Scottish Independence discussion area

fiachr_a

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

eeepaulo

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

Ha, he would have annexed half of france as well by now

A Dub in Glasgo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Showing my ignorance, and probably missing something obvious, but why would Spain veto it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They don't want to set a precedence when their own regions look for independence. The Italians would be thinking along similar lines.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8682-spanish-minister-confirms-spain-will-stay-out-of-scots-eu-bid-after-yes-vote

'Spain will not interfere in any EU membership negotiations if Scots vote Yes in this year’s independence referendum.

Spain's Foreign Minister has told the Financial Times that the Scottish referendum is different from the situation in Catalonia and that Madrid will not block a legal bid for membership of the European Union.'

porsche959

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8682-spanish-minister-confirms-spain-will-stay-out-of-scots-eu-bid-after-yes-vote

'Spain will not interfere in any EU membership negotiations if Scots vote Yes in this year’s independence referendum.

Spain's Foreign Minister has told the Financial Times that the Scottish referendum is different from the situation in Catalonia and that Madrid will not block a legal bid for membership of the European Union.'

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Next: No side claims that independent Scotland would be ravaged by EBOLA VIRUS.

Iwasfrozen

porsche959 wrote: »

It is scaremongering, because the hypothetical chain of events you've set out here is entirely implausible.

The western world survived and bounced back from a banking crisis in 2008/2009 that almost ruined us. These issues are utterly trivial in comparison and can be easily sorted with sensible negotiation.

It's not scaremongering if it's true.

If Scotland adopts sterlinigization (where they adopt the use of the pound without a formal agreement with the UK) they will have no sovereign control over their monetary policy and will not be able to provide liquidity to their financial sector should another crash happen.

The former will hurt Scotland's economy as England as a country has very different needs than Scotland and the former will encourage Scotland's financial institutions to move to England.

There is no negotiation under which England will agree to share the pound with Scotland, it's not in their interests to do so.

Also Olli Rehn has made it very clear that Scotland will not be admitted to the EU for as long as it uses sterlingization.

Red Nissan

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

The way it works is you grant the vote, applaud the result and then proceed to totally ignore it. :pac:

Donkey Oaty

porsche959 wrote: »

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Myth or not, it's a widespread belief.

Our own Ruari Quinn said pretty much the same, six months after the date of that article Dub posted.

The thing is that it's a parliamentary vote for the countries, not at the discretion of the Spanish Foreign Minister.

porsche959

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not scaremongering if it's true.

If Scotland adopts sterlinigization (where they adopt the use of the pound without a formal agreement with the UK) they will have no sovereign control over their monetary policy and will not be able to provide liquidity to their financial sector should another crash happen.

These things can easily be negotiated in the event of Yes vote. It is in both countries interests to do so.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The former will hurt Scotland's economy as England as a country has very different needs than Scotland and the former will encourage Scotland's financial institutions to move to England.

If it is true that England has very different needs to Scotland, then you are essentially making a pro-independence argument here, which is curious.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no negotiation under which England will agree to share the pound with Scotland, it's not in their interests to do so.

I would disagree, I suggest it is in their interests to do so.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also Olli Rehn has made it very clear that Scotland will not be admitted to the EU for as long as it uses sterlingization.

And ECB head honchos said would be no quantitative easing on many occasions before they actually did quantitatively ease, remember that?

eeepaulo

porsche959 wrote: »

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Next: No side claims that independent Scotland would be ravaged by EBOLA VIRUS.

Do you see any difference between scaremongering and caution?

This is not the same as an election, it is not another crowd of 'the same olds' going into an established system, with the same civil servants as the last crowd.

This is 6 million people choosing to create a completely different system.

Are you suggesting that anyone who even raises the question of EU membership is to be totally dismissed?

Fratton Fred

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

Probably wouldn't be too rosy for Ireland as well.

porsche959

eeepaulo wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone who even raises the question of EU membership is to be totally dismissed?

No. But I am suggesting that people do basic research before casting around No side myths as fact.

It has been said on this very thread that the Yes lobby have no post-referendum plan or timetable whatever. That simply isn't true. The plan is relatively 'high level', but there is a plan. Plenty of time has been built in to iron out the fine details.

Madam

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

eeepaulo

porsche959 wrote: »

No. But I am suggesting that people do basic research before casting around No side myths as fact.

It has been said on this very thread that the Yes lobby have no post-referendum plan or timetable whatever. That simply isn't true. The plan is relatively 'high level', but there is a plan. Plenty of time has been built in to iron out the fine details.

I have claimed nothing as fact, no one knows.

The idea of a plan is quite troublesome.

For me, if i was an average wage earner in northern ireland, england or wales, if scotland do choose to become independent, it then stops being a negotiation between 2 parties campaigns, i feel like it is a negotiation between 54 million and 6 million.

Im not sure, thats how i think i would feel, i would like to see them go forward in prosperity.

Iwasfrozen

porsche959 wrote: »

These things can easily be negotiated in the event of Yes vote. It is in both countries interests to do so.

If England enters into a formal currency agreement with Scotland they will essentially become a "lender of last resort" for Scotland should the Scottish banks (who combined control assets worth 1,200 times Scotland's gdp compared to 800 for Ireland pre-crash) require a bail out from the Scottish government. England will never agree to such as thing because it is not in their interests to do so.

Instead they will encourage Scottish banks to transfer their asset administration to England and Scotland won't be able to offer them the security they need to stay.

If it is true that England has very different needs to Scotland, then you are essentially making a pro-independence argument here, which is curious.

I'm saying iScotland as a small open mostly exporting economy would benefit from a lower valued currency relative to the pound since Scotland exports most of their products to the UK.

Sterlingization would cost an iScotland sovereignty over their monetary policy and would put them at a competitive disadvantage to Ireland, another small open export driven economy against whom iScotland would be competing against to export products to English markets.

But these disadvantages wouldn't exist if Scotland remained in the union, essentially independence and sterlingization gives Scotland the worst of both worlds.

I would disagree, I suggest it is in their interests to do so.

Why?

[And ECB head honchos said would be no quantitative easing on many occasions before they actually did quantitatively ease, remember that?

Utterly irrelevant, and you do realise all these "head honchos" are different people? Grouping them all together as if they had a single mind is ignorant and juvenile, just like your arguments here actually.

Iwasfrozen

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

Depends on what option Scotland decides to take. If they keep the pound, nothing.

Fratton Fred

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

Whatever currency Scotland uses, there will be a phasing in process.

Don't tell me you're starting to worry?

Donkey Oaty

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

If they stay with sterling, it's business as usual more or less.

If they don't, they'll convert it at an agreed rate to whatever they are going to use in future - or a floating rate if its the Euro - and the notes will be incinerated.

A bit like when Ireland broke the link with sterling in 1978, or when we converted to the Euro.

Red Nissan

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

If Ireland can be taken as an example, then Sterling existed alongside The Punt or what ever was our own first currency, and gradually Sterling was sent back to England and increasingly replaced by The Punt.

feargale

anishboi wrote: »

What are your views for/against Scottish independence?

If you don't have a view, do you think it'll happen?

For goodness' sake, man, don't you read the Irish Independent? Its front page today headlines that "No" will win because a woman is pregnant. There should be a "No" landslide if another woman or two become pregnant in the next ten days. Meanwhile, expect all "Yes" voters to be keeping el Miguelito zipped up, while the "No" people are all sha*ging like rabbits. Keep up to date with the Independent.

P.S. The article was not written by Mary Kenny.

EunanMac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Whatever currency Scotland uses, there will be a phasing in process.

Don't tell me you're starting to worry?

It's the no side that's doing all the worrying

paulthom8

"I'm leaving".

"We'll I'm pregnant".


Age old lie.

Madam

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Whatever currency Scotland uses, there will be a phasing in process.

Don't tell me you're starting to worry?

Not really, I was just wondering what the process would be even though I think in the end it will be simpler for everyone if we keep the pound.

SwiftJustice

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why will England suffer the most?

The Trident nuclear subs are docked in Scotland.

Scotland will lower its Corporation Tax rate & hurt the English economy.

Iwasfrozen

SwiftJustice wrote: »

The Trident nuclear subs are docked in Scotland.

Scotland will lower its Corporation Tax rate & hurt the English economy.

That would hurt us far more than England. We'd have to lower our own corporation tax rate in response.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Scottish banks (who combined control assets worth 1,200 times Scotland's gdp compared to 800 for Ireland pre-crash) require a bail out from the Scottish government. England will never agree to such as thing because it is not in their interests to do so.

Instead they will encourage Scottish banks to transfer their asset administration to England and Scotland won't be able to offer them the security they need to stay.

Scottish headquartered banks are not entirely Scottish, they are British therefore the size of the debt that the UK Government bailed out is irrelevant. It is already established that EU law requires that your registered office is in the same state as your headquarters and that is taken to be where the bank does most of it's business which in this case is clearly England therefore the 'Scottish' banks will be broken up accordingly

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scottish headquartered banks are not entirely Scottish, they are British therefore the size of the debt that the UK Government bailed out is irrelevant. It is already established that EU law requires that your registered office is in the same state as your headquarters and that is taken to be where the bank does most of it's business which in this case is clearly England therefore the 'Scottish' banks will be broken up accordingly

All the better for England, then they don't need to incentivize the banks to leave Scotland.

Donkey Oaty

Madam wrote: »

Not really, I was just wondering what the process would be even though I think in the end it will be simpler for everyone if we keep the pound.

Simpler in the short term yes - and that's why the sheer hassle of any change is a major factor in the debate.

That was also an argument in favour of keeping pounds, shillings and pence, imperial measurements, etc, and can also be used for the UK monarchy, Ronan Collins' RTE radio 1 lunchtime slot, etc.

rainbowtrout

fiachr_a wrote: »

What internet extension will they use? All the s ones have been taken by other countries.

Maybe they'll go all Scottish and use .ab for Alba.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All the better for England, then they don't need to incentivize the banks to leave Scotland.

Possibly although it does debunk the nonsense about how 'Scottish banks nearly brought down the UK' and 'Scotland would have gone under in 2008 if it was independent'

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scottish headquartered banks are not entirely Scottish, they are British therefore the size of the debt that the UK Government bailed out is irrelevant. It is already established that EU law requires that your registered office is in the same state as your headquarters and that is taken to be where the bank does most of it's business which in this case is clearly England therefore the 'Scottish' banks will be broken up accordingly

Teams of economists will look at this issue and come up with different answers.

Lots of well educated, well positioned consultants will make a lot of money out of this

Scottie99

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

What ever way the vote goes now, the SNP will be happy. Independence obviously their preference but devo max is what they get now even if they "lose". That's what they wanted on the ballot in the first place, and secretly I'd guess was as good as they thought they could get. Definitely win win.

I think they're calling it Devo Minus

A Dub in Glasgo

I went to see The Proclaimers when I first came to Scotland and did not understand a word, looking back now, this is the perfect song for the campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gApwpSWAhbQ

eire4

[Well given the Tory rag the Spectator has compared Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe a Hitler reference wouldnt be all that out of place at this stage.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/how-is-alex-salmond-like-robert-mugabe/[/QUOTE]




Haha a little ironic there when it was the British backed Lancaster Agreement that saw Mugabe take power in Zimbabwe in 1980.

kingchess

if Scotland votes for independence on the 18th,it will not be independent on the 19th, that will be the day that the horse-trading will begin and compromises made", hey you want the pound?okay but then we want to keep trident where it is so we let you have the pound and we will rent the bases off you for 20 years" etc, the official independence day is March 2016 iirc

Fratton Fred

SwiftJustice wrote: »

The Trident nuclear subs are docked in Scotland.

Scotland will lower its Corporation Tax rate & hurt the English economy.

There are 6000 people employed at Faslane naval base. Moving the subs from there will probably mean half will lose their jobs.

Scotland will most likely lose Lloyds bank and RBS as well, resulting in more job losses, plus hopefully Portsmouth will get the jobs back that it lost as part of the sweetener to the Scots. To make Scotland attractive from a corporation tax perspective, it will also need to create loopholes similar to Ireland.

I doubt if Scotland can afford to be too aggressive, plus neither country is really going to get involved in a trade war. There's no winners in that.

Madam

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are 6000 people employed at Faslane naval base. Moving the subs from there will probably mean half will lose their jobs.

Scotland will most likely lose Lloyds bank and RBS as well, resulting in more job losses, plus hopefully Portsmouth will get the jobs back that it lost as part of the sweetener to the Scots. To make Scotland attractive from a corporation tax perspective, it will also need to create loopholes similar to Ireland.

I doubt if Scotland can afford to be too aggressive, plus neither country is really going to get involved in a trade war. There's no winners in that.

I don't think England could wait to long not having the kudos Trident gives them - imo there will be negotiations for Scotland to keep them for a price! Scotland the new Ferengi perhaps?

porsche959

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I doubt if Scotland can afford to be too aggressive, plus neither country is really going to get involved in a trade war. There's no winners in that.

Agreed here.

Red Nissan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I doubt if Scotland can afford to be too aggressive, plus neither country is really going to get involved in a trade war. There's no winners in that.

She will enter a trade war with the Irish Republic and she already expects to win.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are 6000 people employed at Faslane naval base. Moving the subs from there will probably mean half will lose their jobs.

572 civilian jobs are directly related to Trident

Arguing that Trident brings jobs is crazy as it is the least productive way of employing people ie the price per job is feckin huge

Henry Sidney

I would love to see Scotland vote yes, then ideally Wales and NI will follow and we will have got rid of all the junk little holes that we don't need.

Son Of A Vidic

I see panic appears to be setting in and Cameron is scampering to Scotland to push for a No vote. Hopefully the clown will push the undecideds into the Yes campaigns arms.

kingchess

Henry Sidney wrote: »

I would love to see Scotland vote yes, then ideally Wales and NI will follow and we will have got rid of all the junk little holes that we don't need.

the love bombing has started,the charm army is on the march

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

572 civilian jobs are directly related to Trident

Arguing that Trident brings jobs is crazy as it is the least productive way of employing people ie the price per job is feckin huge

It's not a case of bringing jobs, it's a case of those jobs going if trident leaves.

Trident may only involve a few hundred jobs, but even with the plans for a Scottish navy, HMNB Clyde will be massively reduced. There is significantly more there than trident and the RN aren't going to move trident to Barrow or wherever and leave the rest of the subs in Scotland on some sort of lease.

Satriale

kingchess

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's not a case of bringing jobs, it's a case of those jobs going if trident leaves.

Trident may only involve a few hundred jobs, but even with the plans for a Scottish navy, HMNB Clyde will be massively reduced. There is significantly more there than trident and the RN aren't going to move trident to Barrow or wherever and leave the rest of the subs in Scotland on some sort of lease.

serious question,where could they move trident to?how long would it take to get some place ready for trident and who would want it in their locality?

porsche959

Henry Sidney wrote: »

I would love to see Scotland vote yes, then ideally Wales and NI will follow and we will have got rid of all the junk little holes that we don't need.

Sounds like you're 'off-message' with your Orange Order mates, seemingly they are organising pro-Union marches.

porsche959

kingchess wrote: »

the love bombing has started,the charm army is on the march

Never mind, with a pint of bitter in one hand and a Union Jack in the other, Frog Face Farage will sort it.

Henry Sidney

porsche959 wrote: »

Sounds like you're 'off-message' with your Orange Order mates, seemingly they are organising pro-Union marches.

Ah but I'm English, from a catholic family but atheist. Try again kid.

Fratton Fred

kingchess wrote: »

serious question,where could they move trident to?how long would it take to get some place ready for trident and who would want it in their locality?

The reason Clyde was chosen was geographical. The UK's main role in NATO is to defend the Greenland-iceland-UK gap should Warsaw pact armies try to break out in to the Atlantic, hence basing the Hunter killer subs up there. It's also handy if your nuclear deterrent can slip in to the Atlantic, or arctic ocean quickly and quietly. If push comes to shove, then anywhere in the north west of England will do, if they need to be up there at all now.

I don't actually think the warheads are the problem as such, I think it is the reactors that power most submarines.

Billy86

Henry Sidney wrote: »

I would love to see Scotland vote yes, then ideally Wales and NI will follow and we will have got rid of all the junk little holes that we don't need.

They'll be taking the north east and Liverpool with them, so?

And then what to do with London, the cocaine capital of Europe?