Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Paging all True Scottsmen ...

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Paging all True Scottsmen ...
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why now?

quote:
On Thursday, 200 company heads signed an open letter to say independence was in Scotland's "best interest."

“We are involved in business and entrepreneurship at different levels in Scotland and around the world. We believe independence is in the best interests of Scotland's economy and its people,” the letter reads.

Leading signatories are Sir Brian Souter, chairman of Stagecoach, an Australian-based transport giant,

The leading signatory for Scottish independence is an Australian megacorporation?

Wake up and smell the haggis.

[ September 10, 2014, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Scotts have long sought independence from the British crown. Maybe the UK would finally let them go without a fight. Has the UK said they will abide by the vote?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no British crown without the Scots. I think you meant English. In fact, after the '45 the Scots essentially ended up running the Empire. [/quibble].

The referendum campaign has had more than its fair share of farce. A lot of the 'no' campaigning hasn't been much more than "please don't go you'll hurt our feelings."

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only troubling thing is that those leading the separation movement are suggesting that they'd probably want to keep the Pound as their currency, which, no matter how it's implemented, leads to pathological fiscal/monetary solutions, the best case of which is that the independence is pretty much in name only and they're effectively England's economic puppet.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, they seem to be intent on using the GBP(with or without the cooperation of the Bank of England) or using the Euro. Both options seem to have signifcant pitfalls.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Llinos
New Member
Member # 6939

 - posted      Profile for Llinos         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it fascinating that so many Americans are incredibly anti Scottish independence. Of all the countries to advocate for being ruled by a distant British elite.

Would you also agree that the Irish are worse off for being independent from the UK?

(By the way, you have put an extra t in Scotsmen.)

[ September 11, 2014, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Llinos ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My title, though misspelled, did reflect my intent to call for Scotch voices. Disappointed that Jordan hadn't shown yet.

Americans probably would never have rebelled if it wasn't for particular abuses by Parliament and George III. Our reasons for cutting loose are listed in our declaration of independence along with the general statement that a people that cuts loose owes the world an explanation why.

Asking why doesn't make me anti-scotch indepemdence. Why means why. I assume you have better reasons than "because the Americans did it?"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, I think the Brits are more distant from us than from you. Last I checked you were on the same island, and unlike us, have representation.

Again, asking why =\= "incredible opposition."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Llinos
New Member
Member # 6939

 - posted      Profile for Llinos         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, I'd stop calling them 'scotch'. That's the drink. The people are Scottish.

I think the main reason why people are voting Yes (and it's currently hovering around 50/50 in the polls) is because they feel as if have little influence on central government.

Scotland has such a small population that they really can't do much to influence who gets into power. Right now, they have only one MP from the party who is in control of the government. They are around 5 million voters. The rest of the UK population is around 58 million. And Scots are pretty culturally and politically different from the rest of the UK.

Even when the party most of them vote for is in power, their vote is seldom the reason why they get in. Labour has also moved away from their socialists principles, while a lot of Scots remain staunchly socialist. They have lost what small influence they had.

Also, they have been emboldened by having their own parliament for fifteen years, but that parliament has not been given any new powers, so what they can do is limited. Westminster has suddenly offered them a few new powers this week - mostly the power to put income tax up higher inside Scotland, so that they would become uncompetitive compared to the rest of the UK.

Another reason is that the Westminster govenment is cutting money everywhere, especially in services to the poor. They have complete control of the Scottish parliament's income. It is said that Westminster give the Scots less money back than they pay in (because if the value of the oil in Scottish waters). If the Conservatives (or even Labour, as they have said they will do the same) win the next election, they could cut Scotland's income further.

Also Scots tend to be very pro-European. Europe is so unpopular in the rest of the UK, that the Conservatives have promised an In/Out referendum in 2017 if they win the next election. Even Labour might do it. The rest of the UK would vote to leave, and the Scots would be taken out of Europe whether they wanted it or not.

Also, a lot of people are just sick of the status quo, the foreign wars they never voted for, the fact that Scottish industry was pretty much destroyed but Margaret Thatcher's policies and many communities have never recovered.

Those are just a few of the reasons I have heard for voting Yes. There is also a long list of reasons to vote No. It is a good idea to remember that the British press is almost entirely based in London even the 'Manchester' Guardian, so they represent the establishment view. Even the 'Scottish' papers are almost all owned by international conglomerates. So the reporting of the campaign has been found to be pretty biased towards the establishment view. I have no idea whether the BBC really is biased against independence, but the Conservatives frequently threaten to cut their budget, so they can't really rebel against the government line.

At the moment, the government is running scared and they are spinning everything very negative. There is a reason why the Anti-Independence campaign nicknamed itself 'Project Fear'. Their official name is 'Better Together'.

What it is definitely not about is tartan, shortbread or Braveheart.

TL:DR There are lots of reasons.

[ September 11, 2014, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Llinos ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What it is definitely not about is tartan, shortbread or Braveheart.
But you know that someone, sometime, will still paint his face blue and yell "Freeeeedooooom!"

It's just too hard to resist... [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah. Oil. Say no more. That would do it. That, and pent up frury with those who can't remember that there's one T in Scotsman and two ts in Scottish. Not to mention the UK putting Mel Gibson on the no fly list. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Scotland has oil, then it can support itself, so cool.

It Ut can muster up a supermajority, I'll support it. It would be a good example to China etc that the modern world does these things peacefully.

OTOH, I'm not fond of split-ups on a bare majority. A secession that leaves 49% of Scots unhappy would be more trouble than it's worth.

If the indies achieve a mere 51%, hopefully the Brits will talk out of it with more autonomy, a greater share of oil profits going to the Scotland govt to spend, etc.

[ September 11, 2014, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Llinos, please feel free to link us to any source you think tells a fairer version of the story. I follow BBC (while American, I was British-educated). I don't think that most Americans are even aware that Scotland might seceed.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Scots have always been culturally distinct from the English, and far more Continental in outlook than really makes sense on the face of it.

When the English had the military superpower and had in recent historical memory utterly subjugated the Scottish, it made sense to table the drive towards independence. (I am inclined to say, similar to how the South will likely not rise again for at least another hundred years - similarities include how many people in the American South were and are of Scottish descent, but I am not sure that is relevant.)

My dad likes to tell people about how the public mailboxes in most of Britain have the "EIIR" mark on them for Elizabeth Regina II. But in Scotland, people kept blowing up and otherwise vandalizing the boxes, because she is only the first Elizabeth of Scotland. So now in Scotland it just says Royal Mail.

So I am not surprised by any renewed bid for independence.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Scottish vote actually does have an impact on who gets into power in westminster, in so far as without the 40 or so Scottish labour MPs, labour will have a much harder job getting a majority. Which means they have to move to the right to appeal to more of the middle ground voters, most likely on the current bugbears of immigration and EU membership. I don't see this as being good for the UK, so for purely selfish reasons I'd rather the Scots didn't vote yes. I don't get a vote of course.

Each Scottish constituency has just as much influence as each English or Welsh one. It seems slightly convoluted to lump all the Scottish constituencies together and then say there are few elections where they would have made a difference to who won. You could make the same argument for just about any other similar-sized group of constituencies. So if it is true to say that the Scots have lost their influence over Westminster politics, then it seems just as true to say the same for Yorkshire, or the West Country, or Wales, or the north-east.

BTW it is inevitably that the "better together" campaign is going to be negative. When one side is campaigning for change, and the other is campaigning against change, then it seems pretty inevitable that the focus for one camp is going to be how much better everything will be after a change, and the other camp will focus on how much worse everything will be. It is hard to put the 'no' campaign positively; you can't wax lyrical about the utopia of the status quo when everyone is already living in it.

If the situation were reversed, with Scotland voting to join the UK, it is 100% certain that the pro-union camp would be all positive and full of fluffy messages about the utopia awaiting once they joined, while the anti-union camp would be all about all the things Scotland would lose by joining the union.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have carried out an extensive poll of a couple of English people and the general tone is indifference to what the Scots decide. Either way the vote goes the English will get the blame. As the new Doctor Who said “I’ve gone Scottish, it’s good. I can really complain about things now … I probably blame the English”.

The Union was first proposed by a Scottish King but it took a Gunpowder Plot to dispel him, and his Scottish cronies, of that notion. When the Scottish Parliament, or a Parcel of Rogues as they’re known in Scotland, voted to join in a Union Scotland was bankrupt. They still keep the chest in Edinburgh that the English sent, full then of money, to bail them out. At any time in the 300 years of the Union the Scots could have voted to leave. It would be my opinion that if it wasn’t for North Sea Oil there wouldn’t be a referendum now taking place.

If the Scots do break up the Union I hope they take Northern Ireland with them as it was largely their King’s idea and peopled by Scots. Of course, as with most things Scottish, they got the English to pay for it.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know very little about this. I'm curious how many Scots care?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm dismayed that you'd be so indifferent to what the people of Northern Ireland want. Self determination is about allowing the people to choose, not making elitist snap decisions based on some narrow view of history, forcing people out of one nationality and into another based on their ancestors.


quote:


If the Scots do break up the Union I hope they take Northern Ireland with them as it was largely their King’s idea and peopled by Scots. Of course, as with most things Scottish, they got the English to pay for it. [/qb]

I agree that the referendum would not be taking place without the oil.

[ September 12, 2014, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't sound indifferent, Athelstan.

vulture, I think the pro-independence side believes that Scottish interests are sufficiently divergent from England's that they can't effectively influence policy. Other constituencies in England (I don't know about Wales) might be able to group together to form a useful caucus. They think Westminister makes decisions based on England's needs (especially London) without regard for what would help Scotland.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm dismayed that you'd be so indifferent to what the people of Northern Ireland want. Self determination is about allowing the people to choose, not making elitist snap decisions based on some narrow view of history, forcing people out of one nationality and into another based on their ancestors.


Not sure what you’re talking about. I have made no mention of changing anyone’s identity. Surely the fact that there is a Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland would indicate links with Northern Ireland already exist. The Nationalists in Northern Ireland support the Yes campaign in Scotland.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have the people of Northern Ireland predominantly asked for independence from g.b? Isn't that the salient question?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like the vote will be tight, [ulr=http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/scotland-independence-referendum/]although it may have already been decided.[/url]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Recent polls have showed a tightening between “no” and “yes.” On average, between January and Aug. 25 (when a debate on independence was televised), the “no” vote has led by 11 percentage points. In the six major polls since then, “no” has been ahead by just 4 points.

But speeches won’t make any difference to the thousands of people who have voted by mail in the past two weeks. Those “postal ballot” voters have often been neglected in the news media coverage describing the “surge,” the “dramatic swing” or the “rapid shift” toward a “yes” vote for independence.

Mail-in ballots were sent to voters starting Aug. 26. Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland and leader of the independence campaign, has claimed that “hundreds of thousands” of ballots have been returned.

Holy crap. the matter is close enough to be determined by mail-in ballots? What a mess. The only way they could make things worse would be send the ballots to Florida for processing. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but then Britain's high court would overturn the results because of inconsistent counting and do whatever the Conservatives want. [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Athelstan:

If the Scots do break up the Union I hope they take Northern Ireland with them as it was largely their King’s idea and peopled by Scots. Of course, as with most things Scottish, they got the English to pay for it.

The Orange order in Northern Ireland is very much in the anti-independence for Scotland camp (they've been quite visible at the pro-union rallies this weekend). Not surprising really, since the big political divide in NI is precisely over remaining part of the UK vs rejoining with the Republic of Ireland. Conversely I'd have thought the Republicans of NI would be pro Scottish independent for the precedent it would set for the breakup of the union and Northern Ireland becoming part of the Irish Republic.

I don't think the religious affiliation is going to come in to it much; Scottish orange lodge members or Scottish catholics are going to vote for their own reasons, and the reasons for Irish catholics or protestants to be for one side or the other aren't going to be shared by their Scottish co-religionists.

The opinion polls aren't much use, as the pollsters freely admit. The problem is that since this is a one-off event, there are no prior elections to use to allow them to correct for the biases inherent in the process. There is also the 'spiral of silence' effect (which was largely blamed for the polls predicting the 1992 UK election so badly, where the conservatives were perceived as being 'nasty' so conservative voters were more likely to say they were undecided when asked). The pro-independence side is very loud and triumpahlist (sorry if that sounds like a criticism; it's not meant to be but I can't think of a better word for it at the moment), which has a somewhat cowing effect on the pro-union side and tends to make them quiter, but doesn't change their voting intentions.

Basically, the pollsters have said they'd not be surprised to be out by 10 points either way, and as far as they are concerned the best polling can hope to achieve is to 'dodge a bullet' by not being too badly wrong.

About the only think that can be said with any certainty is that the 'yes' camp has gained ground relative to the 'no' camp in recent weeks, although no-one know who has the advantage right now.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the way I understand it, the Scots get a lot more money FROM the rest of the Union then they give TO it. In this, they're a lot like your typical Southern/conservative state in the US. The UK financial ministers have also been pretty clear that if Scotland votes for independence, then they're not going to be using the British pound as their currency. So far, the Yes campaign's response to that has been to call it fear mongering, and to say that it won't really happen.

The thing is, if Scotland becomes independent, then it's no longer in the EU, so it can't even fall back on the Euro. An application to join the EU would take years, and would need the approval of EVERY other member of the EU. That's not something I see happening any time soon, considering just how many other European countries have sections of their population that might look to Scotland as a positive example.

So...yes, Scotland will have quite a bit of natural gas and oil, but they might well have to start off with a new currency. For one day the polling was showing the Yes campaign with a lead, this past week, and as soon as that came out stocks of companies based in Scotland declined sharply. Not only that, but the heads of several of those companies have indicated that they would have to move out of Scotland if it became independent...including the Royal Bank of Scotland.

I'll also point out that the Scots have it pretty damned good. They not only have their own parliament, but they get to vote on English laws as well. What this means is that laws come up for a vote in the English parliament that will only affect English people, and the Scottish MP's get to vote on them. That, to me, is incredibly unfair, and yet that's how the system is right now.

They also, to a pretty big extent, get to choose their own social funding. For example, in England, there is a fixed cost to pay for each prescription that you pick up from the chemist. Students are also expected to pay for university through loans, grants, etc, largely like in the US. And yet, in Wales, prescriptions are free, and in Scotland, students get to attend university free of charge.

The irony here is that there are a lot of Scots who are either in college or about to attend it in a year or two, will think it's cool to stick it to the man and vote for independence. (The voting age for the referendum is 16.) And yet the only reason that Scotland can afford to have that system for their students is because of the money they receive from England, Wales, and NI. By voting to leave the Union, those students may well be voting away their free educations, and I have a feeling that many of them don't realize that. Athelstan's comment about England paying for everything in Scotland may have sounded snide, but it's not too far off from the truth.

If Scotland wants to vote for independence, well, that's their choice. I just hope if that's the case that the rest of the UK gives them what they want, in full. A portion of military equipment proportional to their very small population, no more using the UK currency and all of the economic problems that that will bring, their share of the national debt, and finally a place outside of the EU and it's trade treaties, protections, and open borders, with a long application process ahead of them.

The Yes campaign's utopia is a vision of a country that isn't really independent, but more like a college student living in his parent's house and visiting every weekend to do his laundry and eat some proper meals.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The UK financial ministers have also been pretty clear that if Scotland votes for independence, then they're not going to be using the British pound as their currency.
How is the UK planning to prevent it? Lots of countries are using currencies they don't issue, e.g. Montenegro and Kosovo both use the Euro. Ecuador uses the US dollar.

Scottish people have lots of GBP, so they will keep using these. The UK is not going to invade Scotland to take the GBP away from the Scots.

quote:
That's not something I see happening any time soon, considering just how many other European countries have sections of their population that might look to Scotland as a positive example
Some countries like Spain are making noises *now*, because they indeed don't want Scotland to secede and inspire others.

But if Scotland does secede anyway, any country that objects to Scotland entering the EU, if UK itself doesn't object, would just look like a complete ass. Are they gonna pretend that UK has a claim on Scotland, when UK itself doesn't argue for such a claim? I doubt it.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
From the way I understand it, the Scots get a lot more money FROM the rest of the Union then they give TO it.

That is one of those highly debatable figures, and whether Scotland gets disproportionate financial support from the rest of the UK, or whether it pays more than its per capita share, depends greatly on the exact definitions you use. I don't think there is an unambiguous answer, and certainly not one that can be universally agreed to be applicable to the state post-independence.

Total per capita government spending in Scotland is certainly above the UK average. But so are per capita tax receipts.

North Sea oil is also a big wild card in this. Currently north sea oil revenue isn't considered as part of the revenue raised by Scotland, it just goes to the treasury. Something like 84% of north sea oil revenue would go to Scotland based on the fraction of oil that would be considered to be within Scotland's claim.

An analysis of figures for 2012/3 showed that Scotland received 9.3% of total government spending that year (compared with having 8.3% of the UK population). At the same time, if 84% of north sea oil receipts are allocated to Scotland (again, based on the fraction of oil fields in Scotlands territory) then Scotland raised 9.1% of total treasury revenue. That's pretty close to being equal. (Without oil, Scotland raises 8.2% of treasury revenue, so it would be a net benefitter from sharing tax with the rest of the UK).

Future oil revenues are of course very difficult to predict.

The effects of such things as moving government funding of shipyards building ships for the British navy out of Scotland are also debatable.

quote:

Aris Katsaris wrote:
Scottish people have lots of GBP, so they will keep using these. The UK is not going to invade Scotland to take the GBP away from the Scots.

The UK can't stop Scotland form using GBP. But the point is that the bank of England is then under absolutely no obligation to pay any attention to what would be good for Scotland when setting monetary policy. And Scotland then doesn't have the freedom that goes with control of a currency when it comes to fiscal policy. As we all know, quantative easing (i.e. printing money) has been a big thing in the recent past, and tools like that will be taken out of Scotlands hands if it uses UK currency. And government bailouts of troubled banks - again not unknown in recent history -

And if the point of independence is largely to gain greater control over things currently decided by Westminster, abandoning any influence over something as important as the currency you are going to use is rather counter-intuitive.

(In the utopia promised by the SNP of course there is a currency union between Scotland and the UK where Scotland maintains its influence on fiscal policy and is still supported by the bank of England reserves).

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris

What Vulture said regarding the currency, with this added. Scotland might be able to keep the GBP that they have, but am I mistaken in believing that they won't be able to make more? That, at some point, if they're sending the GPB that they have to other countries, that they'll simply run out of it unless the UK gives them more?

Also, is it true that Greece has blocked the Republic of Macedonia's admission to the EU, because they don't like their name? If Greece is willing to do something that petty, why in the world do you think that other countries wouldn't sink so low? Spain would very much have something to gain by blocking Scotland from joining the EU; they could point it out to their own separatists as an example of what can happen to them. That if they should secede, they would lose the benefits of EU membership.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That, at some point, if they're sending the GPB that they have to other countries, that they'll simply run out of it unless the UK gives them more?
There'd be a lot of trade with the UK, I'm sure. Exporting stuff, getting money in return, so forth.

quote:
Also, is it true that Greece has blocked the Republic of Macedonia's admission to the EU, because they don't like their name? If Greece is willing to do something that petty, why in the world do you think that other countries wouldn't sink so low?
It was about its admission to NATO, not the EU -- but the point is that it was Greece that blocked Macedonia for behavior that aggravated Macedonia, not some other country on Greece's behalf. The Greek people were (stupidly, villainously) proud of the Greek government's action of vetoing Macedonia's NATO membership.

Keep in mind that every nation uses up political capital whenever it vetoes something that the other countries want. Do you think that the Spanish people will applaud Spain's veto enough, that it would outweigh the political capital lost by Spain? Again, I doubt it.

"We're stopping Skopje from joining NATO to show them they can't go around stealing our Macedonia's name" *sounds* morally justifiable, a show of strength against a supposed villain to make a nation proud. "We're stopping Scotland from joining EU to show Catalan they'll hurt if they leave us" sounds *bad* -- it sounds like bullying.

Greece's actions were bullying too of course, but it was bullying that it could sell to the Greek public and get applause for it.

---

As a sidenote, I'm not actually in favor of Scotland's independence -- in favor of the Scottish people's *right* to independence, but not the independence itself. I'm mostly neutral about that (and leaning to "no" under the present conditions of Russian aggression against Europe).

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the Scots apparently have decided to stay in the Union, 55% to 45%.

But Russian isn't happy about it... [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, the Scots apparently have decided to stay in the Union, 55% to 45%.
Or, as the leader of the Yes coalition put it, by a narrow margin. Here in the colonies we would say they lost by a thumping margin, took a drubbing, got clobbered.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Well, the Scots apparently have decided to stay in the Union, 55% to 45%.

But Russian isn't happy about it... [Roll Eyes]

Putin thinks it can't be a valid referendum unless you invade before hand.

Actually the only thing I was 100% sure of coming in to this vote that Putin was going to claim that it was rigged if the unionists won.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1