Is Scottish independence more likely now and if so why?

Watch
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Scotland could use sterling - it would just find it very hard to do so.
How come?

Ireland did, Guernsey does.
0
reply
CrownCopyright
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
Scotland would not survive independence with its current parliament and a near blanket of SNP representatives would leave them unaccountable for their failures. The education and NHS Scotland are already at breaking point. Two of the most vital parts of a society.
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by Quady)
How come?

Ireland did, Guernsey does.
It would need significant reserves of sterling to pay its foreign debt on the first day of its independence. Scotland don't have those reserves.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
It would need significant reserves of sterling to pay its foreign debt on the first day of its independence. Scotland don't have those reserves.
What foriegn debt?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by Quady)
What foriegn debt?
Their share of UK debt obviously
1
reply
CrownCopyright
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
Scotland had to back its own banknotes with tangible assets , now I’m not sure if that was through precious metals or via other means . So yes it does have a large supply of sterling.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by Quady)
Completely agree. Merely pointing out the world is more of a grey zone than many of the arguments. Which I guess is why it was 55/45. A very polarising debate is far less binary than either side projects.

On the Scotlands acceptance to the EU it was opinion on both sides, with both stating their opinion as fact.

That does remind me this works the other way round too, opinions taken as fact or promises.
The 'once in a generation' statement by Salmond on the Andrew Marr show often loses the caveating The Telegraph reported at the time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Scotland.html
"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."

Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."
I would agree to some degree that an unfortunate weight is put on these many (and there were many - from Salmond, Sturgeon and others) statements from the Scottish Government at the time on once in a generation/lifetime. It's not really the caveat that bothers me there, given that you can find many examples of it uncaveated: including in the "Scotland's Future" white paper.

Ultimately I think it's best seen as a statement of what was widely accepted as reasonable and credible.

The UK Government should really be saying "we still believe that this is a reasonable reflection of respecting the result, and will hold to that". After all, it is their decision as guarantors of the constitutional settlement, not a former or present First Minister's.

(Original post by Quady)
How come?

Ireland did, Guernsey does.
Both did slightly different things.

In terms of sterlingisation, it is probably more accurate to say that tiny microstate economies have little choice in the matter. But look at some of the research produced at the time of the 2014 referendum: economists generally found it laughable that the same judgements could apply to a state of 5 million people with a broad, developed economy.

Ireland, of course, did peg. And then it didn't. You can find plenty of details on the trade-offs they made for the peg and the difficulties they had. That is quite separate, but related, from the wider point that the Irish state lacked monetary sovereignty under the arrangement and had decisions that affected it made in London without regard to Ireland. Ultimately it's pretty instructive that they got rid of it.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by CrownCopyright)
Scotland had to back its own banknotes with tangible assets , now I’m not sure if that was through precious metals or via other means . So yes it does have a large supply of sterling.
Scotland doesn't have "its own banknotes", some commercial banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland continue the tradition that applied in England previously too and issue banknotes. They are private notes.

You are correct in that these are backed by reserves, held in sterling (not gold or anything like that). These amount to about £4.5 billion and are held by the Bank of England. The obvious point, of course, is that they back banknotes in circulation to a comparative value: were the banks to not hold or to otherwise utilise these reserves, their banknotes would become worthless.
Last edited by L i b; 1 month ago
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
I cannot see this being other than a debate for many years, as the Tories are here until 2024, and may be the largest party after that. I expect that the Labour Party, were they even to form a government with a Confidence and Supply agreement with the SNP, would not have a referendum immediately.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by barnetlad)
I cannot see this being other than a debate for many years, as the Tories are here until 2024, and may be the largest party after that. I expect that the Labour Party, were they even to form a government with a Confidence and Supply agreement with the SNP, would not have a referendum immediately.
That we still talk about this is a sad indictment on the post-2010 Labour Party. Ed Miliband was too weak to actually stand up for Labour values and Jeremy Corbyn didn't give a toss about surrendering any principle to a bunch of nationalists in somewhere he had no connection to in order to further his own interests.

No decent Labour Party that wants to present itself as a serious and viable government of the United Kingdom should even consider any sort of deal - whether coalition or confidence and supply - with the SNP. This is playing into the hands of people they should not only disagree with, but who are actively working to break-up our country.
2
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by paul514)
Their share of UK debt obviously
Ah right. Debt taken out by HMG.

Which would surely come with their share of the central bank's £720bn sterling reserves.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by L i b)
I would agree to some degree that an unfortunate weight is put on these many (and there were many - from Salmond, Sturgeon and others) statements from the Scottish Government at the time on once in a generation/lifetime. It's not really the caveat that bothers me there, given that you can find many examples of it uncaveated: including in the "Scotland's Future" white paper.

Ultimately I think it's best seen as a statement of what was widely accepted as reasonable and credible.

The UK Government should really be saying "we still believe that this is a reasonable reflection of respecting the result, and will hold to that". After all, it is their decision as guarantors of the constitutional settlement, not a former or present First Minister's.


Both did slightly different things.

In terms of sterlingisation, it is probably more accurate to say that tiny microstate economies have little choice in the matter. But look at some of the research produced at the time of the 2014 referendum: economists generally found it laughable that the same judgements could apply to a state of 5 million people with a broad, developed economy.

Ireland, of course, did peg. And then it didn't. You can find plenty of details on the trade-offs they made for the peg and the difficulties they had. That is quite separate, but related, from the wider point that the Irish state lacked monetary sovereignty under the arrangement and had decisions that affected it made in London without regard to Ireland. Ultimately it's pretty instructive that they got rid of it.
I don't disagree. A generation isn't a long time, we are already 20% of the way through one.

Oh course there are downsides. But Ireland move from one currency with no regard to Ireland to one where there is minimal regard. I didnt mean Scotland would maintain Sterlingisation/peg for more than the 75 years Ireland did.

I think it'd be disingenuous to suggest the BoE pays much regard to Scotland when making decisions today anyway - just as it doesnt pay much attention to Yorkshire. So I'm not sure what difference it'd make anyhow.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by Quady)
Ah right. Debt taken out by HMG.

Which would surely come with their share of the central bank's £720bn sterling reserves.
No idea
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by Quady)
I don't disagree. A generation isn't a long time, we are already 20% of the way through one.
That is a fair point and if Unionist governments want to hold to that, they'd damn well better come up with a more credible strategy than 'wait for a bit and hope it all gets better'.

Oh course there are downsides. But Ireland move from one currency with no regard to Ireland to one where there is minimal regard. I didnt mean Scotland would maintain Sterlingisation/peg for more than the 75 years Ireland did.

I think it'd be disingenuous to suggest the BoE pays much regard to Scotland when making decisions today anyway - just as it doesnt pay much attention to Yorkshire. So I'm not sure what difference it'd make anyhow.
I suppose at the moment, it doesn't make much difference. As regions go, Scotland is probably the most average in the UK as a mean: London and SE England are the main outliers. The problem, I guess, is that Scotland leaving the UK would create the sort of divergence where it would matter more.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 weeks ago
#75
I fear Scottish Independence more than I have at any time since 2014 but I don’t think it’s yet probable. Polls which include DK (voters who would likely vote against change on the day) still have the raw support at 46-50% and I think there’s at least some anti-Tory element in there which might not be enough to put an x in the box in the cold and hard reality of a ballot box. Until about a year ago the SNP-Green alliance of separatists looked like losing rather than gaining support and I’m not sure COVID is a game changer yet on a permanent basis.

On the matter of a referendum that’s much more complex. Short of a grand alliance beyond even Con-Lib (really needs lab too but won’t work politically and they can’t be trusted on the union) the SNP likely get 50%+ of the vote and that’s a very strong mandate. The political reality is that the Tories might be able to push it beyond 2024 (helps them in the election too since Labour May need the SNP and here in the north selling out the union is selling out your country) but they may have to allow a referendum in 2024/2025.

It is vital right now however that Boris and Davey get together and stand down in the constituencies where it will make a difference in May.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Rakas21)
I fear Scottish Independence more than I have at any time since 2014 but I don’t think it’s yet probable. Polls which include DK (voters who would likely vote against change on the day) still have the raw support at 46-50% and I think there’s at least some anti-Tory element in there which might not be enough to put an x in the box in the cold and hard reality of a ballot box. Until about a year ago the SNP-Green alliance of separatists looked like losing rather than gaining support and I’m not sure COVID is a game changer yet on a permanent basis.

On the matter of a referendum that’s much more complex. Short of a grand alliance beyond even Con-Lib (really needs lab too but won’t work politically and they can’t be trusted on the union) the SNP likely get 50%+ of the vote and that’s a very strong mandate. The political reality is that the Tories might be able to push it beyond 2024 (helps them in the election too since Labour May need the SNP and here in the north selling out the union is selling out your country) but they may have to allow a referendum in 2024/2025.

It is vital right now however that Boris and Davey get together and stand down in the constituencies where it will make a difference in May.
I think the problem has always been that the UK Government is pretty tone deaf at times - and even when they have people who know about Scotland, the Treasury is too thick to back up any solid initiatives. Labour's approach to preserving the union had poor results, and it's looking increasingly like the Tories' approach isn't faring too well either. They need radical gamechangers to send signals, to touch the lives of people in Scotland directly, but the inertia of Whitehall is a block on that. If the union is lost, it will be through indifference, not nationalists winning the argument.

In terms of a referendum, I'm not really sure how a Conservative Government could credibly change the position it has adopted. Assuming we have an election in 2024, are the Tories really going to drop their manifesto commitment to no second referendum? It would hand the standing-up-for-the-country narrative away to Labour in a heartbeat.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (79)
21.7%
No (285)
78.3%

Watched Threads

View All