Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6841
Report 5 years ago
#6841
(Original post by Sir Fox)
Maybe because the average person does not have either the time or the education to 'look up' complicated economic issues on himself/herself? That's what we have academics for, to provide expertise in their chosen field of study.
Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6842
Report 5 years ago
#6842
(Original post by Midlander)
Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Said the climate change deniers and the anti-vaccination crowd.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6843
Report 5 years ago
#6843
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Said the climate change deniers and the anti-vaccination crowd.
The anti-vaccination crowd believed what the media told them without criticising it. Climate change denial is quite different and can be countered by a few very simple graphs.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Sir Fox
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6844
Report 5 years ago
#6844
(Original post by Midlander)
Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.
Choose your battle. We do just that in school, at university, most of our life. None of us can really verify wether the Theory of Relativity is true, whether dark holes exist, how DNA replication works or what caused the 2007 financial crises. We have to take that at face value from those who taught us.

Most of us will, over time, acquire expertise in one or several fields that allow us to question issues in these fields more profoundly. But that doesn't mean we have the ability to really understand complicated issues in another field. Stephen Hawking might know close to nothing about child psychology or economics and Paul Krugmann is most likely not able to challenge a plant biologist on what he tells him.

If by asking questions you mean that we should make sure to gather information and opinions from different individuals and make up our own mind, I agree. If you mean that most of us are really capable of finding out whether in economic issues the pro- or contra-independence experts are right - good luck with that.
0
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6845
Report 5 years ago
#6845
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)

Is it possible that Salmond is making this silly threat just to goad the Westminster parties into saying that they won't allow it, so he can call them bullies some more? Because surely the Westminster parties could just come out and say we will not permit you to have independence on these terms...
Yes that is apparently about the level of his political cunning.

The Westminster parties know full well their legal position, but have nothing to gain from coming out and explicitly saying it.
0
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6846
Report 5 years ago
#6846
(Original post by Sir Fox)
Choose your battle. We do just that in school, at university, most of our life. None of us can really verify wether the Theory of Relativity is true, whether dark holes exist, how DNA replication works or what caused the 2007 financial crises. We have to take that at face value from those who taught us.

Most of us will, over time, acquire expertise in one or several fields that allow us to question issues in these fields more profoundly. But that doesn't mean we have the ability to really understand complicated issues in another field. Stephen Hawking might know close to nothing about child psychology or economics and Paul Krugmann is most likely not able to challenge a plant biologist on what he tells him.

If by asking questions you mean that we should make sure to gather information and opinions from different individuals and make up our own mind, I agree. If you mean that most of us are really capable of finding out whether in economic issues the pro- or contra-independence experts are right - good luck with that.
As a whole I agree with your points, but the difference here is that the Yes campaigns economic policies fall apart at a very fundamental level. You don't need to be an expert to see it, just not an idiot.
0
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6847
Report 5 years ago
#6847
(Original post by CFL2013)
Sterling is not a asset, it's an instrument of monetary control. Why should the rUK base its monetary policy on the economy of what would be a foreign country?

Doesn't matter how many times Salmond says it, it's not going to happen. Neither is a debt default.
It's not going to happen according to the present government. Personally, if the Westminster government didn't come out and say it, then they might be viewed as weak by their electorate for kowtowing to Scotland. This would damage 2015 election prospects.

I'm just surprised the rUK public isn't asked to choose via a vote.

It's all pretty moot. Scotland has a range of currency options to go for.
0
navarre
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6848
Report 5 years ago
#6848
(Original post by TheBugle)
It's not going to happen according to the present government. Personally, if the Westminster government didn't come out and say it, then they might be viewed as weak by their electorate for kowtowing to Scotland. This would damage 2015 election prospects.

I'm just surprised the rUK public isn't asked to choose via a vote.

It's all pretty moot. Scotland has a range of currency options to go for.
Yup, there's:

1) Go for pound sterling with the complete control of the currency in the hands of a foreign country.
2) Adopt the euro, with all its disastrous history, poor prospects for a eurozone recovery and the fact that Scotland would again have very little say.
3) Invent their own currency out of thin air and deal with all the complications that entails.

Salmond is an intelligent man running a stupid campaign.
1
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6849
Report 5 years ago
#6849
(Original post by TheBugle)
It's not going to happen according to the present government. Personally, if the Westminster government didn't come out and say it, then they might be viewed as weak by their electorate for kowtowing to Scotland. This would damage 2015 election prospects.
Or any of the parties that will make up the next one.

So you think they are all lying and after a election will go 'just kidding, keep the pound lads?'
0
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6850
Report 5 years ago
#6850
(Original post by navarre)
Yup, there's:

1) Go for pound sterling with the complete control of the currency in the hands of a foreign country.
2) Adopt the euro, with all its disastrous history, poor prospects for a eurozone recovery and the fact that Scotland would again have very little say.
3) Invent their own currency out of thin air and deal with all the complications that entails.

Salmond is an intelligent man running a stupid campaign.
1) Currency union involves both nations agreeing to abide by certain constraints. No one will be in complete control.
2) Can't adopt the Euro since you need to be part of the ERM for at least 2 years.
3) Own currency requires a central bank. Not impossible, but could be tricky.

I think Salmond has been quite shrewd chasing the CU option. He's spelt out the options in the white paper/Fiscal commissioned report, but by sticking to his guns, he's not being asked tough questions about central bank etc..

This is pretty good - http://www.heraldscotland.com/commen...tland.23295972.
0
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6851
Report 5 years ago
#6851
(Original post by CFL2013)
Or any of the parties that will make up the next one.

So you think they are all lying and after a election will go 'just kidding, keep the pound lads?'
I'm not sure. If it's the common sense option, the new government can just say "after consulting information available to us now (that wasn't on hand before) we feel CU is the best option" blah blah blah.

I think the public would prefer if the government owned up to a problem if this hypothetical situation was to arise.

Still, I'm surprised the electorate isn't given a say.
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6852
Report 5 years ago
#6852
(Original post by TheBugle)
1) Currency union involves both nations agreeing to abide by certain constraints. No one will be in complete control.
That option has been taken off the table though. You're right both nations need to agree to it, and the UK government has already said they won't. It seems dangerous to base your currency plan on the assumption that all the major UK parties will completely backtrack on what they've explicitly stated.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6853
Report 5 years ago
#6853
(Original post by Sir Fox)
Choose your battle. We do just that in school, at university, most of our life. None of us can really verify wether the Theory of Relativity is true, whether dark holes exist, how DNA replication works or what caused the 2007 financial crises. We have to take that at face value from those who taught us.

Most of us will, over time, acquire expertise in one or several fields that allow us to question issues in these fields more profoundly. But that doesn't mean we have the ability to really understand complicated issues in another field. Stephen Hawking might know close to nothing about child psychology or economics and Paul Krugmann is most likely not able to challenge a plant biologist on what he tells him.

If by asking questions you mean that we should make sure to gather information and opinions from different individuals and make up our own mind, I agree. If you mean that most of us are really capable of finding out whether in economic issues the pro- or contra-independence experts are right - good luck with that.
We are not talking about especially complex economics. The thrust of what I was saying was that people take quotes from people deemed experts and distort them in any possible way to make their own opinion seem more valid to the masses. Salmond himself has quoted academics goodness knows how many times which is a reflection of a) how little he knows about things he frankly should and b) his ability to twist people's words around to suit his agenda.
0
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6854
Report 5 years ago
#6854
(Original post by Midlander)
I think you'll find a Windsor elected by birth can dissolve Parliament when she likes and decide the Prime Minister at certain times.
Actually, I think you'll find it's the opposite if parliament so chooses. That's why we had something known as the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement.

That doesn''t, by the way, address the fact that the Queen did not sign the Edinburgh Agreement, and it has no legal force.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6855
Report 5 years ago
#6855
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Actually, I think you'll find it's the opposite if parliament so chooses. That's why we had something known as the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement.

That doesn''t, by the way, address the fact that the Queen did not sign the Edinburgh Agreement, and it has no legal force.
I have no objection to being corrected.

Quite why the Yes campaign pledges to retain the ultimate symbol of elitism in the UK when it also promises a fairer Scotland, I have no idea.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6856
Report 5 years ago
#6856
(Original post by TheBugle)
2) Can't adopt the Euro since you need to be part of the ERM for at least 2 years.
No you don't. Such things would be set in an accession treaty and there is nothing stopping different provisions being applied. Indeed, you could make a clear and straightforward argument that Scotland would be automatically exempt from that provision because it clearly applies to states that have a currency.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6857
Report 5 years ago
#6857
(Original post by TheBugle)
1) Currency union involves both nations agreeing to abide by certain constraints. No one will be in complete control.
The lack of control is a major part of why the UK won't enter a currency union; we can never cede any measure of control, or lose any element, to a foreign power. The euro experience has sealed that as a given for ever.

The next main reason is that we would end up bailing out the Scottish banks in a crisis like the one that happened a short while ago, yet Scotland would be incapable of bailing out the UK banks in a similar situation. In other words, there is immense risk in a currency union for the UK and only tiny benefits. For Scotland, on the other hand, for the simple sacrifice of monetary independence, it gets the massive benefit of a lender of last resort.

The third main reason is that an independent Scotland's economy (driven so massively by oil and gas, as it will be) is likely to diverge sharply from that of the UK, and what the UK needs from its currency will be significantly different from what will suit Scotland.

The UK political parties have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast. It would be a breath-taking climbdown, spelling electoral doom, to go back on that now, which is why Salmond is being so foolish in continuing to witter on about it and not find an alternative for the Scots to chew over.
0
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6858
Report 5 years ago
#6858
(Original post by Good bloke)
The lack of control is a major part of why the UK won't enter a currency union; we can never cede any measure of control, or lose any element, to a foreign power. The euro experience has sealed that as a given for ever.

The next main reason is that we would end up bailing out the Scottish banks in a crisis like the one that happened a short while ago, yet Scotland would be incapable of bailing out the UK banks in a similar situation. In other words, there is immense risk in a currency union for the UK and only tiny benefits. For Scotland, on the other hand, for the simple sacrifice of monetary independence, it gets the massive benefit of a lender of last resort.

The third main reason is that an independent Scotland's economy (driven so massively by oil and gas, as it will be) is likely to diverge sharply from that of the UK, and what the UK needs from its currency will be significantly different from what will suit Scotland.

The UK political parties have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast. It would be a breath-taking climbdown, spelling electoral doom, to go back on that now, which is why Salmond is being so foolish in continuing to witter on about it and not find an alternative for the Scots to chew over.
i) CU - Comparing Scotland and the UK with Germany and Greece is pretty sensationalist.
ii) Bailouts of multi-nation operating banks are calculated based on how much business they conduct in each nation.


Professor Hughes Hallett on this issue:
"The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it's shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of the RBS and Scotland 10%. And the precedent for this, if you want to go into the details, are the Fortis Bank and the Dexia Bank, which are two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...t-debt-deficit

iii) Interesting point.
iv) I don't really pay attention to the threats to be honest - just look at Cameron's/Hague threats at Bashar Al Assad/Putin.

v)
The Working Group considered four options:
o Sterling;
o The Euro;
o A Scottish currency pegged to Sterling; and,
o A flexible Scottish currency.

Scotland could choose any of these options and be a successful independent country.
The Scottish Government is clear that post-independence it will always be up to the people of Scotland, and their elected government, to decide what our currency should
be. However, the present Government has the responsibility of negotiating what the best starting point would be for an independent Scotland.
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf
0
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6859
Report 5 years ago
#6859
(Original post by Good bloke)
Salmond is being so foolish in continuing to witter on about it and not find an alternative for the Scots to chew over.
Salmond is being shrewd insofar as he knows that if he admits currency union is off the table, then his lack of a clear plan for an independent Scotland's monetary system will become apparent and his position untenable.

He therefore has to resort to complete denial.
0
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6860
Report 5 years ago
#6860
(Original post by TheBugle)
i) CU - Comparing Scotland and the UK with Germany and Greece is pretty sensationalist
It's a perfectly valid comparison. You are confusing the material and the particular facts of the analogy.

Professor Hughes Hallett on this issue:[INDENT] "The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country blah blah
Fairly irrelevant given that currency union has been ruled out, no?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (31)
25%
No (93)
75%

Watched Threads

View All