Scottish Independence... What are your thoughts?

[westlondoncarparts]

With regard to post 517, I cannot imagine that most Scots are making their mind up about yes or no out of blind patriotism. In fact amongst the Scottish people that I know the opposite is true – they are asking serious questions and are trying to get hard facts on which to make up their minds. There is meaningful debate going on in Scotland over the Referendum which ultimately can only be good for Scottish democracy.

Nobody can predict what external world events will affect an Independent Scotland in the future but there is one solid fact that nobody can deny. Scotland has serious viability as an independent nation with its people resources and natural resources. It is already one of the richest countries in the world. It does not need to be part of the United Kingdom for its economic or political survival. Most of all it does not need to be the poor relation in the English dominated Parliament in Westminster in which it has little influence. The Scots deserve better than that.

Mr Barroso’s appointment was as Head of the European Commission, not as Head of the European Union. As I posted at the beginning of this thread, there is currently no provision in EU law to handle the situation where Scotland as an existing member of the EU through its union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland leaves the UK but still wants to remain within the EU. Consequently, there is no current provision in EU law to require Scotland to leave the EU after a Yes vote or for Scotland to reapply for membership of the EU after a Yes vote. In the absence of legal provision to handle the situation, what is most likely to happen post Scottish Independence would be a matter of political will in Brussels and Strasbourg to keep Scotland within the EU coming first and the process to keep it within the EU then being decided second. Even if Scotland does have to reapply to keep its existing membership of the EU, membership would not be impossible. Current EU rules require that all existing member countries and the European Parliament have to agree unanimously to accept new memberships. The large number of countries that are now part of the EU would make this application for membership harder but that does not mean impossible. If it were impossible, then the EU would not still be processing three outstanding applications for membership at the present time. And as an existing member of the EU, Scotland already meets all of the requirements for membership of the EU.

Regarding Mark Carney, he has said that a currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK post independence would not be practical unless Scotland were to cede some control over key areas such as interest rates and fiscal policy to the monetary union. The No campaigners argue that this would reduce the true independence of Scotland subsequent to a Yes vote which would work against the purpose of voting for independence. The Yes campaigners argue this would give Scotland a meaningful future voice around the currency table that they do not have at present so would be a great improvement on the current situation. Mark Carney also said was that the issue of currency union was something that would have to be addressed by the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments after a Yes vote, the implication being that the rest of the UK would also have to cede some independence to the currency union as would Scotland. As with the EU situation, the currency union would be a matter of getting the political will in place first and then the mechanisms in place second.

As far as I am aware, nobody has said that Scotland could not keep using the Pound outside of a currency union. The issue here is that outside of a currency union, Scotland would have no influence over the interest rates and foreign exchange values of the Pound and therefore would still be subject as at the present time to decisions made in Westminster that affect the Pound.

I do not think that Alex Salmond is a blame the English kind of person. The main thrust of his vision is to get the best political processes for the Scottish people. He is too big a man to go down the English negativity route of blaming everybody else. Whether you like him or not, he is trying to do his best for the Scottish people.

Thank you.

[HobbyHabitat]

it does seem strange to me that someone who wants independence wants to have a monetary system ruled by the country they want to get away from, also, if alex salmond wants an independent Scotland, why does he want to be a member of the eu.......is he not competent enough to run his own country, after all one of his main complaints is that Westminster is dictating to Scotland. how will being dictated to by Brussels be any different?

[astral276]

it does seem strange to me that someone who wants independence wants to have a monetary system ruled by the country they want to get away from, also, if alex salmond wants an independent Scotland, why does he want to be a member of the eu.......is he not competent enough to run his own country, after all one of his main complaints is that Westminster is dictating to Scotland. how will being dictated to by Brussels be any different?

As I have said before on here, the SNP wants to cherry pick the Union. They want 'independence', but also wish to retain those aspects of the Union that suit them (for as long as it continues to suit them) such as currency union, the Free Travel Area, and NATO membership. The first two stated are at odds with becoming a member of the EU. So if Scotland did suceed in joining the EU it would be a case of "So long, and thanks for all the fish." to the UK - regardless of any damage that would do to us.

[squern]

So, have I got this right?

Mr S wants Scotland to be independent, but wants to keep the pound, the Queen, the EU, NATO membership and free travel and residency rights?

How is that independence? It's a bit like a teenager camping out on the back lawn, eating at home and tapping up Dad when he's a bit short.

For the Scots to be truly independent (like Norway, which they keep mentioning), the need their own currency, border controls, trade arrangements and head of state,

Tony Blair claims to be Scottish (I think he once had one of their eggs), so perhaps President Blair would be a contender.

Coupled with border controls, that would be a great boon to the English, and the rest of the world.

[PetBazaar]

You just answered your own question. He has never said it because it is not his (or the BoE's) decision to make. It is a decision for Westminster. All major parties have stated they would not support entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland. You can choose to believe or disbelieve that stance, but you would be foolish to base any part of your voting decision on the belief that currency union will happen.

That's part of the problem with this entire referendum process. The nature of politics and partisan media reporting in the UK makes it virtually impossible to make an informed decision without really going out and researching things for yourself. For a large part of the electorate believing one side or the other will be the basis of how they cast their vote. I guess it's little different to the numbers of people who voted LibDem at the last election because they believed that there would be no tuition fees in England & Wales. My wife even voted LibDem for that reason alone, even though it didn't affect her in Scotland. She voted for them as they were the only party who stood against the fees. Then after the election it all disappeared into a shower of fairy dust.

To my mind the referendum campaign is no different. Both sides will promise the earth (or doom and desolation) before the vote, after the vote the practicalities will take over.

On a personal note, I'd rather the currency union did not happen. To my mind it rather defeats the point of becoming independent.

What I find irritating is the obsession with the currency "Plan B". It's been headline news for 3 days now up here and it's nothing more than an attempt to scare the voters and put doubt in their mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with informing the voter. The reason I say this... Well, the Yes side has already told us what "Plan B" is, Alex Salmond even mentioned it in the debate. It goes as follows:

The Scottish Government Fiscal Commission gave the following options.

1. A currency union
2. The pound outside a currency union (sterlingisation)
3. A new currency pegged to Sterling
4. A new, floating currency
5. The Euro

At every chance and opportunity the Yes side say. We will continue to use the pound.

So... Option 1 is "Plan A" and options 3, 4 & 5 don't involve using the pound. Therefore, "Plan B" is option 2.

But yet the No side still go on and on and on about how there's no "Plan B". The whole campaign up until now has done nothing but muddy the waters and has provided little information to anyone. I don't see that changing in the next 5-6 weeks.

With regard to post 517,

Replying to this post could be a thread in its own right but to be honest there's nothing that I disagree with.

it does seem strange to me that someone who wants independence wants to have a monetary system ruled by the country they want to get away from, also, if alex salmond wants an independent Scotland, why does he want to be a member of the eu.......is he not competent enough to run his own country, after all one of his main complaints is that Westminster is dictating to Scotland. how will being dictated to by Brussels be any different?

As I have said before on here, the SNP wants to cherry pick the Union. They want 'independence', but also wish to retain those aspects of the Union that suit them (for as long as it continues to suit them) such as currency union, the Free Travel Area, and NATO membership. The first two stated are at odds with becoming a member of the EU. So if Scotland did suceed in joining the EU it would be a case of "So long, and thanks for all the fish." to the UK - regardless of any damage that would do to us.

The main difference between being tied to Westminster and tied the Brussels is that we wouldn't have to turn every single penny of our taxes over to Belgium in then wait for them to give us pocket money back. That's the main reason for wanting change. A added benefit would be that we couldn't indulge in the hugely tiresome habit of blaming others for our failings. If it goes wrong, it's all our fault, and we have to sort it out. I also don't see the other issues as cherry picking (apart from Sterling, which I'm against anyway). NATO membership is far as I recall doesn't require you to be part of the UK and a Common Travel Area is presumably the same given Ireland's inclusion. The CTA is purely a common sense practical solution to a quirk of geography and history.

Oh, in case you hadn't all noticed. I think I've settled on "Yes" now. Have done lots of research, have annoyed lots of people on both sides of the campaign by asking awkward questions, sometimes even in person when they couldn't run away, I've questioned my own predjudices. I've opted for the hope, even if it is a bit vague, rather than the fear.

[PetBazaar]

So, have I got this right?

Mr S wants Scotland to be independent, but wants to keep the pound, the Queen, the EU, NATO membership and free travel and residency rights?

How is that independence? It's a bit like a teenager camping out on the back lawn, eating at home and tapping up Dad when he's a bit short.

For the Scots to be truly independent (like Norway, which they keep mentioning), the need their own currency, border controls, trade arrangements and head of state,

Tony Blair claims to be Scottish (I think he once had one of their eggs), so perhaps President Blair would be a contender.

Coupled with border controls, that would be a great boon to the English, and the rest of the world.

Partly right...

The Yes campaign is looking for political independence, effectively I suppose the equivalent of the 1707 Act of Union being repealed. It is not (at least by most folk) looking for the 1603 Union of the Crowns to be repealed. Presumably you aren't suggesting that Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc are not independent due to them having the Queen as head of State.

NATO membership and EU membership has nothing to do with being part of a Union with Westminster.

Residency rights are guaranteed by the EU. If you're suggesting that Scots shouldn't be allowed to live in rUK, then presumably it follows that the English shouldn't be allowed to live in Scotland. A little extreme for my liking. And, assuming UKIP aren't in power by then, presumably a non-issue.

And as I said before, the Common Travel Area is a practical solution to our Island(s) status seperate from the EU mainland. It makes more sense than any of the other options. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but hopefully common sense would prevail.

The teen analogy could be altered to reflect the current situation.

The teenager lives in his own house, through the wall from his parents in a semi-detached property. Perhaps in a cul-de-sac. He has his own job and his own bills to pay. But his parents take all of his wages off of him and then gives most of them back minus a little in admin fees (which the parents use to fund a navy in the fish pond). The son can then do what he likes with the money. Except that he can't. He's allowed to pay his own bills and rent, he can buy food. But he's not allowed to decorate or change the garden, because that's a reserved power. So effectively his parents can come at anytime and paint his bedroom bright yellow and there's nothing he can do about it. Oh and his dad parks his car in the son's garage.

But it gets better. Because one day his parents get a special deal on their gas and electricity. Their bills have just dropped by 10%. The son's bills haven't because he's still on his own tariff. But because the parents are paying less, then the son automatically receives less money to pay his bills because of a thing he signed up to called the Barnett Formula.

It's all less than ideal. But wait. Hold on. The sons parents have just told him that they're taking back responsibility for his food purchasing The Son Act (1998) allows them to do this you see. So he's no longer allowed to decide what food to buy and he no longer gets the money to buy it.

The son is thoroughly fed up by this point. So since he's not allowed to change the garden, he buys some window boxes to cheer him up. He spends a little less on food and bills and channels it into his flowers. For the rest of his life his parents moan that they are subsidising his window boxes.

So you see. It's not really ideal.

[suesjools]

Partly right...

The Yes campaign is looking for political independence, effectively I suppose the equivalent of the 1707 Act of Union being repealed. It is not (at least by most folk) looking for the 1603 Union of the Crowns to be repealed. Presumably you aren't suggesting that Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc are not independent due to them having the Queen as head of State.

NATO membership and EU membership has nothing to do with being part of a Union with Westminster.

Residency rights are guaranteed by the EU. If you're suggesting that Scots shouldn't be allowed to live in rUK, then presumably it follows that the English shouldn't be allowed to live in Scotland. A little extreme for my liking. And, assuming UKIP aren't in power by then, presumably a non-issue.

And as I said before, the Common Travel Area is a practical solution to our Island(s) status seperate from the EU mainland. It makes more sense than any of the other options. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but hopefully common sense would prevail.

The teen analogy could be altered to reflect the current situation.

The teenager lives in his own house, through the wall from his parents in a semi-detached property. Perhaps in a cul-de-sac. He has his own job and his own bills to pay. But his parents take all of his wages off of him and then gives most of them back minus a little in admin fees (which the parents use to fund a navy in the fish pond). The son can then do what he likes with the money. Except that he can't. He's allowed to pay his own bills and rent, he can buy food. But he's not allowed to decorate or change the garden, because that's a reserved power. So effectively his parents can come at anytime and paint his bedroom bright yellow and there's nothing he can do about it. Oh and his dad parks his car in the son's garage.

But it gets better. Because one day his parents get a special deal on their gas and electricity. Their bills have just dropped by 10%. The son's bills haven't because he's still on his own tariff. But because the parents are paying less, then the son automatically receives less money to pay his bills because of a thing he signed up to called the Barnett Formula.

It's all less than ideal. But wait. Hold on. The sons parents have just told him that they're taking back responsibility for his food purchasing The Son Act (1998) allows them to do this you see. So he's no longer allowed to decide what food to buy and he no longer gets the money to buy it.

The son is thoroughly fed up by this point. So since he's not allowed to change the garden, he buys some window boxes to cheer him up. He spends a little less on food and bills and channels it into his flowers. For the rest of his life his parents moan that they are subsidising his window boxes.

So you see. It's not really ideal.

Pardon a bit of off topic commenting, but Pets I just love the way you write. IMHO with your brains and clarity of vision you should consider running for office, (it would be nice to know there are a few intelligent politicians somewhere in the world).

IMHO it's nice to know there are people on both sides of the Scottish referendum issue (at least here on eBid) who are thinking things through, much better than the majority of Americans who appear to vote based on knee jerk emotional ideologies which have little or nothing to do with reality and everything to do with propping up the status quo.

Now to see if I can find that link and listen to the debate myself.

Best wishes for many sales to all,

[suesjools]

Well, I just watched the debate in full and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed in both sides as, much like our American politicians, both politicians seemed to toss more mud at each other than answer straightforward questions. On the plus side, in my admittedly limited view, the audience members on both sides made better points and asked better questions than the politicians; in that respect they're ahead of most folks on this side of the pond.

It was an interesting watch, though, thanks to Pets for the link.

Best wishes for many sales to all,

[PetBazaar]

Pardon a bit of off topic commenting, but Pets I just love the way you write. IMHO with your brains and clarity of vision you should consider running for office, (it would be nice to know there are a few intelligent politicians somewhere in the world). ,

Well I'm glad at least one person likes my posts. As for running for office, no chance. I couldn't do professional politics, refusing to answer the question and insisting that black is white just for the sake of gaining a few votes just isn't me.

And so, without further ado, the latest poll figures.

Two sets of figures to report on this time round and it seems that the leaders debate was either:

a) Bad for the Yes side, or
b) A complete irrelevance.

First, Survation: Yes - 37% (-4), No - 50% (+4)
Next, YouGov: Yes - 35% (No Change), No - 55% (+1)

Random fascinating facts from these two surveys...

Again Survation gets to go first:
65% of those polled said that they watched the leaders debate. Interesting because it's estimated from viewing figures that roughly 25% of the population watched. Quite a discrepency

YouGov next:
Has the referendum been "interesting"? Yes voters: 80% say Yes, No voters: 34% say Yes
Has the referendum been "good for Scotland"? Yes voters: 73% say Yes, No voters: 10% say Yes

In the event of a "No" vote:
The matter is settled, there should not be another referendum; 39%
Another referendum in 20 - 30 years: 17%
Another referendum in 10 - 15 years: 11%
Another referendum within 10 years: 25%

[suesjools]

I like the last bit. Is there a law stating when another referendum could take place, assuming there is a No vote this time?

Best wishes for many sales to all,