(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[badass]

Any case for a national referendum would, I suggest, lie in the concept that democracy should involve ALL the people affected, which includes the RofUK.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more with you.
The party in control of the United states of America has a substantial effect on the UK and indeed the world. However we have no right whatsoever to vote on who gets to be president.

The Scottish people have a right to self determination and if they want to be stupid enough to decide that they are better off going it alone, whether it negatively affects us or not, it is their choice.

Of course, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is there were a vote on "Do you want rid of Scotland", I would wholeheartedly support the rUK referendum and should the rUK vote that way, it would be tough luck for the Scots. I believe they wouldn't have a right to vote for it just like the rUK has no right to vote against Scottish independence.

IMNSHO

[peterb]

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more with you.

IMNSHO

Thats OK

I didn't say there was a case, I was merely postulating the grounds for which a case might be made

[HalloweenJack]

I wonder if all the voices crying referendum would go tell argentina , that the falklands have had a referendum about staying affiliated to the UK - but argentina are ignoring it anyway....


btw


http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ind...181001330.html

makes for an `interesting` read!

[Saracen]

....

I just hope things don't get too polarized for the sakes of the many English people living up here and Scots down there.
Hmmm the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards a no vote - although I do hope we gain more autonomy as I think its needed (the same could be said for many English regions as well). ....

I seem to remember a referendum in the NE of England (Prescott-driven, IIRC) about a regional assembly, and a pretty substantial rejection. Yet, how do I put this .... I suspect a common feeling in the NE would be they're not getting a fair share.

As for more devolution, I personally don't have any problem with that, in principle. Exactly what gets devolved might be trickier. Personally, I believe power should be as close to the people as possible, except where there's a convincing reason not to.

As for Scots living in rUK and non-Scots living in Scotland, that could get very tricky.

Assume, first, yes vote.

SNP projections are EU membership within 18 months. Forget, for a moment, Barroso remarks about "impossible" and just assume the 18 months is, as many believe, very optimistic indeed.

So assume, second, it takes several, say four, years. That might be a bit high, but for sake of argument.

So ..... Sept 2014 = vote. Projected independence day = Mar 2016, IIRC.

So,, on that basis, Mar 2016 to Sept 2018 represents an interval where iScotland has left the UK, and hence, the EU, but has not yet secured EU membership.

During that time, UK treaty obligations with the EU are to enforce border security on that oart of the EU external borders that fall within the UK. That means the England/Scotland border.

And that could, at least for that interval, means the UK has to, at the very keast, implement the customs union and impose non-EU trade tariffs, and possibly, we'd end up with passport control points too.

That'll put a distinct dent, in bith directions, in the border-hopping we all currently take for granted.

The only way I can think of to get round that would be for the government-to-be of iScotland to hold some kind of provisional treaty talks with the EU, bearing in mind the EU can't actually agree treaties because until iScotland actually becomes independent, I.e., not on the day of the yes vote, it isn't a sovereign state with borders. Until then, they're UK borders.

[munchie]

One more thing. Salmond reckons Westminster can't sell not having currency union to rUK business. Both the CBI and IoD have just pointed out that Salmond's "transaction costs" would be marginal compared to potential massive risk, and the uncertainty implied by that, of currency union. Those two institutions don't necessarily speak for 100% of rUK business, but they are very influential for a very large part of it.

except no one even has to sell anything. do you see any one of the 3 parties back down after saying no? that'll be them admitting they were lying and bluffing for starters.

[Saracen]

except no one even has to sell anything. do you see any one of the 3 parties back down after saying no? that'll be them admitting they were lying and bluffing for starters.

Exactly. No, I don't see any of them backing down, and for political reasons. Had any of them left wriggle room in what they said, then just maybe. But they didn't. Whoever the government is by then, they've made a very clear, categoric statement of the type that is oh-so-rare from politicians. ?Normally, they put caveats, except-fors and escape clauses into everything from their breakfast choice, upwards. But it's not even just that they so carefully nailed their position down, but that the Treasury report, and the PermSec's advice were so categorically of the opinion that such a union was not in rUKs best interest, and they published them, especially the PermSecs advice.

If they then reneged on their commitment, they'd have to explain to voters, never mind sell to business, why they were acting against advice and our interest.

My personal view is that, having been so specific, the chance of a currency union happening is, well, zero.

Hence, my view that Salmond is being downright disingenuous with the Scottish people by putting it all down to campaigning bluff.

[BobF64]

I wonder if all the voices crying referendum would go tell argentina , that the falklands have had a referendum about staying affiliated to the UK - but argentina are ignoring it anyway....

Thats because, a lot like Salmond, they are only interested in direct negotiation with the UK that results everything going their way.

Given that the Falkland Islanders have had their say, someone should return to the UN and have them update their 1965 determination and state the matter is settled by the Islanders themselves.

Of course, the reality is that Argentina will persist until their are either successful or their economy collapses again and they're forced to deal with it rather than try and ignore it.

[wasabi]

Well, I see the Scots are going to be able to issue bonds soon.

wasabi sits back with popcorn and waits for first announcement by Scottish finance minister of quantitative easing with a straight face.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...e-pension.html

What about the Pension?

[Saracen]

And now, allegedly, if you're a Scot and you get independence, your pension is at risk. The British pension fund will be broken up, and rUK get the lion's share, it seems. Well, given that rUK is, what, 90%+ of the population, so presumably has been doing 90%+ of the paying in, that seems .... reasonable. Though, it's news to ne that NI payments actually went into any "fund" that exists to be broken up. I thought it just qualified you to an entitlement, not provided funds to pay it, and that that came from future tax receiprs .... hence the pension timebomb.

Anyway, behind these assertions is one Mr Gordon Brown.

BBC link here

Mind you, I've found something, finally, I agree with the SNP about.

Mr Brown's track record means that he lacks all credibility on this subject, so it is little wonder that his speech bears little relationship with reality.

I entirely agree with the first clause, pre-comma. The second half? Dunno.

[peterb]

Well, I see the Scots are going to be able to issue bonds soon.

wasabi sits back with popcorn and waits for first announcement by Scottish finance minister of quantitative easing with a straight face.

"No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die"

[peterb]

And now, allegedly, if you're a Scot and you get independence, your pension is at risk. The British pension fund will be broken up, and rUK get the lion's share, it seems. Well, given that rUK is, what, 90%+ of the population, so presumably has been doing 90%+ of the paying in, that seems .... reasonable. Though, it's news to ne that NI payments actually went into any "fund" that exists to be broken up. I thought it just qualified you to an entitlement, not provided funds to pay it, and that that came from future tax receiprs .... hence the pension timebomb.

Anyway, behind these assertions is one Mr Gordon Brown.

BBC link here

Mind you, I've found something, finally, I agree with the SNP about.

I entirely agree with the first clause, pre-comma. The second half? Dunno.

Interesting to see Gordon Brown is still making speeches, given his reticence at appearing at Westminster

Taken from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/100...nbeath#hansard

Has spoken in 5 debates in the last year — well below average amongst MPs.
Has received answers to 24 written questions in the last year — average amongst MPs.
Replied within 2 or 3 weeks to a medium number of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2008, according to constituents.
Has voted in 13.21% of votes in this Parliament with this affiliation — well below average amongst MPs. (From Public Whip)

With regard to National Insurance...

I think NI was originally a method of funding social security benefits...

Suject to the usual Wikipedia caveats

National Insurance (NI) in the United Kingdom is a system of contributions paid by workers and employers towards the cost of certain state benefits. It was initially a contributory system of insurance against illness and unemployment, and later also provided retirement pensions and other benefits.[1] It was first introduced by the National Insurance Act 1911, expanded by the Labour government in 1948 and has been subject to numerous amendments in subsequent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

Basically another form of taxation.

However, the 90% split might be an interesting sub-debate in its own right - particularly the methodology for the calculation.

[TheAnimus]

Actually, given that there is a difference in expected live span, with Glasgow almost being in a league of it's own, Scottish state pensions must cost less to fund?

[george1979]

Actually, given that there is a difference in expected live span, with Glasgow almost being in a league of it's own, Scottish state pensions must cost less to fund?

We're considerate like that...

[BobF64]

The only way I can think of to get round that would be for the government-to-be of iScotland to hold some kind of provisional treaty talks with the EU, bearing in mind the EU can't actually agree treaties because until iScotland actually becomes independent, I.e., not on the day of the yes vote, it isn't a sovereign state with borders. Until then, they're UK borders.

I think thats where the problem is, the SNP believe they will be able to negotiate with the EU for membership before theyre actually independent, where as the EU have said they wont, but thats falling on deaf ears, the SNP is very much "la la where not listening" to anything that they dislike.

Well, I see the Scots are going to be able to issue bonds soon.

And even then theyre not happy, saying that "an independent Scotland will be able to borrow at cheaper rates", going on to quote that Switzerland, Denmark and Finland all have lower borrowing rates.
Countries that have a long established history of borrowing, rather than an unknown and unproven state that a new Scotland would be.

Id be quite prepared to believe that initially Scotland would have a fairly high rate, higher than the current UK rate, until such time as its proven itself as a capable lender and financial astute.

[Saracen]

I think thats where the problem is, the SNP believe they will be able to negotiate with the EU for membership before theyre actually independent, where as the EU have said they wont, but thats falling on deaf ears, the SNP is very much "la la where not listening" to anything that they dislike.

.....

Well, the argument in part is about quite hiw Scotland becomes a member. One argument is Article 48, by which the SNP argue it becomes a member by adapting an existing treaty. But by far the majority view, including the EU Commission in the form of it's President, and off the record, many officials, and the President of the European Council, is that it's Article 49, the normal accession route for a new member state.

Part of the argument is that at least some SNP MSP's are still referring to Scotland as a member if the EU. It is not. It is part of a state that is, that being the UK. There are two ways secession from the UK could work. In one, the rUK is the continuing state (and still a member of the EU), while iScitland becomes a new state .... and needs to join. The other is dissolution, where the UK ceases to exist, and both iScotland and rUK need to apply as new ststes. I've not seen any serious opinion that thinks the latter will apply, and certainly not that the EU would countenance the upset of rUK leaving that way, partly because they want us in, despite all the Eurosceptic hassle, and once out, there's no gyarantee we'd get back in, ir even seek to.

But either way, Scotland is out.

The question then becomes, is it possible to get back in inside the 18-month period between the referendum vote, and the date for independence? It is, perhaps, theoretically possible that if absolutely everything went absolutely smoothly, which implies all 28 member states agreeing to the SNP wishlist for membership terms, then it's tight, but theoretically possible.

Snag 1. There's no real-world chance of all 28 members simply accepting the SNP wishlist. Therefore, there needs to be negotiation. The article 48 route is where an existing state seeks treaty amendment. But Scotland isn't an existing member. So, iScotland-to-be would have to get the Westminster government to negotiate the treaty on it's behalf. And that's Snag 2.

Pre-independence, the UK government has to represent the interests of all of the UK. That includes Svotland, but also includes what will be rUK. So the UK government has to wear 3 hats.

Hat 1. Pre-independence, entire UK inc Scotland.
Hat 2. Pre-independence, what will be iScotland on independence, to negotiate what iScotland wants,
Hat 3. Pre-independence, what will be rUK, post-independence.

So we have something worthy of an Ealing comedy.

The Westminster government, under the Article 48 Route, has to ....

- go to Brussels wearing Hat , and ask for Article 48 treaty amendement.
- when they start, switch to Hat 2 and represent, fairly, iScotland-to-be.
- then switch to Hat 3, represent rUK, and potentially argue against, maybe even veto, the very position it just advocated for iScotland.

There is NO guarantee that the best interests of iScotland, which Hat 2 requires it to represent, won't be against the best interests of rUK, which Hat 3 also requires it to represent.

The rest of the Ezu could sit back and clap, as the UK government shows up, asks for talks, argues a case, rejects it, thanks everybody and goes home. Hell, you could sell tickets, and popcorn.

Which brings me to, simply as one of many examples, the acquis provisions for monetary fiscal regulation, and a stabke lender of last resort. This is a fundamental and absolutely mandatory prerequisite of membership.

So, the UK government shows up, puts the case as per SNP demands, of a sterling currency union and the BofE as lender of last resort, then turns round and points out that, post-independence, the position of rUK is that that "simply will not happen". Treaty negotiation will end right there, unless an acceptable solution can be found. Then, the SNP wishlist is "no intention" (as per Swinney) of joining the Euro, and the Maastricht requirement that new members work towards joining it.

Realistically, ANY SNP-based proposal for Article 48 treaty, even in the EU would agree to it, requires iScotland and rUK to settle a number of issues, which clearly will take negotiation, because there is absolutely no chance at all that the SNP are going to dictate 100%"of that. That would be capitulation, not negotiation.

So, inside that "very tight" 18 months, the iScotkand/rUK settlement has to be worked out before a coherent iScotland pisition could even be out to the EU. It STILL then requires all 28 members to agree, and member parliaments to ratify.

And at any point, any one of a number of issues could result in the whole thing going on hold if anything gets referred to the ECJ, whixh even under an accelerated dispisition is going to take a chunk out of that 18 months, and without acceleration, could well take 18 months or more on it's own.

In the real world, 18 months is pie in the sky, sheer fantasy.

So, given all that, ir's extremely unlikely EU membership could be agreed under art.48 inside 18 months, and if it isn't, then on independence day+1, iScotland is out of the EU, as a state in it's own right.

What appears to have confused some SNP members a disparity between the status of Scots citizens, in relation to rights, and iScotland as a state. Some rights are conferred on citizens, by the EU, as currently part of the EU. In much the same way that as a Brit, you don't surrender British citizenship by going and living in the US, even taking US citizenship, despite that requiring you to declare that you revoke such foreign citizenship. The UK stance is that if you are a citizen by birth, it cannot be taken away.

But just because citizens of iScotland have rights from the EU does not mean the iScottish state will be a member of the EU, any more than Scotland currently is a member, as claimed by one SNP MSP in committee evidence yesterday (or was it the day before?)

The SNP do have one valid point, though. It won't be Barroso or Van Rumpoy, or even the EU Commussion, that decides whether art.48 can be used or not. It will be the treaties, and possibly a judgement of the ECJ.

However, as not only current President's of EU institutions, but previous ones, including Romano Prodi, and other EU national leaders, like the Spanish PM, have said the only route in will be the normal accession process.