Scotland independence and golf

[Wayne_Kozun]

We should note that the R&A is not the governing body, it is the rule making body.  That makes it very distinct from the USGA which does both. The individual Golf Unions of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland actually administer the game.

But it isn't the rule making body that is considering admitting women, it is the private members club.  They separated a decade ago.

[Tony_Muldoon]

The strongest and best written case yet for Freedom!

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Magazine/article1439921.ece?shareToken=2d55c1ca810342395c736f0ace18123c

Yes I agree.  He's always a good read, entertaining and reputedly Britain's highest paid hack who dictates his articles because of a very high level of dyslexia.


One thing I've been disappointed about this campaign is the lack of a single great orator to rise up and seize their chance to speak out for Scotland.  Perhaps the modern media relies to much on other things than the power of oration.

But Gill made me think twice.   In an earlier debate on here I cautioned about the experience of Eire since independence and how it hasn't all been plain sailing as the nationalists predicted it would be.  Gill also looks at this and goes through pretty much the same examples I gave, and then comes up with the opposite conclusion.


Like Gill (born in Scotland)  I am an expatriate (born in Ireland) living in London and have no vote and  I don't have the same pressure on me as those who do.  Suffice to say I now don't know which way I'd vote had I the option. My head and my business sense would want Scotland  to stay as I believe I am too old to see any benefits, but my heart says what should the country of your birth mean to you? Don't you want to be a nation once again?  


It was always going to come down to feelings as neither side can convincingly predict the future. If Salmond is to sway the day, he needs some new speechwriters.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply, Tony.

I began a reply which was too long and too controversial/OT to put on this website, but I will post it in the next day or so on my soon-to-be-resurrected blog (richmusings.blogspot.co.uk).  I think I will post there daily on this topic, as well as on my golfing experiences over the past 2 1/2 years (to keep the pure gca geeks interested).  It has been a very good 2 1/2 years, and if Scotland does become a Nation again, the rest of my life will be a great end to my innings...

Rich

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

What a great piece by Gill!

Having crossed the river Tweed myself six times in the past two weeks I have to concur. Scotland and England two very different countries.

One of my last days in Edinburgh was spent at the "Georgian House" on Charlotte Square in the New Town and I learned that the development of New Town in the mid 1700's was rife with deferential symbolic gestures to the Scotland/England merger. George Street (for King George III) forms the Central Avenue between St. Andrews square on one end and Charlotte Square, named after King George's Queen, on the other. George Street is bracketed by Thistle and Rose Streets. Gill mentions this in his piece with the references on every corner to fat, chinless Hanoverians.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I wonder if those "huge differences between both countries" are a figment of the collective British imagination

It's probably the same thing as Bavarians making a big fuss about how they are worlds apart from what they call Prussians, but to a foreigner it all looks pretty German

Ulrich

[Bill Brightly]

I just returned from a trip to Scotland with four couples and we enjoyed talking about the vote to our caddies, waitstaff and other people we met. One waitress said voting yes because she is from England and paying for her education at St. Andrews while Scots get their education for far less. She feels a yes vote will even things out...

In North Berwick there was a group handing out brochures and pushing independence, so I chatted with them for a while. Their most common claim is that a Scottish government will be far more responsive to the Scottish people than Westminster. The brochures seemed to be trying to "buy votes" by promising better state-provided health care, higher pensions and an earlier retirement age than the current 67 in the UK. They make the claim that Scotland will be one of the richest economies in Europe due to excellent universities, strong tourism, distilling and leadership in green technology industries such as wind and wave power. The brochures seem to assume that all the oil reserves will go to Scotland. But most Scots we talked to seemed to be undecided or said they were voting no; it seemed to us that the pro-independence leaders have not effectively made the case for a yes vote. I think uncertainty about the pound is a huge problem for the pro-independence movement.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Bill,

It's true what you say about the "Yes" campaign. We have been receiving mailings at the flat all month and the "Yes" argument centers more around additional "bread and circuses" such as free daycare, better NHS and guaranteed pension COLA adjustments, etc, etc. rather than the more overt call for Scottish Nationalism I read into the Gill piece. He sums it up perfectly when he compares the debate to a couple of misers arguing over pennies.

From what I read in the Scottish papers this past week the last debate was pretty decisive on the currency question where Alastair Darling came off as a "one trick pony" when he kept bringing it up and was dissed by the crowd. Salmond's response that there were plenty off options, including the pound, seems to be growing in acceptance. A retired Schoolteacher managed to hand Darling the most withering question of all, "if we are better together then why aren't we better together now?". Darling had no response.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Ulrich,

I think that you might find huge cultural differences between the mostly Catholic laid back regions of Bavaria and the mostly Protestant and rigid "Prussian" regions of central and northern Germany if you spent some significant time in both regions.

Just a guess.

[Wayne_Kozun]

With regards to currency - Scotland can use whatever it wants but it won't have any control over its monetary policy if it chooses to continue to use the pound.  But, arguably, that is somewhat the case today as Scotland may feel it doesn't have much control over the UK's central bank which is known as the Bank of ENGLAND which may set its policy more based on what is going on in the London area.

They don't know that we Canadians have launched a plot to take over the world and it is working quite well as we now have our own man at the BoE.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

The talk in Scotland is that they need to totally break free with their own central bank to be totally free.

[Rich Goodale]

Malcolm

Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.

[Jon Wiggett]

Malcolm

Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.

Rich,

I think you will find that almost anyone with any money in Scotland in 1700 invested in the Darien scheme. It was a sort o collective madness. You are correct that the UK owes very much to its Scottish contributors.

The level of the debate by both campaigns has been very, very disappointing lots of rhetoric and no substance. Both sides seem to think we Scottish voters are impressed by a bit o sabre rattling.

As for the currency, using the pound without a monetary union is the same as using the US dollar though 'Wee Eck' was unwilling to admit it. And though the SNP bang on about a monetary union they have not laid out even the sketchiest outlines of what they would want but at best it would be akin to the Eurozone and at worst mean Westminster deciding economic policy in a not so independent Scotland. Scotland needs its own currency which it backs itself though it could be linked with the Pound Sterling I needed but the problem is that would mean setting up a central bank and there is not the money for that if you want to have anything else.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Time to refer to this previous thread on Scottish independence - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57733.0.html

As to a separate Scottish currency, my thoughts remain as they were a few months ago, namely -

- that the primary currency should be called a "Forbes"

Lesser coinage should be called "Salmond"s and "Trump"s.

1 Forbes = 1,000 Salmond's
1 Salmond = 1,000 Trump's



As an aside, there is a Principality south west of Scotland that some would also like to be an independent nation.

Should such independence occur the currency could be -

- a "leek"


It would also be permitted to term it a 'leak', which would be entirely appropriate given that politicians are extremely good at p...... away money.



atb

[Rich Goodale]

Malcolm

Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.

Rich,

I think you will find that almost anyone with any money in Scotland in 1700 invested in the Darien scheme. It was a sort o collective madness. You are correct that the UK owes very much to its Scottish contributors.

The level of the debate by both campaigns has been very, very disappointing lots of rhetoric and no substance. Both sides seem to think we Scottish voters are impressed by a bit o sabre rattling.

As for the currency, using the pound without a monetary union is the same as using the US dollar though 'Wee Eck' was unwilling to admit it. And though the SNP bang on about a monetary union they have not laid out even the sketchiest outlines of what they would want but at best it would be akin to the Eurozone and at worst mean Westminster deciding economic policy in a not so independent Scotland. Scotland needs its own currency which it backs itself though it could be linked with the Pound Sterling I needed but the problem is that would mean setting up a central bank and there is not the money for that if you want to have anything else.

Jon

Jon

Vis a vis currency, Eire did just fine for 50 years after separating from the UK using their pound (the "punt") in conjunction with the UK pound.  Given that Scotland has a much stronger economy that Eire ever had (even during the Euro bubble), I see no reason why they couldn't do the same.  If the rUK decided to fight this, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, given that an independent Scotland would otherwise "take" from the rUK its positive balance of payments, throwing rUk (and its pound) into a weaker international currency position.  Of course, maybe that's what the "No" campaign wants.........

[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

[Ally Mcintosh]

Seeing as we're talking about independence an' all, maybe everyone should stop referring to the Republic of Ireland as Éire... which pedantic as it seems, has negative and derogatory connotations when used by a non-Irish person...

Not that I mind... or probably most of the Irish population... I know it really riles my wife though.

[Rich Goodale]

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

[Ed Tilley]

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

Is it mindless spite to refuse monetary union or to be "lender of last resort" with an independent country? The whole point of independence is that it is self reliant. rUK obviously can't stop Scotland using the pound - just as the US couldn't stop it using the dollar. Why on earth would it effectively be guarantor for an independent country? I find it mind boggling that any sane Scot thinks we would.

Monetary union, at least in the short / medium term, would be of massive benefit to Scotland (70% of Scotland exports are to rUK). However, when you look at it purely from a rUK perspective - as surely every Scot would expect rUk to do in the event of a yes vote - exports to Scotland represent 11% of the total. This is considerably less than to the Eurozone. If we want monetary union for the sake of exports, surely joining the euro makes more sense?

Personally, if I was Scottish I would vote yes. Who knows what will happen in the future and whether they are better off or worse off by £50 each etc.. It all seems a bit pathetic making a decision based on claims and counter claims based on small amounts of money. Much as AA Gill winds me up with his consistent anti-Englishness (despite being raised, educated, and living in England), the point he made about whether Ireland would vote to return to the UK is one of the best points I've heard in the whole debate. I'm sure Scotland will be just fine - as will rUk or England or whatever comes about from any break up.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Ulrich,

I think that you might find huge cultural differences between the mostly Catholic laid back regions of Bavaria and the mostly Protestant and rigid "Prussian" regions of central and northern Germany if you spent some significant time in both regions.

Just a guess.

Malcolm,

I have spent significant time in most regions of Germany. Am born in Bavaria. The differences are not as pronounced as to warrant seperate countries. Just my opinion, no hard feelings towards Scots

Ulrich

[Rich Goodale]

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

Is it mindless spite to refuse monetary union or to be "lender of last resort" with an independent country? The whole point of independence is that it is self reliant. rUK obviously can't stop Scotland using the pound - just as the US couldn't stop it using the dollar. Why on earth would it effectively be guarantor for an independent country? I find it mind boggling that any sane Scot thinks we would.

Monetary union, at least in the short / medium term, would be of massive benefit to Scotland (70% of Scotland exports are to rUK). However, when you look at it purely from a rUK perspective - as surely every Scot would expect rUk to do in the event of a yes vote - exports to Scotland represent 11% of the total. This is considerably less than to the Eurozone. If we want monetary union for the sake of exports, surely joining the euro makes more sense?

Personally, if I was Scottish I would vote yes. Who knows what will happen in the future and whether they are better off or worse off by £50 each etc.. It all seems a bit pathetic making a decision based on claims and counter claims based on small amounts of money. Much as AA Gill winds me up with his consistent anti-Englishness (despite being raised, educated, and living in England), the point he made about whether Ireland would vote to return to the UK is one of the best points I've heard in the whole debate. I'm sure Scotland will be just fine - as will rUk or England or whatever comes about from any break up.

Good post, Ed.  Nobody (including me) would ever think that Scotland would use the pound without serious discussions and agreement with rUk (and probably the EU and the US too) about how that sharing would work in the real world.  Given that (I strongly believe) it is in the interest of both parties to come to an agreement, such and agreement will be reached, despite all the nonsense that the non-economists Darling and Brown et. al. are spouting.  And, like you, if I had a vote I would vote yes too.

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

I have been in favor of independence, just on principle, since I first heard of the referendum.

However, in reading the last ten posts regarding economic union, I fear that the chief result of independence may be creating opportunities for bankers to make out off the arbitrage and the confusion over the split.

I'm curious:  have the money people started to see this and retreat from the reflexive "keep well enough alone" attitude?

[David_Tepper]

When I was in Scotland in May, I spoke with two older gentleman, both born in Scotland and lived their whole lives here. They were well educated and successful in their professional careers. When I asked them what they thought of the prospects for an independent Scotland, they both used the same word, "disaster."

[Mark Pearce]

I have been in favor of independence, just on principle, since I first heard of the referendum.

Why?  What principle?

[Marty Bonnar]

When I was in Scotland in May, I spoke with two older gentleman, both born in Scotland and lived their whole lives here. They were well educated and successful in their professional careers. When I asked them what they thought of the prospects for an independent Scotland, they both used the same word, "disaster."

David,
this will come down to guts and visceral emotion at least as much as brains and common sense! These are the bloody Scots we're talking about here..!
M.

[Michael Essig]

Having spent 10 nights at the same B&B in St. Andrews this summer, I had many conversations with the owner, and some about independence.  She said it appeared to be all coming down to the issue of using the pound.

I asked her a question, "Are the issues of England, the same issue confronting Scotland?"  Her answer was, "No." 

I said, "Then why would you want to keep a government that is more concerned and focused on the issues confronting England than the issues confronting Scotland?"  "In my opinion, the smaller the number of people that are governed, the more likely you are to have a government representing the people and a government capable and willing to address the issues of the people."

It is rare, or maybe it has never existed, when a larger government was ever better for the people. 

Bigger fairways, not bigger government!