Why does the UK need Scotland?

[Saracen]

This tends to be the way most non-Scots feel. Personally I quite like the devolved parliament now that I've seen how much it has been able to shield us from the insanity that is Tory party policy these days.

That said, you can't exclude the Scottish MP's from voting on certain issues without really taking a step to devolution as it is. Then they just become representatives on behalf of the Scots to talk about a few wee issues, instead of full time MP's guiding the course of the UK like everyone else's MPs do. I think this is a serious problem which can not be solved without either federalism, abolition of devolution, or independence.

Well, those UK-wide issues that currently aren't devolved are either more than just a few wee bits (like, y'know, defence, etc) or those Scottish MPs have no real Westminster legitimacy anyway.

Either they represent people who still have a legitimate interest in UK affairs or they don't, but either way, they have no democratic mandate to help decide what affects other people when it doesn't affect their own constituents.

It is a disgrace that devolution was enacted without resolving this issue as part of it.

Of course, it'd have been a bit tricky when we ended up with a PM that was a Scottish MP for a Scottish constituency, and that couldn't vote on a variety of devolved issues.

But I don't want to drag the thread off into a discussion of the West Lothian problem, 'cos that really isn't what it's about. I guess it's part of it, but far from the central point.

[TeePee]

As a hat.

[Consfearacy]

Somewhere to park their nuclear bulling tools. Would Brittian be as great if it didnt have the bomb?

[g8ina]

Somewhere to park their nuclear bulling tools. Would Brittian be as great if it didnt have the bomb?

Ohhhh at least spell it right

</grumbling head>

[directhex]

I don't think Salmond has done his sums, and is relying on people not working it out.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland has spent a great deal of money on, for example, military bases & training in Scotland. What happens to those if Scotland gains independence? Hint? Scotland doesn't just get them "for free". Same goes for an awful lot of UK facilities based in Scotland. They're not Scotland's, they're the UK's. Scotland could claim it has the right to 8% of those UK facilities when they split, of course, but then the question of what Scotland does with its share of the UK's debt happens. And the question of Scotland's currency (it can't use Sterling and have independent financial policy, for example).

[specofdust]

I don't think Salmond has done his sums, and is relying on people not working it out.

Why is that?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland has spent a great deal of money on, for example, military bases & training in Scotland. What happens to those if Scotland gains independence? Hint? Scotland doesn't just get them "for free".

You seem to forget that Scotland contributes to the treasury. Scotland pays its share for things like military bases, the olympics, the intelligence services. Plenty of which is not based in Scotland. If you're suggesting that Scotland will have to "buy" the military bases in Scotland, are you also going to suggest that the UK has to reimburse Scotland for all assets it keeps which have been paid for with Scottish money over the years? I don't think that would work out too well

The question of what Scotland does with its share of the UK's debt happens.

Not really. Scotland takes a percentage of the debt proportional to the populations. Job done.

And the question of Scotland's currency (it can't use Sterling and have independent financial policy, for example).

We'll see about that. It could use a "Scottish Sterling", with some links between the rUK and Scottish currencies, or move straight to the Euro, or do something else entirely.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Whisky.

[Bluecube]

You can get all those foreign whiskies where it's spelt wrong. You know - whiskey.

[directhex]

You seem to forget that Scotland contributes to the treasury. Scotland pays its share for things like military bases, the olympics, the intelligence services. Plenty of which is not based in Scotland. If you're suggesting that Scotland will have to "buy" the military bases in Scotland, are you also going to suggest that the UK has to reimburse Scotland for all assets it keeps which have been paid for with Scottish money over the years? I don't think that would work out too well

Scotland accounts for 8% of the population of the UK.

More than 8% of the UK's infrastructure, especially key military sites, are based in Scotland.

Scotland does not have a military - some key components of the UK's military are based in Scotland. Just taking back the Scottish soldiers and calling them a Scottish military would work about as well as "we'll just take the right arm and a foot, that's an entire person's worth so it just as good"

We'll see about that. It could use a "Scottish Sterling", with some links between the rUK and Scottish currencies,

Magical unbacked money with an arbitrary exchange rate? Hope you want a standard of living closer to Belarus than western Europe.

or move straight to the Euro, or do something else entirely.

Scotland does not meet the criteria to join the Euro. You're thinking of the UK.

[Dingo]

N
Norway BTW was voted as having the highest standard of living not so long ago and is this model Salmond is trying to base Scotland on .

Much as it pains me to say but Alex Salmond has his head further up his own arse than Tony Blair ever did!!

of course the Scots would be willing to have this

"Housing, transport and restaurant costs are very high, and groceries are also costly. Alcohol and tobacco prices are particularly expensive.

"Charges are often payable for specialist treatment, although in-patient care and treatment in a public hospital is usually free of charge.

There are additional charges for medicines, although some treatments for chronic conditions are subsidized and the patient only pays around a third of the cost.

Many medicines which can be bought over the counter in other countries are only available on prescription in Norway.

Dental treatment is not free, except for children, the elderly and the disabled, for whom free public dental care is provided. Dental treatment can be very expensive in Norway. "





..........and all based on what pray tell?...........where will the revenue come from?, the soon to be failing oilfields?, selling Nessie to the Japanese?, or do you plan to make kilts "de rigeur" in the rest of the World along with Stovies and Haggis?!!.....or do you imagine FIFA will give you four Champions League places so that one of your only two half decent football teams doesn't have to go into Liquidation!!...........wake up and smell the roses.......Alex Salmond will have Scotland in hock and be selling it's crown jewels by his second year in office...........the Americans already own half of Scotland..................will you have him sell the other half to the Arab nations?!!

[format]

or do you imagine FIFA will give you four Champions League places so that one of your only two half decent football teams doesn't have to go into Liquidation!!...........wake up and smell the roses.......

Just a quick note on this - as Celtic fan I'd like to note that we're easily one of the more solvent clubs in Britain, with or without Champions League money.

[specofdust]

Scotland accounts for 8% of the population of the UK.

More than 8% of the UK's infrastructure, especially key military sites, are based in Scotland.

You have evidence for this belief I trust?

Scotland does not have a military - some key components of the UK's military are based in Scotland. Just taking back the Scottish soldiers and calling them a Scottish military would work about as well as "we'll just take the right arm and a foot, that's an entire person's worth so it just as good"

Well that's kind of obvious now isn't it? To that end, rUK does not have a military either - the UK does. I'm not sure I understand your one-sided impression of this whole issue. If Scotland becomes independent that is a mutual separation, whether the rUK likes that or not.

Magical unbacked money with an arbitrary exchange rate? Hope you want a standard of living closer to Belarus than western Europe.

It'll be as backed as the rUK's money is. There is no reason for it to be otherwise.

Scotland does not meet the criteria to join the Euro. You're thinking of the UK.

Scotland isn't an independent country yet, so yes, this is correct. Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?


I don't see why these arguments have to be so nippy and childish. There's an important debate to be had, and yet people seem unable to help themselves from being snide and taking cheap shots, on both sides.

[directhex]

You have evidence for this belief I trust?

Let's take the Royal Navy as an example. There are three major bases in the UK. Portsmouth, Devonport, and Clyde. So a third of our major naval facilities are based in Scotland. What happens to HMNB Clyde if Scotland leaves the UK?

Well that's kind of obvious now isn't it? To that end, rUK does not have a military either - the UK does.

Indeed.

I'm not sure I understand your one-sided impression of this whole issue. If Scotland becomes independent that is a mutual separation, whether the rUK likes that or not.

"It's totally mutual whether you like it or not"? I suggest grabbing a dictionary.

It'll be as backed as the rUK's money is. There is no reason for it to be otherwise.

Backed by whom? The value of a currency is backed on exchange with other currencies, and that's based on how much currency speculators consider a currency as having value. Who is going to invest in a currency with literally zero history of solvent action? Interest rates for government loans will reflect the massively sub-prime status of an independent Scotland with its own currency?

And if Scotland decides to use foreign currency like Sterling as its own (e.g. some South American countries use US Dollar) then it has no control over its own economy as it cannot regulate a single piece of fiscal policy - interest rates and inflation rates etc are still regulated by the Bank of England south of the border.

Scotland isn't an independent country yet, so yes, this is correct. Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?

That's the point though isn't it? "Oh money's not a problem we just join the Euro no big deal" is an absolutely farcical statement with no basis in reality.

I don't see why these arguments have to be so nippy and childish. There's an important debate to be had, and yet people seem unable to help themselves from being snide and taking cheap shots, on both sides.

Because it's the pro-independence side which is following a path of "we just dump those Tory bastards down south and everything will become sunshine and lollipops, everything will be free for every citizen ever and we'll get a healthy 25% of all the good stuff in the UK because we're formerly 25% of the countries in the UK. It'll be AWESOMESAUCE"

Any statement of independence which doesn't start with "holy ****balls this is going to be tough" is fantasy land.

[specofdust]

Let's take the Royal Navy as an example. There are three major bases in the UK. Portsmouth, Devonport, and Clyde. So a third of our major naval facilities are based in Scotland. What happens to HMNB Clyde if Scotland leaves the UK?

One of three things. Either it's shut down completely, or the rUK leases it as a nuclear naval facility, or it becomes the home of the new Scottish Navy (or a combination of the latter two).

"It's totally mutual whether you like it or not"? I suggest grabbing a dictionary.

Sorry, perhaps worded wrongly. The point is, if Scotland goes independent, what the UK is fundamentally changes. It is not an amputation, but a division.

Backed by whom? The value of a currency is backed on exchange with other currencies, and that's based on how much currency speculators consider a currency as having value.

True, hence why new currencies tend to be initially set as equal to another country's, and then rapidly change.

Who is going to invest in a currency with literally zero history of solvent action? Interest rates for government loans will reflect the massively sub-prime status of an independent Scotland with its own currency?

Well, on that note you could equally say the rUK's currency will have no history of solvent action. I mean, neither Scotland nor the rUK will have an economic history - so I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. If you're just trying to say that loans will be expensive because the Scottish economy is bad, then you need to bring numbers to the table.

And if Scotland decides to use foreign currency like Sterling as its own (e.g. some South American countries use US Dollar) then it has no control over its own economy as it cannot regulate a single piece of fiscal policy - interest rates and inflation rates etc are still regulated by the Bank of England south of the border.

This is how plenty of smaller countries operate right now, this is how the entire eurozone operates also. It is a possibility, that is all I am saying.



That's the point though isn't it? "Oh money's not a problem we just join the Euro no big deal" is an absolutely farcical statement with no basis in reality.

Because it's the pro-independence side which is following a path of "we just dump those Tory bastards down south and everything will become sunshine and lollipops, everything will be free for every citizen ever and we'll get a healthy 25% of all the good stuff in the UK because we're formerly 25% of the countries in the UK. It'll be AWESOMESAUCE"

I live in Scotland, and the only time I hear this is as an accusation when someone's attacking the idea of independence.

Any statement of independence which doesn't start with "holy ****balls this is going to be tough" is fantasy land.

It's going to be complicated, at least, yes. The discussion has barely started (and already is becoming childish and toxic at a national level) - there are lots of details to be discussed, possibilities to be worked out. This is kind of like planning how you'd divorce someone before you're even sure you want to, it's necessarily quite messy and complicated. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but I agree that people need to recognise that does mean it's not going to be simple to do.

[directhex]

One of three things. Either it's shut down completely, or the rUK leases it as a nuclear naval facility, or it becomes the home of the new Scottish Navy (or a combination of the latter two).

I live in Scotland, and the only time I hear this is as an accusation when someone's attacking the idea of independence.

Free naval base for Scotland! Totally going to happen!

See, THIS is the problem. You're accusing people of calling out current visions of Scotland's "piece" of UK resources as an attack, yet think Scotland would just magically take ownership of a third of the UK's naval bases. Even if the base is completely shut down, then who is paying for that massive cut to the UK's navy? Can we expect reparations from Scotland?

Well, on that note you could equally say the rUK's currency will have no history of solvent action. I mean, neither Scotland nor the rUK will have an economic history - so I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. If you're just trying to say that loans will be expensive because the Scottish economy is bad, then you need to bring numbers to the table.

As long as the Bank of England is the only body which can issue sterling currency - and you bet your ass that foreign notes from "Clydesdale Bank" etc would no longer be considered legal tender by the currency's issuing body - then Pound Sterling has a history and a valid exchange rate.

Look at it this way - how many locally produced goods can you buy per hypothetical Scottish Pound? And how many imports? And why - who's going to supply goods at that rate?

Want to start issuing your own currency pegged par to Sterling? Fine, do that - but it'll give you as much economic control as other countries that do that - such as Gibraltar and the South Sandwich islands.

This is how plenty of smaller countries operate right now, this is how the entire eurozone operates also. It is a possibility, that is all I am saying.

Look how well tying its economic control to Germany has worked out for the Greeks - and vice versa.

[specofdust]

Free naval base for Scotland! Totally going to happen!

See, THIS is the problem. You're accusing people of calling out current visions of Scotland's "piece" of UK resources as an attack, yet think Scotland would just magically take ownership of a third of the UK's naval bases. Even if the base is completely shut down, then who is paying for that massive cut to the UK's navy? Can we expect reparations from Scotland?

You're cherry picking one example. The UK spends tax revenue from all four countries in a roughly even manner. I mean, if Scotland goes independent is Scotland going to get a share of all the olympic buildings? How about the MI5 or MI6 headquarters? Should Scotland expect reparations for these?

As long as the Bank of England is the only body which can issue sterling currency - and you bet your ass that foreign notes from "Clydesdale Bank" etc would no longer be considered legal tender by the currency's issuing body - then Pound Sterling has a history and a valid exchange rate.

I suppose the question is why do you think the Bank of England will remain the only body which issues sterling? It's as much Scotland's currency as it is England's. That said, I don't think anything like that will happen, I just think it's a valid question.

Look at it this way - how many locally produced goods can you buy per hypothetical Scottish Pound? And how many imports? And why - who's going to supply goods at that rate?

Money has the value which people are willing to place in it, you seem to imply that Scottish money would be almost worthless, and yet you don't provide a reason for this.

Look how well tying its economic control to Germany has worked out for the Greeks - and vice versa.

Greece is in trouble because they were corrupt and generally quite immoral as a nation. The Greeks took advantage of something to gain in the short term, and screwed themselves in the long term. Slovenia manages just fine with a weak economy and EU wide monetary policy.