Novocastrian

He's been on the Woellsteiner again.

rivingtonpike

Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, "Thus says The Lord, the God of Israel, 'Let My people go,'"

If it was good enough for Him....

Novocastrian

Actually, I'm a bit confused by the thread title.

Where exactly are the Scots going?

scrubbedexpat098

anywhere but Scotland it would seem

dwight-van-man

The thread title kind of embodies the Yes campaigns argument, ie Englandshire doesn't care (If we get independence, we'll let you keep your capital letters btw). Personally, given that the decision affects the whole of the UK - maybe you'll be better off, maybe our oil is subsidising you, who knows... - I think the vote should be open to everyone in the UK. I work for a small insurance company based in England - they simply don't know whether they'll want to continue trading in Scotland because theres so many unknown factors regards currency and financial services regulation - even whether international flight taxes would apply on flights between London and Edinburgh. They're concerned because a sizable portion of their turnover comes from Scottish clients but they just don't know what the costs of doing business in an independent Scotland would be.


As far as I can see, the Yes campaign are stronger, more vocal and have a more coherent argument (whether their arguments are based in actual facts is an entirely different matter) whereas the No campaign is led by a bunch of anonymous failed politicians who keep tripping over their own arguments, and has been celebs who don't even live here and are unlikely to return in order to avoid paying tax. The No campaign seem to rely on boogy man scare tactics which just makes them look stupid and is driving support to the Yes camp, but the whole issue is totally devoid of clear facts and I don't think the average Scot or Englishman has any idea at all the implications of a Yes vote. Six months ago, I would have said the general mood was against independence; now I'm not so sure. One thing which I can't get my head round, is the motivation of the SNP. In the event of a Yes vote, I guess there would be a further election to choose government, in which case its more than likely that Labour would get a majority. If the vote is No, whats the point in the SNP continuing? So either way, they've got a limited lifespan...

Yorkiechef

Yes I care, I see Scotland and the Scottish people as my people, in the uk, for century after century we have fought side by side, not against each other, I have no problem about them having a distinct culture of their own. What I worry about is if they say no as a nation, When do they have another referendum or worse, when does this nation (UK) fracture like Yugoslavia. If it is to happen, I hope the welsh and the people from NI ask for the same, then it is done very quickly without it being a long and drawn out process. Ultimately it is for the people of these countries to decide, I just hope it is so one sided that it does not appear again on the agenda for another 3 or 4 hundred years. A close no would be the worst case scenario.

dwight-van-man

Definitely - last nights news highlighted the Yes campaign 'claiming' 1 million eligible but unregistered voters as theirs. Apparently they've done a poll and all these voters would vote Yes if they bothered to register...

Oakvillian

Well yes, exactly. And so long as Scotland remains part of Great Britain, the currency is universal in all the countries of the Union. But once Scotland is no longer British, the British pound is no longer available for use except on Britain's terms. I don't see that this is a contentious point, which part of it do you not understand?

Jingsamichty

I am not a nationalist, but if Scotland decides to no longer be a part of Great Britain, then Great Britain as a legal concept ceases to exist.

Oink

Why does it have to be such a limited choice? Its 2014 for naffs sake, even in Scotland there should no stigma attached to being binational these days.

Oakvillian

Fair enough. It will still, presumably, be a United Kingdom - "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" perhaps? I used the term "Britain" because that's what Andrewjohn had posted - sure, Great Britain as a legal concept will cease to exist as it is currently defined, but legal definitions can be changed.

Great Britain = England, Wales and associated island territories?
United Kingdom = England, Wales, Northern Ireland and associated islands?

Either way, Scotland will have to ask nicely to use another country's currency, and will not achieve complete fiscal/monetary independence without its own sovereign currency.

The choice seems to be between becoming an outpost of the Eurozone, or a client state of the United Kingdom. Neither of these, I suggest, will leave the average Scot any better off than they are today. Regardless of the merits of the economic and political arguments for independence, the fiscal problem falls miserably at the first hurdle, IMO.

neilcumming

The main reason the tories dont want an independent Scotland is that Scotland is a weathly nation and contrary to popular belief we are not a bunch of scoungers.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...endent-nation/
Scotland was bankrupt but if you read your history there was alot of opposition in Scotland to the union at the time but this nothing to do with ancient history its all to do about the future.

Jingsamichty

I don't think so. The 'United Kingdom' is a union of two kingdoms... England (and Wales) with Scotland.

The proper title is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Wales is always considered part of England (sorry Cymru!) and Northern Ireland is not a separate kingdom, but is a later addition to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

So, legally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is only England and Scotland. If there is a divorce, there will be no United Kindgom, nor a Great Britain - there will be Scotland, and "the Kingdom of England (and Wales), and Northern Ireland."

In any case, I agree with the sentiment that it seems poor sense to leave a union of the UK just to join the Eurozone.

Oakvillian

That link is a laughably one-sided pile of drivel. Scotland has a "rich and diverse economy" - roughly on a par with that of Finland or the Philippines. When politically-driven inward investment from other parts of the UK is taken out of the equation, one suspects it will shrink a bit.

And the tax burden stuff fails, as ever, to factor in the costs that Scotland would incur if it were solely responsible for its own foreign affairs, defence, treasury, etc etc. The overheads of running at least three more major spending departments in Edinburgh - not to mention the additional workload on departments of health, local government, home affairs, infrastructure and transportation - would quickly eat up that supposed dividend. Which Scottish Government department currently deals with air traffic control, or medical device licensing, or customs/border control, or fiscal policy (no, hang on, they're not planning on having one of those...)?

There are some splendidly arbitrary baselines used in some of the graphs, too. Why choose 1999=100 for tax receipts but 1980=100 for public sector surplus? And the claim that "Scotland has 25% of Europe's wind energy potential" is so ridiculous it's beyond funny and out the other side. Turns out that claim is based on a submission made by a renewable energy lobbying body to a parliamentary enquiry in 2001. Hmmm.

As I said earlier, I don't have a strong ideologically-based opinion for or against independence. But from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, there is a pretty questionable upside and all sorts of potential pitfalls that are being swept under the rug.

Oakvillian

But if Scotland leaves the Union, it doesn't have a say on what its former partner country is called. England, Wales and Northern Ireland could pass an Act in Westminster to call the country the United Kingdom. The name was created by Act of Parliament in 1707; it would only need another Act in the same Parliament to amend it.

By the way, there's no such thing as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. There hasn't been since the annexation of Ireland in 1801, when it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (again, by Act of the Westminster Parliament) and subsequently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927. There's a good deal of precedent for changing the boundaries but keeping the name.