Independence Referendum

[mulhuzz]

Absolutely not true that the chance of Scotland as part of Union leaving EU is greater than an independent Scotland not being part of EU.   You won't automatically get EU membership as a new state and there are genuinely hundreds of reasons, here are just two:

* Spain will veto because they don't want to give hope to Basque/Catalonia even more than they want to fuck UK off over Gibraltar.

* you will have to take the Euro, which you obviously don't want.

Re Currency Union: genuinely, so what if it's a tactic? In the end if the rest of the Union wants to say 'fuck you Scotland' and not allow cu then that's what you have to deal with and you don't have an alternative plan. Seems to be highly predicated on Westminster not following through, to which I have two notes of caution:

* don't underestimate how vindictive Tories can be.
* since there genuinely is no upside and plenty of downside it makes actual sense not to extend cu. You have your own currency (in theory) so just peg it at 1:1 against the gbp and see if you can hold on as your economy spirals. This is linked to Europe and EU membership obviously.

Re RBS: was only using them as example, obviously no secret that a large part of the yes vote is nationalism and in general nationalism is bad for business when you do the major part of your business outside the nation. Hence RBS and others will move and put further pressure on young economy.

Re debts and assets you seem to be saying that it's ok for holyrood to rattle sabres but not for Westminster. The logic fails me there, in afraid. You further have the problem that if both sides can't reach sensible agreement then Westminster holds all the cards and gets to decide what happens as gl an independent Scotland going to court.

In the end it's pretty sad that most little Englanders couldn't give a shit want happens, I think the economic arguments over keeping the union are overwhelming. Question for Scotland is only whether you'd like to be prosperous together or have full autonomy without a pot to piss in.

[Newmanseye]

I really don't post here all that often, this thread however really is quite an eye opener, so many opinions and half truths pedalled as fact which is wrong on so many levels it's Meta.

Let me clarify a few small points.

Scotland has been contributing more per head financially to this union than any other country within it. Yet Scotland gets a lot less back and less investment than the rest of the UK.

The scottish independence question is to give the residents of scotland a chance of self determination, managing all of it's own affairs, no more lumped debts accrued by Westminster to develop the south east and the city of London dumped on Scotland's balance sheet.

We as a nation have the right to manage our own affairs, how would the people of England feel if their investment needs, voting preferences and socialist programmes were marginalised by a government that outvotes you 10:1.

Right now Scotland's wealth from, whisky, oil and gas, income taxes renewables is all flowing straight to the Westminster exchequer who squanders this money.

Facing facts the UK is on a bankruptcy spiral, Scotland can no longer subsidise the rest of the UK ( which it does, anyone who disagrees needs to check the actual figures)

Now as for the issue of EU, scotland is already a member of the EU, after independence a successor state must be determined, this has not yet happened.  Even if rUK was the successor state that means 5.3 million EU citizens would b thrown out over night? Sure let me watch that happen. Particularly when Scotland has huge green energy potential, the best fishing waters in Europe and massive oil and gas reserves on both the east and west coast. Apply lashings of common sense here folks. Scotland's individual membership will be rushed through the EU parliament without issue.

Currency- the pound is just as Scottish as it is Welsh as it is English and Northern Irish, it's an asset of the state and will be shared as such. Even a senior Tory has confirmed the threat of no currency union is just a tactic to scare the electorate.  In addition it would be better for scotland not to have a currency union, the whole reason for the currency union proposal wast to not "beggar thy neighbour", should the Bank of England lose the balance of payments scotland brings to the party the rest of the UK would be in deep schtook.

The proposal is there to keep the trading union in place.

One more thing, the reason the YES campaign is gaining ground every day and the no campaign is losing voters like myself is simple, I like many of my countrymen will not be told to be scared of the unknown, particularly by privileged millionaire and Etonians who have taken a bad situation and made it worse.

By the way, before someone brings up Scottish banks... The US federal reserve bailed them out more than the UK ever did, also it was the London based investment arms ( which were bought by scottish banks ) that accrued massive debts and lost billions. The part run from and in scotland has always been profitable.  So next time one of these right wing jock bashing rags you read blames the Scots, remember it was some English , Dutch, German , Japanese, scottish and many other nationalities of individuals which caused the problem working from London, not some jock sitting in Edinburgh.

 

[celtic]

Billy!

 

[Newmanseye]

Hi buddy, long time no see.   

[rfgqqabc]

By the way, before someone brings up Scottish banks... The US federal reserve bailed them out more than the UK ever did, also it was the London based investment arms ( which were bought by scottish banks ) that accrued massive debts and lost billions. The part run from and in scotland has always been profitable.  So next time one of these right wing jock bashing rags you read blames the Scots, remember it was some English , Dutch, German , Japanese, scottish and many other nationalities of individuals which caused the problem working from London, not some jock sitting in Edinburgh.

I think your post was excellent and informative for someone who doesnt really have enough information to form a proper opinion. I would argue that the bolded point kind of weakens the arguements you put forward later in this paragraph tho.

[mulhuzz]

Applying common sense to the EU isn't very useful.

Also, in the midst of a decent post from 'the other point of view', I think you've lost sight of how membership to the EU actually works. It's a complicated process, it can take years and the EU don't rush anything. Particularly not the EU Parliament who have absolutely close to zero to do with the accession of another state. I could accept that you've used the wrong term but since you seem so sure that 'common sense' will prevail I think it's worth pointing out some facts:

* EU Commission president JM Barroso has said it would be 'extremely difficult' for an independent Scotland to join the EU, although not impossible.

* you need to have the backing of the eu council (not the parliament) to join. The accession process takes years.

* every single country has the right of veto. See my example about Spain previously. Although Spain has said it won't interfere with the political process of another member state, this is also because right now a yes vote is unlikely so it doesn't need to say much. It is absolute madness to suggest that Spain will support an independence bid (cf their continued denial that Kosovo is a state) because of the separatists in their own country. Again, as Gibraltar shows, Spain doesn't actually give a flying fuck about the will of the people, it just wants what it wants.

* France (and some other countries) have to have a referendum on allowing each new country to the EU so even if you magically solve the issue of Spain there's still an issue here.

* currency (again) -- all new member states have to commit to taking the euro which Scotland doesn't want and wants to be an exception. I don't see why the EU will change the law/rules for Scotland. Can you give me a good reason?

The fact is that the yes campaigners don't have high level answers to these questions whilst being able to basically lie to their voters ('everything will be fine, an independent Scotland can do what the f it likes') and calling the better together campaign scaremongers when they bring up these issues. Not that I'm saying the better together group are any better of course, but where you have a public who on the whole are misinformed about the issues this is always bound to happen. The fact that many of them can't be arsed to do the independent research required tells you a lot about the vote in any case.

[Jon MW]

...
The scottish independence question is to give the residents of scotland a chance of self determination, managing all of it's own affairs,
...

This is why I think Scotland 'should' have independence - not that it makes it a good choice for them

...
Facing facts the UK is on a bankruptcy spiral, Scotland can no longer subsidise the rest of the UK ( which it does, anyone who disagrees needs to check the actual figures)
...

How much Scotland subsidises the  rest of the UK depends on how you measure it - and objectively it depends on the variability of the energy market which can be a lot.
You can check figures here for example http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/research-2012/Londons_finances_and_revenues_OnlineVersion.pdf
This compares London to other regions. As already stated, different economists can measure things differently but the gist is fairly common - Scotland contributes approximately the same as London but gets about £10bn more in spending than it creates whereas London gets about £10bn less in spending than it creates.

...
Currency- the pound is just as Scottish as it is Welsh as it is English and Northern Irish, it's an asset of the state and will be shared as such. Even a senior Tory has confirmed the threat of no currency union is just a tactic to scare the electorate. ...

if you keep  a currency union than how does this constitute managing your own affairs and making your own decisions?

All of Scotlands monetary policy would effectively be decided by the Bank of England and Westminster, and given that much constraint it would have a huge influence on fiscal policy and spending. The alternative would be euro - with all the problems that would entail. I can't really see how Scotland can 'win' on currency.

One more thing, the reason the YES campaign is gaining ground every day and the no campaign is losing voters like myself is simple, I like many of my countrymen will not be told to be scared of the unknown, particularly by privileged millionaire and Etonians who have taken a bad situation and made it worse.

Doesn't entirely suggest an objective, intellectual assessment of the situation - and I don't think there are going to be enough people who just vote because of the emotion (love of country or hatred of Westminster) to make a Yes vote even remotely likely.

[Kmac84]

Scotland won't vote yes en masse.

The undecided always vote for the status quo (a cognitive bias).

In general independence would be terrible for Scotland as you don't have real solutions to any of the problems that would be faced:

* eu membership not guaranteed but crucial to economy - MYTH - The UK Government could have that question answered tomorrow but they refuse to do so why?  There is a greater chance of Scotland not being in EU by staying with Status Quo.
* don't even have a currency, a currency union between uk and an independent Scotland has close to no upside for uk. MYTH - We have sterling.  A UK Government Minister has recently said the threat not to enter a currency union was a tactic.  Have you read the Sunday Herald today?
* regulation of big business: in an independent Scotland you'll see large companies like RBS leave Edinburgh. Good - I would be happy to see RBS leave and for us to nationalise our banking or at least have some sort of mutual rather than RBS. 
* division of national debt and assets: Scotland seem to want all the assets and none of the debt. Since they can't agree a method for proportioning then it's likely that Scotland will end up with nothing. - LIE - the Scottish Government has committed to taking its share of the debt for a fair split of the assetts.  But the threat not to take a share of the debt was in response to the Westminister bullying saying we couldn't have sterling - which as we now know is also a lie. 

As you are of confident on the currency union with the UK, what price would you lay me it won't happen?  Of course no independence is a push. 

I assume this will be a decent price given you confident assert it is a lie. 

What price you think is fair, your the Maths man.  But I would be happy to lay you a few quid.  if we can agree a price.

[Kmac84]

Absolutely not true that the chance of Scotland as part of Union leaving EU is greater than an independent Scotland not being part of EU.   You won't automatically get EU membership as a new state and there are genuinely hundreds of reasons, here are just two:

* Spain will veto because they don't want to give hope to Basque/Catalonia even more than they want to fuck UK off over Gibraltar.

* you will have to take the Euro, which you obviously don't want.

Re Currency Union: genuinely, so what if it's a tactic? In the end if the rest of the Union wants to say 'fuck you Scotland' and not allow cu then that's what you have to deal with and you don't have an alternative plan. Seems to be highly predicated on Westminster not following through, to which I have two notes of caution:

* don't underestimate how vindictive Tories can be.
* since there genuinely is no upside and plenty of downside it makes actual sense not to extend cu. You have your own currency (in theory) so just peg it at 1:1 against the gbp and see if you can hold on as your economy spirals. This is linked to Europe and EU membership obviously.

Re RBS: was only using them as example, obviously no secret that a large part of the yes vote is nationalism and in general nationalism is bad for business when you do the major part of your business outside the nation. Hence RBS and others will move and put further pressure on young economy.

Re debts and assets you seem to be saying that it's ok for holyrood to rattle sabres but not for Westminster. The logic fails me there, in afraid. You further have the problem that if both sides can't reach sensible agreement then Westminster holds all the cards and gets to decide what happens as gl an independent Scotland going to court.

In the end it's pretty sad that most little Englanders couldn't give a shit want happens, I think the economic arguments over keeping the union are overwhelming. Question for Scotland is only whether you'd like to be prosperous together or have full autonomy without a pot to piss in.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm

Also would take the opinion of of David Edward > Barrosso who has his own pawn in the game.

[MintTrav]

Been trying to work out what Gibraltar has to do with all this.

No luck so far.

[mulhuzz]

Been trying to work out what Gibraltar has to do with all this.

No luck so far.

Basically: Scottish accession to EU as independent state is dependent on each Member State agreeing to it.

In the case of Spain you have the following situation:

* Spain does not want to encourage some of it's own regions to further independence aims by supporting the idea that breakaway states - with the will of the people there as would be case in Scotland, and, we imagine, eg Catalonia and Basque regions - will be granted easy accession to the EU.

* this is currently why Spain does not recognise Kosovo as a sovereign nation.

* you further have the situation where Spain might decide to recognise Scottish independence/accession to EU (which btw is what they have tentatively agreed to do thus far, but keep reading for why this might be a lie...) in doing so, Spain would likely rely on the idea that this is the will of the Scottish people and who are Spain to stand in the way of the rights of Scottish people to determine their own futures/identity.

* in doing so, Spain would misstep, because over the course of the last X years, it has firmly been their position that the will of the Gibraltarian people is fully irrelevant to the idea that Spain wants Gibraltar back -- they have, they say, a sovereign right to rule Gibraltar - regardless of the will of the people there.

* therefore, Spain will find it difficult to recognise Scottish independence/accession (note these are similar but subtly different) without weakening it's position both domestically (cf Catalonia, Basque) and in foreign policy (Gibraltar) and there seems, currently, to be no upside to Spain allowing an independent Scotland to accede.

* quite what an independent Scotland could offer Spain to make it easier for them to allow remains to be seen, but it is certainly difficult to imagine something which would really get it done.

* as I've mentioned previously, Spain's current position is that they will not interfere in the domestic policy/affairs of another EU Member State. Of course anyone who has lived or worked in Gibraltar is laughing on the other side of their face at that suggestion, but nevertheless I'd submit that the reason Spain is not current planning to 'interfere' is because it doesn't feel it needs to because a No vote seems to be (currently) more likely.

As an aside, believe me that as soon as Spain sees an opportunity to deflect from problems at home they will take it.

Of course that's only one problem for Scottish accession, from only one nation. We haven't even gotten to the bit where France needs to hold a full proper referendum yet.

[MintTrav]

I can at least understand what you are saying about separatism, though Spain is far from the only country in that boat, but I cannot follow your logic about Gibraltar. You seem to be saying that Spain doesn't recognise the "will of the people" there so, if it recognises it somewhere else, that would be contradictory and would weaken its position re Gibraltar. But Scotland and Gibraltar are such different situations - there is no comparison to be drawn at all. Spain already recognises the will of the people in innumerable situations in Spain and everywhere else. One more would make no difference, especially somewhere that most Spaniards have very little interest in. And the Gibraltar situation is about a lot more than whether Spain accedes to the wishes of the people who are living there.

[mulhuzz]

I don't want to derail getting into Gib situation, but effectively the situation there is - at it's heart - about little more than Spain not wanting to recognise the Gibraltarian people's right to self-determination.

The moment they accept that Gibraltarians have that right then they give up Gibraltar, because more than 9x% will vote to remain British. An that is particularly untenable given the current climate in Spain.

But anyway, I digress. Even if you believe that the situations in Gib/Scotland are materially different (and I have no doubt they are) then you still have to counter the perception in Gib that they are at least broadly similar in terms of acceptance of the right to self determine.

[MintTrav]

I don't think that attitudes in Gibraltar are particularly open to outside influence, Spanish or otherwise, nor that the Spanish particularly care about the perception in Gibraltar, which is never going to be favourable towards them.

Anyway, I don't really want to derail the Scottish independence thread either. But there has been more than one reference to Gibraltar, which has nothing to do with it imo.

[Kmac84]

If only it weren't for the pesky internet cybernats they may have got away with this one.