Alex Salmond and Independence

rcoobc said:
TGB why would there be an enforced border because it is a non-EU state? This referendum has been coming for a long time, everyone knows it. What needs to happen for the unionists is that the referendum is heavily lost and the Scottish people feel values. What needs to happen for the separatists is that they win.
Click to expand...

Because it is an EU requirement in order to protect the integrity of the common market and the EU customs union unless a deal to that end has been negotiated with Brussels which in itself would likely take years.

Either way, Scotland would go from being part of the UK to a competitor of the UK and the British Government would be designing a long list of policies to take advantage of their newly acquired independence.
 
rednev said:
They would be required to pay their debt down in actual pound sterling, so their ability to pay debt would rely on buying up sterling with their new currency at rates that would be subject to extremely volatile market forces on account of it being a brand new currency dealt with by a brand new country. Salmond isn't stupid enough to try anything like that, it would be like sailing from a gentle stream into white water rapids. If the market decides the new currency's value should drop, they might be forced to print like crazy causing massive inflation.
Click to expand...

And Salmond comes from a financial services background so ought to be savvy to that.
 
What is a requirement? It is a requirement that every Schengen country has a strong protected, passport controlled border with every non-Schengen country, but the UK has a shared border with Ireland (both EU I know), so your telling me if one or other was not EU then there would have to be a protected border?

It's not that I don't believe, but have never heard of this EU/Non EU border.
 
Plechazunga said:
Fair enough, a dumb idea I guess. Well, they'd just have to issue their own currency then.

I didn't mean you personally were getting jingoistic (though you are somewhat), I meant the English generally
Click to expand...


One of the reasons I don't back such an independence movement is because I see myself as British as opposed to English, the other main reason why I don't is because it would be bad for England but bad if not disastrous for Scotland due to some of the issues I have highlighted.

You cannot just create wealthy stable countries from other wealthy stable countries and for everything to be fine and dandy, there are very real consequences but mostly for Scotland.
 
rcoobc said:
What is a requirement? It is a requirement that every Schengen country has a strong protected, passport controlled border with every non-Schengen country, but the UK has a shared border with Ireland (both EU I know), so your telling me if one or other was not EU then there would have to be a protected border?

It's not that I don't believe, but have never heard of this EU/Non EU border.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the movement of people, I am talking about the movement of goods and services though saying that people does come into it - it is no coincidence that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland with their common travel area and open Irish border joined the EEC on the same day.

The European Union is primarily a trading bloc, built around a common market and a unified customs union. A customs union is where goods are considered to be domestic if they move from any EU state to another without any let or hindrance. The flipside of that is that you need a tarriff wall surrounding it, that goods cannot enter any EU country from outside without let or hindrance because that undermines the system entirely and would mean any goods from anywhere could enter Europe freely.
 
Team Brian GB said:
I am not talking about the movement of people, I am talking about the movement of goods and services though saying that people does come into it - it is no coincidence that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland with their common travel area and open Irish border joined the EEC on the same day.

The European Union is primarily a trading bloc, built around a common market and a unified customs union. A customs union is where goods are considered to be domestic if they move from any EU state to another without any let or hindrance. The flipside of that is that you need a tarriff wall surrounding it, that goods cannot enter any EU country from outside without let or hindrance because that undermines the system entirely and would mean any goods from anywhere could enter Europe freely.
Click to expand...

Good point to be honest. I had thought it would have been far simpler than that.

There is one route which I have not heard you, or anyone else, mention. And that would be to turn the UK into a Nations Union, similar to the EU itself. Give Scotland its independence, and have their leader meet with the leader of England to decide the future of the NU (formally UK).

That would probably cause more trouble than its worth, so its not worth mentioning :lol:.
 
Make the UK a confederation you mean instead of a unitary state? If it were truely federal with strong constituent nations and a strong federal government that could work in principle though Scotland already has what such a constituent would have in such a situation.

By going even further than that then you are getting into the realms of the Commonwealth which has little political significance at all as there is little (by which I mean none) legal unity at all. Such a happening would only show up the difference in power and influence between England and Scotland moreso than now - three constituents of the UK share 15% of national wealth and popuation, England has 85% of both.
 
Then of course we have the situation with Scotland's biggest company - the Royal Bank of Scotland. As it is legally registered in Scotland they would serve as its lender of last resort, and if Edinburgh doesn't have its own currency it would therefore be liable to borrow something astonishly ridiculous like 750% of GDP to keep it going.

Then of course there is the matter of ownership, because we needed to save it the bank is 83% owned by HM Treasury - would we allow such an enormous asset of the UK taxpayer to be headquartered on foreign soil, I somewhat doubt it? Especially so when Scotland would be in no position to assure us of its solvency - bear in mind this is an employer of nearly 150,000 people.
 
Apparently when this referendum happens, I'll be able to vote in it, despite not being Scottish. If anyone would like to purchase my vote, let me know.
 
Scrumpet said:
Apparently when this referendum happens, I'll be able to vote in it, despite not being Scottish. If anyone would like to purchase my vote, let me know.
Click to expand...

This is something I have heard people complain about and it is a fair question, people living in Scotland obviously get a vote but Scottish people living elsewhere do not - there are 1.5 million or so Scots living in England who potentially could be very badly affected by this.
 
That is what I meant TB, cheers. The thing is, this referendum should have happened on the terms of the Unionists, instead the 3 parties have allowed a party seeking Independence to get in and dictate the terms.

Britain: "Once every 10 years, if you amount 100,000 Scottish signatures seeking Independence then a referendum will be called."

Scotland: "Here is the 100,000 signatures"

Britain: "And here is your referendum"

Scotland: "We want to stay as part of Britain"

Britain: "Alright then."
Click to expand...

Instead, we have this situation where Salmond can trump up nationalist feelings and anti British and Anti-Conservative feelings to try and maneuver the Scottish feelings to suit his point of view. If it was dictated in the constitution that Scotland had full rights to a fair referendum of the satisfied criteria and we just left them alone to it, then Salmond would be fighting against the Scottish for the votes, instead of fighting against the English, representing Scotland. Thats my point of view anyway.
 
I don't like the way the debate goes at all. The Scots seem to be deciding whether to leave without knowing the terms they will be leaving on. It isn't a wish list and negotiations would be fraught with difficulties. Is Cameron scared that the Scots will vote for independence if the referendum is held when the SNP want it held? The more he kicks off about it the more pleasure and attention Salmond gets tweaking his nose and seemingly TBGB's by saying it's none of your business.

What happens to the Trident submarine base for example? You can't have an independent nuclear deterrent in someone else’s country, can you? Does that mean we have to build another base and who pays for all that? In fact defence in general how is that supposed to be worked through?
 
I'd actually say defence is the one thing that doesn't need to be worked out. For the immediate future.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
What happens to the Trident submarine base for example? You can't have an independent nuclear deterrent in someone else’s country, can you? Does that mean we have to build another base and who pays for all that? In fact defence in general how is that supposed to be worked through?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the SNP are anti-war and are passionately against nuclear weapons though HMNB Clyde is the property of HM Government whether Scotland is independent or not.

This is when the SNP are a joke - they bang on about independence but they want a common travel area as they know citizenship would be a big problem, they want some sort of monetary union because they know it would be difficult for them to launch a currency and they want a common defence because they know they couldn't afford one and we over the border could.

I would make it plainly clear to them, if they want independence then they will get it but no concessions will be made to them and that they will be on their own, 57.5 million of the 63 million people of the United Kingdom are not so endowed to Scotland that we will go out of our way to ensure that Scotland's independence is viable. If they want independence then they have to be responsible for themselves, which the SNP knows isn't possible hence they make these suggestions.

They are just a bunch of morons basically wasting our time.
 
Team Brian GB said:
I would make it plainly clear to them, if they want independence then they will get it but no concessions will be made to them and that they will be on their own, 57.5 million of the 63 million people of the United Kingdom are not so endowed to Scotland that we will go out of our way to ensure that Scotland's independence is viable.
Click to expand...

Why? They're our neighbours and currently our compatriots, we've worked together, fought wars together, why wouldn't we do our utmost to make things go well for them if they chose to strike out alone?
 
Plechazunga said:
Why? They're our neighbours and currently our compatriots, we've worked together, fought wars together, why wouldn't we do our utmost to make things go well for them if they chose to strike out alone?
Click to expand...

Because they would be deciding to go it alone then it is their responsibility to ensure their future, not ours.

Basically they want independence but they know they cannot do it without us, in which case they can stay in the United Kingdom or leave and live with the consequences. If they became independent I would want the British Government to take every opportunity to make sure sure we benefit from it, take their financial services to London, take their shipbuilding to Liverpool, Newcastle and Belfast and take their high-end manufacturing to the Midlands.

In enforcing border restrictions and from not being a part of a monetary union with us any and all companies in Scotland that trades with England would leave Scotland for us as they would have to deal with a new currency and customs regulations. Scotland somehow thinks it has a raw deal when it is part of the United Kingdom so let it see what happens when it is in open competition with it.
 
So you'd deliberately piss off an eternal ally, and rile up anti English feeling even more by preventing their independence in all but name?
 
Plechazunga said:
That's mean
Click to expand...

Are you having a laugh? Countries competing against each other for investment is the way the world works - most major industries in Scotland are not based there because it is Scotland but because it is a part of the United Kingdom, if that is no longer the case we should ensure that these companies stay in the UK thus moving to England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Scotland's financial services industry would be dead as banks and hedge funds would move to London, shipbuilding in Glasgow would be dead as it is kept alive by orders from the Royal Navy which would most certainly no longer be the case whilst electronics would leave as it is exported to other EU countries but they would no longer be in the EU.

There would be no international confidence in a new Scottish currency so they would have devalue significantly making foreign goods more expensive and thus lowering standards of living, the only way to stop that would be to offer very generous interest rates though that would prevent any significant economic growth. As such prospects for Scotland would be very bleak indeed.
 
rcoobc said:
So you'd deliberately piss off an eternal ally, and rile up anti English feeling even more by preventing their independence in all but name?
Click to expand...

No, I am a realist - the SNP want to leave the United Kingdom because they think they can benefit to the detriment of the United Kingdom by leaving so if they leave we should think likewise though in reality they gain very little of anything whatsoever whereas the United Kingdom gains hundreds of thousands of jobs and many important industries.

We wouldn't be preventing their independence, I am not advocating that, I am making it clear what they would be getting themselves into by leaving the UK. It is our responsibility to look after ourselves, not the interests of other countries and if we can gain from them then so be it - they certainly would be trying to from us.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Are you having a laugh? Countries competing against each other for investment is the way the world works - most major industries in Scotland are not based there because it is Scotland but because it is a part of the United Kingdom, if that is no longer the case we should ensure that these companies stay in the UK thus moving to England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Scotland's financial services industry would be dead as banks and hedge funds would move to London, shipbuilding in Glasgow would be dead as it is kept alive by orders from the Royal Navy which would most certainly no longer be the case whilst electronics would leave as it is exported to other EU countries but they would no longer be in the EU.

There would be no international confidence in a new Scottish currency so they would have devalue significantly making foreign goods more expensive and thus lowering standards of living, the only way to stop that would be to offer very generous interest rates though that would prevent any significant economic growth. As such prospects for Scotland would be very bleak indeed.
Click to expand...

Isn't that all the more reason to be nice to them?
 
Team Brian GB said:
Because they would be deciding to go it alone then it is their responsibility to ensure their future, not ours.

Basically they want independence but they know they cannot do it without us, in which case they can stay in the United Kingdom or leave and live with the consequences. If they became independent I would want the British Government to take every opportunity to make sure sure we benefit from it, take their financial services to London, take their shipbuilding to Liverpool, Newcastle and Belfast and take their high-end manufacturing to the Midlands.

In enforcing border restrictions and from not being a part of a monetary union with us any and all companies in Scotland that trades with England would leave Scotland for us as they would have to deal with a new currency and customs regulations. Scotland somehow thinks it has a raw deal when it is part of the United Kingdom so let it see what happens when it is in open competition with it.
Click to expand...

True Tory colours held high. All the SNP has to do is publicise this sort of stuff and they'll coast a referendum.
 
Seriously? What would do you live in?

We compete with the Americans, the Japanese, the French and former part of the UK - Ireland for jobs and investment so why would we not with Scotland for the industries they already have?

As I say they have gained such industry by being part of the United Kingdom and the European Union, if they are in neither of those things anymore then the most likely destination for it to leave for is the United Kingdom, and don't think the rest of the European Union would be eyeing some of its industries because they would.

I want to live in a country with a thiriving economy where there is jobs and prosperity available to all, if we have to get many of Scotland's interests to do it should they leave the United Kingdom then I have no problem with that, part of being a sovereign country is to create a climate for trade and commerce which Scotland will be able to do nowhere near as well as the United Kingdom says. As I said last night, Scotland's biggest company is the Royal Bank of Scotland which is 84% owned by HM Treasury - what do you think happens to the likes of that?
 
Team Brian GB said:
No, I am a realist - the SNP want to leave the United Kingdom because they think they can benefit to the detriment of the United Kingdom by leaving so if they leave we should think likewise though in reality they gain very little of anything whatsoever whereas the United Kingdom gains hundreds of thousands of jobs and many important industries.

We wouldn't be preventing their independence, I am not advocating that, I am making it clear what they would be getting themselves into by leaving the UK. It is our responsibility to look after ourselves, not the interests of other countries and if we can gain from them then so be it - they certainly would be trying to from us.
Click to expand...

The SNP want to leave the UK because they feel Scottish, not British. Because they feel that the British political landscape does not adequately represents them, and yes, they may dress it up as there being a benefit for the Scottish people, and that the British parties have done poorly.

To be honest, we all know that if Scotland left the union the results would be devastating. But that is their decision to make, not to the detriment of the UK, but that we shouldn't get involved until they make that decision. Let them have a referendum, and if they want to leave let that bring about a long term move slow move away from the union with all parties talking to each other. We shouldn't get involved until they decide.
 
711 said:
True Tory colours held high. All the SNP has to do is publicise this sort of stuff and they'll coast a referendum.
Click to expand...

How did you work that one out?

Sometimes this forum amazes me, we compete for investment across the world, every country does but for some bizarre reason we cannot compete with Scotland if they gain independence. As I said only moments ago, Scotland's industries are not Scottish they are British - nobody invests in Scotland because it is Scotland but because it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom.

If it left the UK and left the European Union it would no longer be part of the world's largest free trade zone and customs union and will no longer be a constituent in one of the world's most secure and stable currencies. We would be forced to institute customs restrictions on Scotland and domestic politics would likely ensure immigration restrictions as well whilst they have to magic a currency out of nowhere and use that to service their share of the UK national debt which would put a new currency under severe pressure from the very beginning.

Countries competing with each other is the way of the world and we as England are in a far stronger position than Scotland is - would you invest in a country with 57.5 million people with guaranteed access to 500 million more or would you invest in a country with less than 5.5 million with guaranteed access to nobody?

If they leave the UK then they can expect to be in open competition with us from the day they gain independence, as they would be with every other country in the world as we are at this very moment, any other stance would be very highly naiive.
 
Plechazunga said:
Well, it is called the Royal Bank of Scotland. I'd find it hard to look past that.
Click to expand...

The Royal Bank of Scotland that is British owned.

Scotland couldn't even afford to keep it - since 2008 we have poured nearly £250 billion into the bank and have accepted its liabilities as a part of the national debt - Scotland's GDP is only £140 billion so once you take the liabilities into the question you are talking about the best part of 1,000% of GDP related just to the Royal Bank of Scotland.

What do you think that does to a new Scottish currency? What do you think the credit rating of the Scottish state would be if they had a national debt in a foreign currency and liabilities worth over 1,000% of GDP if we gave them the Royal Bank of Scotland?
 
Plechazunga said:
Have you ever been held? I mean really held, with tenderness.
Click to expand...

My allegiance is to the United Kingdom and nobody else, if they want out then they are out, they don't get to have the benefits of leaving and none of the downsides giving us additional responsibilities in the process.
 
rcoobc said:
The SNP want to leave the UK because they feel Scottish, not British. Because they feel that the British political landscape does not adequately represents them, and yes, they may dress it up as there being a benefit for the Scottish people, and that the British parties have done poorly.

To be honest, we all know that if Scotland left the union the results would be devastating. But that is their decision to make, not to the detriment of the UK, but that we shouldn't get involved until they make that decision. Let them have a referendum, and if they want to leave let that bring about a long term move slow move away from the union with all parties talking to each other. We shouldn't get involved until they decide.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is their decision though they need to know the pros and cons of doing so.

Though what about the 800,000 Scots living across the United Kingdom outside if Scotland, why don't they get a say as they potentially would lose out more than anybody else. If the United Kingdom didn't accept a common travel area with Scotland and there would be resistance to do so in order to control immigration, they could lose their British citizenship by virtue of not being born in Britain and would have no right to live or work here due to migration restrictions - that is basically how it has worked in countries that have split across Europe in recent times.

People need to know that this isn't a simple of case of Scotland riding off into the sunset, there are very serious and very complicated ramifications for Scotland and for the rest of the country should they breakaway.

However it is Scotland obviously who would face most of that burden and many people north of the border are simply not saavy enough to understand what an economic trainwreck it could very easily become, the SNP bang on about north sea oil but the benefits of that are relatively tiny compared to all the other concerns they would have which would just outweigh it but completely wash it away. In terms of bargaining chips it would be akin to Edinburgh being able to prod at London with a poker and London being able to hit Edinburgh with a sledgehammer.
 
Team Brian GB said:
However it is Scotland obviously who would face most of that burden and many people north of the border are simply not saavy enough to understand what an economic trainwreck it could very easily become, the SNP bang on about north sea oil but the benefits of that are relatively tiny compared to all the other concerns they would have which would just outweigh it but completely wash it away. In terms of bargaining chips it would be akin to Edinburgh being able to prod at London with a poker and London being able to hit Edinburgh with a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...

Really?

We all agree with you I think, Scotland leaving isn't a good thing. Its the Unionist parties faults for not laying down the route to independence Scotland would have to take, before they started gaining coverage. But its there decision, whether or not they know the problems. You think everyone understood AV who voted no? Politics is fecked up, and a lot of bollocks, no use shouting about it.
 
hungrywing said:
Only if you don't count naval destroyers.

EDIT: Full marks to TBGB for giving his assailants the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...


The irony of that is shipbuilding in Scotland is kept alive because the Royal Navy builds the vast majority of its vessels there, there is no chance of that if Scotland is independent.
 
rcoobc said:
Really?

We all agree with you I think, Scotland leaving isn't a good thing. Its the Unionist parties faults for not laying down the route to independence Scotland would have to take, before they started gaining coverage. But its there decision, whether or not they know the problems. You think everyone understood AV who voted no? Politics is fecked up, and a lot of bollocks, no use shouting about it.
Click to expand...


I think that however simple you make the questions there are never simple answers, even with the AV referendum I don't think people quite understood the ramifications for the party system, for general elections for the balance of power and the niceties of the constitution if such a vote had passed.

The same I think would apply to an independence referendum for Scotland, the nationalists would paint their faces blue and cry out for freedom, on the otherside there would be unionists and pragmatists and there will be a floating middle who will be swayed by whatever two-bit soundbite they hear from a politician or from a tabloid.

They have to take into account that they would not be deciding independence for themselves but for their born and unborn descendants, they would be putting into place a change that could last forever. Therefore they need to know for their own prosperity and life chances what impact an independence referendum would have, they need to know what would become of their currency, whether they would need to devalue, would they get a share of the UK national debt, what sort of credit rating Scotland would have, whether they could hold onto their key industries etc. etc.

The answer to all of those questions I believe to be unfavourable and at least for a very long time to come, Scotland would be consigning itself as at the least a second class country because it does not possess the ability to be more as a country on its own. In the worst case scenario I don't want an economic failure on our potential northern border which could certainly happen, especially with the way international economics and state finances exist today.
 
peterstorey said:
He needs to be held underwater for about three minutes.
Click to expand...

This coming from the person who is clueless on economics and commerce, who when BA cabin crew were striking supported their salaries doubling despite already being the most generous in the industry and when British Airways was struggling to survive.

If you have anything to add to the conversation, add it, if you have some reasons for me being wrong then add them, otherwise go and get some manners and learn the definition of civility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.