Jump to content

Scottish Independence - Game Over.


Dave225

Recommended Posts

Well that’s it. Game Over as they say, or at least any chance of Scotland going it alone.

 

According to G Osborne today, and backed to the hilt by Labour’s Balls and the Libbies, Alexander, the ‘UK’ (like that word) has no intention of having any currency union with an independent Scotland. So, that is it we might as well all go home and live happily ever after as Westminster has told us ‘naughty children’ that Mummy says ‘No’. The SNP can now pack all their toys away and basically ask Westminster what they are allowed to do next.

 

Ok, things are not quite as dramatic as that but I suspect we up here get the drift. First we had Cameron smooching us to be friends and lovers for ever and now we have the nasty man telling us that we are all going to Hell in a handcart if we decide to oppose Westminster. He has implied that if we leave all pensions will be stopped, we will be starved of food and supplies, we will be bankrupt and any other evil he can think of, will befall us. And yes, that is having an effect. If you had paid all your working life for a State Pension and then be told that you will not get it if you do not do as you are told, then yes, people will vote ‘no’ for fear. The fact that it is illegal of course does not convince anyone, especially elderly people. It is always good for business to prey on the fears of the elderly. Of course the downside of that argument is that even after we have all voted ‘no’ there will always be the smell that we were cheated and the griping will never stop. What he could have said was that yes, there were very significant difficulties but if the people of Scotland decided to vote ‘yes’, then both governments would work for a solution that would benefit both countries. Let the Scots hang themselves and then come to the rescue with strings attached.

 

I mentioned the ‘UK’ as a nice word and what I meant was that if we vote ‘yes’ the UK would basically cease to exist as it was defined as the ‘Act of Union’ between Scotland and England in 1707. I do not think Northern Ireland is a kingdom and dare I suggest Wales lost all claim to that a very long time ago. So we are not leaving the ’UK’ basically we are dissolving the UK so you would at least have the pleasure of being known as English down south instead of merely British or UK citizens. Surely that is better for you??

 

There are a lot of issues that Osborne and to some extent the SNP have not mentioned and yes, there will be no doubt be problems but threatening Scots is something even Osborne with wallpaper paste in his ears should know from history, does not work. We are far more open to bribery.

 

Now, that does not mean to say I think we will all now decide to vote yes, just to scunner the English although there is that possibility but as I mentioned above any ‘no’ vote will now be clouded in suspicion. After all, there is history of the Westminster Government moving goalposts in Referendums by withholding accurate information. Of course Balls does not want to see us leave as this would mean that Labour would never be in power in England and of course the Libbies do not want it either as they are desperate to stay anywhere near power. Cameron does not want it as he does not wish to be known as the PM who ‘lost’ the UK, but secretly I wonder what he thinks, after all then he would run England. 62 MP’s is a big movement either way.

 

All I can say is I do not know who was advising Osborne but they have made a bad situation a whole lot worse. After all even his Governor of the B of E did not make such distinct statements and one would expect him to know something about money matters.

 

Things are getting interesting. After all the EU and UN were very quick to recognise Kosovo when it broke away from nasty Serbia, maybe we are next. At least we could cut employment by building customs posts along the border and re building Hadrian's Wall. And just think of the opportunities for cross border rustling. Anyone need a sheep or 2?? Want to buy a gallon of oil cheap cheap??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If the Scots are a) going to vote for independence and b) not going o be allowed to use the £ apart from on an unofficial basis - I would suggest they look at what two things Ireland did a while back and learn from both of them.

 

1 Ireland linked its currency to the Euro and that was a big mistake - If Scotland wants true independence then they should have their own currency and peg it to what the hell they like.

 

2 Ireland opened the Dublin International Financial Services centre - which has been a huge success even despite the host countries link to the Euro.

 

Scotland has a huge and well founded reputation in Finance - from my point of view having another International Finance Centre based in Scotland would be great.

 

We use Dublin and Luxembourg a lot because they are Independent EU States and so Investors benefit from far better Investor Protection legislation than you get if you use the Channel Islands or the IoM who are UK Dependent States and so Investors have little recourse to UK Investor Protection AND no recourse whatsoever to EU Investor Protection.

 

If Scotland became an alternative to Dublin or Luxembourg - I doubt it would matter what currency it pegged its own to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2014-02-13 7:45 PM

 

At least we could cut employment by building customs posts along the border and re building Hadrian's Wall. And just think of the opportunities for cross border rustling.

 

But Hadrian's wall does not run along the current Scottish border. You are moving south already and taking over Geordie land.

 

You make some interesting points , especially about the pension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AliB - 2014-02-14 11:04 AM

 

Dave225 - 2014-02-13 7:45 PM

 

At least we could cut employment by building customs posts along the border and re building Hadrian's Wall. And just think of the opportunities for cross border rustling.

 

But Hadrian's wall does not run along the current Scottish border. You are moving south already and taking over Geordie land.

 

You make some interesting points , especially about the pension.

 

Well - of course State pensions would stop. The State pension is a money in money out system. So wherever you live in the UK at present, the taxes we all pay IN help to Pay OUT the OAP and S2P.

 

So if Scotland takes the Independent route, then Scottish taxpayer, paying taxes to a Scottish Government can only have an OAP - S2P linked to the tax take in Scotland.

 

There will be some cross over of course - just as we can all have some State Pension benefit accrued from working in other countries then so too a Scottish person will be able to accrue pension benefit in England and Wales - but that would be future benefit.

 

Scotland would have to tax its nationals sufficiently to pay all of its own State pensions in payment and will not be able to rely on the "smoothing" effect of Scotland being part of the UK where all are taxes are pooled and payable out across the Union.

 

Break that Union and State Pension payments is just one benefit Scotland will be solely responsible for for its citizens.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all have to ignore the economic arguments, for the simple reason that nobody, not Cameron or Osborne, not Salmon or Swinney, not Carney, nobody has any idea what would actually happen post independence.

Plus, for every 100 economists Cameron gets to say Scotland would suffer, Salmond can get another 100 to say Scotland would prosper.

A YES vote is an economic leap in the dark. In itself however, that's no reason to vote no!

 

For me, it's a philosophical decision. (actually, I'm not sure philosophical is the right word, you decide)

The world is getting smaller and smaller. We need to be working together more, breaking down barriers, not creating divisions where they don't already exist.

There is a wee bit of devil in me that says "go on, give it a go, see what happens", but as long as I can control him, it'll be a vote for the union from me. (!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I say firstly a little bit of a 'thank you' I was fully expecting to be pilloried for the Post.

 

However, as a diplomatic exercise i feel that Osborne has put his size 10's fully in it. Maybe he thinks this will kill off any further discussion but I suspect he is mistaken.

 

However, some points come to mind. Can anyone please tell me, and the rest of the Uk, just what it is that is terrifying the Westminster establishment so much that they will do anything to scupper us breaking up the UK. If, as everyone tells us, we will be a basket case, then one would have assumed that Westminster would be delighted to see us go. But no, they are desperate for us to stay, so what are they hiding from us?? After all Osborne and Balls hate each others guts so for them to unite in this way means they are both scared of something. Will it be like last time when only after Westminster changed the goalposts did we find out they had lied through their teeth about Oil and skewered the outcome?

 

However, I do wonder if they have both looked ahead and seen that after the UK break up, England would lose about 30% of the land mass it currently controls full of resources it desperately needs. Plus it will become the most densely populated place on earth with little to sustain it. They also know that London and the South East is sucking the life blood from the rest of England and sooner or later that will blow up with northerly regions demanding to split. However, I am merely a citizen and do not fully undertsand these matters.

 

Getting back to Osborne's speech I do feel that he would have been far better received if he had re- phased things along the lines of:

 

'I recognise that if Scotland removes it self from the UK in a recognised valid referendum, there will be a large number of problems to resolve. However, in the interests of both countries I would be recommending a transitional period of say 5 years to allow all relevant organisations such as pensions etc to be transferred with as little inconvenience to taxpayers on both sides. This would also allow a fair distribution of assets and liabilities to be agreed. I would therefore allow the B of E to maintain its current position during the transition period, to avoid spooking the markets and give the new State time to establish itself. If any further funding was requested by Scotland then this would be supplied at agreed rates and terms. After this period of transition either Scotland would form its own currency, join the Euro or we would be happy to agree a Federation between our 2 nations benefitting both sides. This would include mutually beneficial energy supplies and defence agreements. Of course if Scotland subsequently elected to join the Schengen Agreement and England did not, then appropriate border controls would need to be installed. Our Policy is to ensure the least instability and the maximum prosperity for both nations to last for many years to come.'

 

Now do you not think that would have been a far better statement than 'if you do not do as we say, we are taking the ball home'? By the way, he does not actually own the ball, we both do. Ironically all the main Press outlets throughout Europe have reported his speech as 'threatening' and even the Canadians have expressed concern at the ';Good Cop, bad cop' routine being played by Cameron and Osborne.

 

Now what the SNP will do combat this I do not know, but I am sure that the situation would have been raised at some stage. I do suspect they would not believe Osborne would be so rigid even knowing it could adversely affect his side as well, so again...what do they know that they will not tell us?

 

By the way, I am not a rabid nationalist but like all citizens of these nations, I am as patriotic as the next man and object to being bullied. I also note that in the Press today, do not know if it was reported in England, but evidently a Downing Street source has stated that even if we vote 'Yes' Westminster may not accept the result unless we agree to all the conditions that Westminster decides to impose. One does wonder where these people are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2014-02-14 11:43 AM

 

I do sometimes wonder if the Westminster Establishment have ever stopped to wonder why so many Scots want to leave.

 

 

 

:-|

 

I too..... sometimes wonder why so many English want the Scots to leave :D ..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, these are the main points I seem to have heard.

England would not accept an economic union vis a vis the pound where scotland set it's own budget.

Scotland would have no control over the interest rate.

Scotland would have no responsibility for debts.

 

forgive me if I'm wrong, but

To an extent Scotland sets it's own budget, scottish banks even print their own notes.

Scotland (or England) has no control over interest rates, they are set by Bank of England.

I'm not sure Scotland is accepting any responsibility for debts at moment.

 

Strikes me as a good argument for dissolving the union.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikey - 2014-02-14 9:04 PM

 

latest news is that Alex Salmon is being invited to meet with Didier Burkhalter. He is the President of Switzerland. could be part of Plan "B"?

 

That may be interesting if the EU decided to kick Switzerland's a*se for holding a referendum over immigration.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2014-02-14 8:09 PM

 

May I say firstly a little bit of a 'thank you' I was fully expecting to be pilloried for the Post.

 

However, as a diplomatic exercise i feel that Osborne has put his size 10's fully in it. Maybe he thinks this will kill off any further discussion but I suspect he is mistaken.

 

However, some points come to mind. Can anyone please tell me, and the rest of the Uk, just what it is that is terrifying the Westminster establishment so much that they will do anything to scupper us breaking up the UK. If, as everyone tells us, we will be a basket case, then one would have assumed that Westminster would be delighted to see us go. But no, they are desperate for us to stay, so what are they hiding from us?? After all Osborne and Balls hate each others guts so for them to unite in this way means they are both scared of something. Will it be like last time when only after Westminster changed the goalposts did we find out they had lied through their teeth about Oil and skewered the outcome?

 

However, I do wonder if they have both looked ahead and seen that after the UK break up, England would lose about 30% of the land mass it currently controls full of resources it desperately needs. Plus it will become the most densely populated place on earth with little to sustain it. They also know that London and the South East is sucking the life blood from the rest of England and sooner or later that will blow up with northerly regions demanding to split. However, I am merely a citizen and do not fully undertsand these matters.

 

Getting back to Osborne's speech I do feel that he would have been far better received if he had re- phased things along the lines of:

 

'I recognise that if Scotland removes it self from the UK in a recognised valid referendum, there will be a large number of problems to resolve. However, in the interests of both countries I would be recommending a transitional period of say 5 years to allow all relevant organisations such as pensions etc to be transferred with as little inconvenience to taxpayers on both sides. This would also allow a fair distribution of assets and liabilities to be agreed. I would therefore allow the B of E to maintain its current position during the transition period, to avoid spooking the markets and give the new State time to establish itself. If any further funding was requested by Scotland then this would be supplied at agreed rates and terms. After this period of transition either Scotland would form its own currency, join the Euro or we would be happy to agree a Federation between our 2 nations benefitting both sides. This would include mutually beneficial energy supplies and defence agreements. Of course if Scotland subsequently elected to join the Schengen Agreement and England did not, then appropriate border controls would need to be installed. Our Policy is to ensure the least instability and the maximum prosperity for both nations to last for many years to come.'

 

Now do you not think that would have been a far better statement than 'if you do not do as we say, we are taking the ball home'? By the way, he does not actually own the ball, we both do. Ironically all the main Press outlets throughout Europe have reported his speech as 'threatening' and even the Canadians have expressed concern at the ';Good Cop, bad cop' routine being played by Cameron and Osborne.

 

Now what the SNP will do combat this I do not know, but I am sure that the situation would have been raised at some stage. I do suspect they would not believe Osborne would be so rigid even knowing it could adversely affect his side as well, so again...what do they know that they will not tell us?

 

By the way, I am not a rabid nationalist but like all citizens of these nations, I am as patriotic as the next man and object to being bullied. I also note that in the Press today, do not know if it was reported in England, but evidently a Downing Street source has stated that even if we vote 'Yes' Westminster may not accept the result unless we agree to all the conditions that Westminster decides to impose. One does wonder where these people are coming from.

 

Hi Dave - One thing I would suggest be considered by all sides of the debate is that some England Wales based political parties - and by that I mean the Conservatives particularly and the emergent UKIP most likely would benefit hugely in a reduced English Welsh parliament.

 

I would also suggest that based on a straw pole of most of my work colleagues and "mates down the pub" should the referendum ever be extended to England (I cannot speak for Wales - and only a bit of England to be fair :-S ) then Scottish Independence would be in the bag - regardless of those "North of the border want it or not 8-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CliveH - 2014-02-14 9:47 PM

 

 

I would also suggest that based on a straw pole of most of my work colleagues and "mates down the pub" should the referendum ever be extended to England (I cannot speak for Wales - and only a bit of England to be fair :-S ) then Scottish Independence would be in the bag - regardless of those "North of the border want it or not 8-)

 

 

 

I suspect that their MP's can vote on English issues, and we can't meddle in theirs might have something to do with it Clive ;-) ................along with daylight saving of course >:-) ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pampam - 2014-02-15 5:23 AM

 

Will we need a passport to visit when Scotland is independent? Pp

 

 

IF they made a success of independence up there, a lot of English may want to emigrate.

 

( Oh no - hang on a minute - I've just remembered what their climate is like )

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more you look at it the more things there are to wonder about?

 

Access by either 'nationality' to each other's NHS and the resultant scope for health tourism if one becomes better or worse than t'other?

 

Vehicle registration numbers, and driving licenses and their control by the DVLA?

 

Perhaps as seems likely the fishy duo would want to increase Scottish benefits above the UK levels Scotland could be a new favourite for economic migrants - that would be good for us!

 

Personally I would prefer that Scotland remains in the union but it does need to be on a level playing field with Scottish MPs only allowed to sit and vote in the Scottish parliament as are the English MPs only allowed in Westminster, and if a self governing but non independent Scotland wants extra benefits for it's citizens then the Scottish people should be taxed to pay for them and not the rest of the UK? How hard can that be?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Scots would still be able to use the £ Sterling (though it may have to be re-named - any offers? :-)) but I am heartily relieved that all UK parties are saying no to a currency union, for all the reasons mentioned, and a few more. Scotland has earned a somewhat unflattering reputation for its financial management in recent years, tending to over-reach itself hugely in apparent pursuit of reputational glory, only to crash spectacularly. It is not just the banks, Holyrood House was allowed to go way over budget, and that cost was not borne by the Scots alone. So, use the £ yes, but currency union no.

 

Scotland has a population of only 5.2 million, (a little smaller that the West Midlands conurbation), 70% of whom live in the Central Belt. (Switzerland, for comparison, is about 7.7 million, about the same size as Greater London.) To complete the Great Britain set, Wales' population is approximately 3.0 million, England is 56 million. So, 90-10 in favour of the rest. Some currency union!

 

Scotland has a large fiscal deficit that is presently barely balanced by "its" oil and gas revenues. Those revenues are dwindling assets, so it will continue to need to borrow in years ahead, or it will have to rein-in its spending which, per capita, exceeds that of the UK. Not encouraging for lenders. Its banking sector is unsustainably large, so the banks would have to be broken up in some way, and the present outstanding bail-out debt re-allocated. These and other economic factors would inevitably create cross border strains that, IMO, mean any kind of currency union likely to be acceptable to Scotland would not be acceptable to the rest of the UK, and vice versa. Not a world I would want to occupy.

 

What Salmond seems to forget is that our currency, and the UK, are shared things. They do not belong to Scotland, England, Wales, or Northern Ireland, alone. Scottish independence is something that would affect us all, and should be negotiated with us all, to our mutual satsfaction. In that context this referendum on independence is a complete fool's errand. If there is to be a break-up of the UK, it must be with the conscious and informed agreement of the UK, not of Scotland alone. There is an arrogance in the present independence proposal that I find deeply offencive. Sorry guys, but that is just the way it affects me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree Brian........I consider a referendum UK wide should be run because it is not just Scotland but the UK as a whole that will be affected by the 'split' if it comes about.

 

I think Salmond is simply on an ego trip, wanting to go down in History as the restorer of Scottish Independence.   'Mel Gibson' he isn't.

 

As for a currency maybe it should be called 'The Jock' with '100 Hagis' to the Jock. :-D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RogerC - 2014-02-15 5:12 PMAs for a currency maybe it should be called 'The Jock' with '100 Hagis' to the Jock. :-D

Or maybe the 'Bagpipe' - a discordance that goes way beyond it's size and it's full of wind, with 100 'Midgies' to the 'Bagpipe' - small, worthless and very irritating!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2014-02-15 5:45 PM
RogerC - 2014-02-15 5:12 PMAs for a currency maybe it should be called 'The Jock' with '100 Hagis' to the Jock. :-D

Or maybe the 'Bagpipe' - a discordance that goes way beyond it's size and it's full of wind, with 100 'Midgies' to the 'Bagpipe' - small, worthless and very irritating!

 

Very good............. :-D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...