Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It's quite amusing to see people suggest things "make no sense" while simultaneously having to ask questions about them.

    The Jersey Pound is pegged to Sterling, based on a currency board arrangement. All local notes are backed 100% by sterling. Most currency pegging arrangements involve holding reserves around 20-30% of GDP - given Scotland's fiscal position, it would realistically have to be higher to support a peg.

    The Jersey example is even more extreme, and only operates because it is in essence a micro-state.

    There is no way an independent Scotland could hope to accumulate vast foreign reserves to support a pegging arrangement. For a start, they would need to be present at the outset, and for another they would require excessive fiscal constraint over and above the £15 billion that an independent Scotland would need to find to fill the fiscal gap created by ending transfers from the UK.

    If Scotland could find the Sterling reserves to 100% back a currency peg, then that would be all well and dandy. It, of course, could not. As such, it cannot be remotely like Jersey.
    Scotland is about 10% of UK population - I suspect the finance industry in Edinburgh (eg Standard Life ) does control about 10% of UKs REAL savings (pensions etc)?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Scotland is about 10% of UK population - I suspect the finance industry in Edinburgh (eg Standard Life ) does control about 10% of UKs REAL savings (pensions etc)?

    Are you suggesting that these funds would constitute part of Scotland's national assets? If not, how is this relevant to the independence debate?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    The basis for a second independence referendum is, in the eyes of many eligible voters, a fairly narrow No vote in 2014 being undermined by Brexit. Arguing that an independent Scotland would struggle economically is not all that relevant to the those calls for a second referendum to be held on that basis.
    Judging by the polls that tell us far more Scots would prefer to stick with the UK out of the EU than would want an independent Scotland inside the EU, such a referendum would not be winnable by the SNP, and would therefore never be called.

    And that is before you factor in the fact that an independent Scotland would be outside the EU for at least several years and, if Spain and Belgium cut up rough through their own secessionist fears, might never enter the EU.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Are you suggesting that these funds would constitute part of Scotland's national assets? If not, how is this relevant to the independence debate?
    I would suggest money deposited in Switzerland is part of Switzerland's assets as per money in the City of London - so money deposited in Standard Life or Scottish Widows or Aegon (Based in Edinburgh) or TSB (based in Edinburgh) etc would be part of Scotlands asset base

    And also the potential to be part of the EU in which London would be barred.

    Scottish Indy is a win win win situation : For Scotland, for UK finance and for UK REMAIN people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Scotland is about 10% of UK population - I suspect the finance industry in Edinburgh (eg Standard Life ) does control about 10% of UKs REAL savings (pensions etc)?
    So?

    90% of its market is in the rest of the UK and operates under the regulatory framework there. If Scotland was to become independent, it would move operations there.

    EDIT: Oh, I see what you're trying to imply. I'm afraid not. Foreign currency reserves are held by nations, central banks and currency boards. The holdings of private businesses are not remotely relevant to this - indeed, the higher they are, and the higher your GDP, the more a currency board would need to hold in reserves to stabilise a pegged currency. This shows the exact opposite of what you were hoping.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    So do you mean to tell me, that if the Scottish Assembly passed a bill (whether or not the parliament in Westminster recognises it) which stipulated the holding of an independence referendum
    I'm saying it couldn't pass such a Bill. Given that you barely know its name, I doubt that you're particularly au fait with the pre-legislative scrutiny that Bills undergo in the Scottish Parliament. Anyway, barring a serious failure of that system, a Bill cannot become an Act that is patently outside the legislative competence of the parliament.

    Sometimes vires is determined by the courts in relation to proportionality and so on, so can be a debatable point. What you're suggesting is introducing a Bill that is entirely and unavoidably outside of legislative competence. It could not precede. If you want to see an example of how this works, in May 2015 a backbench MSP - Sandra White - attempted to introduce the "Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill", presumably not realising that the Scottish Parliament did not have the powers to legislate on parking on pavements as a road traffic issue. The Presiding Officer ruled immediately that it could not proceed.

    In any case, an Act of the Scottish Parliament that is ultra vires isn't an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is of no effect.

    then the Scots do not have the right to secede from the UK without the permission of the the British parliament? In that case, we might as well throw out of the window the right of a peoples to self-determine their sovereignty.
    Yes.

    You don't understand what self-determination means. Colonies often exercised their rights to self-determination in this way. Scotland is not a colony, it is an integral part of a democratic state. The Scottish people self-determine in the same way as all British people - through democratic elections in the UK.

    You're confusing a right to secession with a right of self-determination. I - and indeed, the law - support the latter. The former, however, has no legal or political foundation either internationally or domestically.

    Scotland would be fully within its rights to secede
    I'm afraid that's objectively false.

    Like it or not, states have the right to secede from larger states if there's a democratic mandate to do it, permission of the central authority granted or not.
    Scotland is not a state, for a start. But out of curiosity, where do you think that right is granted in law? Or are we in the realms of "I think it should be true, therefore I'm calling it a right"? Because I think that's the only explanation for this confusion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I would suggest money deposited in Switzerland is part of Switzerland's assets as per money in the City of London - so money deposited in Standard Life or Scottish Widows or Aegon (Based in Edinburgh) or TSB (based in Edinburgh) etc would be part of Scotlands asset base
    Oh dear! I suggest you do a little research before you opine on this again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Oh dear! I suggest you do a little research before you opine on this again.
    (I "think again" have (like the Scottish national song))...

    See this from Standard Life during the last referendum debate:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-in-full.html

    I'm pretty sure, now that Brexit has occurred Standard Life will stay in Edinburgh and many other firms from "down south" will come up and join them...

    There words:
    "
    Standard Life’s chief executive, Keith Skeoch, said Britain’s EU membership made it easier to sell funds to investors across the region. “It would be in the best interests of customers and clients that we continued to benefit from access to the single market.”
    "
    https://www.theguardian.com/business...brexit-warning

    Slam dunk to REMAIN - Scotland should go Indy - now is the right time, there never will be a better moment.

    O Flower of Scotland,
    When will we see
    Your like again,
    That fought and died for,
    Your wee bit Hill and Glen,
    And stood against him,
    Proud Edward's Army,
    And sent him homeward,
    Tae think again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    (I "think again" have (like the Scottish national song))...

    See this from Standard Life during the last referendum debate:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-in-full.html

    I'm pretty sure, now that Brexit has occurred Standard Life will stay in Edinburgh and many other firms from "down south" will come up and join them...
    Why? 90% of their clients are in the rest of the United Kingdom. 90% of their work is conducted in Sterling.

    O Flower of Scotland,
    When will we see
    Your like again,
    That fought and died for,
    Your wee bit Hill and Glen,
    And stood against him,
    Proud Edward's Army,
    And sent him homeward,
    Tae think again.
    Lovely to see that whole "civic nationalism" nonsense has given way to the good old fashioned blood-and-soil variety.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Why? 90% of their clients are in the rest of the United Kingdom. 90% of their work is conducted in Sterling.



    Lovely to see that whole "civic nationalism" nonsense has given way to the good old fashioned blood-and-soil variety.
    Well 90% of HSBC is based in Honk Kong and Shangi, I have no objection to taking their money for the benefit of the UK....

    The Song is quite a good ditty though (I'm not scottish, so no offence scotland) ... I'm anglo-scottish - which means "its all the same to me".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Scotland should go Indy
    If it does it will be a haven of high taxation and high public spending, and full of people dependent on food parcels from their emigre relatives.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Judging by the polls that tell us far more Scots would prefer to stick with the UK out of the EU than would want an independent Scotland inside the EU, such a referendum would not be winnable by the SNP, and would therefore never be called.

    And that is before you factor in the fact that an independent Scotland would be outside the EU for at least several years and, if Spain and Belgium cut up rough through their own secessionist fears, might never enter the EU.
    I'm not arguing about what the outcome of a second referendum might be or about whether it will happen. I'm just saying that there is a valid basis for one.

    Have you got links to the polls about Scots prefering to be in the UK outside the EU?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I'm not arguing about what the outcome of a second referendum might be or about whether it will happen. I'm just saying that their is a valid basis for one.

    Have you got links to the polls about Scots prefering to be in the UK outside the EU?
    Well said "offhegoes".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I'm not arguing about what the outcome of a second referendum might be or about whether it will happen. I'm just saying that their is a valid basis for one.

    Have you got links to the polls about Scots prefering to be in the UK outside the EU?
    http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire...market-access/

    It isn't a valid basis. Scots voted to stay in the UK knowing that the UK had an EU exit referendum coming up which might take them out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire...market-access/

    It isn't a valid basis. Scots voted to stay in the UK knowing that the UK had an EU exit referendum coming up which might take them out.
    Oh I see. They knew that the UK may may not leave the EU. How many people would have voted Yes instead of No had they known what the outcome would be? The timing of the referendum was ridiculous in that regard, and so the matter cannot currently be regarded as settled for a generation.

    I'd like to see the actual paper on that poll, especially sampling methods. It isn't based on a very big sample and many polling organisations veer towards the 'whatever's easiest' policy on sampling.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Oh I see. They knew that the UK may may not leave the EU. How many people would have voted Yes instead of No had they known what the outcome would be? The timing of the referendum was ridiculous in that regard, and so the matter cannot currently be regarded as settled for a generation.

    I'd like to see the actual paper on that poll, especially sampling methods. It isn't based on a very big sample and many polling organisations veer towards the 'whatever's easiest' policy on sampling.
    I spoke to people who voted STAY IN UK last time.... Some views:
    a) worried about house prices (Brexit makes this worse)
    b) worried about relatives in London who had different views (London wants Remain and would want Scotland to play the Remain Card )
    c) worried about collapse of currency (pound will tank if we leave)

    If the UK gets poor due to Brexit (as experts suggest might happen) then Scotland would be best advised to rejoin the EU even if it means joining the ERUO (Ireland does all right)l
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    The timing of the referendum was ridiculous
    Well, I suggest you have stern words with the SNP leadership.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    a) worried about house prices
    House prices (along with transport infrastructure and health and education services) are a key reason for any young person to want immigration controlled. The young are competing against too many incomers (who may already have capital) and the inevitable outcome is that native British young people cannot afford their accommodation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I'd like to see the actual paper on that poll, especially sampling methods.
    Go to the YouGov website then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    House prices (along with transport infrastructure and health and education services) are a key reason for any young person to want immigration controlled. The young are competing against too many incomers (who may already have capital) and the inevitable outcome is that native British young people cannot afford their accommodation.
    Nope - I have been to Scotland (lived there for about 5 years) The average person really struggles to find a buyer at all - can literally take years to sell a house.

    The middle class in Scotland (and there are a lot of them due to a lot of universities and cheap tuition) can easily afford a house. So you're talking nonsense, have you been to Scotland?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.