The future of the UK.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It will be a very close vote but ultimately No will win this time- simply down to economics. Independance for Scotland will happen in the future though - this is just the opening sally in that direction
 
I personally only see good things coming from the yes vote no vote, at the end of the day even if they go with the no vote what comes out out of it and purely because of the yes vote calling for independence the people that really matter and not English and certainly not the Westminster brigade but the people of Scotland will have far greater control over their country because of the greater powers that will be turned over to them, I also see this hand over greater powers will also happen in Wales because of this Independence vote so as a Welshman I say thank you to every Scottish person who pushed for this and made it happen.
 
Smell The Glove said:
The good thing is the engagement that the people have had. Whatever the result, if the turnout is as expected 80% + then no can argue that it's not a true democratic decision.
Click to expand...

"True democratic" is going a bit far! Let's see if more than 50% of the voting population vote for the 'winners'. Doubtful if 20% stay home/abstain.
 
Bechet45 said:
Smell The Glove said:
The good thing is the engagement that the people have had. Whatever the result, if the turnout is as expected 80% + then no can argue that it's not a true democratic decision.
Click to expand...

"True democratic" is going a bit far! Let's see if more than 50% of the voting population vote for the 'winners'. Doubtful if 20% stay home/abstain.
Click to expand...
How else would you describe it? In this day and age where the opportunity and reasons to vote are better than ever before, it's the decision of those that bother that counts. The limp, lame, lazy or otherwise can't be bothered don't matter. That is true democracy.
 
Some more great contributions.

Something pissed me off earlier.

The words "Small world" had a particular meaning. They produce a link that had nothing to do with me. This happens more and more on the internet. There might be a serious unexpected consequence of this one day.

An interesting week ahead.

The last Quebec referendum produced some lessons. I wonder how they will be applied.
 
The limp, lame, lazy or otherwise can't be bothered don't matter. That is true democracy.
[/quote]

Under Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and UKRob I think you might be right! Not that they called it democracy, but you are right - they didn't matter.
 
Bechet45 said:
The limp, lame, lazy or otherwise can't be bothered don't matter. That is true democracy.
Click to expand...

Under Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and UKRob I think you might be right! Not that they called it democracy, but you are right - they didn't matter.
[/quote]

Carl, take it in context - this referendum has had a great deal of publicitity and is precicted to have a turn-out in excess of 80%. No-one has been excluded - in fact for the first time 16 year olds will vote. My comment was aimed at those people who choose not to exercise their right to vote - please don't screw my words up and associate them (or me) with people who did not allow a democratic election.
 
Fido said:
Something pissed me off earlier.

The words "Small world" had a particular meaning. They produce a link that had nothing to do with me. This happens more and more on the internet. There might be a serious unexpected consequence of this one day.
Click to expand...

I noticed that earlier. I saw the link and hovered over it but quickly realised it was not a hyperlink you had inserted. I don't know if this is part of how the site gets funds or something generated by certain computers - it happened on my laptop but not on my PC.

Anyway, probably something for a different thread.

I agree this is a very interesting subject that is being debated very respectfully. For my part as an Englishman/Brit/European I would be sad if the Yes vote won as well as very concerned for the future of Scotland, as to me it sounds like the negatives of breaking away will outweigh the positives.
 
Ravey, how is currency a 'shared asset'?! Sterling is not an asset that can be divided between 2 countries as it's values rests entirely on the ability of the taxpayers of the UK to stand behind it. Any economics graduate can tell you that and is probably why Alex Salmond dropped this ridiculous claim a month or so ago. Only Alex Salmond thinks a currency is a national asset and I can't believe that anyone would believe such financial tripe.

Plus if Scotland were to use sterling in the same way that Kosovo uses the euro despite not being a member of the eurozone, which is what you are advocating for Scotland (given the lack of a currency union), it would not benefit from having the Bank of England as lender of last resort? I cannot believe the huge Scottish financial sector would accept such a position with bank bailouts still fresh in the memory.

You are correct in saying that Panama and other Latin American countries use USD informally but they, like an independant Scotland would have no central bank (and therefore no lender of last resort) and would be unable to print money and the former EU commissioner has already said that an independent Scotland would not be able to join the EU without it's own central bank or currency deal. Not that Spain would ever agree to an seceded Scotland join while it has it's own basque problems.

So an independant Scotland that uses sterling that stands outside the EU, Nato and has no central bank. How does that possibly make Scotland a more attractive option for foreign investment? Knowing that the only financial lever Scotland can pull is the tax raising one to get itself out of financial strife.

Or you can invest in the UK and get the protection of a central bank that regulates the financial markets, has control over it's own currency and get access to the EU trading zone? Or does the oil make up for it again?! Which starts dwindling in 4 years and is all gone completely in 35?

The financial arguments presented by the Yes campaign just do not hold together in any meaningful way. When the Yes campaign took the poll lead last weekend the amount wiped off the value of Scottish companies on the Monday was more that Scotland's GDP. Doesn't that worry the Scottish people? If I was in Scotland and I had a job or property or savings or a business or financial assets I would be scared to death right now.

ravey said:
mr..bean said:
To be honest, the point around currency union is still not being answered. To say that '...nobody would be able to stop Scotland using sterling' is patently untrue.
Click to expand...

It's not patently untrue, it's a fact. Perhaps you're confusing a currency union, which would need an agreement, and using sterling, which is a fully convertible currency* (I was wrong earlier when I said any currency) which any country in the world can use if it chooses to do so. Panama and El Salvador use the US dollar which is also fully convertible.

Good articles here and here.

Here's something interesting (full article here):

“UK politicians are playing a dangerous game on currency. It is a shared asset, and a currency union is the best option for an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, as set out by the independent Fiscal Commission.

As the Scottish Government's White paper makes clear, a currency union will make it easier for people and companies to go about their business across the two countries.

An overwhelming majority of people north and south of the border agree that keeping the pound makes sense – with a recent poll showing 71% of people in the rest of the UK want to share the pound with an independent Scotland, and the Social Attitudes Survey showing that 79% of people in Scotland back it.”

* A currency that can be readily bought or sold without government restrictions, in order to purchase another currency. A convertible currency is a liquid instrument when compared to currencies tightly controlled by a central bank or other regulating authority.

p.s. this discussion unsettles me as I'm not convinced any of this is going to be relevant.
Click to expand...
 
mr..bean said:
Ravey, how is currency a 'shared asset'?! Sterling is not an asset that can be divided between 2 countries as it's values rests entirely on the ability of the taxpayers of the UK to stand behind it. Any economics graduate can tell you that and is probably why Alex Salmond dropped this ridiculous claim a month or so ago. Only Alex Salmond thinks a currency is a national asset and I can't believe that anyone would believe such financial tripe.
Click to expand...
Erm, when was it I was supposed to have said this? With regards to Alex Salmond thinking currency is a national asset, I'm not sure if he's said that, but certainly the treasury is an asset which Scotland, as part of the UK has conbtributed to. Maybe he referred to the pound as a broad term to encompass the treasury.

Plus if Scotland were to use sterling in the same way that Kosovo uses the euro despite not being a member of the eurozone, which is what you are advocating for Scotland (given the lack of a currency union), it would not benefit from having the Bank of England as lender of last resort? I cannot believe the huge Scottish financial sector would accept such a position with bank bailouts still fresh in the memory.
Click to expand...
Erm, when did I advocate this? I've never stated a preference for any of the options available to anyone. Did you read the articles I linked? Some interesting stuff in there about alternatives to lender of last resort.

You are correct in saying that Panama and other Latin American countries use USD informally but they, like an independant Scotland would have no central bank (and therefore no lender of last resort) and would be unable to print money and the former EU commissioner has already said that an independent Scotland would not be able to join the EU without it's own central bank or currency deal. Not that Spain would ever agree to an seceded Scotland join while it has it's own basque problems.
Click to expand...
You said something was patently untrue, and I explained how it was true (I apologise or at least acknowledge when I say something incorrect, I even corrected myself in my previous post). I linked some interesting articles which cover loads of different options, and explain that you don't need to be a lender of last resort to have a central bank. btw I mentioned Panama and El Salvador, whilst it's true Panama doesn't have a central bank El Salvador does.

btw a former EU president has stated that Scotland could secure membership within 18 months. Which former position holds more power? Anyway there's a lot of unofficial "can do" "can't do" statements but all they are is the opinion of the person who said it, though probably misquotes or taken out of context half the time anyway.

So an independant Scotland that uses sterling that stands outside the EU, Nato and has no central bank. How does that possibly make Scotland a more attractive option for foreign investment? Knowing that the only financial lever Scotland can pull is the tax raising one to get itself out of financial strife.
Click to expand...
How are we arriving at a conclusion? Nobody said this would be used, it's an option which you claimed didn't exist. And there could be a central bank.

Or you can invest in the UK and get the protection of a central bank that regulates the financial markets, has control over it's own currency and get access to the EU trading zone? Or does the oil make up for it again?! Which starts dwindling in 4 years and is all gone completely in 35?
Click to expand...
I linked some interesting articles in a previous post. I only mention it as, if you're genuinely interested in the topic, there's some good reading there and I'm not going to copy and paste stuff claiming it as my own. I can't expect anyone to read them just because I linked them, but they do preempt much of what I'm apparently supposed to answer.

The financial arguments presented by the Yes campaign just do not hold together in any meaningful way. When the Yes campaign took the poll lead last weekend the amount wiped off the value of Scottish companies on the Monday was more that Scotland's GDP. Doesn't that worry the Scottish people? If I was in Scotland and I had a job or property or savings or a business or financial assets I would be scared to death right now.
Click to expand...
I linked some interesting articles in a previous post etc. I also quoted from one where it was said that the majority on both sides of the border favoured a currency union. That's Salmond's preferred option and, as I've previously said, if the better together campaign have 2 major points, and one of those is "you can't have a currency union", they're hardly going to admit that it would be the best option. I know public opinion doesn't drive government policy but it would be stupid to ignore it.

If the situation comes about that any of this is relevant I'd imagine a currency union would be agreed apon (again as said in previous posts, that's what's been said off the record by a senior minister). I'm not, however, going to claim that is what will happen as I don't claim to know the future. Perhaps you do, in a previous post you said "I think we can say with certainty that a currency union is not going to happen." I guess if you're right we can call you Nostrabeanus.

p.s. just thinking, I'd make a lousy politician, all this answering every point nonsense. There's hope for you, ignoring everything I said and focusing on the bits I didn't say ;)
 
An article by Billy Bragg raises some points about the UK as a whole as well as some views on the immediate matter of the Scottish vote.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/columnists/why-scottish-independence-would-help-england-to-rediscover-its-radical-heart.25189347
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom