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.
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7061
Report 5 years ago
#7061
Said it before, might as well repeat.

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

It's really interesting that Osbourne's intervention didn't hurt, and may have even back-fired, according to the opinion polls. Maybe he played the trump card too soon?
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7062
Report 5 years ago
#7062
Bloody hell, TheBugle said the same thing as me. That must mean, that this information is out there and freely available for anyone to see. Crazy!
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7063
Report 5 years ago
#7063
(Original post by Boab)
You leap on the chance to falsely label somebody of being an Anglophile, of course I'm gonna mention half my family are English.

Why do you even ask what the back-up plans are? You know what they are, or at least if you have any common sense you can figure them out........

We have......

o Sterling;
o The Euro;
o A Scottish currency pegged to Sterling;
o A flexible Scottish currency.

Now, the
Fiscal Commission Working Group studied all four options and decided Scotland could choose any of these options, but advised one would be best, so, we are sticking with it . Does that prevent a Plan B happening if need be? No of course not and only a facetious argument would claim so.


Even though the major partner in a currency union has said no?

It may have missed you by but an awful lot if business is starting the get worried bout this now.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7064
Report 5 years ago
#7064
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Even though the major partner in a currency union has said no?

It may have missed you by but an awful lot if business is starting the get worried bout this now.
Yes, cos we reckon they are lying! And so do a lot of undecided's funnily enough!

Business? They'll get over it. Like we said, nobody said it'd be easy!

'It may have missed you by' right up there with 'I hate to tell you' for wit! Bravo sir!
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7065
Report 5 years ago
#7065
(Original post by Boab)
Yes, cos we reckon they are lying! And so do a lot of undecided's funnily enough!

Business? They'll get over it. Like we said, nobody said it'd be easy!
Undecided as in 'unlikely to vote.'

You may feel that they're lying. I generally feel that when three political leaders, the head of the BoE and opinion polls showing no desire for it all indicate one outcome, a denial of the facts that is being displayed by yourself and the rest of the YeSNP campaign indicates just further wing it and hope for the best.
0
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7066
Report 5 years ago
#7066
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Even though the major partner in a currency union has said no?

It may have missed you by but an awful lot if business is starting the get worried bout this now.
Which businesses?
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7067
Report 5 years ago
#7067
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Undecided as in 'unlikely to vote.'

You may feel that they're lying. I generally feel that when three political leaders, the head of the BoE and opinion polls showing no desire for it all indicate one outcome, a denial of the facts that is being displayed by yourself and the rest of the YeSNP campaign indicates just further wing it and hope for the best.
No, Undecided, is just that, plenty of them!

Good for you that you feel that way, you don't matter, in the nicest possible way of course. You are a nailed on NO.
Campaigning targets people other than you, and we reckon its working.

As for 'hope for the best', nope! The YES campaign knows exactly what its strategy is. Does the NO? Doesn't look like it to me.
0
Le Franglais
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7068
Report 5 years ago
#7068
(Original post by CartoonHeart)
Sorry for poor phrasing of the question, but I'm about to start an essay on Scottish Independence and I'm having the "blank paper" problem. I'm writing the essay in terms of fiscal policy but I am not sure what my opinion is. So that's why I want to know, what do the general public (or at least a load of intellectual, opinionated students) think about this? Even if anybody doesn't have anything to offer for my essay - in terms of fiscal policy - it may be quite an interesting debate. So all opinions regardless of the relevency to my work would be interesting. Thankyou - (Nothing rude please, there's no need for it).

I'm struggling to comprehend what Alex Salmond expects they'll live on ... deep-fried mars bars and haggis?!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7069
Report 5 years ago
#7069
(Original post by Le Franglais)
I'm struggling to comprehend what Alex Salmond expects they'll live on ... deep-fried mars bars and haggis?!
Midlander. You want to answer that one?
0
Le Franglais
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7070
Report 5 years ago
#7070
(Original post by Boab)
Midlander. You want to answer that one?

Oh, no need for that, it was quite rhetorical actually.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7071
Report 5 years ago
#7071
(Original post by Le Franglais)
Oh, no need for that, it was quite rhetorical actually.
Nae ****e, Sherlock!
0
Le Franglais
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7072
Report 5 years ago
#7072
Haud yer wheesht! ya bawbag ....
0
Le Franglais
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7073
Report 5 years ago
#7073
(Original post by Boab)
Nae ****e, Sherlock!
Haud yer wheesht! ya bawbag ....
0
1tartanarmy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7074
Report 5 years ago
#7074
(Original post by Midlander)
English people have a history of lying? Glad to see my concerns about Anglophobia in the Yes campaign were ill founded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting Plan A. But when you're being told in no uncertain terms that Plan A is not an option, you need a solid back up. Right now, the response of 'all 3 are bluffing' shows there isn't one.
Shocking midlander...shocking opening paragraph man you need to give yourself a shake. You can lie to yourself all you like but this referendum has nothing to do with nationality. Well...except better together seem to think it is...which if it was...independencence would be winning by a country mile. Which confirms it isn't!

There is a plan b, c , d, e and f...do a bit of reading for heavens sake...the options have been outlined by people with considerable expertise in the area. Plan A was outlined as the best option for all parties...which had to be choosen to keep in line with the edinburgh agreement.

People just don't believe the 3 main london parties when they say they wont have a currency union..it was recently riddiculed by a highly experienced researcher in bejiing.

Don't you think its another tactic by the self proclaimed project fear?

It doesn't matter...most scots do.

EDIT: for you midlander...incase you take another hissy fit, scots refers to people living in Scotland. New scots , scots who cares...
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7075
Report 5 years ago
#7075
(Original post by 1tartanarmy)
Shocking midlander...shocking opening paragraph man you need to give yourself a shake. You can lie to yourself all you like but this referendum has nothing to do with nationality. Well...except better together seem to think it is...which if it was...independencence would be winning by a country mile. Which confirms it isn't!

There is a plan b, c , d, e and f...do a bit of reading for heavens sake...the options have been outlined by people with considerable expertise in the area. Plan A was outlined as the best option for all parties...which had to be choosen to keep in line with the edinburgh agreement.

People just don't believe the 3 main london parties when they say they wont have a currency union..it was recently riddiculed by a highly experienced researcher in bejiing.

Don't you think its another tactic by the self proclaimed project fear?

It doesn't matter...most scots do.

EDIT: for you midlander...incase you take another hissy fit, scots refers to people living in Scotland. New scots , scots who cares...
If everyone knows what the contingencies are then why can't the politicians involved go ahead and state them rather than hiding behind a smokescreen? What's so bloody complicated? And when have Better Together ever called themselves 'project fear'?
0
1tartanarmy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7076
Report 5 years ago
#7076
(Original post by Midlander)
If everyone knows what the contingencies are then why can't the politicians involved go ahead and state them rather than hiding behind a smokescreen? What's so bloody complicated? And when have Better Together ever called themselves 'project fear'?
Theres no smoke screen...the options have been outlined clearly...funny how its already been outlined to you already but you say its a "smoke screen"...there can't be very much smoke. It would be stupid to bow down to the lies and talk about plan b when clearly plan a is the option that benefits all of us. Theres no reason why the others couldn't be used either...if yes scotland had came out with one of the other options...better together would have fear mongered with it just the same.

Heres and article on it http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile...ctics.21402294

There is more if you want me to give you it...I seen the actual letter that was leaked to wings over scotland.
0
Reformed2010
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7077
Report 5 years ago
#7077
(Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
First of all, some of your comments make it sound like I blindly support SNP no matter that they do which is not the case so please stop.

Secondly, I am well aware that the rest of the UK are against a currency union and I personally don't think it is a good idea either. I think our own currency is what we need to be "independent" from the UK so I hope we don't have a currency union.

And I wasn't saying Westminster have said no to lots of things. What I was saying was that right now we shouldn't believe everything Westminster says because it is all about political tactics for support at the moment (on both sides)
Help me out here.

One of many things I find perplexing whenever I engage with anti-unionists is this. They often take issue with the fact that the majority of people in Scotland vote for left-wing parties, but end up with Conservatives in Westminster. When I then put it to them that Labour was in power since 1997 to 2010, they argue it was still not left-wing enough, one reason they argue is it had to appeal to the voters in south of England or something similar. Decent analysis.

Fine, although I find the splitting up of a 300 year old sovereign state just to have some more self autonomy the nuclear solution. I can see the frustration. Yet whenever I ask, so if you dislike the fact that 'Scotland votes left-wing' but ends up with Conservatives in UK politics. Why are you not equally opposed to this happening for EU politics? The response is usually ''it's Scotland's choice''. But that's frankly ignoring the crutch of their argument. The desire is to have self government that reflect the voting intention of Scotland. Which in the EU council, Council of Ministers and Parliament will often not be he case.

Now lets say Scotland does rejoin the EU and has to join the Schengen area, Eurozone and sign the fiscal compact treaty. Why would it be okay for Scotland to have its border, trade, commercial, agricultural, monetary and policy managed by Conservatives in Brussels?

Few times I get the response, that Scotland will be better represented. Yes Croatia or Ireland may have better representation than it would if it joined a larger state. But representation does not equal political power. The MEP's Scotland send to the EU parliament will not carry any sway over the 700 or so member Parliament, who will vote more or less alongside party political lines. It will be the big six (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland) who will act as swing states in elections. The SNP or Labour Prime Minister for Scotland may sit at the table on the EU council. But again it will have the political clout of Croatia or Ireland.

There will come a time when the UK Conservatives rejoin the European Peoples Party (Conservatives). Which means there will come a day when the European People Party is the governing party in the Parliament, Commission and Council. The Commission, Parliament or Council President could be a UK Conservative. You'll have in effect UK Tories coming to Scotland instructing them to change their budget or law.

That's not independence, that's just devolution 'max' within a de facto federated system.
1
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7078
Report 5 years ago
#7078
(Original post by Reformed2010)
Help me out here.

One of many things I find perplexing whenever I engage with anti-unionists is this. They often take issue with the fact that the majority of people in Scotland vote for left-wing parties, but end up with Conservatives in Westminster. When I then put it to them that Labour was in power since 1997 to 2010, they argue it was still not left-wing enough, one reason they argue is it had to appeal to the voters in south of England or something similar. Decent analysis.

Fine, although I find the splitting up of a 300 year old sovereign state just to have some more self autonomy the nuclear solution. I can see the frustration. Yet whenever I ask, so if you dislike the fact that 'Scotland votes left-wing' but ends up with Conservatives in UK politics. Why are you not equally opposed to this happening for EU politics? The response is usually ''it's Scotland's choice''. But that's frankly ignoring the crutch of their argument. The desire is to have self government that reflect the voting intention of Scotland. Which in the EU council, Council of Ministers and Parliament will often not be he case.

Now lets say Scotland does rejoin the EU and has to join the Schengen area, Eurozone and sign the fiscal compact treaty. Why would it be okay for Scotland to have its border, trade, commercial, agricultural, monetary and policy managed by Conservatives in Brussels?

Few times I get the response, that Scotland will be better represented. Yes Croatia or Ireland may have better representation than it would if it joined a larger state. But representation does not equal political power. The MEP's Scotland send to the EU parliament will not carry any sway over the 700 or so member Parliament, who will vote more or less alongside party political lines. It will be the big six (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland) who will act as swing states in elections. The SNP or Labour Prime Minister for Scotland may sit at the table on the EU council. But again it will have the political clout of Croatia or Ireland.

There will come a time when the UK Conservatives rejoin the European Peoples Party (Conservatives). Which means there will come a day when the European People Party is the governing party in the Parliament, Commission and Council. The Commission, Parliament or Council President could be a UK Conservative. You'll have in effect UK Tories coming to Scotland instructing them to change their budget or law.

That's not independence, that's just devolution 'max' within a de facto federated system.
But this is the same situation for all member states of the EU is it not? Are you telling me you do not consider the UK an independent country?

And anyone who votes yes simply because they hate the tories is voting yes for the wrong reasons.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7079
Report 5 years ago
#7079
(Original post by 1tartanarmy)
Plan A was outlined as the best option for all parties...which had to be choosen to keep in line with the edinburgh agreement.
.
Plan A may be best for Scotland but its a bad deal for the UK, and lower transaction costs (which seem to be the only benefit to the UK) are a mere bagatelle.

The Edinburgh agreement is an agreement to negotiate in the best interests of the people of an independent Scotland and the UK. The British government will negotiate on behalf of the UK and attempt to get the best deal for them (which will obviously exclude a currency union as the risk to the UK of bailing out Scottish banks again would be catastrophic), while the Scottish government will negotiate on behalf of the Scots.

The idea that they will sit down together and try to thrash out some theoretical optimum solution that maximises the benefits for both, or minimises the joint risks is preposterous. Each will see to its own.

You iScots should understand before entering these negotiations that the British responses to various scenarios is likely to be:

We want a currency union No, I'm afraid that isn't available, as already said
We will use sterling outside a union That's fine, but that's as far as it goes
We won't take our share of the debt Then we will veto your entry into the EU
We want Trident out of Scotland Then pay the removal costs
You will buy naval ships in Scotland? No, we will buy British for ships
1
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7080
Report 5 years ago
#7080
(Original post by Good bloke)

We want a currency union No, I'm afraid that isn't available, as already said
We will use sterling outside a union That's fine, but that's as far as it goes
We won't take our share of the debt Then we will veto your entry into the EU
We want Trident out of Scotland Then pay the removal costs
You will buy naval ships in Scotland? No, we will buy British for ships
Whilst I agree with your sentiments generally, the arguments will not be quite so one-sided.

The Trident argument is just plain wrong. Stationing your navy in someone's else's country without their agreement is incompatible with sovereignty (and the Russian Navy was in the Crimea pursuant to Treaty). Removing the boats themselves and the military paraphernalia would have to be, if requested, part of Scottish independence. That gives Scotland a negotiating position:-

We will keep Trident if you...


Remember we have been here before in 1921.

Part of the deal for the establishment of the Irish Free State involved the retention of naval facilities, it involved the assumption of part of the national debt (which obligation was later reneged upon) and involved the unilateral adoption of a currency pegged to sterling. Arguably the position about common kingship and Commonwealth membership has parallels to the present EU question.

However the decisions made about the currency and the rejection of the debt beggered Ireland for decades.
1
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 (47)
25.97%
No (134)
74.03%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed