotland it would have been a Scottish bank. Now as it's 85% owned by UK govt, it is a british bank because the Scottish government wouldn't be able to buy it if they even wanted to.

So it did most of its work outside of Scotland, doesn't mean it's not a Scottish bank.

Before the bail out

The headquarters was in Scotland
The CEO was Scottish
The chairman was Scottish
The strategy was controlled from Scotland

And you're trying to laugh at my assertion it was not a Scottish company.

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks all without doubt generate most of their earnings outside of the USA... They are still American.

Hsbc is a british bank... Or is it a Chinese bank to you?

ENI is an Italian oil firm... How much oil is actually in Italy? How much of it is refined in Italy, yet they pay their taxes in Italy, why because they are an Italian company.

It was governed by the Bank of England.

Any company that is based in England, NI, Wales & Scotland are British companies (or UKish companies if that helps you get my meaning better).

For instance, Guinness is now a British company, not an Irish one.

That's a real dumb answer sin e.

Governed by the Bank of England. So how does the Bank of England govern individual banks? They don't. All they do is set interest rates and dictate monetary policy. They have no ruling over how any bank runs their business.

If that's your argument that there are no english, NI, welsh or Scottish firms well hell irb bru is not Scottish, either, ŵelsh love spoons are british love spoons, english muffins are british muffins... And chaps like stephen ferris, willie john, mike Gibson et al are not Irish rugby players.... They're british. Get a grip.

[LordDowlais]

Did anybody watch the debates on tele last night ? You know, the one's with David Dimbleby ? He made Alex Salmond look a complete pleb, look, after watching everything I think that Scotland could go it alone, but, they would not get the standard of life they are getting now, David Dimbleby asked Alex Salmond about the risks of going independant, he did not answer him, he asked him about the currecy union, he did not answer him, he asked him what would happen if the rest of the UK did not give him what he wanted, he did not answer him, in a nutshell David Dimbleby said, "so your basing this on getting everything you want, what if this does not happen ?" Guess what ? He did not answer him. The Scottish public need to be told firstly what the plan is for going on their own, secondly what what they have planned if they do not get what Alex Salmond is promising i.e the currency union, and thirdly, and this is the most important one, how hard it is going to be and how rough the seas ahead are. You cannot live and run a country on pride alone.

[funnyExiledScot]

The point is that RBS was regulated by the FCA/PRA and bailed out by the Treasury (UK tax payer) under the Union but, if it were to remain headquartered in Scotland (unlikely), it would be regulated by the new Scottish conduct and prudential regulator and bailed out by the Scottish tax payer.

Truth is this isn't a big issue in of itself, because all major financial institutions which are based in Scotland will likely redomicile. The Yes campaign, surprise surprise, have done little to articulate any credibility on this. Their White Paper proposals were a shambles and basically suggested that rUK, a foreign country, continue to deal with the FS industry in Scotland, with Scotland only dealing with conduct regulation (because it has to in order to get into the EU).

Living the dream!

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The point is that RBS was regulated by the FCA/PRA and bailed out by the Treasury (UK tax payer) under the Union but, if it were to remain headquartered in Scotland (unlikely), it would be regulated by the new Scottish conduct and prudential regulator and bailed out by the Scottish tax payer.

Truth is this isn't a big issue in of itself, because all major financial institutions which are based in Scotland will likely redomicile. The Yes campaign, surprise surprise, have done little to articulate any credibility on this. Their White Paper proposals were a shambles and basically suggested that rUK, a foreign country, continue to deal with the FS industry in Scotland, with Scotland only dealing with conduct regulation (because it has to in order to get into the EU).

Living the dream!

fES is absolutely right when he says that "this isn't a big issue in of itself" - aside from the reason that he gives (RBS will shift its HQ, and btw there are no other banks moving despite what Lloyds and the meejah would have you believe - they've not been in Scotland since they sold TSB), as we now know, the largest portion of financial support given to British banks in fact came from the US Treasury, with the ECB and other central banks also heavily involved. So this is what really happens, in our globalised, heavily interwoven economies, no nation really 'goes it alone' when the sh1t hits the fan - everybody gets involved. Anyone who imagines that will change just for an iScotland is simply missing the bigger picture.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Fly, going back to your comments on Galloway.

It's a proper shame when good politicians like Anas Sarwar and Nicola Sturgeon are being upstaged by the likes of Galloway and Sheridan.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Fly, going back to your comments on Galloway.

It's a proper shame when good politicians like Anas Sarwar and Nicola Sturgeon are being upstaged by the likes of Galloway and Sheridan.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Ok so I will give it a stab, not a complete numpty in this field as I am an Econ postgrad.... Not an expert but not completely talking out my backside.

Now, now, no need to do yourself down - that's what I'm here for!! But seriously, you're obvs nae daft, economics masters/post-doc or no

A - how are the economies so similar? Scotland will be 15% based solely on oil revenues, the rUK next to nothing, even currently it's about 1%. One with major holdings in oil will be subject to swings in oil revenues, oil prices and therefore USD exposure. The rUK has no such exposure. They are far different. Economies heavily influenced by commodities are subject to vast swings in revenue generation making them volatile.

Aside from Oil, the countries are relatively similar, and with the decline in the importance of oil as it runs out (as you are so fond of reminding us!), the economies would likely get more similar, not less. Aside from that, you are right to note the differences - but if that is the price that the iScottish government is willing to pay (ie monetary policy set for a larger economy that isn't exactly like theirs), then so be it - there are larger issues at play

B - the central bank ie rUK that's to supplement any misgivings to the GBP. So they have to cater for these swings in the oil market at a proportion of 9:1 even though it's all exposed in Scotland?

I'm assuming that these 'swings' in the oil price would go right thru to an unshielded iScotland economy - however, one assumes that they would be managed far better than they are at present by Westminster, where as you correctly point out the oil and gas industry represents a considerably smaller fraction. At the very least, we should expect the fiscal arrangements for the oil industry (expolration in particular) to change dramatically - there will be volatility, but it can be managed - there are experts that do that

C - he says the risks for looking after Scotland are unsubstantiated. Ok so forgive me but didn't the treasury bail out RBS in 2009 to the tune of 45bn gbp. Until then it was a scottish bank. All taxpayers money. So that is not a risk?  How is that not a risk of going again?

Actually the bulk of the bailouts received by Britishh banks were from the US Treasury. And hopefully RBS will HQ in London as promised, leaving iScotland with a more fund management-heavy financial services industry (Standard Life's posturing aside)

D - he talks about how strong Scotland has been... Forgets to mention under the credit crunch they would have gone bust had they been independent, no ifs no buts.  With a balance sheet 10* their GDP they would have been no way they could have survived.

Hmm, I'm not sure that they would have technically gone 'bust' - Ireland would be the obvious parallel - altho clearly access to the capital markets would have been removed. However, I find it odd that you think iScotland is not capable of learning from previous howlers and would be at risk of falling into a similar trap again - disappointing that you think so little of your fellow countrymen

E- he says that Westminster has no moral right to deny Scottish business. Hmm, do we have a moral right to Ireland or to France, or perhaps Germany. They will be bigger trading partners to rUK then Scotland, far more important. Once the union is broken up the BoE has no moral obligation towards a foreign country who chose to leave.

I'm assuming you're talking sterlingisation here rather than formal monetary union? In which case, you are correct in principle - but the example of the BofE participating significantly in bailing out Ireland is once again prescient

F - Westminster shouldn't have the interests of the Scottish people in their hearts. They do at the moment as we are one country, break away and what rUK should look after us for old time sake. One foreign country amongst the other 200 odd. We have strong historical ties to Canada, AUS, SA, NZ, IRE, India, Pakistan, Nigeria but they don't get the odd bail out whenever they ask us for a fiver. As part of the IMF sure but no kore than all the other members. If it was in the best interests of the UK to join the USD should they do so?

I don't believe for one second that the powers that be in Westminster "have the interests of the Scottish people in their hearts" "at the moment" - that is why referendum is on the table. Again, bailing out Ireland is the relevant example.

G - if it's so good why are their so few if any major nations that have pegged currencies? Denmark probably the most high profile, the rest are nearly all developing 3rd world nations. Even Denmark says they should join euro, that it's been very expensive pegging to it, that they have had to harm their own country financially to maintain a balanced budget and a peg. They themselves don't have a commodity based economy either which is an important distinction.

As I've indicated several times on this thread already, my own preferred choice (a la NIESR recommendations) would be an independent Scottish currency, but for whatever reasons (political, emotional, whatever), that is not currently on the table.

H - it still doesn't address the point that if Scotland tanked, the rUK would have to rescue it with its own money. That is a fact. We have seen in the euro that even though they are meant to keep balanced budgets they don't and it's why they have had so much problems, they have no incentive to keep a balanced budget as what's the penalty, there have been no penalties and those who went bust, hey they got a nice big cheque.

I would expect that rUK, along with the ECB, the US Treasury and the IMF would all participate - as they would for any sovereign country in western Europe. The euro issue demonstrates keenly the pitfalls involved in monetary union without fiscal union alongside - hopefully the EU has learned and will either introduce measures to fix the problem or take the next step

As long as

Did you actually read about this guy or read an article and then say ah, backs me up, bing!

Does actually quote him does it.

If you read about him, he actually doesn't say monetary union is the best alternative. He actually said.... There may be good reasons why the rUK may reject monetary union with an independent Scotland but that the reasons the UK treasury gave in their letter in March did not explain this. What he said was that the letter didn't state what was in the interests of the rUK and whether it would be in their best interests. He has not looked at all the options in full, what he said was that

Even if it had, this british people are very sceptical over keeping anyone afloat. Why should anyone pay for your neighbours extensions? They didn't join the euro, had their been fiscal cohesion then maybe it might have been but the UK people still wouldn't have wanted it.

In the end look you can always always find some guy who will support you... This article is over 6 months old, it's nothing new. You will find any scientist to support whatever claims you make out if you search long enough but the tide, the tide so so great against it.

Perhaps mark carney is wrong, perhaps the (unpaid by any side unlike stiglitz) Nobel prize winning economist krugman is wrong, the BoE, the economist, the FT, the heads of every economics dept in Scotland, the IMF, the heads of research at goldman Sachs, deutsche, soc gen, credit Suisse etc  are wrong. But your argument at the moment has the backing of a couple of chaps coming in 1s and 2s. Ou side comes in with hundreds. As I said I'm not an expert, I had experience in looking as such things but that was a long time ago but in the end it's all theory. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist and this is the new wave, perhaps. But I'd be willing to bet against it.

Your move chief.

I wouldn't dream of giving you s/thing to read had I not digested it first myself - that would be rude. Carney is right - he would make £ monetary union work if he had to, as he declared in January of this year - it won't be easy, but it could be done. He added more recently some of the preconditions for sterlingisation to work - the reserves issue being the most obvious issue that iScotland would have to tackle.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Not a nirvana, and non idle promises, but encouraging nonetheless - from newsnet:

Leading Geologist says Firth of Clyde has 'fantastic' potential for oil

Tuesday, 16 September 2014 10:10

By Martin Kelly

One of Scotland's most respected academics has said that seabed around the Firth of Clyde could hold oil reserves that have "fantastic reservoir potential."

Professor John Howell of the University of Aberdeen has said the rock formation in the area is compatible with the types of structures in which oil and gas is often found.

Professor Howell's new analysis – published in the Press & Journal and energy website Energy Voice today – sets out the three criteria to produce an oil reservoir – organic rich source rock to generate oil and gas, reservoir rock – a porous later that can hold the oil and gas, and the correct structure to hold the hydrocarbons – and concludes that the Clyde basin meets all three criteria.

The academic has based his analysis on the seismic data from the 1980s which was previously thought to have been lost, but which he has now studied – and confirms that "there is a large structure there that would be a good target for exploration". He also states that "there is certainly potential for oil and gas in the Clyde."

The analysis by the academic follows research carried out by a local MSP who has discovered that oil exploration work was halted in the 80s by the Ministry of Defence because of fears it would hamper the movement of nuclear submarines.

Exploration work carried out by BP were said to be looking promising. George Younger, the then Scottish Secretary of State, in a letter to The Times newspaper in 1983, stated, "The oil companies are playing their cards pretty close to their chests, but they are expecting something exploitable (in the Firth of Clyde area)".

SNP Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, and SNP MSP Chic Brodie, have both welcomed the new analysis.

Commenting, SNP Energy Minister Fergus Ewing said:

"When a leading Petroleum Geologist sets out his analysis that there is 'certainly potential for oil and gas in the Clyde', it's time for everyone to take notice.

"It is particularly interesting that John Howell's analysis shows that the Clyde not only has all the elements necessary for a successful oil find, but that he has located the seismic data from the original tests in the 1980s, that confirms that there are good targets for exploration. We had previously understood that that test data was no longer available so this is a very interesting development.

"As recently announced, in collaboration with industry and academia, the Scottish Government aims to examine the potential for oil and gas discoveries in underexplored offshore areas to the west of Scotland. These maritime areas include the Firth of Clyde,

"As Professor Howell has set out the exploration ban put in place by the MoD has stopped exploration in the Firth of Clyde. With independence we can ensure that the required exploration can take place to establish whether the favourable geology Professor Howell describes, contains the riches which can help deliver a west of Scotland oil boom."

SNP MSP Chic Brodie – who last year lodged Freedom of Information requests that uncovered the Ministry of Defence had blocked a potential oil boom in the Firth of Clyde during the 1980s, said:

"The Tories McCrone-type deception of the oil boom potential in the Firth of Clyde is a classic example of Westminster not having Scotland's best interests at heart. We need independence to create the jobs and economic benefits that will come from oil and gas production rather than squandering Scotland's wealth by paying for the next 50 years of Trident nuclear weapons."

Yesterday oil company Hurricane reported appraisal drilling at its Lancaster oil discovery to the West of Shetland was expected to produce double its original estimates of oil. The company upped its estimate of the amount of oil it expected from just under 10,000 barrels per day to 20,000 barrels per day.

The analysis from Professor Howell follows news that a prominent energy academic has come out in support of a Yes vote in Thursday's independence referendum.

Peter Strachan, Professor of Energy Policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, and an expert on energy markets, has backed a Yes vote later this week.

Professor Strachan, who is also Strategy and Policy Group Lead within the Department of Management, said he was backing a yes vote for many reasons, but key amongst them was the disgrace of fuel poverty existing in one of the most energy rich countries in the world, and his professional opinion that independence will allow Scotland to cut energy bills and tackle fuel poverty.

Professor Strachan’s intervention comes as more and more energy experts back a Yes vote, including:

Alex Russell, Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Robert Gordon University
Professor Sir Donald Mackay, former Chair of Scottish Enterprise
Professor John Howell, Chair of Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen
Dick Winchester, an oil industry expert who sits on the Scottish Energy Advisory Board
Ian Godden, founder and chairman of independent oil company Glenmore Energy plc
Doug Duguid, CEO of Enermech, and Hugh Fraser managing partner of Andrews Kurth (Middle East)

Commenting Professor Strachan said:

"An independent Scotland committed to renewable energy will ensure both security of supply for Scotland as well as keeping electricity very affordable. Indeed the powers of independence can help cut household energy bills.

"I’ve long thought that it is a complete disgrace that despite being one of the most energy rich countries in the world, far too many people in Scotland are still affected by fuel poverty. That is a damning indictment of the position Scotland has found itself in within the United Kingdom, and independence can help bring it to an end."

Professor Strachan said he believed Scottish energy would continue to be needed by consumers south of the border after independence.

He added: "Indeed without Scottish electricity, bills in the rest of the UK would rise because of the huge capacity constraints in England and Wales – as highlighted by Ofgem – and because there simply is not the interconnector capacity to source the electricity demand elsewhere.

"In any event many of our European neighbours are also facing energy shortages so it’s clear that Scottish electricity is the most secure and reliable supply available.

"The recent news that the two EDF-owned nuclear power stations at Heysham 1 and Hartlepool in Lancashire are to stay closed for months, is an illustration of the fragility of UK supplies when you have tight margins.

"Without Scottish electricity it is likely that the rUK would have to schedule more and more planned brown-outs – effectively paying heavy industry to switch off at peak times. Of course those payments are then passed onto consumers and thus push up bills – which is why it’s far, far more sensible and cost-effective to avoid that situation by importing Scottish electricity and supporting generation in Scotland.

"I shall be voting Yes this Thursday and I encourage others to do the same, so we can make Scotland’s energy riches benefit the people of Scotland."

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

From the same source:

Claims of post-indy financial collapse 'exaggerated' says banking giant

Tuesday, 16 September 2014 06:22

Some of the terrifying forecasts of the impact of a Yes vote have been exaggerated a leading finacial giant has said.

German firm Commerzbank has dismissed suggestions that Scottish independence could lead to another 'Great Depresison' or be 'cataclysmic'.

The bank’s economists have said that "some of the worst case scenarios painted in recent days appear exaggerated,".

Economist Peter Dixon said: "Whilst the Scottish independence vote has raged, I am struck by just how little the markets have actually moved so far."

He adds: "Whilst we believe that the economic case set out by the nationalists is way too light on detail, it is also hard to avoid the view that some of the worst case scenarios set out in recent days are also overdoing the gloom."

The economist also questioned whether an independent Scotland would affect shares across the rest of the UK: "Should we fear a wholesale UK market collapse? In a word, no."

Dixon provided evidence that showed, far from shares in Scottish firms falling as a result of the independence referendum, Scottish shares have actually outperformed those of the UK as a whole this year.

The issue of the economy has dominated media coverage of the independence debate with both sides focusing on what they say is the best option for Scotland.

The No campaign seized on a statement from Germany's Deutsche Bank which claimed a Yes vote in the independence referendum could trigger a 1930s style depression. David Folkerts-Landau, Chief Economist of Deutsche Bank, claimed that Scotland would trigger a "Great Depression" if independent.

Multi-millionaire Folkerts-Landau, who is said to be good friends with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, spoke out after polls showed a surge in support for Yes. Yesterday the editor of the Financial Times said that Mr Cameron and the UK's top Civil Servant Sir Jeremy Heywood had been contacting businesses in an effort at pressurising them to speak out against independence.

The pressure resulted in several big business issuing statements apparently opposing a Yes vote as the No campaign sought to regain the campaign momentum from its Yes rival with just two days to go until the referendum.

The comments from Commerzbank challenging the No campaign narrative follows statements from other leading firms suggesting independence would be a great opportunity.

JD Wetherspoon chairman Tim Martin said an independent Scotland could thrive. Martin Gilbert, chief executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, said he thought Scotland would prosper whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Good old Folkerts-Landau, what ho!

[quinsforever]

ASBO its quite naughty to suggest the biggest portion of the bailouts went to British banks via the US Treasury.

What happened was Barclays took over Lehman Brothers (doing the US Treasury a favour) and Lehman Brothers as a primary dealer of treasuries took over $500bn of short term funding from the US Treasury, in order to continue to fulfill its obligations as a primary dealer. Hence it looked like Barclays borrowed $500bn+ from US Treasury.

If Barclays had needed bailing out, the FCA would not have allowed them to make an acquisition of Lehman Brothers US unit.

[fa0019]

As long as

Wow, something we agree on... that an independent currency would be in the best interests of Scotland if they go independent.

What I'm saying is that even if it made sense (which it doesn't due to the diverse economies) and requirement for everyone to play ball and be a good boy (see the Euro.. even Germany breaks its own rules) in the end Scotland will do what is in its interests and rUK will do whats in its interests. Scotland is far more left wing, far more public sector orientated, commodity exposed. England is more market driven. Those two do not walk in tandem.

Any agreement for monetary union will be politically suicidal. rUK would revolt knowing come a bailout they will pay for someone else's party. Its that simple. The People simply won't allow it.

[Sin é]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

It is a british bank. But it's also a Scottish bank. Had it not gone bust a few years ago with its headquarters in Scotland, with its strategy dictated in Scotland, with its bosses all from Scotland it would have been a Scottish bank. Now as it's 85% owned by UK govt, it is a british bank because the Scottish government wouldn't be able to buy it if they even wanted to.

So it did most of its work outside of Scotland, doesn't mean it's not a Scottish bank.

Before the bail out

The headquarters was in Scotland
The CEO was Scottish
The chairman was Scottish
The strategy was controlled from Scotland

And you're trying to laugh at my assertion it was not a Scottish company.

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks all without doubt generate most of their earnings outside of the USA... They are still American.

Hsbc is a british bank... Or is it a Chinese bank to you?

ENI is an Italian oil firm... How much oil is actually in Italy? How much of it is refined in Italy, yet they pay their taxes in Italy, why because they are an Italian company.

It was governed by the Bank of England.

Any company that is based in England, NI, Wales & Scotland are British companies (or UKish companies if that helps you get my meaning better).

For instance, Guinness is now a British company, not an Irish one.

That's a real dumb answer sin e.

Governed by the Bank of England. So how does the Bank of England govern individual banks? They don't. All they do is set interest rates and dictate monetary policy. They have no ruling over how any bank runs their business.

If that's your argument that there are no english, NI, welsh or Scottish firms well hell irb bru is not Scottish, either, ŵelsh love spoons are british love spoons, english muffins are british muffins... And chaps like stephen ferris, willie john, mike Gibson et al are not Irish rugby players.... They're british. Get a grip.

The Bank of England is the Bankers' bank. I suggest you read this to find out what the Bank of England actually does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/migrationtemp/2814677/Bank-of-England-is-no-easy-touch.html

Nope, there are no English or Scottish firms - there are British firms. Companies take the nationality of where they are registered. That won't stop people thinking that Guiness is Irish, but it is a British company (and has been for some time as their head office has been based on London).

With Stephen Ferris or Willie John - they can be both if they want to because of the place they were born in, they are entitled to a British or an Irish Passport.



P

[quinsforever]

I agree there wont be any financial sector collapse if YES won. The leveraged banks will move because they have to. And companies who have businesses largely based outside of Scotland will wait to see what the currency and debt negotiations lead to (and likely future corporation tax regime will be) and then decide whether to stay or go. 18months to do it. nae bother.

[quinsforever]

You're right. You aren't an expert...

Yea, he thinks RBS is just a Scottish bank, not a British Bank!

I know its confusing, is not the Bank of ENGLAND the central bank of the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) responsible for the banks in UK?

It is a british bank. But it's also a Scottish bank. Had it not gone bust a few years ago with its headquarters in Scotland, with its strategy dictated in Scotland, with its bosses all from Scotland it would have been a Scottish bank. Now as it's 85% owned by UK govt, it is a british bank because the Scottish government wouldn't be able to buy it if they even wanted to.

So it did most of its work outside of Scotland, doesn't mean it's not a Scottish bank.

Before the bail out

The headquarters was in Scotland
The CEO was Scottish
The chairman was Scottish
The strategy was controlled from Scotland

And you're trying to laugh at my assertion it was not a Scottish company.

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks all without doubt generate most of their earnings outside of the USA... They are still American.

Hsbc is a british bank... Or is it a Chinese bank to you?

ENI is an Italian oil firm... How much oil is actually in Italy? How much of it is refined in Italy, yet they pay their taxes in Italy, why because they are an Italian company.

It was governed by the Bank of England.

Any company that is based in England, NI, Wales & Scotland are British companies (or UKish companies if that helps you get my meaning better).

For instance, Guinness is now a British company, not an Irish one.

That's a real dumb answer sin e.

Governed by the Bank of England. So how does the Bank of England govern individual banks? They don't. All they do is set interest rates and dictate monetary policy. They have no ruling over how any bank runs their business.

If that's your argument that there are no english, NI, welsh or Scottish firms well hell irb bru is not Scottish, either, ŵelsh love spoons are british love spoons, english muffins are british muffins... And chaps like stephen ferris, willie john, mike Gibson et al are not Irish rugby players.... They're british. Get a grip.

The Bank of England is the Bankers' bank. I suggest you read this to find out what the Bank of England actually does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/migrationtemp/2814677/Bank-of-England-is-no-easy-touch.html

Nope, there are no English or Scottish firms - there are British firms. Companies take the nationality of where they are registered. That won't stop people thinking that Guiness is Irish, but it is a British company (and has been for some time as their head office has been based on London).

With Stephen Ferris or Willie John - they can be both if they want to because of the place they were born in, they are entitled to a British or an Irish Passport.



P

sin e you are wrong. firms are legal entities. there is no such thing as british law. there is scots law, english&welsh law, and northern ireland law. therefore a firms main legal entity is legally incorporated under one of those legal systems.

[Irish Londoner]

Any agreement for monetary union will be politically suicidal. rUK would revolt knowing come a bailout they will pay for someone else's party. Its that simple. The People simply won't allow it.

Only problem is that without a currency union Scotland would have no obligation to take on a share of the British national debt as if they were not a "Sterling Nation" it wouldn't be their responsibility - so if Scotland joined the Euro or had it's own Scottish pound there would be no link to any sterling debt repayments.

The current Scotland love in, led by Gordon Brown raises some interesting constitutional questions - as he is currently only an opposition MP (albeit an ex-Cabinet Member and PM) - does he have the right or authourity to dish out Devo-Max baubles to Scotland, including promising to continue to support free education and free NHS to one part of the UK, even though the largest part of the UK doesn't benefit from these things?

Maybe "The People" should be asking questions of their MPs as to why the Scots get these things free and the English don't - that may be part of the fallout of this process.

[Sin é]

As far as everyone else is concerned, they are all British. But what gives a company its nationality is where it is registered and Scotland is not a country yet, but the UK & Northern Ireland is.

[quinsforever]

Any agreement for monetary union will be politically suicidal. rUK would revolt knowing come a bailout they will pay for someone else's party. Its that simple. The People simply won't allow it.

Only problem is that without a currency union Scotland would have no obligation to take on a share of the British national debt as if they were not a "Sterling Nation" it wouldn't be their responsibility - so if Scotland joined the Euro or had it's own Scottish pound there would be no link to any sterling debt repayments.

The current Scotland love in, led by Gordon Brown raises some interesting constitutional questions - as he is currently only an opposition MP (albeit an ex-Cabinet Member and PM) - does he have the right or authourity to dish out Devo-Max baubles to Scotland, including promising to continue to support free education and free NHS to one part of the UK, even though the largest part of the UK doesn't benefit from these things?

Maybe "The People" should be asking questions of their MPs as to why the Scots get these things free and the English don't - that may be part of the fallout of this process.

not true actually. just because Salmond and Swinney have claimed it doesnt mean its true. their argument goes like this...

a currency is an asset
if you arent going to give us your currency (asset) then you are saying there is no equal division of assets and liabilities
and therefore we dont have to take any of the liabilities

unfortunately, the first premise is wrong. a currency is a means of exchange only, not as asset. the assets are the reserves held by the BoE, which WOULD be divided along with the liabilities.

[quinsforever]

As far as everyone else is concerned, they are all British. But what gives a company its nationality is where it is registered and Scotland is not a country yet, but the UK & Northern Ireland is.

companies dont have nationalities. they are not people. only people can be "nationals" of one country or another.

firms are legally incorporated in a country according to that countries laws. its pretty straightforward.

[tigertattie]

I'm very worried about the fallout of this! I think the whole debackle as shaken the hornet's nest!

If there is a no vote tomorrow, I'm worried that the rUK turn round and say "woah there, see all these extras the scots are getting, either give it to us too, or cut the extras they get"

PS, why was my original referendum thread blocked due to mod rules but this one has gone through? I think those mods are showing favourtisim to one of thier own. Just coz george writes match threads, he now gets away with everything!

[fa0019]

Any agreement for monetary union will be politically suicidal. rUK would revolt knowing come a bailout they will pay for someone else's party. Its that simple. The People simply won't allow it.

Only problem is that without a currency union Scotland would have no obligation to take on a share of the British national debt as if they were not a "Sterling Nation" it wouldn't be their responsibility - so if Scotland joined the Euro or had it's own Scottish pound there would be no link to any sterling debt repayments.

The current Scotland love in, led by Gordon Brown raises some interesting constitutional questions - as he is currently only an opposition MP (albeit an ex-Cabinet Member and PM) - does he have the right or authourity to dish out Devo-Max baubles to Scotland, including promising to continue to support free education and free NHS to one part of the UK, even though the largest part of the UK doesn't benefit from these things?

Maybe "The People" should be asking questions of their MPs as to why the Scots get these things free and the English don't - that may be part of the fallout of this process.

rUK has no obligation to allow Scotland into the EU or NATO either.

It also has no obligation to lend it money which it has been calculated to be over £100bn which it would as a new country struggle to get on their own credit ratings. Without it UBS have said within 18 months Scotland will go bankrupt.

The worst case scenario, rUK gets burnt and Scotland get destroyed. We have far less to lose than rUK so any threat to dump the debt is exceptionally dangerous and one where we will be the biggest losers of.

[fa0019]

I'm very worried about the fallout of this! I think the whole debackle as shaken the hornet's nest!

If there is a no vote tomorrow, I'm worried that the rUK turn round and say "woah there, see all these extras the scots are getting, either give it to us too, or cut the extras they get"

PS, why was my original referendum thread blocked due to mod rules but this one has gone through? I think those mods are showing favourtisim to one of thier own.  Just coz george writes match threads, he now gets away with everything!

From what I see, those extras are additional powers to raise amongst themselves. That won't hurt Wales, England or NI. Its not that they're saying... here have an extra fiver.

[quinsforever]

good point FA. if Scotland attempted to walk away from their share of UK debt, do we honestly think that the rUK would support Scottish entry to the EU (and hence the Euro)?

would be surprising frankly.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

good point FA. if Scotland attempted to walk away from their share of UK debt, do we honestly think that the rUK would support Scottish entry to the EU (and hence the Euro)?

would be surprising frankly.

Indeed, which is why they won't and why they will respectively. I don't buy for one second this notion that either side will act out of 'vengeful wrath' - as Fly often likes to say, both sides will act in their own best interests, and those are usually governed by practical economic realities

[tigertattie]

I'm very worried about the fallout of this! I think the whole debackle as shaken the hornet's nest!

If there is a no vote tomorrow, I'm worried that the rUK turn round and say "woah there, see all these extras the scots are getting, either give it to us too, or cut the extras they get"

PS, why was my original referendum thread blocked due to mod rules but this one has gone through? I think those mods are showing favourtisim to one of thier own.  Just coz george writes match threads, he now gets away with everything!

From what I see, those extras are additional powers to raise amongst themselves. That won't hurt Wales, England or NI. Its not that they're saying... here have an extra fiver.

Thats the issue though fa, we do get extra. The Barnett formula (due to geographic and demographic reasons) gives scotland more public money to spend than the rUK (per head of poplulation to the tune of £1200 each year)

[SecretFly]

Good luck to Scotland no matter how they vote - they'll all agree it has been one dramatic and probably entertaining trip they've been on in the last few years, months and most especially the final few weeks.

But a question:

The YES side say they want to assume all powers that would be natural to an Independent Nation.
The NO side say that if the people vote NO, they'll get a gamut of new self-governing powers.

So no matter which side of the debate or which side you argue for, the promise to the people of Scotland from both sides is that regardless of result, Scotland will have more 'power'.

So, the question - what powers WON'T Scotland get if they vote NO?

The NO camp pledge is a compromise on full Independence and full autonomous powers.  So it's reasonable to ask what are the 'powers' retained by Westminster?  
They're saying 'Here's why we think you shouldn't assume total power but instead accept some more powers given to you.'  
They've explained roughly what the extra powers will be.  I think they should also be asked what are the specific 'powers' they don't want to transfer to the Scots - and why?  Afterall, both those arguments - the powers 'given' and the powers not 'given' are the definition of Union.  Explain why the Union requires that certain 'powers' are beyond the reach of Scottish people. In sure the Scottish people will be interested in the reasoning.

[quinsforever]

good point FA. if Scotland attempted to walk away from their share of UK debt, do we honestly think that the rUK would support Scottish entry to the EU (and hence the Euro)?

would be surprising frankly.

Indeed, which is why they won't and why they will respectively.  I don't buy for one second this notion that either side will act out of 'vengeful wrath' - as Fly often likes to say, both sides will act in their own best interests, and those are usually governed by practical economic realities

i agree. but threatening to walk away from debt if not given access to the pound (claiming a currency is an asset), is not very clever.

people remember dumb threats like that

[SecretFly]

good point FA. if Scotland attempted to walk away from their share of UK debt, do we honestly think that the rUK would support Scottish entry to the EU (and hence the Euro)?

would be surprising frankly.

So a subsequent border of hate and protest NO TRADE would be set up between England and Scotland?  Afterall, smiles would be infrequent amongst the Scots and the UK if the UK blatantly vetoed their EU membership (and ALL the tumult of displacement and anguish and fear and pain caused not just to Scottish concerns (business and people) but also to Scottish based English companies and English people who continued to work and live in Scotland.

You people who say there should be a Trade war of vetoes and closed borders just don't think of the consequences for England itself.  But perhaps if you had relatives who lived in Scotland, had careers in Scotland, or knew of specific English owned companies in Scotland, you'd realise its so much more complex than TRADE WAR/SANCTIONS/VETOES and CLOSED BORDERS the situation would be post a Yes vote.

[Sponsored content]