There is so much to unravel, the two nations are so intertwined that even if there is a 'yes' vote next autumn, it will take years to sort out the pros and cons. Everything from nuclear weapons to road tax will need to be discussed. Whatever the outcome, I bet that England, rather the English taxpayer, will come out of this badly. Shame that Northern Ireland doesn't want 'freedom' from England. The subsidies paid to this damp outpost are huge.
Cameron should never have allowed the referendum. Even if it fails it has disturbed the hornet's nest and will create greater and ongoing racial hatred. The Union has evolved over 300 years and the Scots play a big part in its dynamics. Sadly, they are in for a hideous shock if they do get the yes vote because a trained baboon could predict the outcome of their economy after the event. Misguided idealism in the extreme by Salmond & cronies and Cameron will be remembered only for this debacle as Bush & Blair will be remembered for Iraq
But denying their right to vote on their future would have only stoked the feeling of being dictated to by Westminster further.
Every time the SNP win a majority in Scotland they'll feel that is enough to call for a new vote.
Don't expect it to go away anytime soon even if people vote no.
Agree 100% - as I commented, we have disturbed the hornet's nest.
I would prefer a yes vote for this very reason.
I think that long term England would benefit from the Scots going it alone, whereas I think that Scotland would be clambering to come back within five years.
Once split there would be nothing of value for England to join with Scotland again, and if they vote for 'Independence' they probably deserve what they will get.
Every time the SNP win a majority in Scotland they'll feel that is enough to call for a new vote.
Don't expect it to go away anytime soon even if people vote no.
Agree 100% - as I commented, we have disturbed the hornet's nest.
I would prefer a yes vote for this very reason.
I think that long term England would benefit from the Scots going it alone, whereas I think that Scotland would be clambering to come back within five years.
Once split there would be nothing of value for England to join with Scotland again, and if they vote for 'Independence' they probably deserve what they will get.
According to Salmond, Scotland possesses:
60% of Europe's oil reserves 20% of Europe's fishing stocks 40% of Europe's renewable energy potential Immense shale potential
I have no doubt that those stats are exaggerated but they do show Scotland's vast wealth in natural resources.
This tells me two things, firstly I highly doubt the EU will take citizenship off of 5m people living in that country and deny themselves preferential access to those resources, particularly fishing stocks, which handily are well used by Spanish fishermen.
Secondly, I'm sure Scotland could function as an economic entity just fine. I still believe Scotland is better in the Union, but I highly doubt it will be bankrupt out of it. There appears to be no evidence of quite why that would be the case attached to these opinions and it's hardly as though England has been a bastion of economic prosperity over the last few years.
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
I was in Edinburgh last week and I can say it has restored my faith in democracy. Well attended public meetings, street events, people registering to vote in their droves and so on. It has truly engaged the Scotiish people. I have become a fan of the greater use of referendums as a democratic device as modern party politics and elections have sadly turned people off in their millions.
Something radical needed to change our political system, maybe this will be the catalyst?
Sadly, I fear it will set back any economic recovery for some considerable time - we have seen £17 billion of investment withdrawn/taken out of the UK since August because of this debacle.
People may dislike or even loathe Capitalism but it is investment that creates jobs which creates Income Tax, Corporation Tax and National Insurance revenues which fund our Budget requirement and hence our economy - in particular the NHS (which I see as our number 1 national treasure and whose continued existence I will support and fight for until my dying day) and social funding.
Please do not underestimate the potential damage that may be caused by this issue.
On a positive note, if they get the Yes vote, life will go on, the dust will settle and there will be an afterlife, both socially and economically.
60% of Europe's oil reserves 20% of Europe's fishing stocks 40% of Europe's renewable energy potential Immense shale potential
I have no doubt that those stats are exaggerated but they do show Scotland's vast wealth in natural resources.
This tells me two things, firstly I highly doubt the EU will take citizenship off of 5m people living in that country and deny themselves preferential access to those resources, particularly fishing stocks, which handily are well used by Spanish fishermen.
Secondly, I'm sure Scotland could function as an economic entity just fine. I still believe Scotland is better in the Union, but I highly doubt it will be bankrupt out of it. There appears to be no evidence of quite why that would be the case attached to these opinions and it's hardly as though England has been a bastion of economic prosperity over the last few years.
It would be extraordinarily stupid and extremely unfair of the EU to deny membership to Scotland. But it's not the EU that decides. It's the individual countries which so. And every single one of them has a veto. Thta;s the danger. Spain, in particular, wants to discourage seperatism movements in ths Basque country and Catalonia and threaten a veto. Probably (but not definately) they woudl get talked round but they would make Scotland's entry subject to some unplesanat conditions.
Of course Scotland cuold function fine an an economic entity. But not if the SNP's promise of low taxes and high public spending is kept. And not if they don't have a stable country. Or if the interest on their debt is too high. Or there is capital flight from the country.
Scotland might be OK. But it might be absolutely screwed - a catclysm of Grecian proportions. I'm absolutely amazed that there is any chance of a yes vote.
Every time the SNP win a majority in Scotland they'll feel that is enough to call for a new vote.
Don't expect it to go away anytime soon even if people vote no.
Agree 100% - as I commented, we have disturbed the hornet's nest.
Firstly I highly doubt the EU will take citizenship off of 5m people living in that country and deny themselves preferential access to those resources, particularly fishing stocks, which handily are well used by Spanish fishermen.
Secondly, I'm sure Scotland could function as an economic entity just fine. I still believe Scotland is better in the Union, but I highly doubt it will be bankrupt out of it. There appears to be no evidence of quite why that would be the case attached to these opinions and it's hardly as though England has been a bastion of economic prosperity over the last few years.
On the first point. It would not have to be "the EU". Just ONE member state which was not keen, for example, on encouraging it's own separatists. (An Irish EU official has already claimed that both Spain and Belgium could veto Scotland's membership of the EU).
On the second point. Sure Scotland has natural resources but most will not last forever (Hydro being an obvious exception). On the other hand the wretched Barnett Formula provides Scotland with more money per capita than everyone else gets. If Scotland is so well off, as the SNP claims, why do they need more English taxpayers' money than anyone else (other than Northern Ireland)? According to Treasury figures, Scotland’s identifiable public spending per head was £10,152 in 2012-13. That amounted to 116 per cent of the UK average compared with 97 per cent for England, 110 per cent for Wales and 124 per cent for Northern Ireland. Meanwhile if you are in South East England (omitting London) you get only £7,638 public spending per head.
It is English taxpayers' money that pays for things like free university places and prescriptions in Scotland. (And free hospital parking in Wales.)
Under the latest vow from the three leaders, they have included a promise that the Barnett Formula will continue if there is a no vote. Frankly this is horrendous. Why should the English continue to subsidise everyone else? It appears that shouting loudest really does work.
Meanwhile, North Sea revenues are extremely volatile. Over the last five years, it has fluctuated between £11.8 billion and £5.9 billion. Quite how the SNP can feel confident of putting a budget together on that basis I really have no idea.
Of course Spain or Belgium "could" block Scottish entry to the EU, so could Poland, Greece, France or any other nation that fancied kicking off. I just think it's highly unlikely, unless Scotland starts making ridiculous demands, that any nation - particularly Spain with many fisherman whose livelihood depends on access to Scottish fishing stocks - would take that step to block 5m existing citizens of a relatively stable economy with vast natural resources. I think Schengen would be a condition of entry how ever.
Re the spending per head - as per my response to AFKA - those figures are slightly skewed because currently oil revenues are collected at a UK level so do not count statistically towards Scotland domestic output, clearly after independence they would - although I completely agree that basing a long term economy on today's oil prices is not sensible.
The Barnett formula is completely defunct now. The only way forwards for me is the federalisation of the UK.
If the RoUK has been so terrible for Scotland, why is it they want access to all the treaties and privileges the RoUK has gotten over the past 200 years? It seems they want to be independent but still enjoy the benefits automatically such as the below:
The EU The Pound NATO Strong position in the UN All the trade agreements/treaties the UK has signed up to London Stock Exchange etc.
Salmond, the SNP and the rest of the Yes campaign really have not thought through the consequences on independence. Not only will they lose a massive amount of influence on the world stage, I'm betting RoUK will as well, and since Scotland's plan depends on RoUK maintaining a leading position in world affairs in case it all goes tits up, it's a massive gamble.
If Scotland is such a great nation it can go on its own from the outset with nothing. All privately owned property & assets owned by Scottish citizens will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the UK but that's all - all public assets currently owned by the UK will still be owned by the UK as UK taxpayers paid for it, the Scots will either have to buy the property/assets by borrowing into debt or they can lease it from the RoUK. As a taxpayer remaining within the RoUK, I don't want a single asset that my taxes went towards being given away for free to the Scots, not without every RoUK taxpayer also getting a referendum to decide what the terms of separation are. What the SNP want isn't proposing a new country, it's annexing part of our country and then seceding.
Every time the SNP win a majority in Scotland they'll feel that is enough to call for a new vote.
Don't expect it to go away anytime soon even if people vote no.
Agree 100% - as I commented, we have disturbed the hornet's nest.
I would prefer a yes vote for this very reason.
I think that long term England would benefit from the Scots going it alone, whereas I think that Scotland would be clambering to come back within five years.
Once split there would be nothing of value for England to join with Scotland again, and if they vote for 'Independence' they probably deserve what they will get.
According to Salmond, Scotland possesses:
60% of Europe's oil reserves 20% of Europe's fishing stocks 40% of Europe's renewable energy potential Immense shale potential
I have no doubt that those stats are exaggerated but they do show Scotland's vast wealth in natural resources.
This tells me two things, firstly I highly doubt the EU will take citizenship off of 5m people living in that country and deny themselves preferential access to those resources, particularly fishing stocks, which handily are well used by Spanish fishermen.
Secondly, I'm sure Scotland could function as an economic entity just fine. I still believe Scotland is better in the Union, but I highly doubt it will be bankrupt out of it. There appears to be no evidence of quite why that would be the case attached to these opinions and it's hardly as though England has been a bastion of economic prosperity over the last few years.
I didn't intend to suggest bankruptcy but, despite Salmon's claims, I doubt that the economic benefits of reforming the Union would be sufficient to suggest that we would have them back once they have gone on to be independent.
It's all very well saying that they have oil reserves and renewable energy potential but if the cost of utilising those resources is to high, the rest of the world will still buy their oil from the Middle East and burn fossil fuels or build nuclear power stations.
However, I think this is all academic as I can't believe that they will vote yes.
Reports Salmond ducked a grilling by a Sun journalist today.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
Reports Salmond ducked a grilling by a Sun journalist today.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
anyone watch channel 4 news last night? He was asked a question about the violent yes campaigners and he answered by talking about his grandfather. Fiercely clever man Salmond but he's based his entire career on something that can't work.
Reports Salmond ducked a grilling by a Sun journalist today.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
I think the BBC TV News service has treated its viewers very badly on this matter (as on many others). It has bent over backwards to retain its "balanced" stance (as it is required to). But this has led to utterly bland and hopeless reporting. There's been no proper inquisition of either side's case with journalists having access to researched facts and figures. Nor any investigative journalism for that matter. So the viewer is just left with the assertions of the two sides without any effort to demonstrate that they may be talking bollocks. What happened to TV news reporting? Where are the BBC's replacements for the likes of John Cole? Why can't we have Paxman-style questioning on the mainstream news services - you know the stuff people actually watch - rather than have it buried on some late-night show or a regional Sunday morning slot? The Breakfast Show's sofa jockeys are lost as soon as anything goes off autocue. And then there's Andrew Marr - whose style of questioning is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Reports Salmond ducked a grilling by a Sun journalist today.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
I think the BBC TV News service has treated its viewers very badly on this matter (as on many others). It has bent over backwards to retain its "balanced" stance (as it is required to). But this has led to utterly bland and hopeless reporting. There's been no proper inquisition of either side's case with journalists having access to researched facts and figures. Nor any investigative journalism for that matter. So the viewer is just left with the assertions of the two sides without any effort to demonstrate that they may be talking bollocks. What happened to TV news reporting? Where are the BBC's replacements for the likes of John Cole? Why can't we have Paxman-style questioning on the mainstream news services - you know the stuff people actually watch - rather than have it buried on some late-night show or a regional Sunday morning slot? The Breakfast Show's sofa jockeys are lost as soon as anything goes off autocue. And then there's Andrew Marr - whose style of questioning is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
because every time the yes campaign is grilled they're demonised. The bbc can't afford to alienate ~50% of the scottish population in the event of a no vote, it would create more animosity between scotland and the rest of the uk. In that respect salmond has done well to demonise everyone who opposes him as being anti scottish as it could plant a seed for the future if a national institution like the bbc is seen to oppose them. In that respect the bbc are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Reports Salmond ducked a grilling by a Sun journalist today.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
I think the BBC TV News service has treated its viewers very badly on this matter (as on many others). It has bent over backwards to retain its "balanced" stance (as it is required to). But this has led to utterly bland and hopeless reporting. There's been no proper inquisition of either side's case with journalists having access to researched facts and figures. Nor any investigative journalism for that matter. So the viewer is just left with the assertions of the two sides without any effort to demonstrate that they may be talking bollocks. What happened to TV news reporting? Where are the BBC's replacements for the likes of John Cole? Why can't we have Paxman-style questioning on the mainstream news services - you know the stuff people actually watch - rather than have it buried on some late-night show or a regional Sunday morning slot? The Breakfast Show's sofa jockeys are lost as soon as anything goes off autocue. And then there's Andrew Marr - whose style of questioning is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
To be fair, it is hard to hold Salmond to account when all he does is obfuscate the truth and walks off or goes off on a tangent whenever he is asked a tough question. BBC journalists can only do so much in pursuing an answer without crossing some kind of imaginary line of being too aggressive and therefore exposing themselves to accusations of bias. Nick Robinson repeatedly asked Salmond for a clarification on his response to threats from Scotland's largest employers to up sticks and Salmond and the SNP have called Nick a biased liar for only following his journalistic duty.
I despise the way the BBC covers politics in this country since it is quite clearly not balanced, no matter what it claims to be. But the SNP and Salmond have simply refused to play ball and they have managed to convince the entire Yes camp that the BBC is biased against them, therefore when they do throw their toys out of the pram when getting asked tough questions, their supporters don't see it as them ducking the question, instead they demand the BBC stops harassing their leader.
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
I agree it's not exactly the same but it's close enough. Also in response to your question (in bold) the clue is in the name, the Bank of England! There is, after all a Bank of Scotland - all be it that it will relocate to London in the event of a yes vote.
I don't think the Scots can be allowed to piggy back our currency. They can have their own pound but it must be free to fluctuate in value against our pound, and then the value of their currently, and their ability to borrow internationally, will be based on their economy rather than ours.
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
I agree it's not exactly the same but it's close enough. Also in response to your question (in bold) the clue is in the name, the Bank of England! There is, after all a Bank of Scotland - all be it that it will relocate to London in the event of a yes vote.
Except of course that the Bank of Scotland is merely a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Lloyds Banking Group. While Lloyds' HQ is already in London it is currently a Scottish Registered company, albeit one that is 25% owned by HM Treasury. It perhaps shines a light on the whole fiasco that the Bank of Scotland's web site must be one of the very few corporate web sites in the whole world that doesn't have an "About Us" tab on the home page. I guess maybe they are just too embarrassed?
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
One of our more learned posters like @newyorkaddick or @Mundell Fleming would be more precise but here's my response: 1) lender of last resort - let's not forget RBS and bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds) 2) I actually think the euro will fly and that the UK should work a deal with Germany to join but I would be in a minority. I think you will find that the English people are not interested in currency union - why would Westminster give places on the bank of England to a foreign nation? 3) the Snp line is to bang on about the Scottish contribution to balance of payments and float a whole range of inaccurate stats. I can't see that being of interest - Whitehall negotiators are not politicians and won't be giving much away. 4) The SNP have promised the earth to their electorate but corporations are talking of leaving. Doesn't add up and needs large funding. This impacts the value and interest rates of a currency - who supports a currency? I'm not qualified to explain the theory of fiat money but it's both simple and complex at the same time... Our credit cards are based on our credit rating which is supported by past behaviour...my mortgage interest rate is determined by loan to value and my income...if my neighbours are rich and stable can I ask them to guarantee my mortgage? I certainly don't want Scotland to fall over and the logical (not popular) choice is for them to join the euro if they vote yes. I'm not an economist but I've read enough about the euro to know that monetary union without political and fiscal union creates tensions. We don't have a vote on Thursday but no party aspiring to power in Westminster will offer anything to Scotland in 2015.... Oh and UKIP will have a field day!
It's going to be extremely close - when is the result expected? I expect either side might try last minute announcements to swing things - perhaps a definitive ruling from somewhere or other to add clarity?
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
I agree it's not exactly the same but it's close enough. Also in response to your question (in bold) the clue is in the name, the Bank of England! There is, after all a Bank of Scotland - all be it that it will relocate to London in the event of a yes vote.
I don't think the Scots can be allowed to piggy back our currency. They can have their own pound but it must be free to fluctuate in value against our pound, and then the value of their currently, and their ability to borrow internationally, will be based on their economy rather than ours.
Before this debate goes any further - you understand the difference between the Bank of England, the Bank of Scotland and the roles each play in our financial system ?
a YES vote means a clean break .. a NO vote/result means that the English taxpayer will be coughing up even more subsidies to support 'devolution max' while the Scots continue to enjoy (even more?) freebies not enjoyed by the English .. AND, the Scottish tail will still be wagging the English political dog so far as General Elections are concerned ... devolution max or total independence, whatever, if the Scots continue to send MPs to Westminster, they should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in legislation that relates just to England .. if/when the Scots break loose, farewell and bon voyage, it will mean 'freedom' for the English as much as it will for the Sots
Just watched newsnight and the Snp guy adamant that he can keep the pound AND continue in the EU as if nothing has happened...Spanish guy says actually you need to reapply and it will take 5 years pal!
Surely the electorate should have clear information on these two issues...I can't see the English / Welsh electorate allowing anything more than a temporary arrangement.
I know its about more than money but the Snp are taking the piss suggesting we would love to mind them with a cheque book in our name.
Polls too close to call... Fingers crossed!
That's the second time you've used that analogy and I really don't think it's correct.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
One of our more learned posters like @newyorkaddick or @Mundell Fleming would be more precise but here's my response: 1) lender of last resort - let's not forget RBS and bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds) 2) I actually think the euro will fly and that the UK should work a deal with Germany to join but I would be in a minority. I think you will find that the English people are not interested in currency union - why would Westminster give places on the bank of England to a foreign nation? 3) the Snp line is to bang on about the Scottish contribution to balance of payments and float a whole range of inaccurate stats. I can't see that being of interest - Whitehall negotiators are not politicians and won't be giving much away. 4) The SNP have promised the earth to their electorate but corporations are talking of leaving. Doesn't add up and needs large funding. This impacts the value and interest rates of a currency - who supports a currency? I'm not qualified to explain the theory of fiat money but it's both simple and complex at the same time... Our credit cards are based on our credit rating which is supported by past behaviour...my mortgage interest rate is determined by loan to value and my income...if my neighbours are rich and stable can I ask them to guarantee my mortgage? I certainly don't want Scotland to fall over and the logical (not popular) choice is for them to join the euro if they vote yes. I'm not an economist but I've read enough about the euro to know that monetary union without political and fiscal union creates tensions. We don't have a vote on Thursday but no party aspiring to power in Westminster will offer anything to Scotland in 2015.... Oh and UKIP will have a field day!
It's going to be extremely close - when is the result expected? I expect either side might try last minute announcements to swing things - perhaps a definitive ruling from somewhere or other to add clarity?
As I said they are asking for access to the BoE - I assume to have some say in the setting of interest rates etc - not to spend Englands money. And as I said in principle the idea seems reasonable but I don't really see how it could work practically when both nations have differing priorities.
Result should be known 7am on Friday - I genuinely don't think it will be as close as many believe. 60-40 in favour of "no".
a YES vote means a clean break .. a NO vote/result means that the English taxpayer will be coughing up even more subsidies to support 'devolution max' while the Scots continue to enjoy (even more?) freebies not enjoyed by the English .. AND, the Scottish tail will still be wagging the English political dog so far as General Elections are concerned ... devolution max or total independence, whatever, if the Scots continue to send MPs to Westminster, they should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in legislation that relates just to England .. if/when the Scots break loose, farewell and bon voyage, it will mean 'freedom' for the English as much as it will for the Sots
What is very clear is that Westminster completely and utterly underestimated the potential for a yes vote until very very recently. The arrogance and complacency of Cameron and the rest of the government is a shining example of why the Scots might think they are better off going it alone. I doubt any Labour PM would have acted any differently.
What does astonish me is that with so many hugely important questions unanswered like the issues surrounding Sterling and the EU why any sane Scotsman would even contemplate independence.
I fear far there are far too many William Wallace voters using their hearts rather than their heads. Salmond has predicted wildly over inflated predictions of North Sea oil revenues going against practically every expert view yet many Scots are evidently still intent on a yes vote. Even if Salmond is closer than the experts in his predictions we are still only looking 50 years ahead. What happens then ? I doubt a Scotland without oil will get by relying on the revenue of Scotch Whiskey and tartan shawls.
The whole yes vote seems to me to be just so short term. What happens when the oil does dry up ?
I think a no vote in the region of 54% will be the outcome. I hope so.
Comments
Don't expect it to go away anytime soon even if people vote no.
I think that long term England would benefit from the Scots going it alone, whereas I think that Scotland would be clambering to come back within five years.
Once split there would be nothing of value for England to join with Scotland again, and if they vote for 'Independence' they probably deserve what they will get.
60% of Europe's oil reserves
20% of Europe's fishing stocks
40% of Europe's renewable energy potential
Immense shale potential
I have no doubt that those stats are exaggerated but they do show Scotland's vast wealth in natural resources.
This tells me two things, firstly I highly doubt the EU will take citizenship off of 5m people living in that country and deny themselves preferential access to those resources, particularly fishing stocks, which handily are well used by Spanish fishermen.
Secondly, I'm sure Scotland could function as an economic entity just fine. I still believe Scotland is better in the Union, but I highly doubt it will be bankrupt out of it. There appears to be no evidence of quite why that would be the case attached to these opinions and it's hardly as though England has been a bastion of economic prosperity over the last few years.
The SNP aren't suggesting that they be allowed to spend English money post independence. Both nations would raise and spend their own funds - Scotland would have absolutely no access to England's money. What they are asking for is access to the Bank of England for the purpose of having a say in the setting of interest rates etc. it doesn't sound hugely unreasonable in principle, I just have no idea how it could reasonably work in execution because almost instantly you'd have the English wanting one interest rate and the Scottish wanting another - so what does the BoE do then ?
Either way it's not the same as Scotland asking to carry on using "the joint check book/credit cards" after independence.
Something radical needed to change our political system, maybe this will be the catalyst?
Sadly, I fear it will set back any economic recovery for some considerable time - we have seen £17 billion of investment withdrawn/taken out of the UK since August because of this debacle.
People may dislike or even loathe Capitalism but it is investment that creates jobs which creates Income Tax, Corporation Tax and National Insurance revenues which fund our Budget requirement and hence our economy - in particular the NHS (which I see as our number 1 national treasure and whose continued existence I will support and fight for until my dying day) and social funding.
Please do not underestimate the potential damage that may be caused by this issue.
On a positive note, if they get the Yes vote, life will go on, the dust will settle and there will be an afterlife, both socially and economically.
Of course Scotland cuold function fine an an economic entity. But not if the SNP's promise of low taxes and high public spending is kept. And not if they don't have a stable country. Or if the interest on their debt is too high. Or there is capital flight from the country.
Scotland might be OK. But it might be absolutely screwed - a catclysm of Grecian proportions. I'm absolutely amazed that there is any chance of a yes vote.
Re the spending per head - as per my response to AFKA - those figures are slightly skewed because currently oil revenues are collected at a UK level so do not count statistically towards Scotland domestic output, clearly after independence they would - although I completely agree that basing a long term economy on today's oil prices is not sensible.
The Barnett formula is completely defunct now. The only way forwards for me is the federalisation of the UK.
The EU
The Pound
NATO
Strong position in the UN
All the trade agreements/treaties the UK has signed up to
London Stock Exchange
etc.
Salmond, the SNP and the rest of the Yes campaign really have not thought through the consequences on independence. Not only will they lose a massive amount of influence on the world stage, I'm betting RoUK will as well, and since Scotland's plan depends on RoUK maintaining a leading position in world affairs in case it all goes tits up, it's a massive gamble.
If Scotland is such a great nation it can go on its own from the outset with nothing. All privately owned property & assets owned by Scottish citizens will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the UK but that's all - all public assets currently owned by the UK will still be owned by the UK as UK taxpayers paid for it, the Scots will either have to buy the property/assets by borrowing into debt or they can lease it from the RoUK. As a taxpayer remaining within the RoUK, I don't want a single asset that my taxes went towards being given away for free to the Scots, not without every RoUK taxpayer also getting a referendum to decide what the terms of separation are. What the SNP want isn't proposing a new country, it's annexing part of our country and then seceding.
It's all very well saying that they have oil reserves and renewable energy potential but if the cost of utilising those resources is to high, the rest of the world will still buy their oil from the Middle East and burn fossil fuels or build nuclear power stations.
However, I think this is all academic as I can't believe that they will vote yes.
He's smart enough to pick a fight with the toothless BBC but to avoid a situation where he might get into a fight with a newspaper that might actually influence someone's decision to vote Yes or No.
What happened to TV news reporting? Where are the BBC's replacements for the likes of John Cole? Why can't we have Paxman-style questioning on the mainstream news services - you know the stuff people actually watch - rather than have it buried on some late-night show or a regional Sunday morning slot?
The Breakfast Show's sofa jockeys are lost as soon as anything goes off autocue.
And then there's Andrew Marr - whose style of questioning is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I despise the way the BBC covers politics in this country since it is quite clearly not balanced, no matter what it claims to be. But the SNP and Salmond have simply refused to play ball and they have managed to convince the entire Yes camp that the BBC is biased against them, therefore when they do throw their toys out of the pram when getting asked tough questions, their supporters don't see it as them ducking the question, instead they demand the BBC stops harassing their leader.
I don't think the Scots can be allowed to piggy back our currency. They can have their own pound but it must be free to fluctuate in value against our pound, and then the value of their currently, and their ability to borrow internationally, will be based on their economy rather than ours.
It perhaps shines a light on the whole fiasco that the Bank of Scotland's web site must be one of the very few corporate web sites in the whole world that doesn't have an "About Us" tab on the home page. I guess maybe they are just too embarrassed?
1) lender of last resort - let's not forget RBS and bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds)
2) I actually think the euro will fly and that the UK should work a deal with Germany to join but I would be in a minority. I think you will find that the English people are not interested in currency union - why would Westminster give places on the bank of England to a foreign nation?
3) the Snp line is to bang on about the Scottish contribution to balance of payments and float a whole range of inaccurate stats. I can't see that being of interest - Whitehall negotiators are not politicians and won't be giving much away.
4) The SNP have promised the earth to their electorate but corporations are talking of leaving. Doesn't add up and needs large funding. This impacts the value and interest rates of a currency - who supports a currency? I'm not qualified to explain the theory of fiat money but it's both simple and complex at the same time... Our credit cards are based on our credit rating which is supported by past behaviour...my mortgage interest rate is determined by loan to value and my income...if my neighbours are rich and stable can I ask them to guarantee my mortgage?
I certainly don't want Scotland to fall over and the logical (not popular) choice is for them to join the euro if they vote yes.
I'm not an economist but I've read enough about the euro to know that monetary union without political and fiscal union creates tensions. We don't have a vote on Thursday but no party aspiring to power in Westminster will offer anything to Scotland in 2015.... Oh and UKIP will have a field day!
It's going to be extremely close - when is the result expected? I expect either side might try last minute announcements to swing things - perhaps a definitive ruling from somewhere or other to add clarity?
Result should be known 7am on Friday - I genuinely don't think it will be as close as many believe. 60-40 in favour of "no".
What does astonish me is that with so many hugely important questions unanswered like the issues surrounding Sterling and the EU why any sane Scotsman would even contemplate independence.
I fear far there are far too many William Wallace voters using their hearts rather than their heads. Salmond has predicted wildly over inflated predictions of North Sea oil revenues going against practically every expert view yet many Scots are evidently still intent on a yes vote. Even if Salmond is closer than the experts in his predictions we are still only looking 50 years ahead. What happens then ? I doubt a Scotland without oil will get by relying on the revenue of Scotch Whiskey and tartan shawls.
The whole yes vote seems to me to be just so short term. What happens when the oil does dry up ?
I think a no vote in the region of 54% will be the outcome. I hope so.