|
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Craig1987
(Post 9840756)
Publicly available figures show that Scotland earns surplus income. The rest of the Uk does not. Then there is also earnings from North Sea Oil (which the British Government has massively siphoning from Scotland since it's discovery).
I never claimed to have all the answers did I? Firstly, benefits. Our system for Benefits would basically be in the same mold as the current one. Paid for by N.I contributions. Currency, I'm not sure about. As for armed forces, perhaps we wouldn't have gone into the same conflicts that our lying government led us into. Are you forgetting about the amount of Scottish soldiers? We'd have our own army. You're not really asking any difficult questions. Just ones with obvious answers. Like I already said, our official demonyms are "Scots" and "Scottish". So I don't really care what an English author has to say on this matter. It doesn't make it official. As for "We'd have our own army" do you have any concept of just how difficult that is to set-up? What are you expecting to happen? That all the Scottish soldiers will just chuck their kit in, make their way back to Scotland and set up their own little army? What regiments? What C&C structure? Where's the equipment coming from? Where's the pay coming from while all this gets sorted out? Will you be expecting, the now English army, to pay for it all? Should the Scots get their vote and then go on to chose to stay in the Union, they might find that the English tell them to bugger off anyway. The very act of the vote is likely to start a chain of events that could end with Scotland outside of the UK, whether they like it or not. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9840937)
I would have thought that an independent scotland would be able set it's own level of taxation, issue it's own bonds, and run whatever deficit it thinks it can get away with.
If it uses the pound or the euro then it's monetary policy comes from the BofE or the ECB. I assume the if scotland joins the euro, then the ECB will have to take scottish interests into account, however can the same be said for the BofE? It's not that you and Editha are wrong, but dictating fiscal policy will only happen if scotland does a greece and goes into so much debt that it cannot borrow anymore and therefore the government there can no longer function. Until the point where it has to come begging to what remains of the UK or europe then it can be fiscally independent I would have thought. Obviously, if they choose to stay in the pound there I would hope there would be some agreement about fiscal union because monetary union without fiscal union doesn't seem to work that well. But such things are negotiated rather than dictated. There is a story about a British statesman in the days of Empire, whose contribution to "negotiations" over a treaty was to present his draft and then, pointing with a finger, say in diplomatic french "Vous signez ici". Then he left the room. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9840954)
Monetary union is clear cut - ECB or BoE. In theory there is a 3rd option - say a Scottish pound run by a Scottish central bank but I doubt that would ever get off the ground. If Scotland went independent and continued to use the UK pound though (the Panama approach) UK monetary policy would be set by BoE without input from Scotland at all.
At present Scottish spending and taxation are set by the UK government. A future independent Scotland using the Euro would have it's budget approved by Germany, just like Ireland now. I think the assumption that scotland will start in as weak a position as the PIIGS is false. That will only happen after a year or two. The likely outcome for an independent scotland is that it will use the pound; the BofE will take the scottish economy into account when setting interest rates and there will be some agreement between westminster and holyrood about borrowing levels. I doubt there will be any agreement on taxation and spending beyond that. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Editha
(Post 9840973)
It wouldn't be negotiation between equals though, would it? And when one party is economically so much bigger and stronger than the other, there is a very fine line between negotiation and dictation.
|
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9840974)
Does germany approve all eurozone budgets?
I think the assumption that scotland will start in as weak a position as the PIIGS is false. That will only happen after a year or two. The likely outcome for an independent scotland is that it will use the pound; the BofE will take the scottish economy into account when setting interest rates and there will be some agreement between westminster and holyrood about borrowing levels. I doubt there will be any agreement on taxation and spending beyond that. The BoE would take the Scottish economy into account when setting interest rates but would have no obligation to act in the interest of the Scottish economy other than to the extent that the English economy benefited. Scotland could certainly tax and spend as much as it wanted but using a foreign currency like a GB pound certainly restricts the options available - effectively the Eurozone countries each now use a foreign currency which is ok until the weaker ones start to struggle. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9840996)
The new treaty is intended to address that by impossing limits on budget deficits isn't it?
The BoE would take the Scottish economy into account when setting interest rates but would have no obligation to act in the interest of the Scottish economy other than to the extent that the English economy benefited. Scotland could certainly tax and spend as much as it wanted but using a foreign currency like a GB pound certainly restricts the options available - effectively the Eurozone countries each now use a foreign currency which is ok until the weaker ones start to struggle. http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012...#axzz1jN6oPlWF |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9840996)
... which is ok until the weaker ones start to struggle.
I think the situation might be closer to munis in the US rather than countries in the EU. What affect would a Scottish default really have on England as opposed to other creditor nations? I guess everyone in scotland would move south of the border ... hmm, I don't appear to have thought this through very well;) |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9841015)
And that's the thing. What happens then depends on the agreements in place beforehand.
I think the situation might be closer to munis in the US rather than countries in the EU. What affect would a Scottish default really have on England as opposed to other creditor nations? I guess everyone in scotland would move south of the border ... hmm, I don't appear to have thought this through very well;) |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
(Post 9841023)
I wouldn't fancy being a Scot
|
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Although I know they were not built to keep the Scots out I suggest a rebuilding of the Antonine and Hadrians Walls :lol:
|
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9840959)
Digressing slightly, but Burns Night is coming up soon, so where can you get decent Haggis in Calgary? I know the dogs won't touch it but I quite like it.
|
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 9834064)
I've just read the news about this thing likely to take place in 2014 and wonder what feelings you have about Scotland cutting ties with England. I've never been to the UK but I've been told that even though the Scots, Irish, and Welsh travel and work in all 4 countries as well as intermarry, the English are (at least on some level) traditionally seen as oppressors. Why then do the Scottish nationalists say that in the event they separate they still want to retain HRH as head of state? It's a long way from here but I find the concept of independence exciting, even if it isn't exactly a 'Celtic Spring'.
A carp fishing friend from Bristol has a Welsh mum, and the family went to her home town for a visit. Somehow he found himself in the local pub with all the old regulars eyeing him suspiciously, being a strange face. The barman served him and asked who he might be. He replied that he was from Bristol and his dad was English, but his mum was from right there. One old fellow said "Then you're allright, boyo, you're only half a b*st*rd!" My perspective is that of an English ex-pat, who will be returning to England in a couple of years time. I think the Scottish people have the right to self-determination, and so whatever they decide, independence or devo-max, the rest of Britain must accept their decision. I think David Cameron was wrong in principle, and also politically inept, to try to control when the referendum occurs or what questions are asked. I hope that the Scottish people decide to go for devo-max. That's because it would be a step towards a federal United Kingdom, which would include greater autonomy for English regions, which I support. As far as devo-max is concerned, a relevant question, is whether Scotland would win or lose financially. Whether or not Scotland currently receives more in subsidy than it pays in revenues is hotly contested, and it is difficult to know who to believe. Personally, I'm satisfied, that since, firstly, North Sea Oil is a wasting asset, and secondly, that the British government will make sure that if Scotland keeps the oil revenues, it will also pay for the RBS bailout, then the rest of Britain will be the winner. Full independence for Scotland is far more complicated. Personally, I think both Scotland and the rest of Britain would be losers. As far as Scotland is concerned, several thousand defence industry jobs would move south, there would be huge expenses in setting up an independent state, and there is a problem about which currency they'd use. As far as the rest of Britain is concerned, we would be a diminished world power. If, despite the difficulties, the Scots do decide on independence, I confidently expect the British government will take a firm line in negotiations. British assets should be protected. Scotland will have to shoulder the burden of its debts, including RBS. It should not be allowed monetary union with the UK unless it will agree to our fiscal discipline, and so on. From what I've read of Alex Salmond's statements, I think he tends to gloss over the downside of independence. He claims, for example, that Scotland is entitled to 90% of North Sea oil revenue, but only responsible for 5% of the RBS debt. So, I hope that the realities are properly explained to the Scottish electorate before they vote. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Editha
(Post 9841006)
There's was interesting summary of the problem on the FT blog yesterday:
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012...#axzz1jN6oPlWF In the end though all the technical arguments go out the window and people will decide on less tangible issues. Salmond has a clever answer for everything and for him I suppose this period is the culmination of a lifetimes work. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Editha
(Post 9841060)
I think David Cameron was wrong in principle.... to try to control ...what questions are asked.
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" I mean, eh? A large number of people had no idea what that meant. Hence Chretien's Clarity Act thereafter. |
Re: Scotttish Independence Referendum
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 9841073)
I agree with most of your post, except this bit. I guess you weren't here in 1995, when the Quebec separation referendum posed only this question,
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" I mean, eh? A large number of people had no idea what that meant. Hence Chretien's Clarity Act thereafter. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:48 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.