Scotland votes no to Independence

[Abpj17]

And back to your original question - why is the loss of land important to rUK? (The sea with the oil is obviously...)

 

[yorksrob]

Top post!

It's a sad fact that the English do not, and cannot, think in terms of English independence. The anomaly is that England hasn't had a government for 300 years but while most English people don't realise that simple truth, many of those in the other 3 nations have had their own government albeit with limitations and have been working with them for years (alongside the UK government).

I don't have a view on whether it would be beneficial or not for England to have its own government, but it is astonishing that there is never any discussion on English independence, or even on the creation of an English government such as those with limited powers already established in Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh. I can't understand the English contentment with their nation not having a government. Why would a nation be so wedded to 3 other nations who persistenly clain that they want out?

Anyway, to return to your 'bonus', I reckon the long experience of sectarianism in Glasgow makes Scotland a better equipped nation to work with NI than England could ever be. So that's another reason for me to agree with you!

I fear very much that an English Government would not be any better at decentralised Government for the English regions than the current one.

There seems to be a view that Scottish independence will be some sort of wonderful opportunity for the rest of the UK but I'm not convinced. Afterall, what's the better advertisement for decentralised government within the UK ? A country in which different nations can govern themselves relatively autonomously in a quasi-federal union, or one where one of the biggest components decides that it can't get along in any form with its partners and wants out.

In the words of the Moody Blues, if you've got to go, go now. But don't kid yourselves you'll be doing the rest of the country any favours.

 

[ExRes]

It wasn't an EU statement. It was a statement from someone who used to be involved in such things, but his statement was in his personal capacity and has no bearing on what the EU would actually do in the event of a Yes vote. The EU might prefer a No vote, so that they don't ever need to think about such problems, but if there is a Yes vote they have little choice but to follow the path of least resistance and ensure Scotland's continued membership of the EU.

Ah right, so Olli Rehn, vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs is just some old nobody who used to be involved in such things, silly me, fancy taking his word above yours when it comes to EU financial affairs

 

[Flamingo]

I have to admit, it's probably very short-sighted and insular of me, but I just pulled my patented "Give-A-Damn" meter out, ran Scottish Independence through it, and the needle gave a very small flicker, but returned to zero...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ah right, so Olli Rehn, vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs is just some old nobody who used to be involved in such things, silly me, fancy taking his word above yours when it comes to EU financial affairs

I said that he was speaking in a personal capacity and that the personal opinions of bureaucrats and civil servants are not necessarily the same as the opinions of the institution they serve. There is no precedent for an EU state without its own central bank, but there is no law that specifically says that they have to have one.

 

[ExRes]

Well we'll all just have to accept that you're more aware of EU financial regulations than the vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs is

There may not be a precedent for an EU state without its own central bank, but how many EU states try to piggyback off the currency of another EU state when they've been told quite clearly that they're not going to be allowed to do so ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a slightly different note, when is Salmond, or his supporters, going to explain just how Scotland is going to survive in the real world

All I read is that the tax revenues from oil and whiskey and income from tourism are going to fund an entire economy, this is patently rubbish of the first order

Faslane is going to be shut down but the lost economic benefits and jobs aren't a problem because new industry will take its place, what industry is going to be instantly parachuted into Scotland to give these benefits ?, for months now many of the largest institutions and many wealthy individuals have been stating that they will shut up shop and move south should there be a yes vote, how does Salmond intend to replace that income and those lost jobs ?

How will Salmond pay for free prescriptions and free university places that Scotland boasts so much about ?

One thing I will be mightily interested in is just how many Scots decide to leave England and return to their independent homeland in the case of a yes vote, I've worked in the Post Office and Railway my entire working life and met hundreds of Scots who are here because they have no wish whatsoever to live in their homeland, I don't believe for one second that they will return home to a country run by a man who has no idea of what he is doing or what he faces, let me amend that, no idea of what the people of Scotland face once he's cast them adrift and into a sea of debt

 

[kylemore]

Well we'll all just have to accept that you're more aware of EU financial regulations than the vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs is

There may not be a precedent for an EU state without its own central bank, but how many EU states try to piggyback off the currency of another EU state when they've been told quite clearly that they're not going to be allowed to do so ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a slightly different note, when is Salmond, or his supporters, going to explain just how Scotland is going to survive in the real world

All I read is that the tax revenues from oil and whiskey and income from tourism are going to fund an entire economy, this is patently rubbish of the first order

Faslane is going to be shut down but the lost economic benefits and jobs aren't a problem because new industry will take its place, what industry is going to be instantly parachuted into Scotland to give these benefits ?, for months now many of the largest institutions and many wealthy individuals have been stating that they will shut up shop and move south should there be a yes vote, how does Salmond intend to replace that income and those lost jobs ?

How will Salmond pay for free prescriptions and free university places that Scotland boasts so much about ?

One thing I will be mightily interested in is just how many Scots decide to leave England and return to their independent homeland in the case of a yes vote, I've worked in the Post Office and Railway my entire working life and met hundreds of Scots who are here because they have no wish whatsoever to live in their homeland, I don't believe for one second that they will return home to a country run by a man who has no idea of what he is doing or what he faces, let me amend that, no idea of what the people of Scotland face once he's cast them adrift and into a sea of debt

If we're such a basket case why aren't you cheering us on?

You must love us so very very much that you want to keep throwing your hard earned tax money at such a bunch of scrounging wasters - feel the love

 

[danielnez1]

It wasn't an EU statement. It was a statement from someone who used to be involved in such things, but his statement was in his personal capacity and has no bearing on what the EU would actually do in the event of a Yes vote. The EU might prefer a No vote, so that they don't ever need to think about such problems, but if there is a Yes vote they have little choice but to follow the path of least resistance and ensure Scotland's continued membership of the EU.

That is quite an arrogant viewpoint, instead you should also also think about what path of least resistance an independent Scotland would have to take to gain EU membership.

 

[ExRes]

If we're such a basket case why aren't you cheering us on?

You must love us so very very much that you want to keep throwing your hard earned tax money at such a bunch of scrounging wasters - feel the love

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and like the idea of a United Kingdom, maybe I don't particularly want to see a little group of independent countries struggling to stay out of the Third World economy

I'm sensible enough to know that we, the UK, aren't some world leading power any longer, our politicians of all parties have seen to that over the years, but I do know that one group is stronger than a number of individuals with no say in anything whatsoever

Perhaps I'm also sensible enough to realise that independence isn't some joke decision that can be reversed in a couple of years as though it never happened, smilies won't help much when the out of control folly of President Salmond hits the ground with an almighty bang

 

[Yew]

Top post!

It's a sad fact that the English do not, and cannot, think in terms of English independence. The anomaly is that England hasn't had a government for 300 years but while most English people don't realise that simple truth, many of those in the other 3 nations have had their own government albeit with limitations and have been working with them for years (alongside the UK government).

I don't have a view on whether it would be beneficial or not for England to have its own government, but it is astonishing that there is never any discussion on English independence, or even on the creation of an English government such as those with limited powers already established in Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh. I can't understand the English contentment with their nation not having a government. Why would a nation be so wedded to 3 other nations who persistenly clain that they want out?

Anyway, to return to your 'bonus', I reckon the long experience of sectarianism in Glasgow makes Scotland a better equipped nation to work with NI than England could ever be. So that's another reason for me to agree with you!

It is quite perplexing. but somehow understandable. 80% of the UK population is English, so in the house of commons, roughly a similar number of MP's will be from England. This means 80% of laws will be suited for England, and even those that are not, will probably still be reasonable palatable for the English public. (I've not phrased that particularly well, but I hope you get the point) The main issues recently where things like student fees, where the welsh and Scottish MP's voted to introduce/Increase them, and their National assemblies later vetoed this decision.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well we'll all just have to accept that you're more aware of EU financial regulations than the vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs is

There may not be a precedent for an EU state without its own central bank, but how many EU states try to piggyback off the currency of another EU state when they've been told quite clearly that they're not going to be allowed to do so ?

But the point I am making is that we have not been told that we are not going to be allowed to do it. The only people who can authoritatively say that are the European Union themselves, but they will only say anything in response to a request from David Cameron. If he were so fantastically certain that it were not able to happen, why wouldn't he go and ask them and wave around this official EU position in the face of the Yes campaign? This statement was not made in the official capacity of the European Union and it does not necessarily reflect the realities of a post-Yes situation.

On a slightly different note, when is Salmond, or his supporters, going to explain just how Scotland is going to survive in the real world

All I read is that the tax revenues from oil and whiskey and income from tourism are going to fund an entire economy, this is patently rubbish of the first order

Faslane is going to be shut down but the lost economic benefits and jobs aren't a problem because new industry will take its place, what industry is going to be instantly parachuted into Scotland to give these benefits ?, for months now many of the largest institutions and many wealthy individuals have been stating that they will shut up shop and move south should there be a yes vote, how does Salmond intend to replace that income and those lost jobs ?

How will Salmond pay for free prescriptions and free university places that Scotland boasts so much about ?

One thing I will be mightily interested in is just how many Scots decide to leave England and return to their independent homeland in the case of a yes vote, I've worked in the Post Office and Railway my entire working life and met hundreds of Scots who are here because they have no wish whatsoever to live in their homeland, I don't believe for one second that they will return home to a country run by a man who has no idea of what he is doing or what he faces, let me amend that, no idea of what the people of Scotland face once he's cast them adrift and into a sea of debt

David Cameron, that diehard Scottish nationalist he is, has said that Scotland could be a successful independent country. We can survive perfectly fine in the wider world. If you actually look at international league tables you'll see that there is a goldilocks zone of population and geographic size and Scotland is bang in the middle of it. Without any oil we can survive just as Sweden, Finland, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland do. With oil, we can do better. The base assumption of your position is that the UK is actually doing well in the world right now and is it, really? The city-state of London is doing wonderfully, sure, but what about the rest of the country?

Free prescriptions, as I have explained over and over again, cost nowhere near as much as you think they do. Non-standard economic goods, like tertiary education or healthcare, are more efficient when paid for by progressive taxation than they are paid for by the individual. Getting rid of free tuition fees simply passes on the cost of university education to individuals (who then borrow at higher interest rates than governments), thus dragging back their economic potential and reducing the amount of money they return to the exchequer through taxes. The charging of tuition fees in the rUK is more likely to fail than having no charge in Scotland because it is simply kicking the can down to road until 30 years from now when all those not-paid-back student loans are written off by the government after accruing compound interest.

We are not electing Alex Salmond as dictator for life. We are voting on whether the Scottish Parliament should have full control over all matters, including the military and foreign affairs. There will be regular elections where parties will have to appeal to the electorate for votes and if they win, they can institute their policies as laws. Scotland will be run by the people of Scotland, not by the SNP and not by people in England as it is today when only English votes matter in UK elections.

That is quite an arrogant viewpoint, instead you should also also think about what path of least resistance an independent Scotland would have to take to gain EU membership.

The path of least resistance is to cause the rest of Europe as little upheaval as possible. Forcing Scottish entry to the Eurozone for day one of independence cannot happen when you've got countries that do want to join the Euro that are not able to join just yet. In the very long term things can change, but what you need to realise is that if there is a Yes vote, Scotland will become an independent country in a matter of months rather than the years and decades needed to transition to another new currency in a first-world country. Independence day cannot be dragged out as far into the future as possible, given that is a terrible option for not only Scotland but the rUK and others as well. As a result, there needs to be some sort of compromise made that causes as little disruption as possible.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and like the idea of a United Kingdom, maybe I don't particularly want to see a little group of independent countries struggling to stay out of the Third World economy

I'm sensible enough to know that we, the UK, aren't some world leading power any longer, our politicians of all parties have seen to that over the years, but I do know that one group is stronger than a number of individuals with no say in anything whatsoever

Perhaps I'm also sensible enough to realise that independence isn't some joke decision that can be reversed in a couple of years as though it never happened, smilies won't help much when the out of control folly of President Salmond hits the ground with an almighty bang

By your logic the Scandinavian states would be far better off if they all rejoined together as the Kingdom of Sweden as they are absolutely incapable of working together on their own. Together they can front a common cause where it is necessary through the Nordic Council and other groups, but their domestic policies can differ to cater to their own needs at home. Unfortunately the UK has an obsession with believing it is the best of all possible worlds when really there are alternatives and those alternatives may work better now that we are no longer a nation of Empire and we can look out on the European continent and see co-operation and peace between France and Germany.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is quite perplexing. but somehow understandable. 80% of the UK population is English, so in the house of commons, roughly a similar number of MP's will be from England. This means 80% of laws will be suited for England, and even those that are not, will probably still be reasonable palatable for the English public. (I've not phrased that particularly well, but I hope you get the point) The main issues recently where things like student fees, where the welsh and Scottish MP's voted to introduce/Increase them, and their National assemblies later vetoed this decision.

This is why a pure English Parliament is meaningless. If you gave England a single parliament it would never have differing policies from the UK House of Commons. The only way for it to make sense is to break England up into regions that can have their own but that falls through completely as well.

 

[SWTCommuter]

The only people who can authoritatively say that are the European Union themselves, but they will only say anything in response to a request from David Cameron.

Who are you referring to when you say 'the European Union themselves'?

 

[kylemore]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and like the idea of a United Kingdom, maybe I don't particularly want to see a little group of independent countries struggling to stay out of the Third World economy

I'm sensible enough to know that we, the UK, aren't some world leading power any longer, our politicians of all parties have seen to that over the years, but I do know that one group is stronger than a number of individuals with no say in anything whatsoever

Perhaps I'm also sensible enough to realise that independence isn't some joke decision that can be reversed in a couple of years as though it never happened, smilies won't help much when the out of control folly of President Salmond hits the ground with an almighty bang

"Out of Control"

Have you actually listened to the man rather than believing what the Daily Mail tells you?

Hopefully in 2016 I'll be able to vote for whatever party emerges from the wreckage of "Scottish Labour", as other people have said this is about Independence not electing Salmond for Life!

See NotaTrainSpott above for detailed rebuttal of rest of your views - I couldn't put it better myself.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Who are you referring to when you say 'the European Union themselves'?

The legal entity known as the European Union, in the same way as the legal entity that is the UK Government can say things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And back to your original question - why is the loss of land important to rUK? (The sea with the oil is obviously...)

The amount of natural resources a country has is proportional to the amount of and type of land, sea and coastline it has. Without Scotland, the rUK would lose around a third of its natural resources without the population dropping by the same amount. When you look at first world countries with low population densities and large amounts of natural resources of all types, you see that they tend to have rather high GDP-per-capita figures: Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia etc. Without Scotland the rUK has basically nothing left but London to base its economy on, which isn't exactly ideal.

 

[chorleyjeff]

If we're such a basket case why aren't you cheering us on?

You must love us so very very much that you want to keep throwing your hard earned tax money at such a bunch of scrounging wasters - feel the love

But many many of us are cheering you on. It wil be easier to ignore the huge chips on shoulders of so many of you when there is a border.
It will be interesting to see how the socialist utopia to our North will develop. But there wil be little need for us to worry about it.
Go for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The legal entity known as the European Union, in the same way as the legal entity that is the UK Government can say things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The amount of natural resources a country has is proportional to the amount of and type of land, sea and coastline it has. Without Scotland, the rUK would lose around a third of its natural resources without the population dropping by the same amount. When you look at first world countries with low population densities and large amounts of natural resources of all types, you see that they tend to have rather high GDP-per-capita figures: Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia etc. Without Scotland the rUK has basically nothing left but London to base its economy on, which isn't exactly ideal.

Oh dear.
So most of the Scottish land mass has the same economic value as that of England and Wales? Just check out the values per acre.
And does Scotland really have one third of the natural resources of the UK?
I suppose the scenario of a hostile France and Scotland sniping at England and Wales from North and South is attractive to all those Scots harking back to the good old days before they had to come cap in hand to us to bail them out. So be it. Let them get on with it.

 

[ExRes]

"Out of Control"

Have you actually listened to the man rather than believing what the Daily Mail tells you?

Hopefully in 2016 I'll be able to vote for whatever party emerges from the wreckage of "Scottish Labour", as other people have said this is about Independence not electing Salmond for Life!

See NotaTrainSpott above for detailed rebuttal of rest of your views - I couldn't put it better myself.

Call that a rebuttal ?, not a single answer, sensible or otherwise, to any point regarding jobs or a financial structure as usual

You want to vote 'for whatever party emerges from the wreckage of "Scottish Labour", some future plan that is, what if the remains of the wreckage advocate turning over the independence vote and returning to the UK ?

Finally, don't be so damn rude, I do not read the Daily Mail

 

[danielnez1]

The path of least resistance is to cause the rest of Europe as little upheaval as possible. Forcing Scottish entry to the Eurozone for day one of independence cannot happen when you've got countries that do want to join the Euro that are not able to join just yet. In the very long term things can change, but what you need to realise is that if there is a Yes vote, Scotland will become an independent country in a matter of months rather than the years and decades needed to transition to another new currency in a first-world country. Independence day cannot be dragged out as far into the future as possible, given that is a terrible option for not only Scotland but the rUK and others as well. As a result, there needs to be some sort of compromise made that causes as little disruption as possible.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't see how Scottish independence would cause an upheaval for the EU (nor if the UK voted to leave the EU). As I said before, it is not like the entire EU would be dissolved. Likewise I'm sure you'd be given plenty of time to set up your own currency etc. before joining the Eurozone.

Given the statements being made by current and former EU representatives as well as the likely stances of other countries, you need to be realistic about your prospects of achieving membership quickly and under what terms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The amount of natural resources a country has is proportional to the amount of and type of land, sea and coastline it has. Without Scotland, the rUK would lose around a third of its natural resources without the population dropping by the same amount. When you look at first world countries with low population densities and large amounts of natural resources of all types, you see that they tend to have rather high GDP-per-capita figures: Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia etc. Without Scotland the rUK has basically nothing left but London to base its economy on, which isn't exactly ideal.

The rUK would still have significant amounts of shale gas. Likewise, if the ICJ got involved, the rUK could potentially be allocated more of the North Sea oil fields.

That aside, betting the economy primarily on non-renewables is not a long term sustainable solution.

 

[SWTCommuter]

The legal entity known as the European Union, in the same way as the legal entity that is the UK Government can say things

Could you expand on that please?

If President Obama wants clarification of a UK government policy he can phone David Cameron. If David Cameron wants clarification of a German government policy he can phone Angela Merkel.

Who should Cameron phone at the 'legal entity known as the European Union' to obtain an authoritative statement of EU policy?

 

[danielnez1]

Could you expand on that please?

If President Obama wants clarification of a UK government policy he can phone David Cameron. If David Cameron wants clarification of a German government policy he can phone Angela Merkel.

Who should Cameron phone at the 'legal entity known as the European Union' to obtain an authoritative statement of EU policy?

An unnamed minister?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Call that a rebuttal ?, not a single answer, sensible or otherwise, to any point regarding jobs or a financial structure as usual

You want to vote 'for whatever party emerges from the wreckage of "Scottish Labour", some future plan that is, what if the remains of the wreckage advocate turning over the independence vote and returning to the UK ?

Finally, don't be so damn rude, I do not read the Daily Mail

As the Better Together people have been very clear, after a Yes vote there is no turning back so the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties would have no choice but to try to make the best of the situation in an independent Scotland.

Oh dear.
So most of the Scottish land mass has the same economic value as that of England and Wales? Just check out the values per acre.
And does Scotland really have one third of the natural resources of the UK?
I suppose the scenario of a hostile France and Scotland sniping at England and Wales from North and South is attractive to all those Scots harking back to the good old days before they had to come cap in hand to us to bail them out. So be it. Let them get on with it.

Land purchase value != amount natural resources. If it did, we would be mining Kensington for ores. Land value for residential or commercial use will be lower in Scotland due to the lower population density, so there's much more supply and there's still quite a bit of supply in the areas where people actually want to move to, unlike London. Natural resources are things like fishing areas, forests, wind and wave renewable energy and suchlike, and it's pretty undeniable that we have them in abundance.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't see how Scottish independence would cause an upheaval for the EU (nor if the UK voted to leave the EU). As I said before, it is not like the entire EU would be dissolved. Likewise I'm sure you'd be given plenty of time to set up your own currency etc. before joining the Eurozone.

Given the statements being made by current and former EU representatives as well as the likely stances of other countries, you need to be realistic about your prospects of achieving membership quickly and under what terms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The rUK would still have significant amounts of shale gas. Likewise, if the ICJ got involved, the rUK could potentially be allocated more of the North Sea oil fields.

That aside, betting the economy primarily on non-renewables is not a long term sustainable solution.

We're not betting the economy on non-renewables. If we stay with the UK, the oil will run out but no attempt will be made to ensure that Scotland grows replacement industries that can provide a similar level of economic advantage. We know this because this is exactly what happened after heavy industry failed, as no attempt was made to ensure that entire regions had sustainable work afterward. If we vote Yes, everything we do has to take into account the future that oil will run out so our decisions will be for the longer term. Norway is more than set up to do fantastically well after the oil runs out since it invested in its sovereign wealth fund, which will provide the money necessary to ensure that the standard of living never drops. We can be the same; we have no reason to believe that this wealth would be any better managed as part of the UK in the future than it has in the past.

Also, please do remember that the UK's economy is once again based upon house price speculation. Don't go about complaining that our future is unsustainable if your future is even worse.

Could you expand on that please?

If President Obama wants clarification of a UK government policy he can phone David Cameron. If David Cameron wants clarification of a German government policy he can phone Angela Merkel.

Who should Cameron phone at the 'legal entity known as the European Union' to obtain an authoritative statement of EU policy?

David Cameron can phone up someone at the European Commission, who would then get the series of lawyers and civil servants within that organisation to provide proper legal advice over what would happen in the event of Scotland becoming independent. That is not the same as phoning up people who used to work there, as they have no bearing on the current position. At this point in time, statements are made by such people with a view to prevent a Yes vote happening at all. After a Yes vote, the terms of negotiations will be different as the damage will have already been done and the only thing remaining is to cause as little chaos as possible. I cannot see how that is difficult to understand.

 

[SWTCommuter]

David Cameron can phone up someone at the European Commission

Such as the current President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26215579

 

[Oswyntail]

As the Better Together people have been very clear, after a Yes vote there is no turning back

Unless, of course, a duly elected Scots government asks for it, for whatever reason. Not inconceivable - it's happened before

so the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties would have no choice but to try to make the best of the situation in an independent Scotland....

Why? They are UK political parties, so have no real interest in Caledonia. So you could be lumbered with SNP (a party, by definition, with no purpose then) and whatever creeps out of the political quagmire

... I cannot see how that is difficult to understand.

That is because everything you have contributed to this thread to date has been based on a romantic dream that everything will be plain sailing for an independent Scotland. Like most of Salmond's utterings, it is based on wishful thinking, assumption that the international community will throw its arms wide and embrace its newest member. On the contrary, there will have to be tough negotiations on all fronts, on topics from oilfield ownership to tax obligations. And no one will be in any way obliged to make things easy for Scotland, not because they are imperialist *******s (which, like so much else, is a myth) but because that is their legal obligation, to do the best for their own country. And i don't see Scotland holding many trumps.

 

[danielnez1]

We're not betting the economy on non-renewables. If we stay with the UK, the oil will run out but no attempt will be made to ensure that Scotland grows replacement industries that can provide a similar level of economic advantage. We know this because this is exactly what happened after heavy industry failed, as no attempt was made to ensure that entire regions had sustainable work afterward. If we vote Yes, everything we do has to take into account the future that oil will run out so our decisions will be for the longer term. Norway is more than set up to do fantastically well after the oil runs out since it invested in its sovereign wealth fund, which will provide the money necessary to ensure that the standard of living never drops. We can be the same; we have no reason to believe that this wealth would be any better managed as part of the UK in the future than it has in the past.

Also, please do remember that the UK's economy is once again based upon house price speculation. Don't go about complaining that our future is unsustainable if your future is even worse.

Unfortunately independence is unlikely to be the magic cure for replacing industries. We face the same problems that other 1st world countries do. Also, how do you know no attempt will be made? I guess you are implying that it will all be Westminster’s fault if anything bad happens, while the SG is squeaky clean. Likewise, someday Norway’s oil fund will run out, so unless they find something else to replenish the shortfall.

Regarding the economy, I was merely making an observation; if you go for independence your economy will be little concern to us and vice versa.

 

[ExRes]

I'm hearing on the grapevine that this deal also included the naming rights for the new Scottish currency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29058834

I hope your economic policy isn't going to be planned by the Rangers accountants

 

[NotATrainspott]

Such as the current President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26215579

Whose opinion was based upon the situation of Kosovo, which is not at all similar to Scotland. Spain cannot recognise Kosovo because it would set the precedent of recognising states that did not gain independence with the support of the state they seceded from. If there is a Yes vote Scotland will become an independent state and one recognised by the rUK, so that comparison is not at all apt. Our situation is more like Montenegro, which gained independence with the support of Serbia and it is now engaged in negotiations with the European Union. If Spain were to have a problem with Scotland, it would have had a problem with Montenegro, and it did not.

Speaking in a personal capacity you can say ridiculous, baseless things because your comments are of no legal consequence. As I have said, Jose Manual Barroso wanted to become secretary general of NATO and saying negative things about Scottish independence would give him favour with the UK Government to help achieve that.

Whenever someone says something about independence you need to look at their individual, personal biases and interests. Angus Robertson et al down at Westminster are campaigning to make themselves unemployed, so they have no personal financial interest in a Yes vote. The Labour, Lib Dem and Tory MPs in Scotland have an interest in ensuring a No vote because they do not want to lose their job. David Cameron has an interest in ensuring a No vote because he will be remembered as the George III of the 21st century for allowing the Scots to leave otherwise. Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going to personally gain from independence; if it all goes tits-up their reputation would be ruined so they don't have an interest in making lies about things. If you blindly believe each and every word that comes out of someone's mouth about independence then I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

Unless, of course, a duly elected Scots government asks for it, for whatever reason. Not inconceivable - it's happened before Why? They are UK political parties, so have no real interest in Caledonia. So you could be lumbered with SNP (a party, by definition, with no purpose then) and whatever creeps out of the political quagmire

They are UK political parties that would then campaign for election in an independent Scotland, in the same way that our Labour and Tory parties seeded their equivalents in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Their policies can then drift apart depending upon the needs of the domestic population. That has been the great failing in Scotland as there is no Scottish Labour party; instead, there is only the activities of the Labour party in Scotland and everything they do in Holyrood has to be approved down in London. That decision had a direct impact upon how they failed so badly, and if you look to Wales you can see that having a semi-independent Labour party has helped them retain power.

That is because everything you have contributed to this thread to date has been based on a romantic dream that everything will be plain sailing for an independent Scotland. Like most of Salmond's utterings, it is based on wishful thinking, assumption that the international community will throw its arms wide and embrace its newest member. On the contrary, there will have to be tough negotiations on all fronts, on topics from oilfield ownership to tax obligations. And no one will be in any way obliged to make things easy for Scotland, not because they are imperialist *******s (which, like so much else, is a myth) but because that is their legal obligation, to do the best for their own country. And i don't see Scotland holding many trumps.

I am not saying that Scotland should have preferential treatment in international relations but you have to acknowledge here that there is an interest in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere that after a Yes vote, there is nothing they can realistically do to stop that galvanising other separatist movements with or without them being nice to it. The only thing they can do is then to limit the damage it would cause to Europe and the way to do that is to ensure that as much of the status quo remains as is possible. Ensuring the status quo is the basis of international relations - no one should be surprised that foreign leaders would prefer for Scotland to remain part of the UK because allied foreign states do not go around supporting internal separatist movements within them.

There is little to debate about oil fields because the vast majority of them unequivocally belong to Scotland. All that matters then is whether or not the original maritime border or the new one brought in by Tony Blair should be followed. There is no scenario in which the rUK would retain control over waters that, had the Union of the Parliaments never happened, would have always belonged to Scotland when the maritime treaties were adopted.

Top trumps include the fantastic "we have all your nukes and you can't move them anywhere quickly enough" and "we're legally responsible for a big fat zero percent of your debt because you're determined to be the successor state". If we want to really mess you up we can get a big boat and take all those undocumented migrants surrounding Calais up to Eyemouth and let them climb over the undefended border. If we want to ruin NATO we have control over the UK bit of the GIUK gap, leaving an enormous gaping hole in the ability for the alliance to see what the Russians are putting in the Atlantic.

Unfortunately independence is unlikely to be the magic cure for replacing industries. We face the same problems that other 1st world countries do. Also, how do you know no attempt will be made? I guess you are implying that it will all be Westminster’s fault if anything bad happens, while the SG is squeaky clean. Likewise, someday Norway’s oil fund will run out, so unless they find something else to replenish the shortfall.

Regarding the economy, I was merely making an observation; if you go for independence your economy will be little concern to us and vice versa.

My point is that Westminster wouldn't give a toss if the oil went because from a macro-UK perspective, so long as other economic activity opens up somewhere else it's irrelevant. As an independent country where oil makes much more of an impact upon the economy, you can adjust economic planning so that other replacement enterprises can take its place. In particular this is things like labour reform or industry taxation/subsidising powers. None of these powers are going to be devolved to Scotland under any proposed devolution settlement after a No vote.

After a Yes vote there is a strong possibility that all those people now engaged in political issues will then involve themselves in the formation of the new constitution, giving people a chance to ensure that the country truly is set up to work in the favour of the people of Scotland. If that means very strong campaign finance and lobbying laws then that would be a positive thing that would never result from a No vote. We know that a No vote is never going to make the UK Government look out for the long term; a Yes vote gives us a chance to renew our political system with that new-found engagement to ensure that that does actually happen.

 

[kylemore]

Call that a rebuttal ?, not a single answer, sensible or otherwise, to any point regarding jobs or a financial structure as usual

You want to vote 'for whatever party emerges from the wreckage of "Scottish Labour", some future plan that is, what if the remains of the wreckage advocate turning over the independence vote and returning to the UK ?

Finally, don't be so damn rude, I do not read the Daily Mail

Accept my apologies ExRes - I've learned to be quite thick skinned on here but must not assume all are.

Many notable figures have concluded that an Independent Scotland will rub along economically just fine, including for instance Nobel laureate Economist Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to US President Clinton.

Or for instance one David Cameron who said in April 2007 "Supporters of Independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country"

Nobody's saying the road will be smooth or that it will all be sorted out overnight, but we have as much chance of getting by as any other North Western European country.

 

[Trog]

Top trumps include the fantastic "we have all your nukes and you can't move them anywhere quickly enough" and "we're legally responsible for a big fat zero percent of your debt because you're determined to be the successor state". If we want to really mess you up we can get a big boat and take all those undocumented migrants surrounding Calais up to Eyemouth and let them climb over the undefended border. If we want to ruin NATO we have control over the UK bit of the GIUK gap, leaving an enormous gaping hole in the ability for the alliance to see what the Russians are putting in the Atlantic.

If you want to play silly buggers it also includes a card marked UKr veto of Scotland joining the EU, and then closing the border. That would hurt the UK a little bit, but would put business in Scotland at a huge disadvantage, and Scottish prices would go through the roof. As everything would then have to be trans-shipped before being brought in by sea and air.

It also includes the you are not a country in your own right yet card, and we are going to sign ourselves over a 100 year lease on the Clyde Base area, plus the Shetlands and Orkney islands, before you get independence.

 

[danielnez1]

My point is that Westminster wouldn't give a toss if the oil went because from a macro-UK perspective, so long as other economic activity opens up somewhere else it's irrelevant. As an independent country where oil makes much more of an impact upon the economy, you can adjust economic planning so that other replacement enterprises can take its place. In particular this is things like labour reform or industry taxation/subsidising powers. None of these powers are going to be devolved to Scotland under any proposed devolution settlement after a No vote.

How do you know?

After a Yes vote there is a strong possibility that all those people now engaged in political issues will then involve themselves in the formation of the new constitution, giving people a chance to ensure that the country truly is set up to work in the favour of the people of Scotland. If that means very strong campaign finance and lobbying laws then that would be a positive thing that would never result from a No vote. We know that a No vote is never going to make the UK Government look out for the long term; a Yes vote gives us a chance to renew our political system with that new-found engagement to ensure that that does actually happen.

That's all wonderful. However actions speak louder than words. North Korea has a constitution that includes freedom of expression, fair trial etc. but as we all know reality is far different. However I suppose ignorance is bliss.

 

[ExRes]

Accept my apologies ExRes - I've learned to be quite thick skinned on here but must not assume all are.

No need to apologise, that comment was meant in jest although I obviously failed in that intent by not using one of those jolly smilies

Hey presto

 

[NotATrainspott]

If you want to play silly buggers it also includes a card marked UKr veto of Scotland joining the EU, and then closing the border. That would hurt the UK a little bit, but would put business in Scotland at a huge disadvantage, and Scottish prices would go through the roof. As everything would then have to be trans-shipped before being brought in by sea and air.

It also includes the you are not a country in your own right yet card, and we are going to sign ourselves over a 100 year lease on the Clyde Base area, plus the Shetlands and Orkney islands, before you get independence.

Orkney and Shetland are part of the legal region known as Scotland and will be coming with us, even if they voted No. There's no reason why Orkney and Shetland are any different in negotiations than Argyll and Bute with Faslane in it. The MOD has rejected the possibility of the Akrotiri/Dhekelia model for HMNB Clyde so they're going to be part of Scotland in any independence settlement. We may decide to allow the rUK continued access but it is our prerogative whether that continues.

Negotiations would never turn properly sour because it is in the interests of neither party to make them go this way, so the 'trump' cards will never need to be played.

How do you know?

That Westminster doesn't give a toss about the loss of industry? A cursory glance at Scotland, the North of England and Wales. If they did care, this referendum wouldn't be happening.

That Westminster won't be offering us the powers to securely move away from oil in the North East on our own? By looking at the three parties' offers for more devolution. None of them are at all interested in giving more powers to Scotland: Labour's offer is utterly pathetic and the powers they give are meaningless when you look at what they want to do on a UK level anyway. The Tories have no reason to bother appealing up here since they're probably going to lose their single MP. The Lib Dems are never going to have a role in Government again, so their ideas are meaningless.

That's all wonderful. However actions speak louder than words. North Korea has a constitution that includes freedom of expression, fair trial etc. but as we all know reality is far different. However I suppose ignorance is bliss.

And North Korea wasn't created in the most peaceful and democratic birth of a new state the world has ever seen. If this is the best you can come up with you're not doing well here.