Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:18 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

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.

I'd kind of guessed that, but there would still be a Day 1 of independence

[DaveO]

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:30 pm  

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.

No they are not. The B of E is an Institution and Sterling is a currency. The currency has had no intrinsic value ever since the Gold Standard came to an end in 1971. You can't swap it for some tangible object (i.e. a lump of gold) and it is instead just used as a means of exchange. You can't have a share of that because its not an asset.

The pounds value which is based on how many of them there are in circulation and the world's perception of the strength of the UK economy (leading to countries tio want to buy or sell pounds) is just that. An exchange rate not something you can divide up. An asset can be divided so that would be the UK's currency reserves (for example) not the currency itself.

There is nothing to stop Scotland using it as a means of exchange as Panama uses the US dollar (and the US dollar is not something anyone would suggest Panama has a stake in as in it being an asset).

That it not what Salmond wants though. He wants to use the pound within a currency union so his banks are backed by not only Scottish but English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers and because he doesn't want an exchange rate in force across the Scottish / English border.

His insistence it is an asset is purely political in that he thinks he can use it to walk away from a debt (as he doesn't get a share of this "asset") or threaten to do so.

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.

How did Scotland "contribute" to the pound?

By walking away from the Union they reduce the size of the UK economy so this will reduce the value of the pound (not that this would be a particularly bad thing for exports....) and so their contribution to its value (which isn't that great a proportion anyway) disappears. That percentage is their contribution to the pound but it relies on them being part of an economic union for this contribution to exist at all.

Even in a currency union any perceived risks of the Scottish government breaking any of the inevitable fiscal rules that would have to be put in place would affect it's value.

But lets suppose it went the other way and the Scottish economy was a success, why would the rest of the UK want the value of the pound inflated when it wasn't receiving any of the revenue from the Scottish economy?

Also if the pound is a UK-wide asset so are all Scotland's assets such as the oil which they have no intention of sharing.

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 are using the excuse of being denied a currency union to threaten to walk away from a debt.

[DaveO]

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:26 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I think you are rather over estimating what Salmond has actually said or promised. Scotland keeping the £ doesn't equate to a bail out in any way.

It does if they are in a currency union with the test of the UK. If not and they use the pound regardless that has other very negative implications for Scotland he keeps quiet on.

There would be nothing preventing the BBC operating as a commercial television station & collecting subscriptions in Scotland.

That is not what he wants. The BBC currently is the National public broadcaster for the UK as a whole so produces regional programming. Yes Scotland could buy the latest episode of Sherlock or the Scots could even watch it on Netflix as the BBC sells it to them but all the jobs, regional programming and production would cease or it would have to be funded by Scottish taxpayers alone. Or they could just go completely commercial which is the exact opposite of the kind of society on offer.

Embassies? Reciprocal agreements with any countries they want them in?

DVLA? That would be a huge money spinner for them. Civil Service requirements would be what, set against what they have now?

How is the DVLA a money spinner and for whom? Scotland will have to fund its own road building and repair program. On the back of road tax from however many drivers in Scotland? The Barnett formula is set as it is supposedly to cater for the fact it costs a lot more to fund services and infrastructure in remote parts of Scotland than the more metropolitan and easier to access UK. If that goes then they have to pay for this themselves. As to the civil service however large or small it is it will result in duplication compared to retaining the UK civil service.

Croatia is a similar sized country population wise to Scotland. It has a shipbuilding industry the Scots have the capability for on the Clyde. It seems to be doing quite well following accession to the EU, which has pumped in some £18bn into the country.

How is that relevant? Scotland, we are told, will be a successful economy so will be a net contributor to the EU in the same way Denmark is for example. There won't be any shipbuilding subsidies going towards the Clyde.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:13 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I wonder if they could actually turn a profit on her and her Scottish estates, would be an interesting proposition when the Scottish Parliament take over the likes of Balmoral (how many properties does she "own" oop north ?), they could lease it to her for a peppercorn rent on a timeshare basis for, say, six weeks a year and then rent it out as a holiday home via a Scottish holiday web site like Unique Cottages, have a look, I can just see Balmoral in their, "Sleeps 200, not close to pub or supermarket though, lovely views"

[/url]

Listening to the radio today, it was confirmed that the Queen does actually own Balmoral and her other Scottish estates, so unless Salmond plans to steal all holiday properties of all non-Scots, then they can't touch any of her assets.

I suppose they could nail her (and others) with a huge council tax bill, but I doubt it would do Salmond's cute and cuddly public image much good being seen dragging a vulnerable OAP through the courts, because she couldn't stump up her tax bill??

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:55 pm  

DaveO wrote:

How did Scotland "contribute" to the pound?

The Bank of England was formed by a Scot and has had many Scots in charge over its time, they have contributed royally to the success of the UK, Commonwealth and Empire, Glasgow didn't get its name of the Second City of The Commonwealth for nowt.

That's not to say they are "entitled" to anything BTW.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:05 pm  

Will the Union Jack have to be changed if the vote is YES?

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:23 pm  

Mable_Syrup wrote:

Will the Union Jack have to be changed if the vote is YES?

Do you mean the Union Flag?

The "Jack" is the staff it flies from

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:35 pm  

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

Re: Scottish Referendum : Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:43 pm  

If it is changed will it be easier to get it the right way up for sports fans?

Re: Scottish Referendum : Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:25 am  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Listening to the radio today, it was confirmed that the Queen does actually own Balmoral and her other Scottish estates, so unless Salmond plans to steal all holiday properties of all non-Scots, then they can't touch any of her assets.

I suppose they could nail her (and others) with a huge council tax bill, but I doubt it would do Salmond's cute and cuddly public image much good being seen dragging a vulnerable OAP through the courts, because she couldn't stump up her tax bill??

Hmmm, I suppose that if Scotland won't contribute to her stipend any longer then we could impose conditions on the public money that is the royal purse, things like "You may only spend our money on assets that you own within the union", which would then force her to go to Salmond and ask him for a purse too, or open up Balmoral for holiday rent, I'm warming to the idea of renting Balmoral for the week before she arrives and leaving it in a right old mess with two muddy dogs allowed on the setees and beds and what-not.