(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[Smudger]

I too think we'd be better off with the status quo, but if I was Scottish, I would probably vote Yes. The only thing that would stop me is the perception that Salmond is a bit of a megalomaniac...

[Saracen]

I'd rather Scotland stayed with us to be honest.

I have a million views on a thousand things.. but the short thing is this:

It's best sticking together when you know each other as well as we do. Hating each other is fine, so long as we hate other people more and stick back to back if the crap hits the fan globally.

which it is/has/will

I'm kinda split, personally.

On the one hand, the Union seems to have worked pretty well to date. Though, apparently, a significant number of Scots feel differently.

On the other hand, if enough Scots want out, well, I sure as hell don't want Scotland in a union against the will of it's people. But either way, in or out, I do hope the Nationalists will finally stop whinging about it.

And if they do stay in and don't stop whinging, how about the Rest of the UK, excluding Scotland, getting a referendum on us leaving them? Seems only fair.

And for that matter, give Wales, Northern Ireland and England a similar referendum, UK in or out? Put up or shut up? Those that vote yes can stay in, those that vote no can leave.

And while we're at it, Uk in EU, in or out? Either way, THAT needs resolving, too.

Lets just get it all out in the open, voted upon, decided one way or the other, at least for a generation and get on with the more important things in life.

But one thing. IF Scotland votes to stay, and IF we get some extra form or devolution or Devo Max, as promised, we DO need to address the West Lothian question. Unless we do that, my hope is that Scotland leaves, because the current situation is a democratic disgrace.

One final thing. If Scotland does leave, I hope there's a camera on Ed Miliband's face when he hears the result. Cameron's too, for that matter, though for different reasons. I want to see Miliband as he gets a kick in the electoral chances (for the GE after next, at least), and Cameron to see if he can resist a sneaky smirk.

[adidan]

On the other hand, if enough Scots want out, well, I sure as hell don't want Scotland in a union against the will of it's people. But either way, in or out, I do hope the Nationalists will finally stop whinging about it.

That's the thing though, it's not whether or not enough Scots want out, it's whether or not enough people who happen to be living in Scotland at the time want out.

I'm still looking for reasoning as to why non-UK citizens can vote on whether the UK stays in union or splits up whereas Scottish, UK citizens, who happen to live outside of Scotland cannot. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Me an my GF lived in Edinburgh and she would have been able to vote, even though she's not British, if we were still there and from her perspective the idea seems ludicrous. It's far more important than a local election or a general election for that matter, the latter in which she is not allowed to vote.

[Zak33]

the world has ALWAYS been unfair, skewed and unbalanced

it's how it works.

when something works on such a scale as a country/landmass in someway or other,.... I'd leave it be.

It's not a motherboard that needs a new CPU plugging in.... it's not a car that needs a new clutch....it's not a house that needs a loft extension ...


it's millions and millions of people living on the same land mass, surrounded by ocean and people who want to hurt us

back to back... that's how I want it

[Saracen]

That's the thing though, it's not whether or not enough Scots want out, it's whether or not enough people who happen to be living in Scotland at the time want out.

I'm still looking for reasoning as to why non-UK citizens can vote on whether the UK stays in union or splits up whereas Scottish, UK citizens, who happen to live outside of Scotland cannot. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Me an my GF lived in Edinburgh and she would have been able to vote, even though she's not British, if we were still there and from her perspective the idea seems ludicrous. It's far more important than a local election or a general election for that matter, the latter in which she is not allowed to vote.

I can give you the reasoning, though whether you agree with it or not is another matter.

The reasoning us a widely accepted international principle that franchise in constitutional referenda is determined by residency. Accordingly, that means in this case that anyone eligible to vote in Scottish Local government and Scottish Parliamentary elections is entitled to vote in this referendum.

So, British citizens resident in Scotland can vote, but those resident elsewhere, whether Scottish born or of Scottish heritage cannot. Of course, a non-Scot Brit (like me) can vote if, at the relevant date, I'm resident in Scotland, but by that same criteria, I'm would not be eligible to vote in an English referendum or local elections, by virtue of not being resident in England.

EU treaties similar confer mutual residency-based voting rights, and thus is the reciprocal side of that. I assume, though don't know as fact, that Commonwealth offers similar voting reciprocity for those resident, be it other Commonwealth citizens resident here, or British Commonwealth citizens resident in other Commonwealth countries.

Anyway, the criteria is eligibility for SLG & SP elections is residency, on the not unreasonable principle of having a say in decision-making where you reside, and exactly the same criteria, other than extending age limits to include 26 & 17 year-olds.

But for citizens of other countries, it's ONLY citizens of other EU and Commonwealth countries that are eligible, and that's being of those treaties of reciprocal rights in those bodies.

It is, of course, going to throw up some anomalies, like a born and bred Scot resident 5 miles south of the border being ineligible, but an Aussie resident in Scotland being eligible to vote, even if they're moving back to Australia, permanently, next week (after the vote).

All I can say to that is that there has to be a basis for eligibilty, a line drawn somewhere and somehow, and however you do it, there'll be anomalies.

Friends of mine are English, born and raised nearcLondon, but have been resudent just north of Aberdeen for, oh, 25 years. As far as I know, they'll remain permanently, though as family are down here, maybe they'll retire back here eventually. Conversely, a good friend is Scot through and through. If you sawed him in half, you'd get the St. Andrews cross. But since university, in the 70s, he's lived near London, raised his family in England, and as far as I know, has no plans ever to return to live in Scotland. Should he be able to vote on Scotland's constitutional future, having chosen, more than 35 years ago, to leave?

Residency does have some anomalies, but overall, it probably best reflects the principle that those primarily affected by a change get a vote on it, and those not affected, don't. A bit like democracy, it's the worst system ever tried, except for all the others.

Oh, and a technical point. It's "resident in", not "happen to be living in". They aren't quite the same thing, and have other implications, like for instance, tax liability.

[adidan]

But those are not the criteria used in a UK general election and that's just for 4 or 5 years, the outcome of this could affect the UK for far longer and is therefore more important and so I would have thought even stricter voting criteria would have applied. I know residency is used for local and EU elections but this is something quite different.

Likewise I couldn't move to another EU country and vote in their General Election, no matter how long I resided there.

[Saracen]

Which is why I said they used Scottish Parliament and LG elections, not Westminster elections.

The Scottish Parliament view was that it's the wishes of the Scottish people that matter. If they'd used General Election eligibility, it'd be 5 million Scots having their voice drowned out by 58 million non-Scots, in large part, English. It'd rather defeat the purpose of the Scots determining their own future if it was mainly English votes that determined it, dont you think?

[george1979]

Well over the past few months I have swayed back and forth but have finally decided to vote Yes. I've just come to believe that the needs of the people in Scotland would be best served by a government in Scotland.
I'm not convinced it will be a Yes on the day, indeed many of my own family are voting no - mainly out of fear. If we do then we will likely have some tough years ahead while we sort things out but it'll be worth it.

It may be a little trite but, above all else, this quote is something which perhaps explains my decision best - “May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

It won't be easy, and there's and lot to sort out, but I genuinely believe it would be the best outcome for Scotland and the rest of the UK in the long run.


Also, if we do vote yes, I really hope that it leads to a shake up in the political system south of the border because the extreme focus of Westminster on London and the South East does not seem to be serving many English regions (or Wales) well either. If the rest of the UK could vote to oust London that might be more palatable - and before anyone starts that is a joke (in case the emoticon didn't clue you in).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Funny how the world as a whole is breaking up into smaller and smaller fiefdoms especially since in many cases it is still influenced by what happened 100s if not 1000s of years ago. I suppose we are still true to our tribal ape selves,and its only going to get worse as humanity scrambles for less and less resources.

[Saracen]

....

It may be a little trite but, above all else, this quote is something which perhaps explains my decision best - “May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

....

A good basis for a decision.

I would point out though, that some fears are groundless, while others are utterly rational. Fear of flying in a commercial airliner (as long as it's not a certain apparently jinx'd Asian carrier) is pretty irrational, but I wouldn't advise jumping out of it at 13,000 feet without a parachute, in the hope of evolving wings before you hit the ground.

Fear of eating sheep's testicles is, perhaps, good taste but irrational, while fear of consuming (or inhaling gaseous forms of) prussic acid (otherwise known as hydrogen cyanide) is pretty rational, IMHO.

That quote, while admirable in intent, could easily be used as psychological manipulation. Fears can be overstated, and hopes may not come to pass.

And I don't say that to try to sway you. If I had a vote, I honestly don't know what it'd be. As someone not voting, some of me hopes for a yes, some of me hopes for a no. I suspect I'd be standing in the polling booth, pencil in hand with a gormless and confused expression on my face, before I decided. And then I'd probably spend several years wondering, whatever I'd voted, if I'd helped make a disastrous mistake.

I think what would sway me, ultimately, is that I can't stand Salmond, and frankly, don't believe a glib word he utters, not least because of the SNP stance on currency union. That lack of trust in him doesn't undermine the case for independence, but some credible answers to major questions, if the SNP have any would sure have helped me decide, if I had to.

Ultimately, I'd probably vote 'no'. Why? A no vote, especially if close as appears likely, will probably be revisited in years to come. So it's not irrevocable. And, hopefully, in the interim, some of those major unanswered questions will have been addressed.

A yes vote is almost certainly an exit through a one-way door.

[Zak33]

you want a quote for why you should vote no?

"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm"

that, was Churchill.... again.

Even if the Scottish people think we all fail together .. it's not been as bad a failure as it could have been.. and I think we should keep kicking... together

[george1979]

Funny how the world as a whole is breaking up into smaller and smaller fiefdoms especially since in many cases it is still influenced by what happened 100s if not 1000s of years ago. I suppose we are still true to our tribal ape selves,and its only going to get worse as humanity scrambles for less and less resources.

I'd say it's in part due to globalisation. I've no issue with globalisation per say, I'm all for international co-operation, trade and so on. Its that many peoples have become disenfranchised during the process. Being governed from afar and not really feeling that they have any control over the issues that matter to them or how their taxes are spent eventually wears a bit thin.
Bigger isn't always better! (at least that's what I used to tell my ex lol)

[george1979]

Saracen - You make some good points but the fears of going it alone aren't entirely rational. Things aren't going to be all rosy. We know that - Scots aren't exactly known for their hopeless optimism! But when things go sideways we will have to fix them, simple as that.
Put it this way, I have this thought - what if we get another 20 years of a Tory government and I have to look my nephew in the face at that time and say 'yeah we had the chance to be independent but I voted no cos I wasn't sure what money I'd be using'? The thought gives me the shivers. At least this way my vote is counting towards trying to make things better - it may, or may not, work out that way but the intention is there.

EDIT - Re Alex Salmond. There are a great many up here who don't care for him either but there's a good chance he won;t be there long after independence anyway. As an aside, voting Yes just so that Cameron is forever known as the PM who oversaw the break up of the UK is almost reason enough in itself

Zak33 - Even if we go we will still be kicking together The two peoples are so intertwined that even independence won't change that. At the very least you'll probably be giving us a kicking in a football match at some point lol

[adidan]

Which is why I said they used Scottish Parliament and LG elections, not Westminster elections.

The Scottish Parliament view was that it's the wishes of the Scottish people that matter. If they'd used General Election eligibility, it'd be 5 million Scots having their voice drowned out by 58 million non-Scots, in large part, English. It'd rather defeat the purpose of the Scots determining their own future if it was mainly English votes that determined it, dont you think?

I did actually say I thought stricter criteria than that used in a General Election should be enforced.

Common sense would presume that Scottish Independence should be determined by Scottish people and that the future of the UK is more important than a local election and, for that matter, a General Election. I would have presumed UK citizens residing in Scotland or Scottish born UK citizens living outside of Scotland should be the only ones who have a vote - even perhaps stricter still and just have those born in Scotland being allowed to vote.

Over 700,000 16yo+ Scottish born UK citizens live outside of Scotland (elsewhere in the UK) that I would argue have more of a right to vote than the 120,000+ eligible EU citizens residing in Scotland. There's about 500,000 Scottish dwellling UK citizens eligible to vote who were not born in Scotland.

Again, my GF would like this answer, why if we were still in Edinburgh would she be allowed to decide the future course of a foreign nation just because she happened to live and work there?

Edit: I've thanked you anyway for chatting this over with me, none of my responses should be taken in a narky way BTW, it's all just giving me a headache

[Saracen]

Saracen - You make some good points but the fears of going it alone aren't entirely rational. Things aren't going to be all rosy. We know that - Scots aren't exactly known for their hopeless optimism! But when things go sideways we will have to fix them, simple as that.
Put it this way, I have this thought - what if we get another 20 years of a Tory government and I have to look my nephew in the face at that time and say 'yeah we had the chance to be independent but I voted no cos I wasn't sure what money I'd be using'? The thought gives me the shivers. At least this way my vote is counting towards trying to make things better - it may, or may not, work out that way but the intention is there.

Zak33 - Even if we go we will still be kicking together The two peoples are so intertwined that even independence won't change that. At the very least you'll probably be giving us a kicking in a football match at some point lol

Point taken, George.

I said part of me hoped for yes. One reason is that absent Scots MPs, we (down here) would have a Tory government now, not a coalition, and it'd make the chances of another 13 years of Labour significantly less likely.

I guess both sides of the border have suffered political trauma as a result of the Union

But seriously, that issue just might be one of the best arguments for independence. If you lot, up there, want a broadly left government and us lot, down here, want that much less than you, then you want a different government from us.

That, IMHO, is a great reason for voting yes. I just wish Salmond would have seriously addressed issues like the alternative to currency union instead of just pretending every party leader down here is just lying when they say "no way is that happening".

There are alternatives. Using sterling without union, having a new currency, and others. So, specifying the alternative IF a currency union isn't on the table (and in my opinion, it seriously isn't) would at least be honest, because then, the pro's and con's, and likely implications, could at least be discussed. But he won't, despite being told specifically, repeatedly and very emphatically a currency union is NOT going to happen, post-independence. Yet, he blathers on pretending it is, just because he wants it, and utterly fails to acknowledge the possibility that when Osborne, Balls etc say "no way" they just might mean "no way".

And ditto the EU.

And so on.

[Saracen]

....

Again, my GF would like this answer, why if we were still in Edinburgh would she be allowed to decide the future course of a foreign nation just because she happened to live and work there?

Edit: I've thanked you anyway for chatting this over with me, none of my responses should be taken in a narky way BTW, it's all just giving me a headache

Not taken as narky. Not at all.

As for your GF, the answer lies, I should think, in those treaties, both EU and Commonwealth. Assuming she's from a country in one of them. They are, as I said, reciprocal.

Also, using one of the existing franchises keeps cost down. Setting up a completely new set of criteria risks serious escalation. Third, the Refefendum is the result of intehsive negotiation between Holyrood and Westminster, and it's only happening at all because Westminster passed enabling legislation. Salmond wanted 16 & 17 year-olds in, because the demographics suggest it benefits him, and no doubt, Cameron extracted a price for that in other areas. But, ultimately, it's the result of compromise and negotiation that it's happening at all.