(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[george1979]

See, one family member gets drunk at a wedding and kicks of and then the rest of the family get involved.

There'll be one hell of a clean up in the morning.

Thanks - that gave me a much needed chuckle

[adidan]

Thanks - that gave me a much needed chuckle

Glad to help, even just a little

[SeriousSam]

If we decided to build a great wall around London to separate us and them, then their society would collapse long before the rest of the UK. Starvation being the most obvious catalyst. Now I'm not saying that we would fare any better in the long term, just that it is worth putting things into perspective.

Our world is based on using money as a mutually agreeable material value system. So from that perspective it does look as though London is subsidising the rest of the UK. However, if you start looking at real value, i.e. having food to eat is more important than having money (as the latter can become worthless). Then you see it's a much more interesting picture.

The debate we should ultimately be having, beyond that of more regionally devolved government, is how do we best organise both the infrastructure of our country and the mechanics of our society? Clearly some areas are more suited to particular necessities than others, e.g. food and energy. Where the problems start is the iniquities this inherently creates within our current monetary system. So we have to tackle both in combination.


Apologies if any of the above reads a bit odd... part way through writing I got that Mockingbird nonsense stuck in my head. Which destroyed all rational thought... hard to concentrate after that

[ik9000]

I agree, money has become an idol to this country and we have lost sight that it is a means to an end rather than the end itself. We are best as a whole, and the wealth should be spread out, and jobs with it. It is crazy the way we are so crammed into the south east when we have land elsewhere with derelict properties being bulldozed and boarded up due to oversupply. But none of this will be fixed by Scotland leaving, and demanding more than its fair share of the national assets, (and none of the national debt) if it does.

[Saracen]

It was an educated guess

No one expects 5.3million Scots to dictate anything to the rest of the UK - that's just ridiculous. Of course, England, as the largest nation by far, would be expected to dominate parliament etc. No reasonable person would expect any different, its just basic maths.

It is entirely about being able to determine our own future. Scotland is a small nation with specific needs in relation to its people, health, geography and culture. Many people simply feel we would be better off managing these things ourselves.

Also no one expect or wants England to bend over backwards for us - please move away from this mentality. I'd also like it for people to stop referring to Scotland as the SNP - many people are not SNP voters but are supporters of independence. The SNP is just a party, they do not represent every Scot.

Seeing as you quoted me, I'll assume that's directed to me.

I'm not assuming all Scots are SNP. That's why I attributed some of the above rationale to the SNP, not to Scots as a group.

[peterb]

I think
I am now getting to the point where I am heartily sick of the BBC's incessant coverage of the referendum.

Yes, I know it is a potentially a major turning point in history, and yes I know it may have an impact on England, the country where I live - but I have no influence or power to affect the outcome.

So please BBC, can we do without the token Scot, James Naughty reporting every nuance on the today programme - and can we not have it at the top of the news agenda in England? Cover it as much as you like in Scotland, where the Scots do have a vote, but just tell me the result next week so I can, if necessary, make the changes to my banking and investment arrangements.

(and by the way, IF it is a YES vote, and IF it all goes wrong, can I have a vote on whether I want the Union re-instated please?)

/rant

Now off to set the radio to R4 Extra for the next seven days.

[Galant]

Daniel Hannan - The Telegraph - "Devo Max" is the best option -

"The best outcome for Scotland is surely full autonomy within the United Kingdom. Holyrood should control transport, education, welfare, health, and the bulk of taxation, leaving Westminster to oversee defence, foreign affairs, immigration and monetary policy."

And then the same should happen for municipalities throughout the rest of the U.K.

"We could do better. We could have pluralism at local level, with the freedom to innovate, to trial new ideas, to copy best practice. We could have tax competition, leading to downward pressure on rates. We could restore honour and purpose to local democracy, attracting a higher calibre of candidate. And then – a delicious bonus – we could let the House of Commons become a part-time assembly of citizen legislators, meeting for no more than 40 days a year, its MPs compensated for their time rather than paid salaries."

[Saracen]

I think
I am now getting to the point where I am heartily sick of the BBC's incessant coverage of the referendum.

Yes, I know it is a potentially a major turning point in history, and yes I know it may have an impact on England, the country where I live - but I have no influence or power to affect the outcome.

So please BBC, can we do without the token Scot, James Naughty reporting every nuance on the today programme - and can we not have it at the top of the news agenda in England? Cover it as much as you like in Scotland, where the Scots do have a vote, but just tell me the result next week so I can, if necessary, make the changes to my banking and investment arrangements.

(and by the way, IF it is a YES vote, and IF it all goes wrong, can I have a vote on whether I want the Union re-instated please?

/rant

Now off to set the radio to R$ extra for the next seven days.

Absolutely.

I turn on Newsnight, and it's primarily on Scottish independence. I turn on the Daily Politics, and it's primarily Scottish independence. TV news and, yup, independence. Switch to a different TV station, mand you get a different talking head droning on about independence. Try a third, even a fourth station, and you get more. Hell, even my local radio had a chat show on, you got it, independence. I ended up on Al Jazeera, simply because at least they didn't seem to be so single-minded.

I am, frankly, bored to the back teeth with all the coverage, and personally, I suspect media coverage is partly driving polling, which in turn drives coverage. I mean the hoopla after one, count 'em, ONE poll showed Yes in the lead, and all of a sudden, it's a win. In fact, nothing material had changed. The gap was well within the margin of polling error, and the latest version of the exact same poll now gives No a greater lead than it gave to Yes in the last one, still within the margin of error. And none, absolutely NONE of the polls can be relied on to predict the outcome. We have to wait for the vote for that.

So, I absolutely agree with Peter. I'm sick of the non-stop coverage. In Scotland, fine. Down here, give us a break.

And I already have changed much of my banking and investment arrangements, just in case. One account is closed, a second is down to a minimal balance pending closure, and investments have now completed the move. I dumped some shares in Scottish companies months ago, again, just in case.

[adidan]

It is getting a bit much but expect more of it if it's a 'yes' vote. Actually, expect more if it's a 'no' vote, the Scottish votes on English&Welsh law is just one thing.

There'll be several years of legal negotiations re how much of the oil the rest of the UK is actually entitled to under International Law let alone every other issue under the sun. Joy.

[abaxas]

Personall, if they vote yes... The best thing to do would be for the rest of the union to asset strip before independence.

Might as well profit from it.

[HalloweenJack]

if Scotland vote NO and get devo max then great they lose the London MP`s as well.

[kalniel]

Personall, if they vote yes... The best thing to do would be for the rest of the union to asset strip before independence.

Might as well profit from it.

Which would be countered by debt non-repayment come independence at least equal to the perceived value of the assets.

[Rob_B]

Sick of coverage?! Come on folks this is a massive, huge, major event for the UK. It's not like you have control over any other item featured on the news?... What other item of news on even remotely the same scale is currently being under reported due to the coverage of this?

And this is coming from someone who barely watches the news as it's usually irrelevant or depressing pap.

[adidan]

Sick of coverage?!

You see I'm sick of it but you can be damned sure I keep turning over the channels hunting around until I find someone saying something about it. Yes, I make myself sick.

Such is life.

[BobF64]

I'm not assuming all Scots are SNP. That's why I attributed some of the above rationale to the SNP, not to Scots as a group.

But I think Salmond believes the SNP IS Scotland and every Scot living there.

He seems to have forgotten that the SNP only holds about 50% of the seats, doesnt really "have a mandate" and is determined to have what he wants, at any cost.

Based on the 2011 elections, they have 53.49% of the seats, based on 45% of constituency votes and 44% of regional votes.

Seems good, but given the turn out was 50%, they actually might only represent ~25% if Scots.

And im sure they argued hard for the referendum being a simple majority, rather than a truly representative one with minimum turnouts etc.

Of course, I could have completely misunderstood many many things.

[Saracen]

Sick of coverage?! Come on folks this is a massive, huge, major event for the UK. It's not like you have control over any other item featured on the news?... What other item of news on even remotely the same scale is currently being under reported due to the coverage of this?

And this is coming from someone who barely watches the news as it's usually irrelevant or depressing pap.

My problem with it isn't that they're covering it. It's that there's very little happening that's new, yet it's getting the lion's share of so many current affairs and politics programs, day after day after day after tedious day.

If it advanced the subject matter any, I wouldn't mind. But it doesn't. The vast bulk of the coverage consists of tbe same three things :-

- the 'no' camp asking the same questions (what currency, EU membership, etc, that they've been asking for two years.

- the 'yes' camp refusing to answer, and labelling anyone that doesn't agree with their world view as using scare tactics. I've known parrots with a more extensive vocabulary.

- miscellaneous experts giving their opinions, all of which are useless because all that matters is what peopke vote.

So yeah, cover it, but not 75-100% of Newsnight, Daily Politics, etc, day after day after day. And if something genuinely new happens, cover it. But we've been getting those same questions and answers for two YEARS.

And that's coming from someone that is a news and current affairs junkie, and that rarely misses Newsnight, Daily Politics, etc. I am interested. Very interested. Yet even I'm bored rigid by going over the same ground, without progress, for two years.