|
They would be quite free to institute their own currency, which would be difficult, but doable. Taking a part of the national debt corresponding to their population doesn't make them worse off than anyone else with the same level of national debt. See, when you can change taxes and make trade deals as a nation, there is a lot to win too. If they want independence, they should go for it.
Of course they can institute their own currency, but that's a risk, and the SNP's entire strategy has been to water down any risk and convince the electorate that independence will be easy, with no real barriers. Of course the remaining UK will want a currency union, and of course the EU will welcome us with open arms, with no preconditions on joining.
The reality is quite different though. It's highly doubtful if a currency union would be in the rUK's interest, and the whole EU thing is going to be a right mess. There's no precedent for what an independent Scotland will do, so we don't know what's going to happen regarding their EU membership. Will they have to reapply, and if so, will it be an expedited process or will they have to go to the back of the queue? Will they retain the UK's opt outs? Will they have to join the Euro?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A major difference is that Scotland was once an independent nation so why should it not regain that independence - as Ireland did.
True, but there is also a difference there: Ireland was conquered and colonised by us over a perod of many centuries, whilst Scotland was an independent country which chose to join England to form the UK. Scotland wasn't coerced into it.
For a socialist federation of the Britishiznoid Isles!
Every time we've gone more socialist, the results have been disastrous. Mind you, every time we've gone more conservative, the results have also been disastrous.
That is why we drink.
Down with the Licensing Laws!
(Which may have already been done away with)
Two articles, both from the Morning Star (small circulation left wing paper that I read)
A major difference is that Scotland was once an independent nation so why should it not regain that independence - as Ireland did.True, but there is also a difference there: Ireland was conquered and colonised by us over a perod of many centuries, whilst Scotland was an independent country which chose to join England to form the UK. Scotland wasn't coerced into it.
History can be such a subjective thing. While the Scottish and English parliaments did pass the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1706 respectively it was not as simple as the Scots "choosing" to join England. As Robbie Burns put it:
What force or guile could not subdue,Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
And of course it was after a century of us being ruled - not very well as the events of the 1640s indicated - by a line of Scottish kings as well ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of one's views on the issue, at least this time around all the people of Scotland will get a say, not just a small elite.
Regardless of one's views on the issue, at least this time around all the people of Scotland will get a say, not just a small elite.
What about the people of england, wales and northern island.
Do they get say?
After all, it is a union nations. Scotland is not an imperial province.
Should the sundering of the union be only the choice of the scots? Especially when said sundering may have profound implications for the whole of the UK.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as an English person, I think that it really is down to the Scots, not everyone else. It may well have profound implications for the UK but in the end, it's a democratic right and Scotland has the history, heritage and the size to be an independent nation if they want it. It would be quite undemocratic if 100% of Scots vote for independence but it is frustrated by English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters voting against it.
Whether I think it is a good idea, for the Scots or for the rest of the UK, is another matter. And anyway, I'm not sure whether it would matter that much. I think I read somewhere that Scottish independence is more popular south of the border than north of it, with a majority of English quite happy to see the back of the Scots - if only to stop the whingeing.
Scotland and England joined together to form the union, so I think it's only fair for one of them to leave it if they choose. Amusingly, that'd be the case if England had chosen to do it instead.
I have seen the argument that Scotland leaving the union should dissolve it, but that's clearly nonsense and only really voiced by those who want to make life awkward for the remaining part of the UK (by forcing the rest of us to have to re-apply to the EU, maybe losing our permanant seat at the UN etc). Northern Ireland and Wales are still part of the union and neither are leaving any time soon. The UK will continue to exist without Scotland. And from the sound of it, Scotland is going to find it a lot more difficult than they thought to become members of the EU and NATO as an independent country, which I have to say is a bit petty, driven as it is by other European countries freaking out about their own independence movements.
One article I read about taxes on financial transactions, generally relating to the tax paradise islands, took the stance that the relevant part was that the biggest tax paradises around were the financial center big cities like London and New York. Their idea was that such trade did get concessions at a local and national level to keep the traders happy and located where they were. Further, even though you have the same tax level in an entire country, cities have lower transaction costs than countrysides, making the tax money gathered last longer.
Applied to Scotland, this would mean that new possibilities could open up beyond "poor depopulation region living off handouts from the South". Most importantly, the Scots could open up new opportunities for trade and fine-tuned tax levels that do not automatically send trade away to London. If they do go for independence, it would not surprise me if Edinburgh flowered and changed rather radically.
|
|
That's quite possibly true. However, the whole thing is complicated by currency issues (a new Scottish currency would add transaction costs and additional risk) and the position with the EU (which has a really big impact on what you can or cannot do - for example, all trade deals are done at an EU level, not by individual member states). With a generally left-leaning political culture it's a bit hard to see how they could become a low tax paradise, especially with one of the world's premier financial centres a few hundred miles away in the same time zone and speaking the same language. Also, the UK is a big economy and can afford a big financial centre (more or less). Less populous countries are more exposed to the problem of banks being too large to fail and too large to save - an extreme example would be Iceland, but other examples would be Greece or Ireland. And small open economies are also more exposed to the vagaries of international finance, again like Ireland or Iceland. Edinburgh has a financial industry (mainly fund management, plus the two banks RBS and HBOS/Lloyds, which aren't a very good adverts for Scottish banking) but it is quite likely in the short term to suffer and migrate to London due to uncertaintly over what independence means.
So, without EU membership, and with a new currency, there are all sorts of possibilities open to an independent Scotland financially. Remember, a small currency could well have a meteoric rise quickly. I don't know enough about finance to draw any deeper conclusions, really. I just feel convinced the opportunity will exist. If the Scots go for a socialist big nanny state, however, that isn't going to matter much.
I think the central issue is probably one of identity rather than economy. Do the Scots FEEL Scottish? How many of them understand how the previous Scottish state differed from England?
|
|
One thing being overlooked here is that polls have been consistent for many, many years in showing roughly 35% support for independence amongst Scots.
The latest polls show that falling as the referendum draws near.
The biggest support is among the young, which is why the SNP were keen to let 16 year olds vote.
The concensus amongst my friends is that we love Scotland and would be sad to see it go.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, without EU membership, and with a new currency, there are all sorts of possibilities open to an independent Scotland financially. Remember, a small currency could well have a meteoric rise quickly. I don't know enough about finance to draw any deeper conclusions, really. I just feel convinced the opportunity will exist. If the Scots go for a socialist big nanny state, however, that isn't going to matter much.
I think the central issue is probably one of identity rather than economy. Do the Scots FEEL Scottish? How many of them understand how the previous Scottish state differed from England?
Every Scot I have ever had much of a chat with feels a strong sense of Scottish identity. One thing that unites all Brits is our ability to feel a great kinship with our locale. Ask a Glaswegian about Edinburgh and you'll soon be given the impression that the two are different cultures entirely (and that the fancy-dans in the capital lord it over everyone else and take advantage). You'll probably be convinced to back independence... from Edinburgh.
That's just how we are: ask someone from Nottingham about Derby and it won't be much different.
|
|
So, without EU membership, and with a new currency, there are all sorts of possibilities open to an independent Scotland financially. Remember, a small currency could well have a meteoric rise quickly. I don't know enough about finance to draw any deeper conclusions, really. I just feel convinced the opportunity will exist. If the Scots go for a socialist big nanny state, however, that isn't going to matter much.
Except that doesn't seem to be what they want. Like many soft-left parties in the UK they want to be part of the EU. They were talking about being in the euro before it inconveniently blew up. (A currency having a metoric rise, by the way, would probably wipe out their industrial base by making it uncompetitive.) Euro-sceptic the Scot Nats are not. Being wrapped in a nice cuddly nanny state is actually what a lot of Scots do want.
I think the central issue is probably one of identity rather than economy. Do the Scots FEEL Scottish? How many of them understand how the previous Scottish state differed from England?
There isn't much point talking about Scotland of the 1700s any more than the current UK is like England of the 1700s. But certainly there is a very strong feeling of Scottish-ness among a lot of the Scots. But then again, a lot of the people of the northern islands are actually much less wedded to mainland Scotland due to Scandinavian heritage - it's not monolithic, any more than feelings of Englishness are.
Perhaps you should have given them all that shovel they wanted for the iron lady's funeral.
Ahhh. Reminds me of home...I'm a west coast Canadian, and this screams out "QUEBEC!" to my low-class, blue-collar ears.
I must say I'm a bit bewildered by the SNP and the pro-independence's response to their recent setbacks. There've been two massive blows against their independence plans and the SNP has failed to realistically answer either one.
1) Scotland wants to keep the pound, which requires the full agreement and cooperation of the British government and the Bank of England. All three main UK parties and the Bank have said, "No, not under any circumstances." The SNP now needs to begin putting plans in place for the creation of a new, Scottish currency since the Euro is also barred to them (for the time being). Instead, their stance is, "Oh, they're bluffing, if we win they'll roll right over." This seems a highly irresponsible position to take.
2) Scotland wants to join the European Union, which requires the full agreement and cooperation of all of the EU powers. However, Spain has flatly said it will oppose and veto such a move (fearing for the precedent and what impact it will have on its own independence movements, most notably in Catalonia). The SNP now needs to begin putting plans in place for Scotland's existence outside of both the UK and EU as a country going it alone. Instead, their stance is, "Oh, they're bluffing, if we win Spain will change its mind and let us join." This seems a preposterously irresponsible position to take.
These two factors could destroy the pro-independence campaign between them. The SNP needs to get on top of them with concrete, realistic plans on how they will be addressed rather than just wishful thinking.
|
2) Scotland wants to join the European Union, which requires the full agreement and cooperation of all of the EU powers. However, Spain has flatly said it will oppose and veto such a move (fearing for the precedent and what impact it will have on its own independence movements, most notably in Catalonia).
No they haven't.
They have stood up for the principle of being able to veto it - and no doubt they would veto Catalonia. It doesn't mean they would veto Scotland. They might, but so might any of the others.
Ah, it appears that Spain has said it will not veto Scotland joining the EU, which is more encouraging.
|
|
Ah, it appears that Spain has said it will not veto Scotland joining the EU, which is more encouraging.
I think this article, which is rather more recent, is less encouraging for the SNP. It would seem that the Spanish position is that a country gaining independence from an EU country would be a new country, not in the EU, and would therefore have to apply for membership from a position of being outside the EU.
As Aubrey pointed out, it is far from an open and shut case. There's no precedent whatsoever for this situation, and there's no nice simple road map for people to follow. There's conflicting laws and articles and all that... lots of mess that would need resolving in the period after a yes vote and before independence. If, as I believe has been stated, this period is meant to last 18 months, I'd be astonished if everything's resolved by then.
Ah, it appears that Spain has said it will not veto Scotland joining the EU, which is more encouraging.I think this article, which is rather more recent, is less encouraging for the SNP. It would seem that the Spanish position is that a country gaining independence from an EU country would be a new country, not in the EU, and would therefore have to apply for membership from a position of being outside the EU.
I have to wonder what happens re: citizenship in that case, especially as it could leave people either side of the border unable to cross with the standard EU freedom of movement and having to go through border checks if they'll be moving between an EU and a non-EU country.
And how does citizenship get decided after a split? There's a fair number of people living either side of the border who consider themselves a native of the other side.
It all seems like a very complicated and potentially expensive thing to sort out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, an independent Scotland would want to be rather inclusive in terms of who is a citizen and who can apply to be a citizen.
British citizens habitually resident in Scotland on independence will be considered Scottish citizens. This will include British citizens who hold dual citizenship with another country. Scottish born British citizens currently living outside of Scotland will also be considered Scottish citizens.
Following independence, other people will be able to apply for Scottish citizenship. For example, citizenship by descent will be available to those who have a parent or grandparent who qualifies for Scottish citizenship. Those who have a demonstrable connection to Scotland and have spent at least ten years living here at some stage, whether as a child or an adult, will also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship.
How that'll work in regards to the EU and border controls is still up in the air, despite what the SNP think. If Scotland were outside the EU once they became independent, then I'd imagine that Scottish citizens in EU countries would have to apply for the right to stay there, or else they could be considered to be residing illegally. Potentially.
Related to the border controls idea, new countries joining the EU have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement. The UK and Ireland are currently not in that agreement, which is why we need passports to go visit the continent. If Scotland were to join Schengen, and the remaining UK stayed outside of Schengen, then that would imply the need for border controls to exist between Scotland and the rUK.
The UK and Ireland have a free movement between them agreement outside of the EU framework, so it'd probably be quite easy to incorporate Scotland into that as well.
The UK and Ireland have a free movement between them agreement outside of the EU framework, so it'd probably be quite easy to incorporate Scotland into that as well.
Would the UK have the incentive to incorporate Scotland into that agreement? Given that the UK has already threatened to force Scotland off the pound sterling, something that does not actually require the UK's consent and that, frankly, the UK has no power to affect (Ecuador similarly uses the US dollar as its official currency), it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the UK will be in any hurry to mitigate any of the other effects of independence.
I don't see any reason to believe this to be other than a messy divorce. And therefore don't see any reason to believe that after she moves out in a huff, he will not change the locks.
|
|
The UK hasn't threatened anything. Scotland can use the pound sterling all it wants, and no one can stop them. Scotland could use the Euro, the Dollar, the Peso.. it could use the Zimbabwean Dollar if it wants.
It won't get a currency union with the rUK without agreement from the rest of the rUK, however.
The UK hasn't threatened anything. Scotland can use the pound sterling all it wants, and no one can stop them. Scotland could use the Euro, the Dollar, the Peso.. it could use the Zimbabwean Dollar if it wants.
It won't get a currency union with the rUK without agreement from the rest of the rUK, however.
That's kind of my point, though. A unilateral decision to use a foreign currency is a type of currency union. (E.g., the use of the Indian rupee as official currency in both Bhutan and Nepal, which is established by law in addition to the use of a local currency pegged to the Indian rupee, or Greenland's use of the Danish crown.)
And, frankly, the effectiveness of that kind of currency union is often substantial -- it would, for example, simplify cross-border private economic development substantially. I could negotiate to buy Scottish widgets for my Welsh factory without having to worry about exchange rate fluctuations. Scotland is probably well-advised to seek that kind of "union" on its own authority as an independent Scottish pound could ruin the export economy. I suspect that's the primary reason that people want to retain the pound.
What the rUK might be effective in withholding is any sort of issuing authority to Scottish banks, and similarly any Scottish influence on rUK monetary policy.
|
|
Well, yes. Unilaterally using a foreign currency is a type of currency union, in an informal sense. That isn't what the SNP want though. The SNP want, and claim they'll get, a formal currency union with the rUK. They still claim that this will happen, despite the three major political parties explicitly ruling it out.
There may well be benefits of an informal currency union, but there's a reason why most countries don't just adopt foreign countries currencies. An informal currency union would mean that Scotland couldn't print money. It'd be unable to create currency reserves. It'd surrender monetary policy to a foreign institution in which it has no say, the Bank of England. Abandoning all control over monetary policy would be seriously problematic for an independent Scotland, which is why the Fiscal Commission the SNP set up argued against it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The UK and Ireland have a free movement between them agreement outside of the EU framework, so it'd probably be quite easy to incorporate Scotland into that as well.Would the UK have the incentive to incorporate Scotland into that agreement? Given that the UK has already threatened to force Scotland off the pound sterling, something that does not actually require the UK's consent and that, frankly, the UK has no power to affect (Ecuador similarly uses the US dollar as its official currency), it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the UK will be in any hurry to mitigate any of the other effects of independence.
I don't see any reason to believe this to be other than a messy divorce. And therefore don't see any reason to believe that after she moves out in a huff, he will not change the locks.
Ireland left the UK after a civil war, and they got one. Scotland isn't threatening anything like that, so I don't see why. Anyway, border controls in Scotland would be pretty unenforceable without a fence or something like that, it's otherwise perforated by probably hudreds of tiny country lanes. My wife and I stayed in a cottage near Berwick-on-Tweed, and you crossed the border about a couple of hundred yards up an otherwise perfectly ordinary lane. No one wants the hassle and expense given that Scotland isn't a failed state that would flood the UK with immigrants, and anyway they can all come here now as UK citizens so what would be the difference.
|
|
That's kind of my point, though. A unilateral decision to use a foreign currency is a type of currency union.The UK hasn't threatened anything. Scotland can use the pound sterling all it wants, and no one can stop them. Scotland could use the Euro, the Dollar, the Peso.. it could use the Zimbabwean Dollar if it wants.
It won't get a currency union with the rUK without agreement from the rest of the rUK, however.
No, it isn't. A currency union is when the monetary authority for that currency makes economic decisions (typically, interest rate decisions) taking account of the all the players. So, in the putative currency union of the Nats, the Bank of England would make policy taking Scotland into account even though it would be a separate country. What the parties in Westminster have said is that wouldn't happen, and monetary policy would be set only taking into account the UK, not an independent Scotland as well. Ecuador is not in a currency union with the US, despite using dollars as the currency.
And, frankly, the effectiveness of that kind of currency union is often substantial -- it would, for example, simplify cross-border private economic development substantially. I could negotiate to buy Scottish widgets for my Welsh factory without having to worry about exchange rate fluctuations. Scotland is probably well-advised to seek that kind of "union" on its own authority as an independent Scottish pound could ruin the export economy. I suspect that's the primary reason that people want to retain the pound.
Quite true, but you then run the risk of having an inappropriate monetary policy wrecking your economy.
No, it isn't.That's kind of my point, though. A unilateral decision to use a foreign currency is a type of currency union.The UK hasn't threatened anything. Scotland can use the pound sterling all it wants, and no one can stop them. Scotland could use the Euro, the Dollar, the Peso.. it could use the Zimbabwean Dollar if it wants.
It won't get a currency union with the rUK without agreement from the rest of the rUK, however.
Shrug. If you want to announce that you have no idea what the phrase "informal currency union" means, that's your choice.
|
|
Shrug. If you want to announce that you have no idea what the phrase "informal currency union" means, that's your choice.No, it isn't.That's kind of my point, though. A unilateral decision to use a foreign currency is a type of currency union.The UK hasn't threatened anything. Scotland can use the pound sterling all it wants, and no one can stop them. Scotland could use the Euro, the Dollar, the Peso.. it could use the Zimbabwean Dollar if it wants.
It won't get a currency union with the rUK without agreement from the rest of the rUK, however.
The IMF disagrees with you. But in the end it's an argument over jargon, not substance, since we both meant the same thing.
I haven't seen this yet on here, so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they leave.
The British Empire is over and Scottish independence my give us the nudge we need to become a republic and take the union flag off ours.
You can be a republic and part of the Commonwealth.
As India and the Republic of South Africa both are.
The Commonwealth is the tape outline of the corpse of the British empire. Making it an active and important political unit again is not going to be easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of considering it a little odd that a decision that effects all UK residents only gets to be voted on by a portion of them,I broadly support Scottish independence. I'm just really not keen on what it is going to mean for England. Scots MPs represent a liberalizing force, which have managed over the years to keep westminster some what closer to representative that it otherwise would be be thanks to the first past the post. If scotland becomes indepentant, we can look forwards to decades of rule by the conservatives and ukip. That is not a nation I want to live in. Ironically, that makes scotland pretty much the most attractive place in the world for me to go and live. Political climate I am happy to engage with and be governed by. Potentially nationalised oil industry providing the money for an extensive program of civil society and research funding, a nation that will actually fund education... Yeah, a yes vote is a vote for me to move to scotland :D
It isn't odd that the rest of the union doesn't get to vote. That would make it a joke. The entire idea of independence is that a part of the group really doesn't want to stay with the others, so that is what should be allowed to decide. Another factor is that Scotland is doing this by the book, playing along. Refusing that isn't going to change their feelings - it's just going to make them stop doing it by the book.