[Jon Wiggett]

Oh. the monetary thing. It's been stated a thousand times - we would like to negotiate with UK gov't on keeping the joint pound IF we get the Yes vote. The No campaigners, on the other hand, have given NO assurances to the people of Scotland on what happens if it's a No vote ? Pot, kettle, black ?

But there's a long way to go and hopefully a lot more Labour politicians shooting themselves in the foot.

So you are involved in the 'yes' campaign Alfie. Sorry, I must have missed that when you made it clear earlier It is known that the yes vote wants to negotiate on a monetary union but the no camp has on mass said there would be no deals made so that is a non-starter. Ergo, no clarity on the 'yes' side to this very important question. In the case of a 'no' win then things stay as they are on the money front, the pound would still be the currency in Scotland.

So no 'pot, kettle, black'.

Jon

[Lou_Duran]

What sort of messed up society ensures that all its citizens, however poor has some form of shelter, a basic education and free healthcare? It's crazy.

The children of such families should have worked harder to be born into families with greater means.

Ryan

please help me rearrange the following

jack Thread nowhere! going   

There is nothing more unedifying than rich people complaining about the poor.

How I'd do?

Badly?

Oh well, back to Scottish Independence.

I have been "edified" on gca.com.  You really can't buy this stuff!

[Alfie Ward]

Jon,

Let's say, hypathetically, that it is a Yes vote. Transport yourself forward to the first day of Scottish Indy. Do all the Scottish MP's / MSP's resign their positions and turn their back on Scotland, or do they accept the decision of the people who elected them into office and participate in negotiations on behalf of their own constituents ? Personally, I believe the latter will be the sensible way.

On the No side I agree entirely. That's indisputable. But what else are the No camp offering ? Maybe I've missed something.  

[Sean Walsh]

Mark,

In Australia we are (or at least were) having our own argument on the taxation of resource extraction.  In this argument Norway is always raised.  As a comparison an article from what I believe is a credible source referred to effective taxation on Resource extraction in Norway at 78%, Australia sits at 13%.  Meanwhile Resources/Energy companies recently announced some very decent profits figures.  I think there's a little room to move towards the Norwegian model without too much disruption to income tax rates.

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean don't forget Norway also state own the main resource companies.

[Jon Wiggett]

Alfie,

but negotiate with who? Just because the yes camp want to negotiate does not mean it will happen. On the otherside, what extra do the no camp have to offer they are arguing it is better not to change.

It is a clear choice of choose to stay with what we have now or choose to go for an independence in the form set out by the yes campaign only the yes campaign have not set out any clear choices just would like to have. Would like to have a currency union which is not on the table and would like to be in the EU without the Euro both of which are unlikely.

At the moment I have no clue what would happen if as is likely in a yes vote there is no currency union and no EU or worse EU with Euro. I might very well vote for independence if it were clear what that meant and it was viable. I also think that the parliament should be moved to Perth or Sterling to prevent Edinburgh becoming the new London.

Jon

[David_Tepper]

"Alex Salmond's Big Problem," from the current issue of the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21596935-battle-scotland-has-come-turn-dispute-over-currencywhich-unionists-are

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting how different a monetary union discussion is today from what it would have been a few years ago, before the eurozone bailouts and the UK's decision to maintain the pound (and before the reality of the British debt-load came to the fore).  Maybe the best thing is a new currency, neither the euro nor the pound, but "The Connery".  And instead of the "In God We Trust" on the back, you could have "World Domination - Same Old Dream".

Peter

EDIT:  I stand corrected! Hail the SCOTTISH Pound!

[Alfie Ward]

Jon, sorry for the lethargic response, but here it is - the last one.

Well done for keeping an open mind too, but I'm no expert (like most on here) on currency etc. So I'll never convince you on this one.
What I can give is my own assumption of what WILL happen in the event of a Yes vote. viz ; The Scottish gov't AND Westminster WILL commence immediate negotiations and I believe we have something like two years to complete such negotiations for the parting of the ways. Whoever the Westminster gov't may be (?) they may well continue to decline joint currency, so Scot gov't will have to sort out something else (Euro, keep the pound, own currency so we can have world dominance etc.. ) Of course there is a long way to go till the referendum and we could see Westminster up the stakes and, somehow, make it completely impossible for a joint currency to be negotiated ? That would be dumb IMO, but it would provoke a Plan B response from the Yes side. The plan B everybody on the No side wants so much.
ANYBODY who thinks that Westminster will not negotiate is crazy. Let's not forget - they're all politicians ! (Yes and No)

I predict that Labour WILL offer something to the Scottish electorate very soon. Why ? Because, stupid as they are, they KNOW that the Status Quo will not cut it with the voters.

The EU debate is interesting too, where the No's want all these certainties of life but who couldn't predict the winner of the last race at Pontefract (YESTERDAY !) You and I know there are only two certainties in life...
And then we have the contradiction of the No's telling us that we will be out of Europe when the UK gov't is planning a referendum to possibly take the UK out of Europe. Hypocrisy, or what.

Finally, I've heard some naysayers say that this little baby should be put to bed, once and for all and that people are getting sick of all the politics. Well I've got news for them. Approximately one third of the Scottish electorate support independence and I can predict (with CERTAINTY) that we aint going away if it's a No vote ! We'll just have to regroup and start all over again.

Don't have a problem shifting new parliament to Perth, Stirling, Aberdeen, Kirkwall, or maybe Carlisle if they decide they'd like to join us.
As there wont be as many politicians, we'll be able to keep a closer eye on the buggers.

And all this is non-negotiable. Must be turning into a neggy person ? (Lurker)

Hope Scotland treats you well Jon in whatever you do and signing off.

ching ching cheerio.

[Jon Wiggett]

Alfie,

no problem with the slow response. The problem with your monetary stand point is that not having a defined and certain monetary policy will be very damaging for the economy of Scotland. Business will not like the uncertainty and I suspect the Standard Life statement today will be the first of many. The yes campaign and especially the SNP have a duty to ALL of Scotland to produce a clear, coherent policy on what happens if no currency union is reached. It is naïve, short sighted and reckless to follow a mantra of 'they will negotiate' when it has been clearly stated they won't and it is probable they mean it. The no campaign forget that if Scotland goes independent then voters in rUK will generally be against a monetary union and any policy to negotiate one would be a big vote loser.

On the EU point. The fact is that the yes campaign have stated a desire for an independent Scotland to be in the EU and whether or not the UK stays a member does not effect the membership question. Although I would hope some form of membership would be achieved I still want to know what are the options if it is not. I will not take Mr Salmond's word that we will be as a guarantee but rather think the yes campaign has a duty to clarify the point beyond the pub discussion level it is at the moment.

As to offers coming on the table last year the Westminster government already stated it would go further down the devolution road moving substantial new powers to Holyrood. In the event of a no vote it would be wise for the Scottish government to push Westminster to form an English parliament. This would separate English and UK politics from each other to the benefit of all. Indeed, it would give Scotland the sort of  political and economic independence envisioned by the yes campaign and retain EU membership. Westminster could become a gathering of representatives of the devolved parliaments.

Finally, no one would expect the yes voter to go away in the event of a no vote but it would be hoped that they would respect the result as they expect no voters to respect a possible yes result. It is also hoped that they would respect and allow the regions of Scotland to break away from an independent Scotland should they wish to do so. Many people in the Highlands are not very happy with the centralisation of power in the South of Scotland under the SNP government. Holyrood is looking and behaving more like Westminster with each passing month and it is a little worrying to say the least.

Jon

[Mark Chaplin]

Alfie if the No is passed what do you mean by "regroup and start all over again"?

The will of the people must surely mean the independence movement must take a back seat for 15-20 years. In the 1999 republic vote in Australia the vote was roughly 55% for the status quo and 45% for a republic on a 95% turnout, that's pretty close and yet there hasn't been another referendum in 15 years.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Approximately one third of the Scottish electorate support independence and I can predict (with CERTAINTY) that we aint going away if it's a No vote ! We'll just have to regroup and start all over again.

As a Canadian from outside of Quebec who has lived thought two referenda, with the possibility of a third in the near future, I must say this sounds very familiar.   It sounds rather like you are quoting Jacques Parizeau giving his speech in 1995 when the oui vote lost.

[Chris Kane]

Alfie if the No is passed what do you mean by "regroup and start all over again"?

The will of the people must surely mean the independence movement must take a back seat for 15-20 years. In the 1999 republic vote in Australia the vote was roughly 55% for the status quo and 45% for a republic on a 95% turnout, that's pretty close and yet there hasn't been another referendum in 15 years.

Mark, it wasn't that close - a constitutional amendment requires a majority of the country plus a majority in at least four of the six states. The No campaign won in all states plus the country.

To be honest the republic issue isn't a big one compared to Scottish independence - if it does happen the impact will most likely be symbolic rather than a fundamental change to our system of government. And with the current PM a former executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, don't expect the issue to be revived until he's gone at the earliest!

[Rich Goodale]

I've said almost as much as I want to say vis a vis Scotland, but to put my thoughts in context I would like to add:

1.  The concept of "Nations" is often very much different from the current politically designated boundaries.  For examples:

--Yugoslavia c. 1990
--The Ukraine c. now
--"Pakistan"/"Afghanistan"/"India"
--"Iraq"/"Kurdistan"/"Turkey"/"Syria"
--"Syria"/"Lebanon"/"Kurdistan"
--"Israel"/"Palestine"/"Jordan"
--"Waloonia" + "Flanders" ="Belgium"?
--"North" and "South" Korea?
--"Tibet"?

If you really think this through the number of "real" nations in our world these days is probably somewhere between 50 (based on 20th century political power) and 500+ (based on ethnic solidarity).

2.  "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

--hardly "United"
    -the "Northern Ireland" bit is a 50/50 split between allegiance to Ireland and allegiance to Britain, and citizens on both sides of this debate have for many years and continue to this day to try to kill each other rather than settle down in peace.  That lovely part of the world is so f****d up politically/recent historically that even Eire doesn't really want to have much to do with it
    -the Welsh and Scottish bits have their own football and Rugby and hockey and curling and bowling and all other athletic teams (every 4 years when the Commonwwealth Games are held) and increasingly powerful local parliaments
    -scratch a Welshperson or a Scottish person and ask them whether they are British or Welsh/Scots and in well over 50% of the cases they will "vote" for their ethnicity

3.  So what is different/similar between the Scottish issues and what is happening now in Ukraine?

--Country historically dominated by noisy neighbours?  (hint: "Ukraine" means "borderland")
--Country merged with noisy neighbour in response to crisis (Darien scheme/MittelEuropean 2nd millenia chaos)
--Country given limited freedom in light of 21st century realities (Scottish devolution/break up of USSR)
--Weaker country wants to express its individuality/stronger country works to crush this individuality and reassert control

Rich

[Sean_A]

--Weaker country wants to express its individuality/stronger country works to crush this individuality and reassert control

Very dubious statement on both ends.  It is far from clear that Scotland wants to express its individuality by declaring independence and I suggest no matter the outcome of the Sept vote that proposition will still remain unclear in the main because a huge percentage of Scots will have been silenced by the rigged system. Presumably England (?) wants to crush individuality and reassert exactly what control?        

I would like know if Scotland bails and presumably is not immediately part of the EU, does this mean that a treaty (many treaties really cuz the Scots are all over EU countries) of sorts needs to be sorted in terms of folks living and working across European borders?  Will the treaty have to somehow grandfather in non-Scots in Scotland and Scots in the other home countries?  The biggest benefit Scotland has is the right of Scots to live and work in England.  I don't know how many Scots are in England that otherwise have no right to be there (married an English person etc), but it has to be more than  a few dozen  - I know a few.     

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

--Weaker country wants to express its individuality/stronger country works to crush this individuality and reassert control

Very dubious statement on both ends.  It is far from clear that Scotland wants to express its individuality by declaring independence and I suggest no matter the outcome of the Sept vote that proposition will still remain unclear in the main because a huge percentage of Scots will have been silenced by the rigged system. Presumably England (?) wants to crush individuality and reassert exactly what control?        

I would like know if Scotland bails and presumably is not immediately part of the EU, does this mean that a treaty (many treaties really cuz the Scots are all over EU countries) of sorts needs to be sorted in terms of folks living and working across European borders?  Will the treaty have to somehow grandfather in non-Scots in Scotland and Scots in the other home countries?  

Ciao

Sean

Have you been channelilng Lloyd Bridges in "Airplane"?

Rich

[Sean_A]

--Weaker country wants to express its individuality/stronger country works to crush this individuality and reassert control

Very dubious statement on both ends.  It is far from clear that Scotland wants to express its individuality by declaring independence and I suggest no matter the outcome of the Sept vote that proposition will still remain unclear in the main because a huge percentage of Scots will have been silenced by the rigged system. Presumably England (?) wants to crush individuality and reassert exactly what control?        

I would like know if Scotland bails and presumably is not immediately part of the EU, does this mean that a treaty (many treaties really cuz the Scots are all over EU countries) of sorts needs to be sorted in terms of folks living and working across European borders?  Will the treaty have to somehow grandfather in non-Scots in Scotland and Scots in the other home countries?  

Ciao

Sean

Have you been channelilng Lloyd Bridges in "Airplane"?

Rich

Its a shame when folks want to make decisions based on flag waving and drum beating.  So far, thats the only message I am receiving from you and others of your ilk. Not that anything need more be required n a divorce other than "I'm bored", but it seems a drastic step considering what is at stake.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for that note, Sean.  As far as I can see, all that is at stake is self respect/self determination.  Anything wrong with that?  Surely you Englanders could survive/maintain your own self-respect without us?

Rich

[Mark Chaplin]

Rich I'm English not British so no different to a Scot or Welshman.

Scottish independence does little or nothing to harm England, if it is so popular how come the Nationalist vote is around 33%? All London has told Salmond is he cannot expect to use the pound and Europe has told him not to expect membership of the EU, which takes around 5 years and amongst other things requires the Euro to be adopted by the candidate.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks Mark

I know you are English (as are Sean and Tony ).  Nae problemos with that.

As for a currency, that can and will be sorted out.  It is in neither the interests of rUK nor Scotland to not find a solution on that.  The 1928-1998 Irish bodge is a good enough precedent.  As for the EU, if the rUK politicians/voters had any cojones and had a proper referendum youse guys would not be a part of the EU either.  Anybody for the $Dollar US (or Australian or Canadian)?

Rich

PS-don't worry.  We'll take your pounds or guineas or groats if and when you want to come up here to play proper golf courses, with proper handicaps.

rfg

[Jon Wiggett]

Thanks Mark

I know you are English (as are Sean and Tony ).  Nae problemos with that.

As am I Rich but I fail to see what that has to do with this. I had not realised you were Scottish?

As for a currency, that can and will be sorted out.  It is in neither the interests of rUK nor Scotland to not find a solution on that.

But this flies in the face of what has been said south of the border. All three major parties have said exactly the opposite and this based on a rapport written by someone with NO political bias. The yes campaign need to produce an alternative for the voters and the only reason why they have not after having many years to produce one is that they know the figures do not stack up. The refusal of the yes campaign not to produce one is the biggest single issue stopping voting yes.

As for Northern Ireland being split. Yes you are correct that some want to join Ireland and other want to stay in the UK but with the exception of a few on both sides most respect the opinions of others and the democratic decision that the population of the six Ulster counties made when there was a national referendum on it.

For those who are interested in the wonders of the Norwegian example pushed by the SNP having lived there myself I can tell you that the taxes are painfully high.


As for the oil fund the following quote makes for sobering reading

The country’s 2013 election campaign spawned a debate about the government’s management of the massive Norwegian Oil Fund. Norwegian citizens, however, have been trapped within a virtual bubble: Far from raising and discussing serious concerns, the debate in which the country has been engaged is fundamentally flawed. Behind the rosy picture that Norway’s leaders have painted of the country’s economy lie some difficult truths. We have only to chip away a little at this bright facade to realize that a far less glittering reality lies beneath the surface.

 First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.


 Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/vitenberg-norways-mythical-oil-wealth/


Odd 'wee Eck' never mentioned that!

Jon

[Mark Chaplin]

Rich it is politically impossible for any of the main leaders to support the yes vote and break up the union, they maybe very happy to let Salmond sail off into disaster but they cannot say it. However the currently overwhelming No vote is coming from within, despite all of the bribes around health and eduction.

[Marty Bonnar]

Today, I will mostly be voting:

Yes.

I don't think I want to live in a UK which might be run by Mr Farago and his pals.

F.

PS I reserve my right to change my mind at least ten more times before September.

[Rich Goodale]

Jon

As I'm sure you know, I am as Scottish as are you.

As for the "three major parties" ganging up vis a vis any future currency arrangements, they are just posturing and bereft of any special knowledge.  Would you hang your future on the economic nous of Milliband, Clegg and Cameron?  Not me......

Vis a vis any oil fund, that is yesterday's news.  Even wee Eck knows that whatever benefit might be goten is just a fraction of what might have been, had the Scots eaten more porridge in 1979 and voted Aye.  That being said, some funds being put aside from now on for the future vs. all funds going to the Westminster exchequer is not at all a bad idea.  We all know (or should know) that Thatcher and Major and Blair and Brown and Cameron have squandered Scotland's oil revenues to (partially) fund UK budget deficits.

Mark

Please do not be so naive.  In fact, the Cameroons would LOVE to have Scotland leave the Union, as they/we are no longer needed to fund rUK budget deficits with our oil and as a bonus the loss of Scottish parlimentary seats (virtually all of which are solid Labour) would mean that the Tories would rule rUK for several decades if not longer.  David Cameroon only says otherwise to placate his fellow Bullington Club members who do not want to disrupt their annual pheasant/grouse/stag shoots and Salmon culls in the great middle of Scotland that is owned and controlled by the Sassenach plutocrats.

As for "bribes," please be specific.  As for me, I'd rather have my health care in Fife than in Staffordshire and my children's higher education in Angus than in East Anglia.

Cheers

Rich

[Jon Wiggett]

Rich,

You missed just about every point there was! It is not Milliband, Clegg and Cameron who produced the rapport though on your statement I think I would trust 'wee Eck' even less.

On the oil fund 'wee Eck' is pushing the Norway has this massive fund line at every opportunity so if as you say 'Even wee Eck knows that whatever benefit might be goten is just a fraction of what might have been' then he is pulling a fast one as Norway has not made the sort of money he claims they have. Ergo, oil will not be the golden goose for Scotland.

As for Thatcher and Major and Blair and Brown and Cameron have squandered Scotland's oil revenues to (partially) fund UK budget deficits. Firstly it was the UK's oil and they squandered it compared to who? Certainly not the Norwegians.

And as for some funds being put on one side instead of it all going to Westminster it will not happen. An independent Scotland cannot sustain itself without using the oil revenue as it comes in and even then it will be a close call if you read the white paper though it is somewhat lacking in detail and some things are completely missing plus all sorts of assumptions about what will happen but to do with things that Scotland have no control over.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()