The entire UK exercise their right in an election - Scottish MP`s sit in Westminster and either make up government or the opposition. That's everyones voice in all of this ; and lets not forget the previous PM , I think Gordon Brown wasn't exactly English was he!
Alex Salmond IS painting a picture of `this only affects us` he doesn't have a plan B , he`s not selling an independent Scotland as being amazing to anyone else around the world , which would cause concern to those holding the purse strings. The tacit threat of ` its your debt , your problem` to England and the BoE also sends a similar message - one of concern over fiscal ability.
edit:
Also the way he is opening up the question to pretty much anyone at secondary school age or above doesn't make sense - already seen interviews with scottich school kids and they are all pretty much ` no not gonna vote , don't understand any of it`.
helpful that....
I don't mind if Scotland goes indepedent (to be honest if I was a Scot I would probably vote yes), at least it'll put the issue to bed; but there are a few things that stick out like a sore thumb for me.. like the SNP's urgency to join the EU, Scotland would be submitting to Brussels "One size fits all" approach and commiting to the Euro which would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Also, Scotland's voice is tens times loader in the UK, than it will be alone in the EU too.
I heard Salmond comparing Scotland to Norway which is a fair comparison in the deomgraphic sense, but with one glaring oversight, which is that Norway is in EFTA.. not the EU! If the Scots, go for independence, then they should just join EFTA and at least have the ability to decide their own future and maybe go the route of having a Scottish central bank with the ability set interest rates favourvable for Scotland and a new Scottish currency which can freely float on the markets. Even if the new Scottish currency significantly devalues on the Forex markets, this will be a god send for Scottish product and service exporters and tourism would explode with the favourable exchange rate too. So in my mind, this is a feasible route for the Scots to go, but Salmond and Swinney seem to be set going for the EU/Euro route eventually whilst sticking with pound in the interim.. this would always bother me if I was going to vote yes.
I've recently started to see Salmond as somewhat of a joke character. It's astonishing that his bluster and accusations of bullying would be taken seriously by anyone.
On the subject of currency unions:
Salmond - "We're going to keep the pound whether the RotUK likes it or not!"
Westminster - "OK, but just not in a currency union. Our banks won't prop yours up. That's not fair on us."
Salmond - "How dare you say that! Why do things have to change?"
On the subject of EU membership:
Salmond - "We're definitely going to be EU members straight away!"
Barroso - "No, you'll have to apply, and that could be tricky, what with this political union being, y'know, political."
Salmond - "How dare you say that! Why do things have to change?"
My biggest concern is that Salmond is shouting very loudly. He's the most vocal, and most prominent, politician in this. While Westminster and the EU are happy to say their piece and get on with their lives, Salmond is rallying the troops every day, morning, noon and night. If he's wrong (which, on the face of it, he absolutely is) then the Scottish public will have a significant proportion of their information about independence, coming from an inaccurate source.
Should the vote yield a yes, an independent Scotland wouldn't have to deal with UK taxes, and can localise everything within their newly-formed country. However, they would lack an official currency and trade restrictions (after removal of free movement of goods and people, an EU agreement) could be crippling in Scotland's infancy. I'm worried that 18 months after the fact, the Scottish people would resent the decision to go independent, and that decision isn't likely to be reversible.
If, knowing all this, Scotland's population still vote yes, that's their decision. I'm just worried that Salmond is misleading the people of Scotland, and that's possibly the most heinous of crimes a politician could commit.
If you believe in progressive taxation, the idea of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, then Scotlands claim that the oil and gas money should only benefit Scotland, that it should stop at say Newcastle, yet fund Glasgow (despite the latter being further from many oil fields) is surely not that.
Or are they Socialist Nationalists? That will only work out well I'm sure
As is I can see from an Englishmans perspective this would help solve the West Lothian problem, and probably keep Labour out of power, so that's two great plus sides.
However, I think it would be insane for the Scottish people to do this. However if they want to, we shouldn't stop them, but they shouldn't expect us to let them pick and choose all the terms. This obviously includes our currency policy.
SNP liked the Euro before, so they can either make up their mind, go for a union with the Euro (or head that way), have their own currency, or just use ours with no say in policy.
As their economy is very small, the latter wouldn't be such a problem, except for it's dependence on gas/oil commodotites which are so volatile for a smaller countries economy, having ability to set rates would be even more important.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Salmond is the voice of the SP and is the first minister of Scotland, a post similar to that of the Prime Minister, so the 'dictatorial' rights are equal. Cameron has acceded to the request for a referendum, he has pointed out the potential consequences of independence.
Non of the commonwealth countries had such quite ties with the UK (and were not part of The United Kingdom) so the situation is somewhat different - and again those ties were more recent than those of the Act of Union.
And as has been pointed out, MPs elected in Scotland sit in the Westminster Parliament, and can (and do) vote on legislation that ONLY affect England, and does not affect Scotland - the "West Lothian" issue.
While I accept that Wikipedia is not authoritative, this article does outline the issue quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Interesting article in the Guardian of all places a few years back (before the current referendum talk) about oil income and Scottish public spending. Here An independent Scotland would suddenly require a massive increase in Central government and bureaucracy, which wouldn't be subsidized by London for a change. So taxes would have to go up - massively. How much are Scots prepared to pay for a larger Holyrood, never mind making up the public spending deficit?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
That's true enough, up to a point.
I'm sure when Scotland and England unified, there were, first, people that objected, second, calls for it to change, and third, those that intended it to be permanent. I also note, back in those days, the vast majority didn't get to vote on electing their government, let alone a referendum on union.
As I understand it, this Scotish referendum is agreed, by Cameron and Salmon, to settle the issue "for a generation". Even a no vote doesn't mean it'll never come back on the agenda. Of course, a yes vote may well be permanent, since any reunification would require, first, the Scots to want back in, and second, rUK to be prepared to agree to it .... presumably, a referendum. I wouldn't hold my breath, to say the very least, waiting for Scotland to come cap in hand to England (as the largest part of rUK), asking nicely, can we please come back. That'll be precedent by herds of flying pigs, and demons ice-skating in the hottest corners of Hell. I also wouldn't want to bet on rUK agreeing to it in a referendum.
So yes, referendum wouldn't settle it indefinitely, on the UK/EU issue. But it would put paid to it for a time.
What it would settle indefinitely is that being in, right now, doesn't have a democratic mandate, because right now, it doesn't. And that is no small part of the resentment of much anti-EU thinking.
But, of course, just as a yes in Scotland to leave would raise massive obstacles to reversing it, so the UK leaving the EU would raise massive obstacles to getting back in. I won't say it would be impossible, but it would be very unlikely any time soon, and I've no doubt the UK could permanently kiss goodbye to rebates, Shengen exemption, Sterling, and a host of other opt-outs.
Personally,, I'm very sceptical about EU membership. There are economic costs, and benefits. That much is indisputable. Where the balance falls is very hard to quantify, so hard to tell. And not all the issues of EU membership are money matters. For instance, being subject to the ECJ, and for all practical purposes, ECtHR too. Or of legislation and regulation originating in Brussels. Whether good or bad, it's literally law laid down from outside this country. And no citizens here were asked about the treaties that established it.
There's a very distinct parallel in that with Scotland, and Westminster.
I travelled round europe back in the early 90`s - when the Schengen free borders wern`t even an idea....
"somewhat less attractive condition". I like it. Is that in the sense that an ex-Olympic marathon runner that's just come out of a prolonged stay in an intensive care ward is in a "somewhat less healthy condition"?
And a large part of that stay in ICU can be put down to the effects of years in a less-than well run currency union. That's a hint, by the way, Mr Salmond, of one reason (of several) why rUK will look very unfavourably at currency union.
Salmond is trying to dictate to rUK what the best interest of rUK is.
His argument on currency union is that HE says currency union is in Scotland's best interests (almost certainly true, given the alternatives) and rUKs interests (which, in the UK Treasury, and government's advisors, it is NOT), so therefore the UK government pointing out that we WON'T sign up to currency union is just bluff and bullying, so it won't happen and he'll get the union he wants.
What Cameron (and Ed Balls and Nick Clegg) is saying, via their 'chancellors', or equivalent, on the other hand, is WE will decide IF we enter agreements, and neither Salmond nor Scotland can take it for granted. And on currency union, it's simply not going to happen.
Salmond's pontificating no doubt goes down well with ScotNats, and maybe with many other Scots, but I can tell you how it's going down here. Or rather, I could, but I'd have to ban myself. Suffice it to say that, personally, I think ANY chance, any vague, remote chance of a currency union post-independence has been made utterly impossible, politically, BECAUSE of Salmond's "bullying" rhetoric.
He is dishonest with Scots, because he pretends that what he says is in rUKs best interests, and that therefore, anything anyone (including Barroso, van Rumpoy, etc) says that disagrees with him is either bullying or preposterous.
Which is why I described him as sticking his fingers in his ears, and shouting la-la-la like a petulant 5-year old, when told he can't have the new toy he wants, because it belongs to a different kid.
I know you know this, george, not least 'cos you've as much as said so, and aren't exactly Salmond's no.1 fan.
But .... Scotland would do well to considsr that, post-independence (should it happen) this idiot, that's been behaving like a spoilt brat, is going to have to negotiate with the very people he's insulting if he wants currency union.
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.
Again, and again, and again, Salmond is having his arguments disputed, or wrecked, by just about everybody bar ScotNats.
If Scotland still votes for independence, I wish you all the best of luck. Just don't be surprised when Salmond's fantasies turn out to be exactly that, as it relates to everyone else.
I can't agree with that. If Scots want out, they shouldn't be forced to stay in, which given the relative population sizes of Scotland and rUK, would have been a very uneven vote.
Besides, rUKs position is to keep the union. If any UK referendum said 'keep the union', the SNP would just have portrayed it as Westminster dictating to Scotland again, and on that occasion, with justification.
Nah, this HAS to be the choice of Scots. Nothing else would be accepted, and therefore wouldn't change anything. It would just be followed by calls for a referendum in Scotland. After all, a union is supposed to be voluntary, not one side dictating what the other can do .... a point that appears to have escaped Salmond on currency union. He seems to think "no" to currency union is rUK telling Scotland what to do. Far from it. It's rUK telling Scotland what rUK ISN'T going to do.
Anyway, Scot/rUK union has to be willing, not kidnapping. If Scots want out, well it's sad, but so be it. Ditto rUK in currency union. BOTH sides have to want it, or it doesn't happen .... rather like the UK in union.
Without wishing to disrupt the flow of debate (which is very interesting) what will happen to the Union flag if Scotland leaves?
Perhaps a plain old white flag would best represent a diminished nation or one with a portrait of a statesman like Cleggy? What about a bare-chested, designer-wellied Dave Cam or a mini skirted P-Middy? The opportunities are endless .
Actually, please ignore, I've just made myself feel ill.
Yep - you are absolutely right, I'm not his biggest fan. He loves the sound of his own voice, as most politicians do, but his voice is especially annoying. I also don't like this 'bullying' line - its pretty pathetic. It's not like Scotland, or its people, are well known for being prone to bullying! Its whiney and I don't think its a good idea.
Like I alluded to before - I really don't like the tone a lot of the debate has taken as many people both north and south of the border seem to be taking a rather unpleasant view of 'screw them' - I honestly think its being portrayed in some quarters as the tired old 'Scots hating the English/Braveheart nonsense' when its really nothing of the sort. 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). Besides if we don't get the Queens birthday off anymore then it won't even be an extra bank holiday - not worth it
santa claus (19-02-2014),Saracen (19-02-2014)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)