Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

I don't think you understand the current status of the BoE. It isn't the bank of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland but the bank of the United Kingdom. It's interest is that of the whole of the United Kingdom. You have to remember the UK is the sovereign state not the individual countries which make up the UK.

You keep saying it is in the interest of the rUK but most experts have stated it will be a disaster. :confused:

Also why should rUK allow it? Scotland wants to undercut the rUK...

"Retaining sterling would make sense because of Scotland’s ties to the British economy, according to Deutsche Bank AG and Citigroup "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/pound-bid-of-scots-nationalists-supported-by-traders-currencies.html

Also interesting..

If independent Scotland wants to use sterling it can do that too, without even asking the English. Ireland did exactly the same during the period of currency union with the UK that came to an end when it joined the European exchange rate mechanism (forerunner of the euro) in 1979. Dáil Éireann had adopted the pound by its Currency Act of 1927 and, as far as I can discover, this unilateral legislation was the sole legal authority for the move.

At any rate, I do not think Irish governments of those days were in the habit of asking permission from Westminster to do whatever the newly independent country, recently liberated by violence, wanted to do. Again, the English should count themselves lucky that what the Scots propose instead is an agreement. But if they spurn it, Scotland can continue using sterling anyway.

The only way the English could prevent this would be by abandoning sterling’s status as a fully convertible reserve currency, which would entail introducing exchange controls. They would need to bring in legislation banning, say, Standard Life, the biggest company in Scotland and doing more business south of the Border than north of it, from using sterling in its Scottish transactions. I am not sure what its English shareholders would have to say about this.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1-3208275

Reply 5501

Qwertish

Original post by 1tartanarmy

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/treasury-uk-debts-scottish-referendum

"The Treasury has pledged to honour all UK debts up to the date of Scotland's independence in an effort to reassure investors and stop interest rates rising.

The Treasury statement, issued on Monday, is designed to head off any fears that an independent Scotland could refuse to pay all or part of its share of the UK's £1.4tn debt in a quarrel over sharing sterling.

Alex Salmond, the first minister, has linked post-referendum negotiations on sharing the UK's debt with his demands for a new currency union, saying that without a deal on sterling Scotland might refuse to pay its share of historic UK debt."

Educate yourself before talking as if you speak truth.

Aaaaand in context:

In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom (UK), the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities, but a share of the outstanding stock of debt instruments that have been issued by the UK would not be transferred to Scotland. For example, there would be no change in counterparty for holders of UK gilts. Instead, an independent Scotland would need to raise funds in order to reimburse the continuing UK for this share.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270643/uk_debt_and_the_Scotland_independence_referendum.pdf

It's important to quote in context, lest you look foolish because someone actually finds the full text...

Essentially, this means that we won't transfer any debt directly to you, but you'd owe us a fair share of the UK debt prior to independence.

Reply 5502

cowsforsale

Personally, I don't really care about what paper and coins I use...whatever is best for the economy is what matters...

Note how BT use muddy-the-water terms like 'unlikely' or 'uncertainty' when speaking about a currency union, without actually saying it categorically wouldn't happen. Something they've had the opportunity to do for years now.

More important issues should be in relation to social change, democracy, accountability and public services. These effect Joe Pubic infinitely more than what bit of paper they hand over for their groceries.

Reply 5503

FinalMH

Original post by cowsforsale

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/pound-bid-of-scots-nationalists-supported-by-traders-currencies.html

Also interesting..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1-3208275

I am fully aware of that, and if Scotland wishes to do it then it can. Sterling zone is a reversed currency. However the Yes campaign should make votes aware that they will be using it without the BoE being the lender of last resort.

Reply 5504

1tartanarmy

Original post by Quady

Since politicians will be involved I think you're being silly.

'Common sense' would mean an 88:12 split on everything (or whatever the GDP split is). So the BoE would have one Scottish member on its nine member exec panel (as an example). Where people have hard lines to significantly deviate from the 88:12 split there will be contention, as you say 'swaps' would happen, but its a pretty massive swaps game.

I'd suggest a poll on entry into Hamden for the home support.

Both sides will aim to benefit as much as they can but ultimately some form of balance will be reached. Both sides could not afford to jepordise the negotiation process. Anyways, David Cameron has already signed the Edinburgh agreement and Independence will happen in a yes vote, regardless of all these petty future disagreements.

I agree on the principles of your split, common sense. Some people can not grasp the fact that Scotland deserves a share of its own assets. It makes me want to rip my ears off when I hear it.

I would be confident of a resounding Yes victory in that case! In the 7/8 people I know that have memberships are Yes voters! Didn't I also state that I wasn't talking about everyone in hampden, but the tartan army as a paid membership? I still think Yes would win regardless of the voting eligibility.

Reply 5505

Qwertish

Original post by cowsforsale

No one is saying you can't use the Sterling. You just won't have any control over its value.

Reply 5506

Midlander

Original post by Qwertish

Okay, northern city areas and many London boroughs vote Labour consistently. When Labour wins it is because more rural parts of the North swing to Labour, as well as parts of the Midlands.

However, the rural parts of England consistently vote Conservative.

The West Midlands is as reliable as anywhere to vote Labour-Coventry hasn't sent a Tory MP in 40 years. The reason the electoral map looks quite blue is because they win the rural seats with bigger areas-Dumfries and Galloway isn't small either and is a big chunk of blue on the Scottish map.

How do you account for the Scottish Tories getting 11 more MSPs than the Lib Dems and becoming the third biggest party in Scotland? Scotland is a very rural country. The Tories poll behind the SNP in many areas and were it not for Thatcher they would be rivalling Labour.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5507

1tartanarmy

Original post by Qwertish

Aaaaand in context:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270643/uk_debt_and_the_Scotland_independence_referendum.pdf

It's important to quote in context, lest you look foolish because someone actually finds the full text...

Essentially, this means that we won't transfer any debt directly to you, but you'd owe us a fair share of the UK debt prior to independence.

An independent Scotland will become responsible for the debt? says who? says the Westminster government? It has publicly declared it will be responsible for paying the debt, do you know what that means? It means that they will be responsible for the debt, whether Scotland pays its share or not. That was what was declared by THE UK.

I want Scotland to take its share, and it will do so in exchange for assets, Nobody can force debt on anybody. Its a negotiation process and debt is one of them.

Can another unionist please have some integrity and correct your fellow unionist supporter here.

Reply 5508

Qwertish

Original post by 1tartanarmy

No, it said that it will remain responsible for the debt; but that Scotland would in turn owe some debt to the rUK.

Reply 5509

cowsforsale

Original post by Qwertish

No one is saying you can't use the Sterling. You just won't have any control over its value.

Don't have control over it just now anyway, and seem to be doing just fine.

It's only a temporary issue anyway. Not particularly important.

Reply 5510

Teaddict

ICM in SCOTLAND
There is also a new ICM poll on the Scottish referendum, conducted for Scotland on Sunday. Unlike most Scottish referendum polling, normally notable for its stability, this one actually shows a significant change! 37% say they would vote YES, up 5 points from ICM’s last Scottish poll in September, 44% say they would vote NO, down 5 points from September.
John Curtice already has a detailed trawl through the poll here and unlike me he has the luxury of having seen the tables. He picks up one particularly interesting thing: the swing since September is strongly concentrated amongst young people. Amongst over 45s there’s no change, amongst people aged 25-44 support for YES is up 6 points, amongst under 25s it’s up 33 points (!). That rings a few alarm bells, but as ever, one shouldn’t read too much into very small subsamples – it could mean ICM had a weird sample that gave them a weird results, or that they had a weird group of under 25s but the overall sample was fine, or that there genuinely is a big shift towards YES amongst younger voters. We shall see

Taken from UKPollingReport.

Further to this, it should be worth noting Twyman's law: Any piece of data or evidence that looks interesting or unusual is probably wrong! These results are quite peculiar insofar as no other poll has shown any such movement. In all likelihood this is a rogue poll, nothing more.

A 5 point swing in the 4 months since the White paper was released is great news! Looks like it is true, the more people are informed, the more likely they are to vote yes.

The reason no other poll within this four month period is? It seems more likely that this is a rogue poll, but some sudden change within the Scottish electorate.

People are opening their eyes and looks like Scotland might just do this.

Baseless assumption as outlined above.

Reply 5511

1tartanarmy

Original post by FinalMH

that doesn't mean you won't pay your debts?? It just means you will lose out on things during negotiations...

Agreed, we will pay our debts, what I'm saying is that technically speaking wouldn't need to, we will take debt in exchange for a fair share of assets.

If we refused to take debt then of course we couldn't demand anything, but that wont happen.

Common sense says that Scotland takes its fair share of debt, and that in return we get our fair share of assets. Comprende Amigo?

I didn't once say that we won't pay our debts, please argue with me fairly.

Reply 5512

Qwertish

Original post by cowsforsale

Don't have control over it just now anyway, and seem to be doing just fine.

It's only a temporary issue anyway. Not particularly important.

Well, you do. Scotland's GDP is a part of the UK's GDP which directly affects the value of the pound.

After independence, Scotland's GDP won't have an effect on the pound beyond the effect that any foreign country's market fluctuations have an effect.

Reply 5513

1tartanarmy

Original post by Qwertish

No, it said that it will remain responsible for the debt; but that Scotland would in turn owe some debt to the rUK.

What age are you? Please don't be anyone over 16 years old.

I see what you are trying to say. That Scotland would pay the UK money for its share of debt. I get you, but the fact remains, that there is no legal requirement for Scotland to do this, and so an independent Scotland could use this as a bargaining chip, like the UK will use the fact it has final say on exactly which assets Scotland will get.

Thats why it is a negotiation process.

Also, just because the No campaign or anyone linked to it say something, it doesn't make it true just because they said it. Being responsible for debt is what it says, being directly and solely responsible for debt. Scotland would take its share, and rightly so!

Reply 5514

Old_Simon

Plus the day Scotland becomes independent it becomes responsible for it's own defence and can pay for it. Scrap the Scottish regiments and prohibit Scottish "citizens" joining UK armed forces.
Any terrorist incidents in their oil fields they can deal with themselves. All UK armed forces will have been withdrawn.

Reply 5515

1tartanarmy

Original post by Qwertish

If Scotland continued using the pound, its GDP would still affect the pound.

Whats your point here?

Any country that uses a currency affects that currency in some way. Look at spain, Italy Greece and Ireland, they affected the Euro, their economies affected the Euro.

Reply 5516

1tartanarmy

Original post by Old_Simon

Agree, we will pay for it, like we currently do with our taxes at the moment. We will have a much smaller force to pay for, it will be comparable to our population, like every other country of Scotlands size. We will deal with terrorists too, hopefully the fact that we are not part of the UK governments illegal wars any longer, the threat will drop.

The Scottish governments stance is that any military personnel will be allowed to choose which force they want to be part of. I'm sure the UK would take the same fair and logical approach.

Reply 5517

Qwertish

Original post by 1tartanarmy

Of course there's no legal requirement. I never said there was. The paper I linked to was from the Government... It's the one that was used as a basis for the Guardian article...

No one is stopping Scotland from taking its fair share of assets... The oil is yours, I don't deny that and I think few people would.

I don't understand the bit in bold...

Reply 5518

Quady

Original post by 1tartanarmy

Giving the right to declare independence doesn't say that (hypothetically) the UK negotiating position would make it untenable for Scotland to actually declare independence. For example if agreement isn't reached on currency union, how tax/benefits will be collected/paid from March '16 would make it impossible for the Scottish Govt to declare independence even though they'd have the right to.

Its more people use it as a dumb argument, which results in dumb arguments back like 'well we won't take the debt share'. For me it just boils down to the nature of a shared currency (its not an easy one to design as has been seen in the Eurozone) and the transition costs/timescale.

Meh perhaps.

Reply 5519

Qwertish

Original post by 1tartanarmy

They are in a currency union with centralised banking facilities. If Scotland simply decided to use the pound it wouldn't have access to the BoE as lender of last resort, would have no control over whether or not money is printed or not etc.

It would be like how Cuba uses the US dollar.