Scotland independence and golf

[Wayne_Kozun]

But there are also economies of scale and the ability to play a role in the global community.  A country of 5.5 million is rather small - can you afford the required infrastructure for a country including national defense, foreign affairs, etc?  As part of the UK, Scotland can have some influence in the international sphere but that is pretty much impossible as a smaller country.  As a PM of the UK a Scot could be a major player in the global political landscape that isn't really possible for a Scottish PM.  But maybe they don't care about that.

With your philosophy then the US should split up into 50 independent countries - or more in the case of states like Cali and Texas.

Those of us here in Canada are VERY familiar with all of these arguments, including the currency issues as we have been through two of these votes in the last few decades.

[Jon Wiggett]

Rich,

Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.

How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege  on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.

Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.

Jon

Jon

Ireland became independent of rUK in 1922,continued to use the pound until 1928, created the punt without any central bank until 1943 and shadowed the pound until 1978.  Do you not think that Scotland could do the same?

As for rUK's reasons for letting Scotland do the same thing as Ireland did in 1922-1978:

1.  rUK has a negative balance of payments of ~£45billion/year, while Scotland has a positive balance of payments of ~£5billion/year. Without Scotland the value of the pound would drop.

2.  Scotland is a significant market for rUK goods and services (and vice versa).  Why would they want to damage the economy of one of their key trading partners?

Why would rUK not let Scotland use the pound, other than mindless spite?

Rich

Rich,

your position is flawed. If we in Scotland were to do what RoI did then they would have no monetary union for a few years then start our own currency and set up a 'lender of last resort' before eventually. This is not what you claimed happened in the post two back. It is not mindless spite for rUK to refuse to guarantee the debt of a foreign country or would you be willing to guarantee my mortgage?

When the 'Yes' campaign talk about monetary union what sort of deal would that be. Neither you nor I know as it has not been laid out by the yes campaign and why is that. And more to the point the yes a country can chose to use any currency so using the pound without an agreement is no different to using the US Dollar. Do you think people would vote yes with the idea of using the dollar? I very much doubt it which is why the yes campaign is avoiding commenting on this issue.

As I have said before the level of campaign discussion in this referendum has been woeful. Smoke and mirrors, half truths and misleading propaganda from both sides.

Jon

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Six of my siblings have arrived here in Oz, a week ago, for a months holiday. To a man and woman they are all voting against independence  as are the other five still stranded in the Scotland. This collection of Scots vary from unemployed to ex-teachers, healthcare workers, tradespeople and private business owners …. what I imagine as a pretty representative cross-section of the population.

What has surprised them the most has been the ire and rancour between the two camps and the disrespect for sensible, constructive debate about the issue. On the street and in the shops The NO camp have been derided by the YES camp as unpatriotic fellas and my family think that a very unhealthy nationalism has developed which is causing a schism which won't necessarily be healed after the vote has come and gone ... a vote which looks to be very close to a 50/50 split.

As a transplanted Scot I feel lucky to be here in Oz and do not envy the Scots in the aftermath of this vote no matter the result.  Out of interest  a goodly number of these siblings have moved their money and assets out Scottish banks and financial institutions. I suspect the future of golf has not crossed their minds.

Cheers Colin

[Mark Pearce]

It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing.  If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have?  Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?

The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.

[Adam Lawrence]

It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing.  If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have?  Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?

The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.

I am slightly less cynical, but I do think Salmond has known all along that, even if he loses the referendum, additional powers for the Scottish parliament will follow. So there is precious little downside.

[Sean_A]

You can put me in the camp that doesn't trust Salmond or his motives.  However, as this debate has kicked on over the summer my views on the matter have softened.  No, I still think it is a mistake for Scotland to go it alone, at least with the very sketchy plans outlined thus far and with the voting arrangement being rigged to exclude a ton of Scots from voting.  But, when a very large percentage of the population (even if it isn't a majority, but then we will never know what the majority of Scots think because too many are not being asked) wants independence, I am inclined to think its time to cut the cord...in an amiable manner.  The remainder of the UK should do what it can to help the process in a way which is least harmful (note I how fail to state most beneficial to each party because I believe that option is to keep the Union in tact) to both parties.  There doesn't need to be a mad rush to cut the cord.  All sides should take their time in doing the deed right.  One thing I am adamant about, Scotland should go independent and in debt.  Although, I have watched our government sell of assets ridiculously cheaply so I am not hopeful Scotland will walk away with a proper share of the debt.  I don't buy all the number mongoosing about surplus this and oil that.  The debt was taken on with Scotland on board so when the leave the deck it should be with their share of the debt.  I could go on about how badly that cretin Scots Brown damaged the country...but lets not get too personal 

Ciao

[Ed Tilley]

It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing.  If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have?  Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?

The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.

I think you underestimate the Scottish capacity to blame the English for everything! I think I'll be long gone before any problems the Scots have cease to be due to the bloody Sassenachs!.

[Rich Goodale]

Wayne, Jon, Colin, Mark, Adam, Sean and Ed et. al.

Divorces are always messy, but they happen and people eventually get over it.  The "Better Together" people seem to ignore the fact that there are many examples of successful divorces/independence movements in the modern era, beginning with the American Revolution, continuing through the split of Norway from Sweden, the independence of Australia and Canada, the independence of Eire in 1922, post WWII de-colonialisation movements, the break up of the Soviet Union and COMECON, the splitting of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia into smaller components (and many others that I cannot remember off the top of my head).  With the possible recent exception of parts of the Ukraine, none of these new states has shown any inclination to revert to control by their former countries/Empires.

Should Scotland vote Yes, there is no reason to assume that they would be unable of doing what places like Slovakia and Estonia have done in recent times, i.e. becoming an independent and successful nation.  Neither is there any evidence that it would be in the interest of either party (Scotland and rUk) to screw the other party (i.e. Scotland immediately telling rUK to take their Trident submarines and their missles to Portsmpout, or wherever; or rUK telling Scotland immediately that they could not use the pound with which they both have vested interests and liabilities).  It will take time to resolve these issues, but they are hardly insurmountable, if both sides act with civility.

Rich

PS--Over the next few days I will write and post something elsewhere regarding the issue of currencies and economic and political integration/disintegration, of which I have some expertise, and is far too OT to discuss in any depth on this forum.

PPS--re: the initial (on topic) question regarding the possible impact of Independence on Scottish golf, the answer is probably positive but not significant enough to be of any great interest to most of the members of this site.  IMO

[Ed Tilley]

I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?

rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.

[BHoover]

Rich, I'm not sure that I would point to the breakup of Yugoslavia as particularly successful. The former member state may be relatively quiet now, but what about that whole ethnic cleansing and Balkan war thing back in the not too distant 90s? There was also Serbia trying to reclaim breakaway territories, not altogether unlike the situation in Ukraine today.

I am an American, and an anti-secessionist, but I have no skin in the Scotland vote. I just don't see how independence benefits Scotland in the long run, aside from national pride. I would vote no, if I had the vote. But it's their nation, let them make the choice. If, as I suspect, the Scottish economy struggles on its own post-independence, due in no small part to the loss of defense and public spending, I wouldn't expect the UK to have much sympathy.

[Marty Bonnar]

The Star-spangled Banner...

[Kerry Gray]

I don't think it will have a significant effect effect on the Open.
As for independence, Many Scots feel they are very different than the English. So in some sense Scotland is a separate nation. My question is, what country/area that has separated has been significantly worse off after independence?
Some say the Slovakia is not as healthy after splitting from Czech but I don't know that. Some might say Ukraine but it never really left the Russian sphere of influence. The current troubles are largely because Ukraine wants to turn towards Europe and lessen Russian influence. A smart choice economically.
But can anyone name an nation of people who were worse off after gaining independence from a larger nation?

[Rich Goodale]

I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?

rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.

Thanks, Ed.

The Bank of England has assets and liabilities which are proportionately owned by Scotland and rUK.  They will and should be divided (after negotiation) if Independence is achieved.  The lands and maritime parts of of Scotland and rUK have assets and liabilities which will likewise be divided and allocated though negotiation, within the context of International law.  The peoples and corporations and institutions of Scotland and rUK have assets (e.g. taxpayers, hospitals, schools, national parks, defense etc.) and liabilities (e.g. PFI payments for schools and hospitals, pensions, welfare/disability entitlements, defense etc.) that will likewise be allocated through negotiation.  At the end of such negotiations, two wealthy and politically independent entities will arise.  Economic and Social relationship will likely continue much as they have over the past 400 years, i.e. mostly amicably.

Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.

For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.

[BHoover]

Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.

For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.

Completely agree, Mark.  Curling is going to be hurting big time.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.

For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.

Completely agree, Mark.  Curling is going to be hurting big time.  

You make a good point, Brian. Maybe it should be official US foreign policy to support all separatist movements.

[Ed Tilley]

Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.

For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.

Hi Mark,

We tend to compete separately in sporting terms. For example, it was England who performed so woefully in the recent World Cup, not the UK. This is the same in rugby and cricket. In golf as well, Luke Donald and Justin Rose are always described as English not British. It is only really the Olympics where we compete as team GB - and tennis although if Andy Murray doesn't start winning again soon we'll no doubt start describing him as Scottish rather than British!

[Ed Tilley]

I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?

rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.

Thanks, Ed.

The Bank of England has assets and liabilities which are proportionately owned by Scotland and rUK.  They will and should be divided (after negotiation) if Independence is achieved.  The lands and maritime parts of of Scotland and rUK have assets and liabilities which will likewise be divided and allocated though negotiation, within the context of International law.  The peoples and corporations and institutions of Scotland and rUK have assets (e.g. taxpayers, hospitals, schools, national parks, defense etc.) and liabilities (e.g. PFI payments for schools and hospitals, pensions, welfare/disability entitlements, defense etc.) that will likewise be allocated through negotiation.  At the end of such negotiations, two wealthy and politically independent entities will arise.  Economic and Social relationship will likely continue much as they have over the past 400 years, i.e. mostly amicably.

Rich

Hi Rich,

I completely agree that the Bank of England has assets and liabilities that can be assessed and divided in an agreed proportion, as do all the institutions of the UK. The Bank of England itself though (and the currency) is not an asset that can be divided up. In leaving the UK, Scotland leaves those institutions behind. The pound is an asset in that it is a stable and well respected currency. However, this is precisely because it is the currency of the UK with all the financial / legal / political stability that comes with it. That stability is extremely valuable but it comes from being part of the UK - you can't leave the UK but keep that stability.

Anyway - we'll all still be as friendly as ever whatever happens!

Ed

[Kerry Gray]

Actually Ed,
They can. England can try to negotiate a deal where Scotland cannot but it may not be to their advantage. Their is very little England can do to stop Scotland from using the Pound. There are several examples worldwide.
The Pound is likely to take a drubbing if the independence vote is yes, so don't be in a hurry to lessen the demand. It will only make it worse.

[Rich Goodale]

Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.

For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.

Mark

Ask your Canadian and Mexican friends if they would rather run under the Stars and Stripes than their own flag in the Olympics.

Rich

PS--I am long on record that the Olympics should ban all flags and national teams and national jerseys and let all the best athletes in the world compete for themselves and not for some government agency or association.  This might lead to having 25 Kenyans in the marathon and 10+ Americans and Australians in some of the swimming heats and multiple Iranians competing in Greco-Roman wrestling, but so what?  Maybe the rules could be slightly relaxed so that the Eddie the Eagles and Jamaican Bobsled Teams of the world can compete from time to time, but only as the sideshow attractions that they are.

I grew up thinking that the Olympics were all about we are all one world, but today they are just opportunities for ultra-nationalists and hangers-on around the world to get a free ride to a big jolly every 4 years.  It makes my stomach turn.

rfg

[Ulrich Mayring]

So does the Independence Vote primarily revolve around the question where Scots can get the best deal? So perhaps if Germany offered a better deal, can we get Scotland as our 17th state? That would solve the currency problem for Scotland and the golf problem for Germany. I may put Angie on to that!

Think about it, Scots, the possibilities are endless: you're not going to suck at Soccer anymore, in fact you'll be reigning world champions instantly and the two Glasgow teams can play in a real league. And just imagine Peter Dawson's face, when it is explained to him that the government mandates the R&A to have a female quota!

Ulrich

[Frank Pont]

So does the Independence Vote primarily revolve around the question where Scots can get the best deal? So perhaps if Germany offered a better deal, can we get Scotland as our 17th state? That would solve the currency problem for Scotland and the golf problem for Germany. I may put Angie on to that!

Think about it, Scots, the possibilities are endless: you're not going to suck at Soccer anymore, in fact you'll be reigning world champions instantly and the two Glasgow teams can play in a real league. And just imagine Peter Dawson's face, when it is explained to him that the government mandates the R&A to have a female quota!

Ulrich

Ulrich you are onto something
And if Scotland joins you, I'm sure the golfing part of Holland can be convinced....

[Rich Goodale]

Ulrich

You are not far off of reality, mein fruend.  Longer term (1-15 years from now, assuming that the EU gets its act together....) Scotland (and rUk) will join the Euro.  It is inevitable.  As for football, however, never!

Rich

[Mark Chaplin]

Ed its fair to say England performed badly at the World Cup we did turn up though!

Rich - if the massacre of 8000 men and boys at Srebrenica was part of a successful nation split then theres no hope.

Scotland wishes to get rid of nuclear weapons, Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 as part of an agreement signed by amongst others Russia. Would Russia be attacking the Ukraine today of they still held the ultimate deterrent?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Scotland wishes to get rid of nuclear weapons, Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 as part of an agreement signed by amongst others Russia. Would Russia be attacking the Ukraine today of they still held the ultimate deterrent?

Would NATO really want the Ukraine (or other FSU republics) to still have Nukes?  The Ukraine hasn't been the most stable country and has had some rather poor and corrupt leaders - I don't know that I would want those guys/girls to have their finger on the button - and I am a descendant of emigrants from the Ukraine.