(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[Splash]

I just hope that whatever the result there's a good turnout. It's too big a decision to be left to a vote where only 2/3 of those who can vote do so *especially* if it's to be as tight as the polls suggest (ie the votes of 1/3 of the populace making a decision as to whether to stay in or leave the union).

That said: I'll be glad when it's dealt with. I've a lot of friends north of the border and it's getting dull having them drill facts and opinions about something that I can make no impact on whenever we chat. My Twitter feed is horrendous at present...

[Apex]

However Scotland votes this won't be the end of it from Mr Salmond.

Scotland Votes Yes and he will be crowing from the roof tops till the end but will still continue to blame the 'English' for all their ills that may befall them

Scotland Votes No....Oh god no; i dread to think what excuse he will come up for this.

For me its simple, Scotland goes independent, has to join the EU and has to use the euro - which Spain from my basic understanding will veto so they are back square one.......all alone.

[Andy3536]

What i don't understand in all this, is why is it that no one from Scotland seems to be talking about EU membership (other than talking about taking/not taking the Euro)The fact that Salmond seems to want into the EU, will try and get in as soon as the votes over, and has no intention of giving Scotland a vote on entry into the EU...
Surely if Scotland want independace, a vote on whether to hand over so many powers to Brussels would be deemed important would it not???
Seems bizare to me. At the moment a vote for independance means being forced into the EU and being forced by the EU to take the Euro. (if the member states vote them in) Surely what should happen is if the vote is for independance, it should trigger another vote on EU membership??? Is it just those south of the border that are more anti EU???
The importance in all this though is democracy, Scotland want the vote. They should have the vote.
I just hope the rest of us end up with a vote on EU membership.

[ik9000]

I'm inclined to pretty much agree with that, especially that the option appears to have very quietly gone from in/out, to devo-max/out.

Whatever happens in this vote, Scotland in or out, the constitutional applecart has already been upset, and the best option I can see for the future is a federal system, with Parliaments in Scotland, Wales, N.I. and England, and a SMALL federal Parliament overseeing those matters not devolved. And we ALL ought to get exactly the same level of devolution, whatever that ends up being. So, be it income tax rates, NHS spending, education policy, or whatever, if one 'nation' gets to decide that at national level, all do. Only those things that need to be decided at Federal level, should be.

Then, if Scotland wants to run schools one way, England a different way, Wales a third way and N.I. yet another way, they all can.

But, lf course, that's not an option now, and (unless Scotland votes no) it's sure too late to propose it now.

However, if Scotland does vote no, and the result is yet more devolution, then we HAVE to start looking seriously at the position of the other three nations, because in my view, one thing that is utterly untenable, after all this furore, is that if Scotland stays, if Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies continue to be allowed to vote on matters that, by virtue of it being a devolved issue, don't apply in their constituencies. That is, sort out the WestLothian question, once and for all. Which, of course, a federal system would achieve.

Personally, I'm coming round to, somewhat reluctantly, being a yes supporter. And a supporter of independence for England, too. After all, if it's good enough for Scotland, why not for England, Wales and NI too?

I am with you on the Federal system approach. My wife's step-dad suggested that a while back and I've yet to find a real problem with it on my own mulling over. It gives the benefits of devolution max whilst retaining currency union, common defence, power and infrastructure policies etc. Makes a lot of sense SFAIK

[adidan]

However, if Scotland does vote no, and the result is yet more devolution, then we HAVE to start looking seriously at the position of the other three nations, because in my view, one thing that is utterly untenable, after all this furore, is that if Scotland stays, if Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies continue to be allowed to vote on matters that, by virtue of it being a devolved issue, don't apply in their constituencies. That is, sort out the WestLothian question, once and for all. Which, of course, a federal system would achieve.

Personally, I'm coming round to, somewhat reluctantly, being a yes supporter. And a supporter of independence for England, too. After all, if it's good enough for Scotland, why not for England, Wales and NI too?

I can agree with that, I'm not liking the talk towards DevoMax without the rest of the UK being told how it will affect us.

A 'no' vote now will be resented, as you say, by the rest of the UK if it feels everything is being talked about with Scotland and Eng/Wal & NI are just left spectating - that will be a parted Union in all but written Act.

I can see the yes camp increasing in its support when the three leaders turn up, ALL of us would vote yes just to stop listening to the Westminster bigwigs gobsh!te.

I seriously think there will be more disharmony if Scotland don't vote 'no' now. And good on them if they do, I hope it works out and gives Westminster a well deserved kick up the backside.

I just hope if it is a 'yes' vote Caesar Salmond doesn't let it go to his smug inane face.

[Zak33]

I congratulate CAT for arguing to the right level and then bowing out in a very very polite way

S! CAT

[ik9000]

I hope you enjoy your independence and Scotland becomes the utopia promised by your politicians.

I believe I speak for many a realist when I say Fat Funking Chance of that. No political system will ever deliver that (I know CAT was being sarcastic). Voting to leave will merely shift their focus from Westminster to Holyrood, but they will still moan about them. Politicians bare the brunt of blame wherever they are and whatever nationality, all countries have political scandals, voter disillusionment, and the saying you can't please everyone all of the time is very true. The Scots can choose which way to vote, but the outcome ultimately will be the same. An entitled few (albeit shrouded in democratic voting) decide on behalf of the majority what can and can't happen, and are given the ability to well and truly shaft a nation if they do the wrong thing. Be interesting to watch this as a neutral were it not for the fact my country is being torn in two, and probably more pieces with time, and the economy get screwed up with it. And noone has mentioned yet whether my wife will need to choose to leave Scotland and become English, or have to reapply to be here under a Scottish passport if she won't take on that mantle. It's all rubbish. And she doesn't even get a vote! What crap.

[adidan]

Voting to leave will merely shift their focus from Westminster to Holyrood

Indeed, Islanders have already been talking about devolving away from Holyrood.

noone has mentioned yet whether my wife will need to choose to leave Scotland and become English, or have to reapply to be here under a Scottish passport if she won't take on that mantle. It's all rubbish. And she doesn't even get a vote! What crap.

I did, quite alot

Scots who can't vote on their own future Nationality because they live in the wrong house - stupid idea IMO. 'No, you can't vote even though were born in Scotland, oh, BTW there was a 'yes' vote and you can't be British anymore and after that passport runs out you have to have this Scottish one'....

[HalloweenJack]

^^ the shetlands have said for a while now they could leave an independent Scotland and either rejoin englad or go back to Norway (they speak Norwegian anyway).


sullom voe would make them a military target for Scottish armed forces.... would salmond carry out his threat and not let them leave?

[adidan]

Would throw a spanner in the works, if Shetland & the Orkneys head off to Norway or back to the UK as they control the oil....

[adidan]

Interestingly, the Scottish Parliament have denied the petion for Island referenda - bit of hypocrisy there?

From:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Ge...s/islandgroups

Date Lodged: 29 April 2014

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to hold three separate referenda in Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles on Thursday 25 September 2014, one week after the Scottish independence referendum, asking the people of each island group whether they would prefer their island group to:

· to become an independent country, or
· to stay in Scotland

and, in the event of a yes vote in the referendum on Scottish independence, to have the following additional option:

· to leave Scotland and stay in the remainder of the UK

This was rejected in August

5 August 2014: The Committee agreed to close the petition under Rule 15.7 on the basis that that the Scottish Government has indicated that it does not support what the petition seeks and that there is insufficient time to arrange such referenda within the timescale called for in the petition.

'So, give us a referendum Westminster!!!' Ok.
'Give us a referendum Holyrood!!!' No.

[yamangman]

The whole independence schtick is really tedious. Fought along these nonsensical nationalist lines it makes senseless accusations and base stereotypes, I find the whole circus strange and peculiar. Would that it were fought over something less arbitrary than that slim border, where lies not a mote of difference in climate or personality or sense of place when you cross it. Wouldn't it be better instead that the borders on this island nation were dissolved and the people who best represented their locale had the power to deal with as they saw fit the most important issues affecting the lives of the people who therein live? With one central government who can ensure that the prosperity of these places can best be achieved by managing our most strategic resources? What sense is their to a claim of independence? An indepedence from friends and neighbours, from a peaceful and familial existence raised in the best part of 300 years. An independence for strategic resource, a sound claim indeed! A greedy one however, is it not, for the 5 million or so naturalised inhabitants? Would that the fervor this campaign has seemed to whip up that it could instead improve the lives of every inhabitant of this island by taking our bureaucracy to task with its excesses.

As I say, strange and peculiar I find it, a hot-headed campaign, greatly idealistic headed I know not where. One hopes Salmonds' promises can be plucked from the pale-faced moon, such a reach will be needed to aquire them I fear.

[Saracen]

Interestingly, the Scottish Parliament have denied the petion for Island referenda - bit of hypocrisy there?

....

And something in that surprises you?

When in the history of existence has a leading politician ever let such factors get in their way? They want what they want, which is usually more power, and never let impartial balanced fact or the wishes of the actual people get in their way.

Of politicians as a 'profession', I'm sure a hstorical gathering of snake oil salesmen would be stunned, agog with admiration at their sheer brass, their sheer menaciousness, the bare-faced cheek.

[adidan]

Lol true, it is often regarded that MPs are more likely to have sociopathic tendencies than the general population. I don't think many experts would readily dispute this either.

It would explain alot.

[BobF64]

When in the history of existence has a leading politician ever let such factors get in their way? They want what they want, which is usually more power, and never let impartial balanced fact or the wishes of the actual people get in their way.

And never before, in the face of adversity and common sense, has a single politician ploughed on a single course with no regard for the truth.

The bit that has always amazed me is how the SNP are so sure of things they can deliver, when all they can actually do is hope and aspire to deliver, and yet, people believe them.

But then, its far more likely the Yes voters arent voting for Salmond, theyre voting because they wont vote No.

[Saracen]

And never before, in the face of adversity and common sense, has a single politician ploughed on a single course with no regard for the truth.

The bit that has always amazed me is how the SNP are so sure of things they can deliver, when all they can actually do is hope and aspire to deliver, and yet, people believe them.

But then, its far more likely the Yes voters arent voting for Salmond, theyre voting because they wont vote No.

That's one of the things about the SNP that, well, "amazed" might not be quite the right word, but "exasperates" me, which is that the SNP conclude that all three leaders of the major oarties down here are either lying or bluffing when they say "no currency union" because a review established by the SNP says it's in the best interests of the part of the UK they want to leave. Well sorry, Salmond, but that's patronising idiocy. Yes, there will be costs of not doing it, but far, FAR greater costs and risks attached to doing it. And taking your word for "they're bluffing" is akin to accepting the foxes assurances that henhouse security is excellent.

Also, the dismissive way he portrays pointing out risks of leaving as "negative". Of course it is. Not doing so would be akin to trying to convince someone about to walk across the M1 at peak times not to do it because, hey, the view is nice here, and omitting to point out the "negative" that grtting squitted by a passing artic is a distinct risk if you try to walk across. But hey, never mind the thousands of high speed vehicles, aren't these daisies pretty?

It's inherent in the nature of the issue. He wants to do something so concentrates on the advantages. The other side want people to not do something, so emphasise the risks. After all, Scots are generally a canny bunch, so presumably, having been in the UK for some 300 years, they've noticed what that entails. There isn't really a lot the "no" camp can say about staying that any Scot with an IQ above 3 doesn't already know.

All I really wanted from this debate over the last 18 months was a calm, rational and reasonable debate over the major issues, and some sensible answers, most of which are still lacking.

Interviewer: What currency will iScotland use if there's no currency union.

Salmond: Sterling, in a currency union.

Interviewer: But IF that's not available, what then?

Salmond: Sterling, in a currency union.

Interviewer: But a union requires both sides to agree. What will you use if the rUK doesn't agree?

Salmond: I want it so they will agree. Sterling in a currency union.

Interviewer: All three parties, Chancellors and shadows, have utterly ruled it out. So if you don't get a union, that requires them to agree, then what will you use?

Salmond: Sterling, in a currency union.

Interviewer: What's your favourite colour?

Salmond: Sterling, in a currency union.