(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[george1979]

Oh, and he also says Scotland is a member of the EU. Sorry, but rubbish. Scotland isn't a member, England isn't a member, and nor are Wales or NI. It is the UK that is.

Feel free to pop over to the EU website and check the list. Or, pick and treaty and look at the signatories .... such as Lisbon, which was Gordon Brown (when he eventually deigned to show up) on behalf of the UK.

On the subject of Scotland's needing to apply if it leaves the UK, well, eminent kaw professors from both Cambridge and Edinburgh university agree with with the President of the EU Commission (Barroso) and the President of the European Council (Van Rumpuy), and several other member heads of state, mall if whom have expeessed the opposite view.

But perhaps a more definitive answer will ve available soon, and the EU are due to publush a legal opinion on the matter in the next couple of weeks. What is clear is that it's a somewhat unprecedented situation.

But it seems pretty clear that only two situations can apply.

1) The independence of Scotland causes the disappearance if the UK entirely, and two new states emerge, both of which need to reapply. That might be the case with, say, the break up of Yugoslavia into component parts, but I've yet to see any legal opinion suggesting that that applies to the UK, or

2) The part that leaves becomes a new state, and the rest is the "continuing state". That is how international law sees Scotland leaving the UK. As the continuing state, the UK continues to have all the treaty rights and obligations it gad vefore. After all, it's the UK that signed them. The leaving state becomes a new state, with any of those rights, or obligations.

Which begs another question. An independent Scotland is independent, yes? How long will it take to set up embassies, consulates, etc? If I remember correctly, the UK currently has about 260 such operations, in about 160 countries.

What about double-tax agreements? There are loads of those, with most major countries. Extradition agreements? Inrernatiobal arrest warrants? The list of this kind of stuff is endless.

It can, of course, all be done. But unless the SNP us going to want a "union" with the rest of the UK for all these, too, it's going to take years and cost a fortune. But hey, at least no Tory government.

What does wind me up, though, is the argument about a Tory government without a majority "up there" for years. It's called democracy. You don't always get the government you want. Take the current coalition. Remove the Scottish MPs from Westminster (what, 49 Labour, 1 Tory) and redo the electoral maths, and the 92%-ish of the population that isn't Scottish would have had a majority Tory government. Do the rest of us also got a government we didn't vote for, because of Scotland.

Population-wise, Scotland is the tail that seems to want to wag the dog. If this is about not having a Tory government that Scotland didn't vote for, because it's supremely arrogant for Scotland to think it gets to pick the government for the rest of us.

So either that's supremely important and nothing rlse matters but not getting a Tory government, in which case, why has it taken so long to frame the argument? Hold the vote, go independent and have whatever government Svotland wants .... outside the UK. Because one thing is certain. You're never likely to get an SNP government running Westminster. But if it's not about not getting the government you voted for, then those Scots msking that argument would do well to remember that most of us down here have spent years with a government we didn't vote for too. I didn't vote for 13 years of Labour, or 5 years of coalition, either. And for about 30 years, I haven't voted for the local MP I ended up with, either. That's democracy for you.

Firstly, on the point of Tory governments - Yes you are correct, that is democracy but there is still a lot of bad blood towards the tories from the Thatcher years here. Its all very well saying thats democracy but its worth remembering that when a nation consistently votes one way but then ends up with another government it tends to get on peoples nerves after a few decades! Your argument about you not voting for governments isn't really the same thing.

Secondly, Mr Avery did not say Scotland was a member - he says it is already in the EU. That's quite a distinction you've missed. If you watch the video he makes (and bear in mind his decades of experience on this very subject) a very cogent argument based on the fact that, as Scotland already applies EU laws and treaties, the accession process would be much simpler than for 3rd countries. He also goes on to say that, in any negotiation, you need to understand what the other side's interest's are. He quite eloquently explains that it would not be in the EU's interest to have Scotland outside the EU for any length of time as it would cause a legal nightmare for the rest of the EU. He also went on to say that, in the event of Scottish independence, he would expect the UK to be the country pushing hardest for EU membership ASAP as the UK would have the most to gain from doing so. I accept these are his opinions but given he has had a large role in the accession applications of 19 countries I'd be inclined to believe him.

Its also worth noting that Van Rumpuy and Barroso will be out of office around the same time as the referendum anyway.

In regards to your point about new member being forced in to the Euro he also mentions Sweden as the example that disproves this. The quote you posted also says 'committed to complying with the criteria... in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course' - By anyone's language that is by no means a demand that they must take the Euro upon accession.


The points you make about embassies, extradition arrangements and so on are reminiscent of the 'No' campaign's tactics - i.e. look at all the stuff you'll have to do, you can't manage it on your own, wouldn't it just be easier to stay? It's a pretty silly argument in my opinion - of course these things will be needed, that's what countries do! There are hundreds of other countries that do this and manage just fine. There are plenty that have come into existence in the past century that have done this (Israel springs to mind) - it takes time but Scotland could do it just the same as every other country does and no, they wouldn't 'need a union with the rest of the UK' for these.

The slight tone of condescension that accompanies some of these arguments is indicative of what's wrong with the 'No' campaign. By suggesting that Scotland couldn't cope on its own with comments like 'unless the SNP us going to want a "union"' it really plays into the Yes campaigns hands. I would also point out that, in the event of independence it will be Scotland that needs all these things, not the SNP. The SNP is not Scotland, just the same as the Tories are not England - might be worth keeping that in mind

[george1979]

Oh and - 'Population-wise, Scotland is the tail that seems to want to wag the dog. If this is about not having a Tory government that Scotland didn't vote for, because it's supremely arrogant for Scotland to think it gets to pick the government for the rest of us.'

How so? Scotland doesn't want to pick the government for the rest of the UK and nowhere did I suggest that we do - that's absurd. What a lot of Scottish people would like is to choose their own government - what's wrong with that? Democracy I think you called it

[BobF64]

I just can't vote YES when there are no firm details on what they plan to do if YES wins, as mentioned the promises are too great with nothing to back them up.

The way it seems to me, based upon what i read and see, is that the SNP is determined to state what will happen, all the promises surely depend on how negotiations go, and anyone that contradicts them is either lying, bullying or otherwise in the wrong.

Pretty much everything in the SNP "offering" is subject to unknown deals and agreements.
Part of the referendum should have been that the SNPs proposals were legally binding for a period of time, force them to be both realistic and admit they dont know and dont have a lot of the answers.

[Saracen]

Firstly, on the point of Tory governments - Yes you are correct, that is democracy but there is still a lot of bad blood towards the tories from the Thatcher years here. Its all very well saying thats democracy but its worth remembering that when a nation consistently votes one way but then ends up with another government it tends to get on peoples nerves after a few decades! Your argument about you not voting for governments isn't really the same thing.

Oh, I can understand it getting on nerves. I can also accept and understand that as a motivation for wanting independence. Personally, I think the UK is the "nation" I belong to. I regard myself as British first, English second. The nationalist part of the peoples of Scotland seems to regard itself as Scottish, first, last and everything in-between. That being the case, the ONLY way for Scotland to entirely control it's own affairs is independence. And for any Scot with that view, fair enough, they're entitled to hold that view, and want indepedence on that basis.

But the debate is Scotland is more nuanced than that, I assume you'd agree. Hardkine nationalists might want independence at any cost, but first, a lot of Scots seem to not be anything like that nationalistic. Second, leaving the UK will have benefits, and disadvantages. If the benefits, including intangible and certainly unquantifiable ones like avoiding Tory governments, justify any disadvantages, then that would suggest a vote to leave. If.

But then, seeking to exit the UK to get control over yoyr own affairs, and then immediately seeking to enter a currency union, be it Euro of Sterling, which directly and inherently means ceding quite a bit of sovereignty over major aspects of economuc policy like interest rates, tax and spending (budgetary control), debt levels, etc, seems perverse and contradictory, to say the least.

Personally, I want to see a lot of sovereignty taken back to the UK from Europe, so belueve me, I understand and sympathise with the SNP view about Tory governments. A lot of my life is dictated by EU institutions I've never voted on, and for that matter, no voter in the UK has ever had a vote on.

But, for Scotland, you have a binary choice. Either you are in the UK and get a government we all choose, or you leave. Just like I can put up with an MP I don't want, or I can move. I don't expect all other constituents to not want my MP because I don't. I don't want that MP, but not badly enough to be prepared to move home over it, so I accept that as the tail, I don't wag the constituency dog.

....

Secondly, Mr Avery did not say Scotland was a member - he says it is already in the EU. That's quite a distinction you've missed.

Scotland, the nation, is NOT in the EU. I haven't missed it at all. The UK is.

I entirely agree that a lot of EU rules and laws are already in force, and that that helps. But Scotland is not an independent, internationally recognised, nation state. NONE of the treaties that exist between the EU and UK are between Scotland and the EU, and more than they are with England and the EU. There is a very long list of criteria ANY new member state has to negotiate and agree. A very significant part of that Scotland does not meet, because they are competencies held at UK level. As one of hundreds of examples, running external borders, because member states are responsible for borders that will be between the EU and the rest of the world.

Because Scotland is not a signatory to EU/UK treaties, those treaties do not apply to Scotland if it leaves the UK. That's the point of the 'continuing state' point. It does not (perhaps unfortunately) invalidate the treaty with the UK if Scotland leaves, but having left, no such treaty exists that binds Scotland.

The only other option is if the UK "dissolves" and both parties become a new state. That would mean the RofUK would have to re-apply to join the EU. Do you think the EU wants to risk the rest of the UK leaving the EU, and having to re-apply, because I'd suggest there'scan extremely large questionmark over whether RofUK would re-apply, and indeed, whether the people would let it!

The long and short is that ANY new member state has to meet that long list of criteria (read the acquis details) and that while Scotland certainly is well placed to qualify immediately on many, it isn't on others because the institutions simply don't exist. Another example would be the regulatory, oversight and underwriting of the financial system. EU law does require a deposit guarantee system to be in place, and for banking regulation and investigatory services to exist. These are currently provided by the BofE in it's role as central bank, and the newly created parts of what used to be the FSA. These are UK institutions. Can Scotland create them? Sure. But it will take more than a day or two.

Would Scotland qualify for EU membership? Subject to meeting all these acquis criteria, which I'd think it is perfectly capable of doing, yes. But it is not a simple, or quick, process. And the process, for ANY new member state, is subject to negotiation, and as a member of fundamental EU treaty, not only do the major institutions of the EU have to agree, and ratify them, but so does every single member state.

I guess we'll see in a couple of weeks what the EU legal position is, bearing in mind no exact precedents exist.

[Saracen]

....

If you watch the video he makes (and bear in mind his decades of experience on this very subject) a very cogent argument based on the fact that, as Scotland already applies EU laws and treaties, the accession process would be much simpler than for 3rd countries. He also goes on to say that, in any negotiation, you need to understand what the other side's interest's are. He quite eloquently explains that it would not be in the EU's interest to have Scotland outside the EU for any length of time as it would cause a legal nightmare for the rest of the EU. He also went on to say that, in the event of Scottish independence, he would expect the UK to be the country pushing hardest for EU membership ASAP as the UK would have the most to gain from doing so. I accept these are his opinions but given he has had a large role in the accession applications of 19 countries I'd be inclined to believe him.

Every country approaches membership with it's own existing set of conditions. No doubt, in some areas, Scotland would be well ahead of many other applicants. Human rights record might be an obvious example. But other countries, even those that have much more work to do in some areas than Scotland, like human rights, have less to do in others, like as an existing nation state, they already have established border controls, international diplomatic representation, and so forth.

Would the EU want Scotland in as fast as possible? Very probably. But, Scotland would have a lot of hoops to jump through to meet all those acquis chapters. I see no reason to think it couldn't jump them, but they have to be jumped. This is not optional. It's part of the fundamental establishing treaties of the EU. And, by the way, is why Cameron is whistling into a populist wind with some of the "sovereignty" he appears to imply he wants back, though I note he's carefully refrained from saying exactly what.

And, the EU itself is necessary to aporove a new member, not not sufficient. As I say, each and every member has to agree it, and then ratify it in it's own Parliament. The UK would not, I have no doubt, simply not get entry on the terms it has now, if applying now. It got them because we came in in the first expansion phase, and were a relatively large addition to a far smaller EU, or what it was then, at least. Which, for instance, was pre-Maastricht. One of those Maastricht criteria was that EVERY new member, every single one, bar none, HAS to commit to joining the Euro.

....

In regards to your point about new member being forced in to the Euro he also mentions Sweden as the example that disproves this. The quote you posted also says 'committed to complying with the criteria... in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course' - By anyone's language that is by no means a demand that they must take the Euro upon accession.

Well, at no point have I said Scotland would have to adopt the Euro on accession . The opposite, in fact. I said they have a treaty obligation to commit to joining. Very few of the EU states would meet Euro criteria on accession. But there are obliged tocwork towards it, and to join when they meet the criteria.

That, of course, is one of the current probkems with the Euro. Several Eurozone members didn't qualify, and then drove a coach and horses through their growth and stability pact obligations, which is precisely why there is such a huge euro crisis, and such huge inter-state funding transfers to, for example, Greece.

Sweden has committed, by accession treaty, to joining the Euro. It has, so far, managed to find a loophole in that, in that meeting ERM2 is a condition and, given referendum results, it's managed to avoid meeting them. But Sweden was pre-2007 cradh, pre-Euro crisis, and pre-changes to budgetary controls.

If Scotland joins the EU, it WILL be committed, by treaty, to join the Euro. Period. It is a basic requirement, now, and not even the EU establishment can get round a mandatory treaty requirement. It cannot make an exception, if it wants to. When Scotland joins is more open to debate, but that it will be treaty-committed, and bound, to do so is not. And as I and others have pointed out, every existing EU member state has to approve, in it's Parliament, every new member. So even if it were possible for Scotland to negotiate an exception, and it isn't, you'd have to convince, say, the Parliaments of Romania, Bulgaria and others, to grant an exception they were not allowed to even negotiate on.

....

The points you make about embassies, extradition arrangements and so on are reminiscent of the 'No' campaign's tactics - i.e. look at all the stuff you'll have to do, you can't manage it on your own, wouldn't it just be easier to stay? It's a pretty silly argument in my opinion - of course these things will be needed, that's what countries do! There are hundreds of other countries that do this and manage just fine. There are plenty that have come into existence in the past century that have done this (Israel springs to mind) - it takes time but Scotland could do it just the same as every other country does and no, they wouldn't 'need a union with the rest of the UK' for these.

The slight tone of condescension that accompanies some of these arguments is indicative of what's wrong with the 'No' campaign. By suggesting that Scotland couldn't cope on its own with comments like 'unless the SNP us going to want a "union"' it really plays into the Yes campaigns hands. I would also point out that, in the event of independence it will be Scotland that needs all these things, not the SNP. The SNP is not Scotland, just the same as the Tories are not England - might be worth keeping that in mind

Reminiscent? Nicely (and carefully) worded.

I don't accept the characterisation, though.

Can Scotland meet all these requirements, for embassies, etc? Yes, of course. But it is incumbent on any fair, informed debate to consider both the upside, and downside, of what's being contemplated. There's a long list of things Scotland would have to do, and a lot of costs to bear. Like embassies. I see no problem with pointing that out.

Whether the "no" campaign is too negative or not, I'd suggest that at least in part, that's due to SNP policy, which has emphatically been to portray a rosy picture, and gloss over issues.

Take the currency union, for example.

I've seen Salmond, and Swinney, portray Mark Carney's comments as endorsing a union. HE DID NOT. I watched that speech very carefully, and still have it on video. The quote Salmond et.al. jumped on as "endorsement" was actually, if you look at context, when Carney pointed out that, as civil servants, they will implement, to the best of their abilities, whatever government tells them to implement.

But Carney was extremely careful to point out, repeatedly, that he was NOT commented on whether a currency union was desirable or not, or should be done or not, but the technical aspects of what's required for one to be sustainable. And that included, fundamentally, ceding of some sovereignty over tax and spending, for instance. But that wasn't how Salmond etc presented it.

So, when the SNP present only a positive side, it's going to look negative when the other side point out the bits the SNP left out. That's the nature of campagning. The queztion is ... should we do X. Proponents are going to point out the upside, and opponents at least, point out the downside. Personally, I'd prefer an honest, open, fully-informed debate, but let's face it, both yes and no are led by politicians with an agenda.


If you asked .... should I buy a Ferrari, would it be doing you any favours, would it be negative, to point out insurance costs, servicing, depreciation, etc?

This is exactly why I question the SNP assumption, the claim, that the Osborne / Balls / Alexander rejection of any chance of a currency union is not mere posturing. Given the unprecended step of publishing not just the Treasury analysis, and conclusions, but the Permanent Secretatary's advice, and an astonishingly unified political stance that currency union is si ply not going to happen is not "negative", but merely addressing the SNP posturing that the RofUK will agree just because the SNP want it, and claim it's in our interests.

It's not bullying to point out, it won't happen. It's simply telling Scots what the view is on that down here. Would you rather the SNP's projection of it being automatic was just left to stand?

[Lucio]

As a side-note, would the UK actually exist as a legal entity without Scotland? If not, could the EU parliment argue that if Scotland became independant, that suddenly the rest of the UK is out as well, losing us the concessions and vetos enshrined under various treaties.

[george1979]

Sweden has committed, by accession treaty, to joining the Euro. It has, so far, managed to find a loophole in that, in that meeting ERM2 is a condition and, given referendum results, it's managed to avoid meeting them. But Sweden was pre-2007 cradh, pre-Euro crisis, and pre-changes to budgetary controls.

If Scotland joins the EU, it WILL be committed, by treaty, to join the Euro. Period. It is a basic requirement, now, and not even the EU establishment can get round a mandatory treaty requirement. It cannot make an exception, if it wants to. When Scotland joins is more open to debate, but that it will be treaty-committed, and bound, to do so is not. And as I and others have pointed out, every existing EU member state has to approve, in it's Parliament, every new member. So even if it were possible for Scotland to negotiate an exception, and it isn't, you'd have to convince, say, the Parliaments of Romania, Bulgaria and others, to grant an exception they were not allowed to even negotiate on.

One of the points made in the previous video I posted was that Scotland would of course have to jump thru these hoops - no one is saying Scotland would have any exemption or exception, they would just be able to make a decision faster since Scotland already abides by EU laws and treaties - but he does also say that, when EU members take a decision on accession they do so at the same time, not one by one so that is not what takes the time during this process.

Reminiscent? Nicely (and carefully) worded.

Thanks

Can Scotland meet all these requirements, for embassies, etc? Yes, of course. But it is incumbent on any fair, informed debate to consider both the upside, and downside, of what's being contemplated. There's a long list of things Scotland would have to do, and a lot of costs to bear. Like embassies. I see no problem with pointing that out.

Whether the "no" campaign is too negative or not, I'd suggest that at least in part, that's due to SNP policy, which has emphatically been to portray a rosy picture, and gloss over issues.

...
So, when the SNP present only a positive side, it's going to look negative when the other side point out the bits the SNP left out. That's the nature of campagning. The queztion is ... should we do X. Proponents are going to point out the upside, and opponents at least, point out the downside. Personally, I'd prefer an honest, open, fully-informed debate, but let's face it, both yes and no are led by politicians with an agenda.

There is absolutely not a problem in pointing that out but it is a given with any independent state. My point is that the No campaign seems to focus on negatives when there is a lot of positive things they could be saying about the Union. And yes, the SNP do play up to this but, as you say, that's to be expected with politicians. I totally agree that there are many uncertainties and the SNP haven't really done a great job in explaining their resolutions to some of them. I'd also like to see a more informed debate between both sides but I'm not sure we'll get one to be honest.

If you asked .... should I buy a Ferrari, would it be doing you any favours, would it be negative, to point out insurance costs, servicing, depreciation, etc?

This is exactly why I question the SNP assumption, the claim, that the Osborne / Balls / Alexander rejection of any chance of a currency [b]union[b] is not mere posturing. Given the unprecended step of publishing not just the Treasury analysis, and conclusions, but the Permanent Secretatary's advice, and an astonishingly unified political stance that currency union is si ply not going to happen is not "negative", but merely addressing the SNP posturing that the RofUK will agree just because the SNP want it, and claim it's in our interests.

It's not bullying to point out, it won't happen. It's simply telling Scots what the view is on that down here. Would you rather the SNP's projection of it being automatic was just left to stand?

I agree that does not amount to bullying - that's just a political ploy by the SNP to stir up emotion in voters here. For what its worth I don't appreciate a lot of the posturing from the SNP either and I'm not exactly a fan of Alex Salmond myself so if I did vote for independence it wouldn't be due to him.
To be fair I honestly don't think there will be a Yes vote. As I've said, I'm pretty torn over the issue - on the one hand I would be interested to see independence and be part of the generation that gained it - its not often you get a chance to be part of something truly history making. On the other hand I'm proud of the Union and the countries are so intertwined that it would be a difficult thing to see broken up.
You mentioned the fact that you identify as British then English while many Scots see themselves as only Scottish and that's true to some extent but its also true of many English people too. I myself always say Scottish when asked but you also need to account for the fact that lots of foreigners think of Britain as England and so we have to point out that, no, we aren't English but Scottish. It's not a gripe as its natural for people to do this since England is by far the largest country in the Union but nevertheless it goes some way to explaining why we feel the need to put Scottish before British. To test this - How many times have foreigners assumed you were Scottish, Irish or Welsh? Or that England was part of Scotland? I've lost count of the times its happened to me abroad! Admittedly many of them were American soooo.....

[wasabi]

You mentioned the fact that you identify as British then English while many Scots see themselves as only Scottish and that's true to some extent but its also true of many English people too. I myself always say Scottish when asked but you also need to account for the fact that lots of foreigners think of Britain as England and so we have to point out that, no, we aren't English but Scottish.

I'm an Irishman who lives in England but who lived in Scotland for a couple of years too. i.e. somewhat of an outside observer. and from what i've observed, the English see them selves as British. Scots are Scottish, and hate being in exactly the state of affairs that Ewan McGregor's character states in the effete speech of Trainspotting (that I can't irritatingly can't link to despite being relevant).

[george1979]

http://www.generationterrorists.com/...nspotting.html

This is what you were looking for? I almost copied and pasted the section of text you are talking about - just stopped myself in time when I noticed the salty language! Phew - just managed to avoid the ban hammer there!

Its in the lower half of the page and starts with:

TOMMY: Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish?

It is very funny

[Saracen]

One of the points made in the previous video I posted was that Scotland would of course have to jump thru these hoops - no one is saying Scotland would have any exemption or exception, they would just be able to make a decision faster since Scotland already abides by EU laws and treaties - but he does also say that, when EU members take a decision on accession they do so at the same time, not one by one so that is not what takes the time during this process.

Well, the SNP tried to claim exactly that.

And, as I said, those decisions gave to be ratified by member state Parliaments. That does not happen simultaneously, and it cannot be taken for granted it will happen at all. Until it does, "accepted" member states have a kind-of associate status, entitled to attend most meetings, but only as observers, not participants.

Also, bear in mind that the acquis chapters establish the principles that must be complied with, and the conditions that must be in place. They don't establish treaty template. It's a matter of negotiation to establish when and if existing conditions in an accession state comply or not. For example, whether existing legislation meets the accession criteria, and that can be a quite complex case of negotiating whether existing legislation meets the standards or not. And bear in mind, the accession criteria now are different to accession criteria when the UK joined.

....

There is absolutely not a problem in pointing that out but it is a given with any independent state. My point is that the No campaign seems to focus on negatives when there is a lot of positive things they could be saying about the Union. And yes, the SNP do play up to this but, as you say, that's to be expected with politicians. I totally agree that there are many uncertainties and the SNP haven't really done a great job in explaining their resolutions to some of them. I'd also like to see a more informed debate between both sides but I'm not sure we'll get one to be honest.

Well, I suppose it depends how you look at it. The 'no' campaign is trying to persuade people to it's view, which is that it's a bad idea. They're hardly likely to go about singing the praises of 'yes'.

Tell me, if you will .... are the SNP presenting a balanced argument, pointing out the negatives where they exist, or are they just trying to persuade people to vote 'yes'?

If you're standing on top of a skyscraper threatening to jump, and I'm trying to talk you out of it, I'm not likely to start with a rhapsodic description of the sense of freedom while you fall. I'm more likely to point out all the benefits of not jumping. I'm trying to persuade you, not hold a balanced debate.

I have, for instance, no problem with the SNP saying a sterling currency union is their preferred option. I do have a problem with the dishonesty of the way they've portrayed it, on at least three grounds. First, as I said, the way they characterised Carney's speech as endorsement of union, when it categorically wasn't. Secondly, that the Treasury, PermSec's advice, and the detailed treasury analysis, AND the statements of all three major party's Treasury spokemen rejected it utterly. And third, that it's in the RofUK's best interests to gave a currency union.

They go on about transaction costs to business. Well, there's some truth in that. There will be costs. But that's every bit as much an argument for a no vote as it is for yes, then currency union. More for the no vote, in fact, since it is utterly indisputable that any currency union is not in the gift of the SNP to grant, and would have to be negotiated. The very least that can be said is there's no guarantee it'll happen, even without it having been ruled out from this end.

And the SNP have wholesale ignored the downside for RofUK of a currency union, and for that matter, brushed aside the not inconsiderable downside of one for an independent Scotland as well.

I think, for two reasons, currency union won't happen. Economically, the downside for RofUK is far larger, IMHO, than firms bearing a few hundred million in transaction costs. Secondly, given the very real risks, and the potentially HUGE size of them, the political cost of any UK government putting UK taxpayers on the line to bail out either Svottish vanjs or public spending, in the event if problems, for a Scotland that had just voted to leave, would be enormoysly damaging. And any such negitiations would take pkace in the lead-up to a UK general election, when it would be politically most explosive.

Given the unequivocal rejection of even talking about it, by Westminster, the SNP stance of "no plan B" strikes me as disingenous at best, and designed to avoid dealing with the problems any of the Plan B alternatives would raise.

....
I agree that does not amount to bullying - that's just a political ploy by the SNP to stir up emotion in voters here. For what its worth I don't appreciate a lot of the posturing from the SNP either and I'm not exactly a fan of Alex Salmond myself so if I did vote for independence it wouldn't be due to him.
To be fair I honestly don't think there will be a Yes vote. As I've said, I'm pretty torn over the issue - on the one hand I would be interested to see independence and be part of the generation that gained it - its not often you get a chance to be part of something truly history making. On the other hand I'm proud of the Union and the countries are so intertwined that it would be a difficult thing to see broken up.
You mentioned the fact that you identify as British then English while many Scots see themselves as only Scottish and that's true to some extent but its also true of many English people too. I myself always say Scottish when asked but you also need to account for the fact that lots of foreigners think of Britain as England and so we have to point out that, no, we aren't English but Scottish. It's not a gripe as its natural for people to do this since England is by far the largest country in the Union but nevertheless it goes some way to explaining why we feel the need to put Scottish before British. To test this - How many times have foreigners assumed you were Scottish, Irish or Welsh? Or that England was part of Scotland? I've lost count of the times its happened to me abroad! Admittedly many of them were American soooo.....

I think it's unlikely to be a yes vote ... but it's early days yet. The undecideds could swing it. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the risk.

Nor would I want to portray Scotland as unable to survive on it's own. I'm sure it could. The problems are very significant, but they xan be dealt with, and would be, in the event of a yes. How, and at what cost, and on what timetable, is another matter.

I do thinkvthat thise that vote yes will do so for many reasons. Some are determidely nationalistic, and nothing will change their mind. It's about Scottishness and self-determination. For others (including you, by the sound of it) there's an element if that, but it's not over-riding, at all costs. For some, I suspect it comes down to which way will leave them "better off".

I'm not sure how accurately opinion polls can reflect all that, especially as the ground us constantly shifting.

For instance, in the arguments over currency union, what carries the most weight .... the merits of the argument, or the way it comes over as "negative"? Because one is a rational response, the other emotive.


Oh, and by the way, you're right, I've never been identified as Scottish, Welsh or Irish (NI or RoI), when abroad. But I have been told I'm Australian, a New Zealander, or South African. And more often that I've been called either British or English. And yes, usually by Americans, and most often in southern states rather than the more cosmopolitan areas, like NYC or California.

[Saracen]

As a side-note, would the UK actually exist as a legal entity without Scotland? If not, could the EU parliment argue that if Scotland became independant, that suddenly the rest of the UK is out as well, losing us the concessions and vetos enshrined under various treaties.

According to government legal advice, yes.

A break-up can occur in one of two ways - either two (or more) new states emerge, and the old one disappears, or one part secedes, and the other part carries on.

An analogy would be a limited company. If we both owned 50% and decided to go our separate ways, we could fold the company and both start entirely new companies. If I and two friends own 90% between us and you want to leave, we'd probably buy out your 10%, and the company stays intact.

I read government legal opinion on this somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. But the gist of it was that there is clear international law that a portion if a state breaking away creates a new state, and that the rest is a 'continuing state", with continuing oblugation, commitments, and rights.

From what I've seen, even if the EU could argue that, and I struggle to see how tgey could, politically, I can't see them wanting to. There is good reason to believe several EU states REALLY don't want to see Scotkand keave the UK, not keast because it sets a precedent for, say, separatist Catalonian elements to secede from Spain.

It's also been made pretty clear in the past that the EU establishment is dead set against the UK leaving, precisely because it doesn't want to set the precedent for how anyone can leave.

If it did decide to force the UK to leave so it could remove opt-outs, like not taking the Euro, or the rebate, the big question is whether the UK would even apply to get back in, and especially if doing so meant adopting the euro, and losing the rebate. The EU would run the distinct risk that if they manoeuvre us out, we just might decide we prefer being out, and not re-apply at all.

[george1979]

Well, I suppose it depends how you look at it. The 'no' campaign is trying to persuade people to it's view, which is that it's a bad idea. They're hardly likely to go about singing the praises of 'yes'.

Tell me, if you will .... are the SNP presenting a balanced argument, pointing out the negatives where they exist, or are they just trying to persuade people to vote 'yes'?

If you're standing on top of a skyscraper threatening to jump, and I'm trying to talk you out of it, I'm not likely to start with a rhapsodic description of the sense of freedom while you fall. I'm more likely to point out all the benefits of not jumping. I'm trying to persuade you, not hold a balanced debate.

Nor would I want to portray Scotland as unable to survive on it's own. I'm sure it could. The problems are very significant, but they xan be dealt with, and would be, in the event of a yes. How, and at what cost, and on what timetable, is another matter.
.

This is exactly my point though, by using suicide as an example you are basically saying that Scotland cannot survive on its own but then going on to say it could. I appreciate you are using it to explain the no campaigns tactics but it really hits the nail on the head with regards to their strategy - the use of fear and the underlying assumption that Scotland needs the UK to survive. Comparing independence to suicide doesn't really sit well with me. I appreciate that fear can be an effective campaign tool but i really dont like it and that is the basic root of my issue with the unionist campaign at the moment. Although the example you mentioned is obviously illustrative and intended to make a point it is basically what the no campaign has been about thus far, with the notable exception of Cameron's 'love bombing' recently.

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/th...d-join-osborne

In fact, Salmond's stance on the euro is considerably more nuanced than Osborne suggests. True, in 2009, the First Minister quipped that sterling was "sinking like a stone" and argued that euro membership was becoming increasingly attractive ("the parlous state of the UK economy has caused many people in the business community and elsewhere to view membership favourably"). But that, to put it mildly, is no longer the case and, consequently, Salmond has changed tact. Like Gordon Brown circa 2003, he now states that Scotland will retain the pound until it is in the country's "economic interests" to join the euro.

from 2 years ago

[rob4001]

Max Keiser on Scotland independence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_sJyLevQY

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26215963


Seems Scotland want to slide in under article 48 - but they will meet a good number of legal challenges, and the remaining UK wont support it.

A UK Government spokesman said: "The UK Government's clear position is that the Scottish Government's assertion it can use Article 48 to join the EU is wrong.

"It has never been used by any state as a route to joining the EU. If Scotland votes to leave the UK, it will be deciding to leave the EU with the hope of negotiating our way back in.

"This is not a question about preferences but about what is legally possible. The legal basis for becoming a member of the EU is Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.

"This position is backed up by a wide range of sources including, most recently, Jean-Claude Piris who said it would not be legally correct for an independent Scotland to try and use Article 48.

"An independent Scotland would have to renegotiate its terms and conditions of EU memberships with all 28 member states."

edit:

sorry seems the quote isn t from the BBC but from something else I was reading back in Jan.

[george1979]

Max Keiser on Scotland independence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_sJyLevQY

Lol there's nothing quite like being lectured on internal goings on in Britain by a couple of Americans. They talk about RBS as if it was a Scottish national asset - its a sprawling multi-national. Yes, its based in Edinburgh but most of its UK customer base, employees and income comes from England, not to mention its been a publicly traded company on the London stock exchange for god knows how long and most of its shares, before the collapse, were not held by Scots. Just because it has Scotland in the title doesn't make it so. Similarly, after the oil spill, the American's were at pains to point out BP was British Petroleum when it is also a massive multi-national in which many US investors had stakes in. Just cos its in the name doesn't make it so.