Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffe Lounge
pantanifan

Scottish Independence - what do you think?

So it's one year until the Scottish referendum on becoming an independent country. I'm half-English, half-Scottish (tend to feel more English as I was born there and spent my childhood there), and would probably vote "yes" to independence, though I don't live in Scotland and won't have a vote...

Any views/comments?
MAILLOT JAUNE

I'm Scottish but have spent approximately half my life living outside Scotland. I am fiercely proud to be Scottish and when I was younger I wanted independence. Now, however, I do not feel that it would be a good idea from a financial/administrative point of view. I'm not eligible to vote either, but if I was, I'd vote No. There is not enough information about how it will actually work and I feel it is far too important a decision for people to decide based on the lack of information.
"They may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
SlowRower

MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:
"They may take away our oil, but they'll never take our freedom!"


I've taken liberty of editing your quote to make it more topical. Smile
MAILLOT JAUNE

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Wish I'd thought of that one!!!!
berck

I wasn't aware that this was going on. I've visted both Scotland and England. I noticed the following in Scotland.

Lake is a Loch
Bay is a Fjord
Burn is a stream

It's as if those Scottish have a different word for everything... Wink

How old is new? Who knows in Scotland. The Old Course at St. Andrews was built during the 1200's. The New Course was built int he 1400's.

When Quebec in Canada was wanting independence. I heard that the rest of Canada was ready to give it to them, until they heard Quebec's financial demands to essentially be paid to leave the rest of Canada. What I remember hearing was, fine if you want to leave the rest of Canada, but don't expect us to pay you.

Anyway, not knowing any particulars on how Scotland would reform as a nation, I have no opinion on this.
gerry12ie

I though Donald Trump had bought it anyway?

*ducks
MAILLOT JAUNE

gerry12ie wrote:
I though Donald Trump had bought it anyway?

*ducks

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Bartali

I voted yes ... so all the scottish politicians can mess Scotland up instead of my country! Smile

On a serious note, I'm not sure why I don't get to vote whether I want Scotland in the Union?
MAILLOT JAUNE

Because you're Italian and you know what the politics in Italy are like????!!!  Wink  Wink  Wink
Bartali

I wish I was MJ! Smile

The English don't get a vote on splitting up the union because it would get passed whereas the Scots are too smart to vote for independence.
MAILLOT JAUNE

The English don't get a vote, because the English would vote for the Scots to stay in the Union! Either to piss us off because they know most Scots would vote for independence or because they want to keep our oil !!!!  Wink  Wink  Wink  Wink
Slapshot 3

I'm a big NO, simply because I dread the thought of that clown Salmond in charge. I don't think Scotland is mature enough to be an independent nation despite my attempts to rebuild Hadrians Wall as a teenager... Wink

While I support the SNP and the fact that Scotland is doing pretty well with the ever reducing resources we have, I can't help but think going on our own would be financial suicide.

The oil thing is the biggy, who do you believe when it comes to the REAL revenues, I believe neither the SNP nor the UK government but would look at Norway and this place to see the real effect of Oil. Governments are lying to us when they tell the real values of the resource.

The UK is better as a sum of all the nations not as a disparate group of individuals.

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing
berck

Slapshot 3 wrote:

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing


First time I saw the term was when I was visiting Scotland. I saw a map of the land and saw it used. It's been a while since I've been there now.

Anyway, I just like to point out that there is at least one Fjord in Scotland... Wink
Slapshot 3

berck wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing


First time I saw the term was when I was visiting Scotland. I saw a map of the land and saw it used. It's been a while since I've been there now.

Anyway, I just like to point out that there is at least one Fjord in Scotland... Wink


FFS!! I should have clicked!!! it is rather nice!!
Fontfroide

berck wrote:

Burn is a stream

It's as if those Scottish have a different word for everything... Wink
.


Life being a bit more complicated than one might think, in Yorkshire, a stream is a beck.  In Michigan we called it a creek, or a crick when I was a kid.  Gills, or ghylls, seem to have rather steep banks, as I recall.

Wiki "A stream is a body of water [1] with a current, confined within a bed and stream banks. Depending on its locale or certain characteristics, a stream may be referred to as a branch, brook, beck, burn, creek, "crick", gill (occasionally ghyll), kill, lick, mill race, rill, river, syke, bayou, rivulet, streamage, wash, run or runnel."
SlowRower

Back on topic, there appear to be many key financial items - other than oil - that have not been resolved and won't be before the vote on independence, such as:

- Who takes on the liabilities of RBS?

- What share of the UK debt pile would Scotland inherit?

- Would all the companies currently HQ'd in Scotland (and assumed to pay corporation tax to Scotland if independent) stay HQ'd there?

- What would the cost of Scotland's government debt be? Life being as it is, investors would most likely view a small, "start-up" country as more risky than the UK, with a correspondingly higher cost of debt.

Tricky to know how anyone could make a properly informed choice given the above and there's doubtless a lot more detail related devil as well.

I assume that despite Cameron appearing pro-Union, he really wants to get rid of Scotland and its 50 or so Labour MPs, but can't appear too eager.
Fontfroide

SR,
Having listened to a few debates about costs and benefits and how this or that future development might or might turn out, it is pretty clear that no one knows the answer to ANY of your questions.  Those who think that Scotland should stay UK, say it is a financial bust.  Those who think Scotland should go on its own, say Scotland would be better off.  Honestly, I don't think anyone knows.  To me the debate closely resembles debates about Europe and the UK, based on some kind of financial cost benefit analysis and some kind of false sense of "sovereignty and independence".  There is never any answer to the quantifiable questions.  NO real surprise at all.  Even at the most basic level, do you have any idea at all what kind of life your pension will buy you when you retire.  Answer ….  We just don't know any more.

So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.  Scotland will never be isolated and independent, no country is.  I think Scotland would make a rather nice little country, nice size, not too many people, couple of grand cities, people who like their country, some good schools and universities, no big history of empire or oppressing people, fine health care, nice traditions, lovely geography, a bit of oil, good tourism prospects, it would be a fine country.  Probably.  The question is is nothing to do with one leader of one party or predictions of how tricky financial questions will be solved.  No one knows about stuff like that.

I hope they decide to try and make it as a Scottish country.  I would love to see how they do it.  Having met or lived with many Scottish people in my life, I have found very many of them really smart, good with grammar, well educated and with a cute accent.  a few seem to be not like that and have an impenetrable accent, but hey, variety is the spice of life.

Wink
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
There is never any answer to the quantifiable questions.


I'd have to disagree with that - the party underwriting the RBS liabilities will have to be indentified and the split of the existing UK national debt will have to be quantified at some point if Scotland does "jump ship". They are not unfathomable concepts, as they will simply have to be negotiated. So far, the only such concept that has been discussed is oil, which will run out soon, whereas RBS will be around for ever, or at leasst its liabilities will be!

The point is that the two questions:

"Do you want Scotland to be an independent country with full responsibility to underwrite RBS's liabilities"; and

"Do you want Scotland to be an independent country with RBS liabilities split pro-rata according to population"

are very differnt indeed. Not that the questions would be posed that way, obviously.

Personally, I'm in favour of independence if the majority vote for it, though I think fear of the unknown will prevail.
Fontfroide

The various ways that debts have been dealt with throughout the world, in recent times have been legion.  Debts can be cancelled, rates cut, payment left for later, loads of ways.  Until you know the exact way and how it will work over the next years, then you can't figure out how much it will cost.  And you can't figure out how it will be dealt with over the next ten years, so you can't get clear answers.  Look how Iceland dealt with debts, they jut didn't pay.  Iceland still exists.

I also am a bit puzzled why the debts of a huge global bank like RBS, with savers and investments everywhere, is the responsibility of only the Scottish people at large.  Makes no sense.  Debts that were created by bad banking decisions should not be a good reason to stop thinking about independence (or as much independence as possible anyway).  Debt money and bank money is nothing to do with the money you and I buy food with.  We cannot create money by signing a paper, banks can.  Huge difference.
Bartali

Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
The various ways that debts have been dealt with throughout the world, in recent times have been legion.  Debts can be cancelled, rates cut, payment left for later, loads of ways.  Until you know the exact way and how it will work over the next years, then you can't figure out how much it will cost.  And you can't figure out how it will be dealt with over the next ten years, so you can't get clear answers.  Look how Iceland dealt with debts, they jut didn't pay.  Iceland still exists.


I don't think anyone is suggesting the UK is going to default on its debts. The question is simply how they are allocated between Scotland and the rest of the UK if Scotland becomes independent.

Defaulting on debt is an option for any nation, but it's no panacea. The UK needs to borrow £120b per year, and if the UK was to default on the current debt then the chances of finding investors willing to lend this £120b per year would be reduced. In the worst case, there would need to be £120b of spending cuts immediately.

Iceland didn't default on its national debt - it simply refused to guarantee the Icelandic banks' liabilities.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?


Representative democracy - we elect our MPs so that a government is formed to take these hard decisions for us. We peasants can't be trusted to vote sensibly, so we need our elders, betters and expenses scammers to vote for us!

There should at least be a General Election before Scotland became independent. Given that the referendum is late 2014 and the General Election mid 2015, this will surely happen, though I think this is a quirk of electoral timing rather than specifically so that we have a say.

If the Scots have voted to go, and the Coalition is proposing to allow this, then Labour or UKIP or a new party e.g. "Keep the Scots in their place" could oppose this and if it was a major issue for the non-Scots, they could vote for this party and independence presumably could not go ahead. My guess is that Scottish independence is like EU membership - it's not sufficiently important to change how people vote in General Elections, given the importance of "schools'n'hospitals".
pantanifan

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.


But you would have the right to opt out if there was a strong groundswell of opinion for England to become independent - strong enough to create their own parliament and decide to hold a referendum, but most English people are happy with the status quo, and the complicated mix of being English/British/European - possibly resulting in a lack of identity? Just as Croatia and Slovenia decided to leave "Yugoslavia" (an artifical creation), any of the member "nations" could leave the UK (another artificial creation).
Fontfroide

SlowRower wrote:

Defaulting on debt is an option for any nation, but it's no panacea. The UK needs to borrow £120b per year, and if the UK was to default on the current debt then the chances of finding investors willing to lend this £120b per year would be reduced. In the worst case, there would need to be £120b of spending cuts immediately.

Iceland didn't default on its national debt - it simply refused to guarantee the Icelandic banks' liabilities.


Many countries have defaulted on debts in history.  And certainly that and that alone is not a solution to all problems.  I sure does help though.  I will look up examples if you need proof.  There have also been banks who have allowed defaults, they have "forgiven" debts.  All I am saying is that there are many options with debts, most of which are not predictable, and therefore not terribly interesting as an argument to do one strategy or another.  Overall I am guessing you treat debt for countries and banks a bit like debt for you and me.  There is almost no relation, except they are both called debt.  Banks just don't follow the rules for individuals, neither do countries.   Icelandic institutions did not pay back their debts, they just didn't.  Iceland still exists.  Admittedly it is a tiny country, and for the most part,no one cares about it.

I am trying to make a simple point.  The future, even with money, debts, inflation, exchange rates, interest rates and so forth is SOOO uncertain that it is not a good idea to make decisions about something like independence based on figures which could change tomorrow.  The decision should be based on something else, like what Scots want.  If they want independence, they should have it.  If they don't they shouldn't.  Scotland is a solid place with plenty of identity, not huge minorities that I know about, it would make a great country.  People like being Scottish and are proud of it.  Give them a chance if they want it.

A lot of this assumes that if a given nation (which is pretty clearly a nation) wants its own state, thereby becoming a nation-state, they should be able to do it.  Kurds, Scots, Palestinians, whoever.  If they want it, ask for it and don't get it form the ruling power, they have a revolt of some kind.  Been happening for many decades now, all over the world.  Usually, but not always, in the case of British Empire, the independence process has been a little less bloody, overall, than, for example, the French Empire.  So if the Scots vote for it, they should have it.  

I still think it would be a fine country.  Way better than Luxembourg, which is mostly based on being a place for rich people to hide their money.  Scotland has a solidity and a future.  Why not let them get on with being Scottish in their own country.  They got conquered when, 400 years ago or so.  Let em loose.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
All I am saying is that there are many options with debts, most of which are not predictable, and therefore not terribly interesting as an argument to do one strategy or another.


Allocating the UK's existing debt between Scotland and the rest of the UK isn't necessarily that interesting, but it is of huge financial significance to Scottish (and to a lesser extent, English and Welsh) taxpayers. If Bart is annoyed about not getting a vote, imagine how angry he'll be if Scotland tries to take on none of the debt, leaving English and Welsh taxpayers to pay off debts raised to fund roads, schools, hospitals and electoral bribes in a foreign country!

Conversely, would Scotland want to be independent if the only terms the UK government would allow this to happen under was if Scotland took a disproportionately large share of the debt, leaving the Scots to pay for English roads etc?
Bartali

And what's all this about Scottish oil?  They don't have any oil.  It's UK oil and belongs as much to the rest of us as it does to the Scots.  So not only do I expect the Scots to pay the fair share of the debt ... but I want our fair share of future oil revenues.

As for there being a groundswell of public opinion etc ... how big does the area have to be?  It's a 100% in favour of independence in my house so presumably I can opt out of the UK?  Who do I have to notify?
pantanifan

Bartali wrote:

As for there being a groundswell of public opinion etc ... how big does the area have to be?  It's a 100% in favour of independence in my house so presumably I can opt out of the UK?  Who do I have to notify?


I guess it has to be big enough to form a viable state - interpretations would vary, but there are plenty of precedents in my region for breaking away into nation states, otherwise we'd still have the Soviet Union  
Shocked  

In any case, Bart, I would have thought you'd want to leave the UK and become part of Italy (as mentioned by MJ)   Wink
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Who do I have to notify?


I think this tells you all that you need to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico
Fontfroide

When all is said and done Bart, I think you will find that anyone can start a state as long as a few important big states recognise it.  If you can get Obama and Putin to recognise you as a state, you are away.  Are there any serious resources in your back garden?  Maybe you could become a sink for dirty money like so many small ex colonies of the Grits, the French and so forth.
Fontfroide

Bart, there are international recognised, and frequently disputed rules bout who owns what in the ocean.  Something like a hundred or two miles or kilometres off the coast of a piece of land a country owns.  Hence silly battles over tiny islands where no one lives here and there in the oi; rich areas of the world.

It would be, without doubt Scottish oil.  But really they all sell the rights to multinationals .  They pay taxes on it to countries, unless they have a state owned oil company.

The oil only belongs to the UK if there is not independent Scotland.
Bartali

Pantanifan - maybe some sort of Italian Principality would do.  Prince Bart ... I like the sound of that. Wink

FF - I beg to differ.  The oil is of the coast of the UK and those rights you mention were granted by the UK.  Scotland had nothing to do with it.  If an independent Scotland want the oil then, as I see it, they have to buy it from the remaining part of the Union.  Being close to something doesn't make it your ... otherwise Alaska would be Canadian.

Even if it was Scottish oil, then I say, grant them independence, then we can immediatiely invade Scotland (which will be easy as they won't have an army) and take it off them - result!
Slapshot 3

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.


This....I don't want an option to opt out, I have no desire to be part of something new. Mrs Slapshot's favourite way of describing me about nationality is that "he bleeds tartan and is Scottish to the core" but that doesn't mean I am not British and proud of it. We all have our regional identities and that for me makes us Brits what we are.

Lets get this straight, Independence is a political agenda that's been the main aim of the SNP since it's formation however within the party you will find people with similar views to mine. Until the previous two Scottish elections the SNP were a minority party in Scotland but became popular due in large part of the ineptitude of Labour. Labour paid the price and lost their heartland in Scotland, I doubt they will ever get it back. Independence is still a minority viewpoint in Scotland, the last poll I saw before I left put support at around 36% and that's been a steady number since the start of all this nonsense.

On the face of things the SNP are doing a fair job at home, they have a lot of support for the policies they have applied and use the public purse reasonably well, however that would change hugely under an independent government. We'd face massive tax hikes initially, up to 5% or so, public services would change drastically and we'd have no resource to actually attract inward investment. When Salmond talks about it just now, it because we have the backing and resources of a great nation to be able to attract that investment. Scotland as a nation isn't mature enough within itself politically or in terms of it's people to be Independent.

Lets also set the record straight on the Banks. Scotland has NO "Scottish Banks" left, RBS and Bank of Scotland may have fancy HQ's in Edinburgh but what goes on in Scotland is a minor part of the banking infrastructure. BoS is part of the Lloyds group and 97% of the shares in RBS before the credit crunch and bailouts were owned outwith Scotland. Does Scotland have a share of the repayment burden; yes it does again depending on who you listen too. My local MSP couldn't argue the fact that Independence would hand Scotland a £3 billion pound share of debt before they started.

I have said rather bluntly that if the country votes yes as they have a freely agreed right to do, I'll move. I'll choose not to live in Scotland.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Even if it was Scottish oil, then I say, grant them independence, then we can immediatiely invade Scotland (which will be easy as they won't have an army) and take it off them - result!


Prince Bart,

Scotland is planning to join NATO, I understand. If a NATO country is invaded, then other NATO countries are obliged by the treaty they signed when they joined to assist in efforts to free their fellow NATOite from the yoke of oppression and occupation.

Thus, the part of the UK's forces that hadn't initially invaded would be obliged to invade Scotland again, and drive out the part that had initially invaded. As the closest NATO member to Scotland, this would make a lot of sense, as both invasions and the ensuing fight could be used as training exercises.

So 2 invasions for the price of 1, plus we get the oil. That will be just payback for when the marauding northern hordes wrecked the goal posts at Wembley and would also make Alex Salmond look like a twot. It's a win-win-win situation as far as I can see.
Bartali

I like your thinking!  It just gets better and better. That said, we must make sure we get SS out safely ... I don't want him caught in any cross-fire.

PS - Thank you for addressing me by my proper title.  much appreciated.

PPS - I'm glad there's no oil in the principality ...

PPPS - I'll have to sigh-up to this NATO thing.  Is it free?
berck

SlowRower wrote:

Prince Bart,

Bartali wrote:

PS - Thank you for addressing me by my proper title.  much appreciated.


I didn't realize the royal blood linage there. I suspected that he messed up and was suppose to address you as 'Sir' Bart. Wink
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
I'll have to sign-up to this NATO thing.  Is it free?


I've checked the membership requirements.

Firstly, you need to be a sovereign state, but I think you have this under control.

Secondly, you need to maintain a functional army, navy or airforce. Not unmanageable if you get the Butler, Gamekeeper, Gateman and Housekeeper to retrain and bike-mounted troops are acceptable instead of tank divisions.

Thirdly, you'll have to be nice to the French as they are members as well.

You might have more luck if you rename yourself Ernst Stavro Bartali, and try and pass yourself as the legitmate heir to the terror network of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Prince Bartali sounds like a foppish continental playboy to me, which certainly wouldn't impress the Frogs, as they have plenty of those of their own!
Fontfroide

Bart, I think you are just plain wrong.  But to be honest, I am more interested in hearing what you and I have to say about cycling.  

I tried to find an article or a map of national control, by law and practice (such as it is) about how some kind of sovereign bottom line control of oil in the ocean drilling rights goes to the sovereign nation closest to them drawing a line into the ocean for some distance.  After that distance, I think you can't actually OWN the middle of the Pacific or even Antarctica.  I think.  But no doubt after all that "who owns what, when" argument, it is fairly obvious that it is genuinely "Common Wealth".  The production and storage of oil under the ocean happened long before anyone even thought of the idea of ownership.  We people have nothing to do with it getting made, in contrast to iPads which we are entirely responsible for producing.

Best I could find was this, but then at the end suddenly other issues come into the verdict which are never mentioned in the article.  http://www.theguardian.com/politi...es-if-scotland-became-independent

But I could not find the map.  I give up on searches for stuff liek taht after ten minutes, life is way too busy.  The usual procedure (I guess you might well know this, sorry) is Nation-States cream off taxes and choose which company drills where and when and where they can take away the oil.  Scotland would own the oil, or 90% of it.  It would be the nation closest, and I presume in the case of Scotland, everyone would recognise it.  After all, nice job, ambassador to Scotland living in Edinburgh.  No, it would become a full fledged country recognised by everyone that counted, in no time at all.  However, if England forces it to make a prior deal about oil revenues, England could continue to keep control of oil and money.  I mean England (including NI and Wales).  Half the recent kerfuffle in Libya was who would own the oil and gas rights, and which part of the country they were in.  The rebels roots were in oil rich part, and one part of a complicated story was that they got sick of the dictator who lived in the no resources area keeping control.  Ocean stuff is a little more contested, fish rights are not the same distances as oil rights, and whether a tiny uninhabited rock gives oil rights to some nation-state who planted a flag on it in 1847 or 1647 is not always an easy question.

The actual reality of the negotiations between Sctoland and the Slightly less United Kingdom, of what will really happen in the Scottish independence will no doubt involve many parties, including of course all the big oil companies, who will want to have some say.  Then there are the tax lawyers, the platform manufacturers, the heloipcopter guys.   No one knows how that will go.  Basically in the end, any deal other than Scotland controlling menarly all the oil, will simply show that Scotland was too weak and not smart enough to get a better deal from the rest of the UK.  Who is strongest?  And why should England etc give up any more than they want to?  And that is how it will turn out, who is the smartest and strongest negotiator, regardless of the technical lines on a map of the North Sea.

Sorry for that length, I really should not participate in these things.  but then I do go on in my cycling posts too.  I must be the kind of person who makes things complicated and makes arguments.  My wife says that.  Probably true.
berck

Territorial waters issues (link)

Not everything is strait forward though Senkaku Islands Dispute
berck

Do they still have a £1 note in Scotland? I still have a few of them.
Fontfroide

berck wrote:
Do they still have a £1 note in Scotland? I still have a few of them.


We have moved over to coins a long time ago.

One and two euro coins also.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:

We have moved over to coins a long time ago.

One and two euro coins also.


When I visited Scotland in the late 90's, one bank was still printing them. The other one didn't.

EDIT:
Found out that RBS still prints them to this day... (link)
Nolte

what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.
Slapshot 3

Nolte wrote:
what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.


Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.

Independence is a bad idea, Independence within the EU is just fecking stupidity
Fontfroide

Slapshot 3 wrote:
Nolte wrote:
what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.


Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.


Was looking for some data, actual opinion polls on whether Scots do or don't want to be in this or that Union.  I think there must be lots of polls, but I found one which seemed to say more Scots want to be in Europe than not.  We won't know until there is a vote, and even then lots of people won't vote.  

I figure Scots should be allowed to be in the UK Union, or the EU Union or both or neither.  One finds out by asking them.  No doubt a few people would leave or come back to Scotland as a result of the specific policy adopted, but I figure most Scottish people like living in their own country.  Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.   Personally, I have moved countries more than once, but I always criticise both my old coutnry and the new one and also try to change them.  I would almost never move just becasue one policy or another was not to my liking.  I could never live anywhere, if I moved countries every time an important policy went against me.  I don't like Capitalism, Environmental Destruction and Patriarchy, for example.  Where could I live?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles...-eu-membership-european-union.htm
Bartali

Fontfroide wrote:
Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.
 I think you've covered all the bases there FF!
Fontfroide

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.
 I think you've covered all the bases there FF!


Although there are many people in every country who get pissed off with people who are natives or not, when they criticise a place.  "Love it or leave it" is a kind of default attitude.  

Moaning and doing nothing about it is generally accepted.  Brits are always moaning, but the French think they moan exceptionally.  I expect moaning is pretty universal.  

Now doing something about it is a little bit tricky, both in figuring out what to do and then also in actually doing it.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:
I expect moaning is pretty universal.  


Yep, I've noticed that everywhere I've traveled, and/or lived.
mr shifter

Slapshot 3 wrote:

Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.

Independence is a bad idea, Independence within the EU is just fecking stupidity

I will drink to that. (and I've had a few in Scotstoun & Clydebank)
Christ, without you we wouldn't be GREAT BRITAIN.   Rolling Eyes
Fontfroide

mr shifter wrote:

Christ, without you we wouldn't be GREAT BRITAIN.   Rolling Eyes


It would make things a lot more simple and less ambiguous and easier to learn for nearly everyone on earth if there were just England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  One name for each place instead of Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, and all the other places that few people can understand, except people that score high on exams about British government.  Who gets to be in the UN, who gets a separate football team in the World Cup, who gets to have an army, who gets to have a passport.  Just keep it simple.  What is a proper nation-state anyway?

I still remember coming the the UK in 1970 and asking a few people, thinking they would all know.  They didn't.  A bit like asking French people what all the religious holidays mean, and they don't know either.  

Still it is kind of cute as people in the United Kingdom have to wrestle a bit with their identity, loyalty, historical and financial questions.  Fun to watch.

{not sure which of these things is serious and which is not, so I didn't use iconettes}
Occasionalsweeper

Interesting debate. I have always been in favour of Scottish independence (since before the oil) and feel that I have more in common with the Irish and Bretons than those in the South East of England.

Many of us in Scotland, perhaps not including Slapshot, feel that the policies adopted by successive UK Governments have not been in the best interests of Scotland or possibly Northern England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Alex Salmond may not be everyone's cup of tea but he is generally acknowledged as being head and shoulders above most other politicians in Scotland.
gerry12ie

Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509
Occasionalsweeper

Another along the same lines, although you may need to understand Scots to fully appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2DVuRMY6s
Fontfroide

gerry12ie wrote:
Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509


That was so funny, I laughed out loud, several times.  Thanks.  Very much.  Even posted it on FB.
Fontfroide

Occasionalsweeper wrote:
Another along the same lines, although you may need to understand Scots to fully appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2DVuRMY6s


I remember doing a favour for pal of mine, fluent English speaker, writes articles in English.  But he knew that he would be ringing and get an Indian sub-coninent based call centre.  He was doing it on a slow connection, and he knew that the combinationof accents and connections woud make it impossible for him to understandand be understood.  I barely managed.

But I have to admit a fondness for a fairly light Edinburgh Scottish accent.  And although I might have mentioned this before, if something is said in a gentile Scottish accent I believe it more than many others, for example a posh Southern English one.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:
gerry12ie wrote:
Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509


That was so funny, I laughed out loud, several times.  Thanks.  Very much.  Even posted it on FB.


Me too! Smile Laughing
mr shifter

SlowRower wrote:
Bartali wrote:
Who do I have to notify?


I think this tells you all that you need to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico

Very Happy  Very Happy I'm one of the children in that film.

I'll get my coat.

Just lay an oil pipe line to south of Berwick. ?
pantanifan

Polls are now at 50-50 (or 40-40 with the rest "undecided") and Westminster starting to panic, even bringing Gordon Brown back to "save the day"...
Mrs John Murphy

pantanifan wrote:
Polls are now at 50-50 (or 40-40 with the rest "undecided") and Westminster starting to panic, even bringing Gordon Brown back to "save the day"...


That should swing it to the Yes camp along with the news that David Cameron is also going to start campaigning.

It will be interesting to see what happens. It will be very close.
mazda

Even if the "Yes" vote wins - say 52-48 - does that mean that they will split ?
That would show there is a very narrow majority, rather than a massive mandate to go ahead.

But would be interesting to see what happens.
Would England seek to destabilize some areas within Scotland to try and get them back ?

Is there a strong difference in opinion between the different areas of Scotland ?
Mrs John Murphy

Yes, it is 50%+1

The ironic thing is that for the Tories politically although they are the most pro-Union they are the ones who stand to benefit from Scottish independence because it guarantees Tory hegemony for the next 1000 years.

There are differences in different areas.

Every centre has a periphery and every periphery has a centre. So while Scotland is the periphery to London, the Highlands are the periphery to Edinburgh etc

I tend to suspect it will be more like the Velvet Divorce in Czechoslovakia than Yugoslavia.
SlowRower

pantanifan wrote:
Polls are now at 50-50 (or 40-40 with the rest "undecided") and Westminster starting to panic, even bringing Gordon Brown back to "save the day"...


I'm not so sure all of Westminster is panicing.

Labour - definitely, given the prospective loss of 40+ MPs.

Lib Dems - no, as will be wiped out in the 2015 GE come what may.

Tories - pretending to be worried so it doesn't look like they're too keen on the loss of 40+ Labour MPs. The backbenchers might use "the loss of the Union" as an excuse to ditch Cameron, though. That would teach him for violating one of Sir Humphrey's golden rules: "Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer."
pantanifan

SlowRower wrote:
The backbenchers might use "the loss of the Union" as an excuse to ditch Cameron, though"


I noticed the Mayor of London was stressing what a "disaster" it would be to "lose Scotland from the UK". Is he openly campaigning for the leadership now or was this just coincidental?
Mrs John Murphy

pantanifan wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
The backbenchers might use "the loss of the Union" as an excuse to ditch Cameron, though"


I noticed the Mayor of London was stressing what a "disaster" it would be to "lose Scotland from the UK". Is he openly campaigning for the leadership now or was this just coincidental?


Yes, I think his campaign has pretty much started now.
mazda

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Yes, it is 50%+1

The ironic thing is that for the Tories politically although they are the most pro-Union they are the ones who stand to benefit from Scottish independence because it guarantees Tory hegemony for the next 1000 years.


You never know, it might usher in electoral reform in England.
Most of us are fed up having no party to vote for (except for largely negative voting "to keep the others out").
Mrs John Murphy

Highly unlikely - Turkeys don't vote for xmas.
Nolte

pantanifan wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
The
backbenchers might use "the loss of the Union" as an excuse to ditch
Cameron, though"


I noticed the Mayor of London was stressing what a "disaster" it would
be to "lose Scotland from the UK". Is he openly campaigning for the
leadership now or was this just coincidental?


boris johnson nominated to be tory candidate for next election for the ruislip constituency

what are the possibilities for uk election if scotland vote no:
- cameron resigns on sept 19th? i don't think so
- next election postponed from next may until after negotiations for reasons outlined at top of page
Slapshot 3

There is no debate or campaining anymore, Salmond has mob rule running the show, everywhere you go "no" publicity is destroyed or vandalised. Family and friends are turning against each other.... it's just shit. I hope no wins but I fear the consequences afterwards.

Cameron could be on a sticky wicket because he's done sod all to prevent Salmond taking over, he deserves to lose the oil income of his inactivity...
Bartali

I'm no Cameron fan but he was on a sticky wicket from the start.  A high profile Cameron plays into Salmond's posh rich english boys mantra.  He entrusted it to a respected labour scot who frankly fluffed it.

Salmond's a genius ... he's made the whole thing about emotion rather than facts.  The same will happen if we have a Euro vote too!
Fontfroide

The real problem is that nobody whatsoever has any facts about what exactly would happen with all the variables.  When you weigh up all the uncertainties about taxes, money, Europe, nuclear subs, oil etc etc, there is not a person in the entire globe that can say anything certain about any of it.  that goes as much for Scotland as anywhere else.  So when you look at the overall uncertainties and the nearly totally unknown risks, those pro-Scotland in the UK want the independent Scottish, to be afraid of the future much different to what it now is.  Sadly, what exactly does anyone think is going to happen to the UK economy, environment, transport system, or cycling system five years from now.  Those who want Scotland independent, make up facts or say that it will be OK and it will work out.  Honestly, no one knows what will happen and anything the English banks or parliaments says just promotes fear of risk and the unknown.  As if THEY know what is going to happen.

So of course it is about emotions.  But then countries are all about that anyway, anywhere.  They are not based on some kind of rational calculation of where it is better to be Flanders or Belgium.  There is no such calculation possible, but admitting that is way too embarrassing for anyone.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
The real problem is that nobody whatsoever has any facts about what exactly would happen with all the variables.


Unfortunately, whilst many things are genuinely unknowable (e.g. future volumes and price of oil) the main current uncertainty is which currency an independent Scotland will be using, and that uncertainty is man-made.

Salmond says: "£ via currency union"

Westminster says: "No". And as all the main UK parties are saying this and have continued to say it despite the recent "love-bombing" of Scotland and supposed offers of greater devolution by Burns Night is there's a No vote, then I think this is about as certain as one can get in politics.

Salmond says: "Liar, liar, pants on fire. It's not fair. Those Tory toffs are being mean to us. It's our pound and we're going to use it"

Anyone promoting an investment proposal that was as misleading as the "Yes" campaign would be disqualified as a Director and/or banned by the financial regulator in double-quick time, yet this is the basis on which a permanent decision about staying in or out of the UK is to be made.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious for the Scots. Despite the media hype, it's not much of an issue to the UK in anything other than the short term, other than increasing the chances of Boris Johnson being PM.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
I'm no Cameron fan but he was on a sticky wicket from the start.


Other than ruling our "Devo Max" as an option, Cameron has let Salmond dictate all the terms of the referendum, so if his wicket has been a bit sticky, one could say he forgot to put the covers on.
Bartali

I think he hugely underestimated Salmond's ability to harness support based on distorting the truth.  It's quite frightening to be honest that ordinary folk can be manipulated so easily.

Goodness know what will appen when the Islanders catch on that it's their oil and declare independence from Edinburgh!!
Fontfroide

Bartali wrote:


Goodness know what will appen when the Islanders catch on that it's their oil and declare independence from Edinburgh!!


I hadn't heard much about this.  So is there a "regionalism" WITHN Scotland that is strong enough to overcome Scottishness.  
Shetlands?  They think they are Shetlish?  It is logical in the sense that there are local and regional and national identities all mixed up in nearly any country, so why not Scotland.
SlowRower

Recent developments make me think that Cameron will be toast either way. The way he's meekly gone along with self-appointed President Brown's offer of further devolution to Scotland (funded, of course, by taxpayers in England etc.) without any consultation will not sit well with the Tory backbenchers. So Yes or No, he'll most likely get ousted, simply for "assuming the position" at Brown's command.

There will be a "race to the bottom" amongst potential replacements as to who promises to be meanest to Scotland, as recent opinion polls suggest a fair degree of latent anger amongst the English etc. that has been stirred up by the Yes campaign.

The new PM will not be bound by Cameron's recent "vow", as they clearly have not been consulted and the issue wasn't discussed at Cabinet or in the House.

Following a No vote, a General Election manifesto to correct the preferential allocation of public to Scotland will potentially be quite appealing to waivering Tory voters, and won't make them any less popular in Scotland.

For the same reasons, a General Election manifesto committed to getting the best deal from negotiations for the UK (i.e. "We'll screw Scotland", but not in so many words) will also probably sit quite well.

My next post will contain this week's Lottery Numbers, so watch this space!
Slapshot 3

So it's done and it was no thankfully, but I think it will have a huge upheaval for all of us
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
So it's done and it was no thankfully, but I think it will have a huge upheaval for all of us


Rumour has it that the Royal Naval engineers who were lined up to decommission Faslane will now be deployed to decommission Salmond's vocal chords.
Slapshot 3

SlowRower wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
So it's done and it was no thankfully, but I think it will have a huge upheaval for all of us


Rumour has it that the Royal Naval engineers who were lined up to decommission Faslane will now be deployed to decommission Salmond's vocal chords.


As long as the smug git and his Nippy Sweetie sidekick have quit!!
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
So it's done and it was no thankfully, but I think it will have a huge upheaval for all of us


Rumour has it that the Royal Naval engineers who were lined up to decommission Faslane will now be deployed to decommission Salmond's vocal chords.


As long as the smug git and his Nippy Sweetie sidekick have quit!!


Salmond may go sooner rather than later, as he'll be a bit long in the tooth when the next referendum comes round. But I think Nicola Sturgeon will prevail for longer than the Barnett formula!
Nolte

Fontfroide wrote:
Bartali wrote:


Goodness know what will appen when the Islanders catch on that it's their oil and declare independence from Edinburgh!!


I hadn't heard much about this.  So is there a "regionalism" WITHN Scotland that is strong enough to overcome Scottishness.  
Shetlands?  They think they are Shetlish?  It is logical in the sense that there are local and regional and national identities all mixed up in nearly any country, so why not Scotland.


the scottish secretary said this here http://www.theguardian.com/politi...land-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael

Quote:
Oil-rich Shetland may consider becoming a self-governing territory like the Isle of Man rather than stay part of an independent Scotland in the event of a yes vote, the Scotland secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has said.

In an interview with the Guardian, Carmichael said if Shetland were to vote strongly against independence but the Scottish national vote was narrowly in favour, then a "conversation about Shetland's position and the options that might be open to it" would begin.

The Liberal Democrat MP, who represents Orkney and Shetland in Westminster and has been secretary of state for Scotland in the coalition government since last October, said those options might include the islands modelling themselves on the Isle of Man, which is a self-governing crown dependency that is not part of the UK, or on their neighbours the Faroe Isles, which are an autonomous country within the Danish realm.

Asked if he was suggesting Alex Salmond should not take for granted that oilfields off Shetland will belong to Scotland in the event of a yes vote, he said: "That would be one of the things that we would want to discuss. I wouldn't like to predict at this stage where the discussions would go."


orkneys voted 67.2% against, Shetlands 63.7%
Slapshot 3

Orkney and Shetland feel more Scandinavian that Scottish
MAILLOT JAUNE

Thank goodness for that. I am so relieved that the No votes won. I even had some porridge on Friday morning to celebrate (oh, and a glass of Bucks Fizz as well).
I must take my hat of to Alex Salmond - regardless of what you think of him - he has been the longest serving Political Party leader in the UK (as far as I am led to believe) and has always stuck to his principles (unlike others and some who don't even have any). It must be hard for him to have lost in his quest to realise his dream. But at least he tried.
Fontfroide

Well, the people have spoken.  Within the limits of referenda and so forth.  Now we see if anything changes, or if there are any surprises.  Otherwise the next few years will be like a bad GT, no surprises, nothing much happens, and the same guys say the same things.  Hope there is some chance that Scotland might find a way to be a bit different than England.  But the results will encourage those who want nothing much to be different.  

And above all, the Scots can keep the English pound, making things minorly inconvenient for all the other Europeans who travel to the UK.  Assuming that the UK does not just ditch Europe as well.  The Little Island all by itself!
MAILLOT JAUNE

Point of note FF, it's not the English pound. The pound is the official currency of the United Kingdom (as well as several other territories). It's Scotland's pound as much as it is England's, Northern Ireland's and Wales's.

The problem with the aftermath is whether the usual lying Politian's will stick to their promises or will they stab us Scots in the back again and renege on the promises they made ! Watch this space, I guess.
Fontfroide

MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:
Point of note FF, it's not the English pound. The pound is the official currency of the United Kingdom (as well as several other territories). It's Scotland's pound as much as it is England's, Northern Ireland's and Wales's.


I was both serious and half serious calling it the English pound.  But I do take your point.  

On the other hand the pound sterling is also used in Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the British Antarctic Territory, and Tristan da Cunha. It was also invented in England and "adopted" by other places as they were incorporated into the "empire".  The Irish pound and the pound Scots apparently got replaced by the English one.

I guess everyone likes "their" money, but I think the Brits are particularly fond of the pound, as if that means something special.  Personally I am convinced that some small percentage, or perhaps a deciding small percentage of Scots, were worried about what might happen if they were somehow not directly connected to the (English) pound, and had to invent some other kind of money.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
Personally I am convinced that some small percentage, or perhaps a deciding small percentage of Scots, were worried about what might happen if they were somehow not directly connected to the (English) pound, and had to invent some other kind of money.


Apparently just shy of half the "No" voters listed uncertainty over currency and EU membership as the #1 reason for voting as they did.

Unrelated to that, every age-group below 55 voted "Yes", so one would think that in the fullness of time, a natural majority in favour of independence will emerge. Ironically, the SNP government, having made some good political capital out of the quality and freeness of their care for the elderly, now have a vested interested in the pensioners starting to die off faster.

Another interesting aspect of the voting is that amongst the younger age voters, a majority of those in low wage jobs or (net) on benefits voted "Yes", with a majority amongst the professional jobs voting "No". An independent Scotland could, in future, end up being funded largely by the taxes of those who didn't want to be independent.

I think Confucius had it right...
Slapshot 3

SlowRower wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
Personally I am convinced that some small percentage, or perhaps a deciding small percentage of Scots, were worried about what might happen if they were somehow not directly connected to the (English) pound, and had to invent some other kind of money.


Apparently just shy of half the "No" voters listed uncertainty over currency and EU membership as the #1 reason for voting as they did.


Correct, I want feck all to do with Europe, why break from one group of cheating crooks and shysters to join up with an even bigger bunch in Brussels??

Quote:


Unrelated to that, every age-group below 55 voted "Yes", so one would think that in the fullness of time, a natural majority in favour of independence will emerge. Ironically, the SNP government, having made some good political capital out of the quality and freeness of their care for the elderly, now have a vested interested in the pensioners starting to die off faster.

Another interesting aspect of the voting is that amongst the younger age voters, a majority of those in low wage jobs or (net) on benefits voted "Yes", with a majority amongst the professional jobs voting "No". An independent Scotland could, in future, end up being funded largely by the taxes of those who didn't want to be independent.

I think Confucius had it right...


As had been said... it was too soon, another 5 years would have seen a completely different vote
Bartali

But in another 5 years the 50-55s will be 5 years wiser so will vote no.  Also, the SNP are just about still riding the crest of a wave.  5 more years of power and they will suffer like every government does.

I never understood how 'independence' and the SNP manifesto were so easily intertwined.  They don't have some sort of special right to power  ... it wasn't so long ago that they were in opposition.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
I never understood how 'independence' and the SNP manifesto were so easily intertwined.


The SNP had holding a referendum in their 2011 manifesto presumably as a vote winner (rather than an intended policy) to woo marginal Labour voters. I don't think they actually ever wanted a referendum. It would have been preferable to be able to play the Tories as the bad guys refusing the "will of the Scottish people", rather than trying (or not trying as it turned out) to put forward a coherent plan for independence.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
But in another 5 years the 50-55s will be 5 years wiser so will vote no.


One would think that the not all the current over 40s who voted "Yes" will turn into "No" voters, though. So eventually, the youngsters joining the electorate who are bold enough to vote "Yes" will offset the number of older folk changing the "No".

I think this is all somewhat academic, though. Surely the major Scotland vs UK issues (e.g. currency) along with EU membership status will have to be resolved up front next time, which will force the issue one way or the other.
Slapshot 3

Independence is their key aim and main focus of their policy, it is why the formed and the basis of the ideology. Independence is everything!
pantanifan

Looks like our poll of 11 cycling fans was pretty reflective of Scotland as a whole! Coming up, how to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the future of Islamic State and what to do about Syria and Ukraine, all resolved on a cycling forum   Wink
SlowRower

Slapshot 3 wrote:
Independence is their key aim and main focus of their policy, it is why the formed and the basis of the ideology. Independence is everything!


I never got the impression that the SNP wanted independence in the truest sense of the word. More power, and less dependence but still with the safety net of the UK if things went wrong seemed to be what they wanted if the plan for the currency was genuine. (As opposed to being a plan to guarantee a "No" that could be argued as a vaguely plausible plan for an independent Scotland.)
SlowRower

pantanifan wrote:
Looks like our poll of 11 cycling fans was pretty reflective of Scotland as a whole! Coming up, how to solve the Palastinian-Israeli conflict, the future of Islamic State and what to do about Syria and Ukraine, all resolved on a cycling forum   Wink


That's easy - resolving how Froome and Wiggins can coexist at Sky is a challenge more worthy of us!
MAILLOT JAUNE

I agree with SR. Independence is the be all and end all of SNP, from what I understand.
Interesting to note though, that it is being reported that membership of the SNP is increasing at an amazing rate since the vote last week. Please don't put us through another Independence vote again!!!!
Slapshot 3

MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:
I agree with SR. Independence is the be all and end all of SNP, from what I understand.
Interesting to note though, that it is being reported that membership of the SNP is increasing at an amazing rate since the vote last week. Please don't put us through another Independence vote again!!!!


If Cameron and co make changes there won't be if they don't there will be another shout for Independence
Bartali

It will be academic if the English get to vote for independence .... Wink

I think my point about the SNP manifesto was misunderstood.  What I meant was that the proposition seemed to be that independence equates to a future in which SNP policies abound.  But in theory any party could be in power in 5, 10 or 20 years time ... so this socialist utopia that's been peddled could be very different.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
I think my point about the SNP manifesto was misunderstood.  What I meant was that the proposition seemed to be that independence equates to a future in which SNP policies abound.  But in theory any party could be in power in 5, 10 or 20 years time ... so this socialist utopia that's been peddled could be very different.


OK. I see what you mean.

From what I've read, the SNP has historically been more to the right than the left politically. I guess the references to some kind of utopian, "fairer" society in the referendum campaign were to highlight that independence would get rid of the English Tories and their "unfairness" (perceived or otherwise).

Even if there had been a Yes vote and the SNP had formed the government long term, I suspect the realities of the bond markets and needing to fund a large budget deficit would have redefined utopia. Even Ed Balls is talking about sensible finances in the next Labour (mis)management of the economy, so market conditions must be pretty serious!
mr shifter

Fontfroide wrote:
MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:
Point of note FF, it's not the English pound. The pound is the official currency of the United Kingdom (as well as several other territories). It's Scotland's pound as much as it is England's, Northern Ireland's and Wales's.


I was both serious and half serious calling it the English pound.  But I do take your point.  

On the other hand the pound sterling is also used in Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the British Antarctic Territory, and Tristan da Cunha. It was also invented in England and "adopted" by other places as they were incorporated into the "empire".  The Irish pound and the pound Scots apparently got replaced by the English one.

I guess everyone likes "their" money, but I think the Brits are particularly fond of the pound, as if that means something special.  Personally I am convinced that some small percentage, or perhaps a deciding small percentage of Scots, were worried about what might happen if they were somehow not directly connected to the (English) pound, and had to invent some other kind of money.

The last few times I worked in Scotland I was given change in Scottish Pound Notes and then found that at home some shopkeepers wouldn't accept them. They were (are ?) Legal Tender in England and if I had six or more then a bank would change them without charges. No problems.
The Bank of England guaranteed their value as they were printed by Royal Bank of Scotland.
mr shifter

MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:

Interesting to note though, that it is being reported that membership of the SNP is increasing at an amazing rate since the vote last week.
That's because Alex Salmond has dropped out as Leader.  Rolling Eyes
       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffe Lounge
Page 1 of 1