We're all going to hear a lot more about this in the run-up to September and the Scottish vote on independence. And let me say at the outset that I do not for a moment deny the right of Scotland to decide their future status (I have some Scottish blood myself, though I don't get carried away about it). But I would personally be very sad to see the break-up of the United Kingdom as it has existed for so many years - to the advantage of all of us.
However, what does make me raise my eyebrows when listening to Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon cracking on about their vision of Scotland's future is their presumption that they can pick and choose at will just what parts of the UK they can take with them should they win. "Oh, we'll keep the Queen, we'll scrap Trident, we'll keep the pound" (and presumably help themselves to whatever else they fancy).
Should the Scots actually vote for independence come the day, I strongly believe that the rest of the UK should in turn have a vote as to just what they're allowed to take with them. They should not automatically be entitled to much of what they've so far presumed they will be - all of us should have a vote falling out of their decision. They claim, amongst much else, that the border should remain freely open; OK for their side - their decision - but why shouldn't we in England then regard them as a foreign country, as they then would be, and for passports to be required as for any other foreigners entering the rest of UK? Emotive perhaps, but they will have been the ones who chose their new-found status.
And as the owner of a small property in Scotland (who doesn't get a vote on the main issue because my main home is in England) will I then require a joint UK/Scottish passport to travel to and from the Hebrides? The whole thing is a potential can of worms.
And I'm left with a very strong sense of the Nationalists wanting to have their cake and eat it ...
Ever since I've had the right to vote I've always voted SNP, though only because they were the best of a bad lot, there are a few thins I agree with them on such as Scottish independence, scrapping trident etc but there are a few thins I disagree with them on such as the fact they want to enforce a nanny state on things such as alchohol and Alex salmond wants to put an age restriction on the music that people buy |(the same way that the MPRC led by tipper gore tried and failed to do) but I do agree with Scottish independence, I'm not anti Egnlish but I think that for too long Scotland has been like a guinea pig for Westminster, any policies they wanted to try such as the poll tax we got first before they rolled it out to the rest of the UK so when the referendum comes I will be voting yes even if the majority vote no and we don't get independence then I think this vote and the debate around will shake things up and maybe even bring a lot of people out of their apathy, whatever happens I think things are going to get very interesting here.
I'd be concerned that Scotland wouldn't be very financially viable without the rest of the UK. It's a large land area with low population density and a lot of issues that require significant funding. And that's before the whole Euro saga (which given what it did to Italy when that was introduced, probably wouldn't be especially ideal!).
On a non-financial level, I'm still not entirely sure what independence would bring, in the 21st century. It was very different when things were part of the empire/conquered and there were hardships faced by not being independent, but nowadays I'm unsure it would make a significant difference to the way of life for many people (other than financially).
And it seems unlikely that the UK would allow Scotland to keep the pound, for financial reasons as it would likely devalue it, and nobody would want that.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Why don't you look, Mike, at the benefits that Wales derives from being part of the UK - it gets far more than it contributes and most Welsh politicians know it, hence no squeaking from Cardiff for independence.
We're all entitled to our own views in our democracy but I think to describe the coalition (elected by a majority drawn from two major parties) as corrupt is way OTT. Can you justify it - challenge!
I'm slightly unaware of the whole thing, but haven't the Bank of England already said they can't have the pound if they separate from the UK?
I also want to know what will happen to all the banks that are connected to RBS!
Erm no!
In fact a report has just been released by the BOE discussing the practicalities of a currency union. There's also actually nothing the UK could do to stop Scotland using the pound. The markets haven't been happy about the idea of Scotland not using the pound and this is why the British government has just announced that it will guarantee the whole of our national debt.
I'm slightly unaware of the whole thing, but haven't the Bank of England already said they can't have the pound if they separate from the UK?
No, the pound is an option, there would just be significant issues to overcome. Mark Carney was very careful with his words.
The SNP, as always, are living on their own planet. They simply ignore what they don't want to hear and make things up as they go along - the pound, the Euro, the EU generally, border control, energy markets, etc. It wasn't too long ago that Salmond and the SNP were touting the all-glorious 'Celtic Tiger' and how brilliant joining such a union (and the Euro) would be. Since the situation in Ireland things have been rather quiet on that front.
Financially, Scotland probably could manage on it's own, but that's just one piece of a very, very big puzzle. Once you leave there is no turning back fifty years down the line, if things don't go to plan.
Having actually read most of the White Paper (Scotland's Future), there is very little in there that is concrete. There is a lot of picking and choosing, no guarantees and it's all rather vague.
I'm slightly unaware of the whole thing, but haven't the Bank of England already said they can't have the pound if they separate from the UK?
I also want to know what will happen to all the banks that are connected to RBS!
No. I think what was said by the BoE governor is that Scotland couldn't have the power to set vat etc and keep the pound, so they would lose some financial independence they were hoping to gain
Not just RBS, BoS is owned by Lloyds, what would happen to them?
BoS already gets charged more by their cash distribution company to order BoE notes,despite how popular they are in my city.
A lot of oil workers commute from England (mainly Newcastle) to Aberdeen to work for oil companies and offshore on oil rigs. So they can't claim oil money stays in Scotland and is pumped back in to the economy. A lot of the extortionate wages people make here go back to England and into the property market and shops and businesses there.
Personally, I will be voting no. I'm not convinced it's a great idea for Scotland. I would love the Scottish parliament to get more power to make decisions for Scotland, but I feel that full independence is a bad idea. Some of the policies and ideas sound great in theory, but I don't think would really work in the real world.
I don't like Alex Salmond either, and he is my MSP. He is an arse licker to people with money (see Donald Trump and his pointless golf courses!)
I'm also English born, so is my husband and his whole family. Would that mean I have to change my passport? I don't want to!!
Should the Scots actually vote for independence come the day, I strongly believe that the rest of the UK should in turn have a vote as to just what they're allowed to take with them.
Also, REALLY bad idea. Considering what I've read, most of the rest of the UK cannot wait to see the back of Scotland and would be quite happy for the country to take all the national debt and then alter the sea maps.
Mike, whatever you meant, you did imply that the rest of the UK should abandon the "corrupt" Westminster government. And you've made no attempt to explain just why you think it's corrupt. For the record, the vast majority of MPs, of whatever party, are actually dedicated to improving the lives of ordinary people. They're certainly not in parliament for the money, which is a pittance compared to what many of them could earn elsewhere in London - they're doing it out of a belief that they can make a difference for others. (The expenses scandal arose, I believe, out of their feeling that they were grossly underpaid, that the public wouldn't wear any realistic increase in their salaries, and that the expenses system as it then was almost encouraged them to make up the shortfall in their pay. Of course, when exposed, their usage of the system led the public to conclude that they were all cheats and liars - when in fact the vast majority are only MPs out of largely altruistic motives, while knowing that they will suffer shed-loads of flak in the course of trying to do their best.)
I do not believe that the Westminster government is corrupt. Rather, it is a system developed and refined over hundreds of years - not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than anything that anyone else has been able to come up with.
As to Scotland and the pound, Mark Carney (the Governor of the Bank of England) was careful to point out in his speech last week that if an independent Scotland did adopt the pound, the essential links that they would then have to maintain with Westminster (over, say, interest rates) would inevitably mean that they were giving back a significant measure of their independence. Again, as I've said earlier, they can't have their cake and eat it.
But the choice remains something for the people of Scotland. For myself, I can see the day coming when, exhausted by the interminable whingeing of Salmond/Sturgeon and their acolytes, I'll end up saying "OK, then bugger off - the rest of the UK will cope very well without you" - as it will!
Mike, whatever you meant, you did imply that the rest of the UK should abandon the "corrupt" Westminster government. And you've made no attempt to explain just why you think it's corrupt. For the record, the vast majority of MPs, of whatever party, are actually dedicated to improving the lives of ordinary people. They're certainly not in parliament for the money, which is a pittance compared to what many of them could earn elsewhere in London - they're doing it out of a belief that they can make a difference for others. (The expenses scandal arose, I believe, out of their feeling that they were grossly underpaid, that the public wouldn't wear any realistic increase in their salaries, and that the expenses system as it then was almost encouraged them to make up the shortfall in their pay. Of course, when exposed, their usage of the system led the public to conclude that they were all cheats and liars - when in fact the vast majority are only MPs out of largely altruistic motives, while knowing that they will suffer shed-loads of flak in the course of trying to do their best.)
I do not believe that the Westminster government is corrupt. Rather, it is a system developed and refined over hundreds of years - not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than anything that anyone else has been able to come up with.
As to Scotland and the pound, Mark Carney (the Governor of the Bank of England) was careful to point out in his speech last week that if an independent Scotland did adopt the pound, the essential links that they would then have to maintain with Westminster (over, say, interest rates) would inevitably mean that they were giving back a significant measure of their independence. Again, as I've said earlier, they can't have their cake and eat it.
But the choice remains something for the people of Scotland. For myself, I can see the day coming when, exhausted by the interminable whingeing of Salmond/Sturgeon and their acolytes, I'll end up saying "OK, then bugger off - the rest of the UK will cope very well without you" - as it will!
Tony.
The thing is Tony,
The most popular option in Scotland is Devo max, which is essentially... independence but with currency union. Seeing as the referendum contains no halfway house between independence and the status quo, the only likely way to get Westminster to cede more powers is to vote for independence. The currency union would tie the nations together in a way beneficial to most people, whilst giving the two nations the ability to enact their differences into
Oily. In fact, the only issue I can see is that the North of England has more in common with Scotland than it does southern England and as someone from the NE of England, I'd much rather vote to be Scottish than be paired with the SE.
But Heidi, Mark Carney made it clear last week that any currency union would inevitably mean sacrificing an essential part of the independence that the SNP keeps banging on about. Furthermore, while I don't know what the rules will theoretically permit, I personally feel that an independent Scotland should not be able to adopt the pound just because they fancy doing so - the rest of the UK is surely entitled to a say in that decision.
And although I've yet to see a clear definition of Devo-max it does sound to me to be yet another attempt by the pro-independence lobby to have their cake and eat it.
As to the different living standards in the NE of England when compared to the SE, I accept that this is unfortunate to say the least. But Westminster is not deliberately starving the NE of funds. Investment goes where it is most likely to produce a return and if investors choose to go for the SE then that's up to them. Of course government investment can be targeted towards particular areas and I hope the NE gets favourable treatment. And we should never forget that without the city of London's earnings (as the second largest money market in the world) government would have a great deal less to invest anywhere.
Of course times are hard, thanks to the financial crash and to our previous government's over-spending. But despite the pain there's actually very little real hardship with large numbers of people starving or homeless. Belts have had to be tightened, of course they have, but what do people expect having lived beyond our means for so long. And despite Osborne's austerity measures (which I fully support) we are still living beyond our means with a national debt of well over £1 trillion pounds and still rising - though not nearly as fast as it was under the last government. It's bound to hurt. And trying to balance the books cannot be done solely by everyone else paying more except, of course, we ourselves.
Enough, I'm getting off subject - and I await the explosion!
But Heidi, Mark Carney made it clear last week that any currency union would inevitably mean sacrificing an essential part of the independence that the SNP keeps banging on about. Furthermore, while I don't know what the rules will theoretically permit, I personally feel that an independent Scotland should not be able to adopt the pound just because they fancy doing so - the rest of the UK is surely entitled to a say in that decision.
And although I've yet to see a clear definition of Devo-max it does sound to me to be yet another attempt by the pro-independence lobby to have their cake and eat it.
As to the different living standards in the NE of England when compared to the SE, I accept that this is unfortunate to say the least. But Westminster is not deliberately starving the NE of funds. Investment goes where it is most likely to produce a return and if investors choose to go for the SE then that's up to them. Of course government investment can be targeted towards particular areas and I hope the NE gets favourable treatment. And we should never forget that without the city of London's earnings (as the second largest money market in the world) government would have a great deal less to invest anywhere.
Of course times are hard, thanks to the financial crash and to our previous government's over-spending. But despite the pain there's actually very little real hardship with large numbers of people starving or homeless. Belts have had to be tightened, of course they have, but what do people expect having lived beyond our means for so long. And despite Osborne's austerity measures (which I fully support) we are still living beyond our means with a national debt of well over £1 trillion pounds and still rising - though not nearly as fast as it was under the last government. It's bound to hurt. And trying to balance the books cannot be done solely by everyone else paying more except, of course, we ourselves.
Enough, I'm getting off subject - and I await the explosion!
Tony.
The reason England would have no say is, I think, because the pound is a fully convertible reserve currency. They could stop this by introducing exchange controls, but this would really mess up London's status as a financial centre. However my economics knowledge is shaky, so I wouldn't take my word at it! But I understand, for example, many countries use the dollar without US permission and it could be a similar situation for Scotland. That may seem galling for those who wish for any divorce to be acrimonious, but it seems the only way to prevent it would entail cutting off our nose to spite our face.
As for it being contrary to SNP policy, I believe the intention is to use the pound immediately following Independence Day. But to then adopt their own currency or the euro as the two economies diverge.
As for my feeling that the NE has more in common in Scotland, it is not solely based on prosperity and the feeling that the government holds the South's interests above the rest of the country. I also feel we have a lot more in common culturally and politically with Scotland. Obviously you have remembered my politics from previous threads!
As to austerity not leaving large numbers of people hungry and homeless, I would strongly disagree with that. One only has to look at the massive growth in food banks to see that people are struggling to feed themselves and homelessness and housing insecurity is on the increase.
You keep blaming the last government but the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in 13 years. I'm English Living in Scotland and I'm all for independence as are most people I know.
The thing is Tony,
The most popular option in Scotland is Devo max, which is essentially... independence but with currency union.
Most popular with whom, the politicians? The only people I know who support Devo Max are those who are generally pro-independence but not supportive enough to go the whole way. Everyone else sees it as a gateway to independence and would rather steer well clear of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthused
You keep blaming the last government but the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in 13 years.
Could potentially stop Some of the resentment, restore a sense of independence for Scotland, and also stop Scotland using UK funds to allow themselves but not any of the rest of the UK certain rights/liberties such as free uni tuition which like it or not, England having the largest population is mostly paying for without being given the opportunity to take advantage of what they're paying for.
'Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.'
['There is only one thing we say to death. Not today'.']
'We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell. Oscar Wilde
Its hard to dance with the devil on your back. Sydney Carter
