Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:22 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

That the Welsh and Northern Irish use as well.

Would you agree that the Bank of England and sterling are an asset? They clearly are. Now, as part of the United Kingdom didn't Scotland contribute to them while part of the union? You seem to be saying an absolute no, that if they are leaving the union then they leave them behind. Scotland are saying that if that's the case and their contribution to sterling is worthless well they'll let the UK cover all the debts too.

You want to keep the asset and share the debt. Scotland are merely saying that if England keeps all the asset they keep all the debts too.

no, they leave the benefit but pay their debt, it's not that complicated.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:36 am  

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: http://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: http://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:41 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The vote, which Cameron agreed to allow place, was only given to the current residents of Scotland.

So English people resident in Scotland are allowed to vote on independence, but Scottish people living in England won't be.

The "cut off your nose to spite your face" decision would be to say that Scots born English residents are no longer UK residents or EU members so they're not allowed to live or work in the UK (or EU).

But that decision will be sheer lunacy from Cameron seeing as the Scottish born residents of England were given absolutely no say in the vote.

Except it will be little or nothing to do with Cameron who will presumably be looooooooong gone and working in a bank or something way before any separation actually might happen.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Asking the Queen. So now you're a royalist?

What's a royalist? Only you could have missed the ironic tone. Having said which, I much prefer the constitutional monarchy that has served us so well to other models, and reckon Brenda does a cracking job.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

One of the earliest decisions an independent Scotland should make is becoming a republic and rejecting the BS of having a royal family.

It's not BS, it's just a historical legacy, which the majority have been happy with, and Parliament has never (in any flavour) really even considered changing. All i'd do is cut adrift those "royals" who do fsck all (which is most of them) but those who work at their jobs like proper Trojans put in a great shift for the country and I have no great problem in paying something for their services. From what I see of Presidents, they don't seem to come at bargain rates either.

However, back to the plot; the Scots if they vote Yes would have a big constitutional issue, and I have no idea whether the population of Scotland want a monarch of any description, or a republic. They could, of course, go back to having a King or Queen of Scotland, for one thing. So it would be a three-way issue; Queen Elizabeth; King Max or even Queen Elisabeth (which would need the 1701 Act of Settlement that outlawed Catholic monarchs to be repealed, which shouldn't be a problem as it is blatantly discriminatory anyway); otherwise King Franz; or maybe the Belgian, King Michael or any one of several other contenders. Finally there is the third option, a republic.

But you will however I'm sure be ecstatic to learn that the firm SNP policy is to remain a constitutional monarchy, with Brenda in charge, so it's not just me. And if the Scots wanted in the future a monarchy but with their own monarch, then I would bet a lot of money that if Princess Anne threw her hat in the ring, she would win a Scottish majority vote. Unless Tilda Swinton threw in her lot, she's descended from Robert the Bruce and critically already has Queen experience, even if it is only in Narnia.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:51 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

That the Welsh and Northern Irish use as well.

Would you agree that the Bank of England and sterling are an asset? They clearly are. Now, as part of the United Kingdom didn't Scotland contribute to them while part of the union? You seem to be saying an absolute no, that if they are leaving the union then they leave them behind. Scotland are saying that if that's the case and their contribution to sterling is worthless well they'll let the UK cover all the debts too.

You want to keep the asset and share the debt. Scotland are merely saying that if England keeps all the asset they keep all the debts too.

Except they are keeping many assets. All the buildings built with public money in Scotland. All the people trained by public UK institutions. They are shared assets and they are keeping their share if them.

The currency is a UK currency. Yes it was contributed to by Scotland but the benefit of that contribution has been had and shared by Scotland.

Scotland is leaving the UK therefore it leaves behind certain things such as UK armed forces, the NHS etc and also the Pound. It is well within it's rights to setup it's own armed forces and Health Service etc but they will not be (eventually after a period of transition) shared Armed Forces or Health Services. The same is true of the currency.

As mentioned, they have 4 realistic options:
- Setup a Scottish Pound. Incredibly difficult, dangerous and unstable option, especially at the moment.
- Join the Euro. Which would mean joining the EU, which would take a long time and is far from certain they'd be approved. If they were, they're still handing over control of their currency to someone else.
- Keep using the Pound with a currency union. Best option, but demolishes the entire case for independence in the first place.
-Keep using the Pound without a currency union. Might work. Some Latin American countries use the US dollar without a Union. But it's still very risky. No lender of last resort and no control of monetary policy.

They are Scotland's options. None are ideal. But they don't appear to have thought that far ahead.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:03 am  

Errlee Berd wrote: Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: http://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs. so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.

Errlee Berd wrote: Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: http://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs. so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:10 am  

and by "Hull", I meant the City, not the rugby club.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:24 am  

Him wrote:

They are Scotland's options. None are ideal. But they don't appear to have thought that far ahead.

I think that's part of the issue. Salmond should have had the answers set out years ago, but seems to have been caught out just recently in the TV debates. His party has been on a devolution/independence ticket for years, yet I do wonder if he or anyone has given thought to exactly what happens on day 1 of Scotland being independent.

I hope for the Scottish people that they aren't going to be left screwed over by Salmond/Sturgeon (or Darling/Brown) and political points scoring.

And while I'm thinking about it, WTF gives Gordon Brown the authority to start offering sweeteners on the basis of a "no" vote?

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:27 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But you will however I'm sure be ecstatic to learn that the firm SNP policy is to remain a constitutional monarchy, with Brenda in charge, so it's not just me. And if the Scots wanted in the future a monarchy but with their own monarch, then I would bet a lot of money that if Princess Anne threw her hat in the ring, she would win a Scottish majority vote. Unless Tilda Swinton threw in her lot, she's descended from Robert the Bruce and critically already has Queen experience, even if it is only in Narnia.

Sir Ian Mckellen for Queen of Scotland?

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:54 am  

Standee wrote: so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not. Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf http://www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

Standee wrote: so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not. Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf http://www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:33 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I think that's part of the issue. Salmond should have had the answers set out years ago, but seems to have been caught out just recently in the TV debates. His party has been on a devolution/independence ticket for years, yet I do wonder if he or anyone has given thought to exactly what happens on day 1 of Scotland being independent.

I hope for the Scottish people that they aren't going to be left screwed over by Salmond/Sturgeon (or Darling/Brown) and political points scoring.

And while I'm thinking about it, WTF gives Gordon Brown the authority to start offering sweeteners on the basis of a "no" vote?

The decision isn't enacted immediately. Just as a No vote will bring through new negotiations on devolutionary powers, so would a Yes vote. Negotiations would take place during a period of status quo to reach the changeover.

Brown is in the Better Together campaign & simply delivering what he is told to. I would be amazed if anyone gives any credibility to anything that comes out of his mouth.