Alex Salmond and Independence

Team Brian GB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why should they leave the European Union? When I've heard Salmond he seems quite pro-EU.
 
711 said:
Why should they leave the European Union? When I've heard Salmond he seems quite pro-EU.
Click to expand...

Because Scotland is not a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom is.

In order to join the EU you have to abide by and fulfill the requirements of the 'acquis communautaire' which I kid you not is 31 chapters of rules and regulations you have to implement in order to become a member of the European Union.

The process takes years, Scotland would have to form agencies and departments, ensure it has all the appropriate laws in place and has the appropriate transparency and safeguards that the European Union requires - that is not something you can implement overnight. There would at the least be a short time when they are outside the European Union and there is no guarantee that even if they fulfilled all of the membership criteria that they would actually get in.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Because Scotland is not a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom is.

In order to join the EU you have to abide by and fulfill the requirements of the 'acquis communautaire' which I kid you not is 31 chapters of rules and regulations you have to implement in order to become a member of the European Union.

The process takes years, Scotland would have to form agencies and departments, ensure it has all the appropriate laws in place and has the appropriate transparency and safeguards that the European Union requires - that is not something you can implement overnight. There would at the least be a short time when they are outside the European Union and there is no guarantee that even if they fulfilled all of the membership criteria that they would actually get in.
Click to expand...

Nah, they'd just carry on as they are and agree to address any problem that came up. Especially with nasty people like you trying to make an enemy of them - England's enemy would be France's friend, that's the way things work.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Because Scotland is not a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom is.

In order to join the EU you have to abide by and fulfill the requirements of the 'acquis communautaire' which I kid you not is 31 chapters of rules and regulations you have to implement in order to become a member of the European Union...
Click to expand...

Which would lead to the question: How much would they already qualify for?

Purely academic interest here.
 
711 said:
Nah, they'd just carry on as they are and agree to address any problem that came up. Especially with nasty people like you trying to make an enemy of them - England's enemy would be France's friend, that's the way things work.
Click to expand...

They couldn't as it would be illegal under the Treaty of the European Union, on that basis there would be about twenty permanent, veto wielding members of the UN security council due to the breakup of the USSR.

And how exactly am I a 'nasty person' - I am all for giving the Scottish exactly what the SNP wants - independence - independence in its ability to retain its businesses, full independence over its currency and fiscal policy and independence over whatever defence arrangements it desires. It really does amaze me how out of touch this forum is on so many issues and now on this one, there would be no desire whatsoever among the 57 million people remaining in the United Kingdom to give Scotland a long list of concessions and special treatment - if you declare independence you do not get opt-outs, you breakaway entirely and live with the consequences.

In this case freedom really does mean responsibility.
 
Team Brian GB said:
They couldn't as it would be illegal under the Treaty of the European Union, on that basis there would be about twenty permanent, veto wielding members of the UN security council due to the breakup of the USSR.

And how exactly am I a 'nasty person' - I am all for giving the Scottish exactly what the SNP wants - independence - independence in its ability to retain its businesses, full independence over its currency and fiscal policy and independence over whatever defence arrangements it desires. It really does amaze me how out of touch this forum is on so many issues and now on this one, there would be no desire whatsoever among the 57 million people remaining in the United Kingdom to give Scotland a long list of concessions and special treatment - if you declare independence you do not get opt-outs, you breakaway entirely and live with the consequences.

In this case freedom really does mean responsibility.
Click to expand...

The ex USSR states didn't claim to be permanent members because no one would have agreed it, even had they wanted to be, which is highly unlikely. Ludicrous comparisons don't help.

Now sit back and think about your first sentence, you are all for 'giving' the Scots independence. Every post arrogant as feck mate, and doing Salmond's job for him.
 
hungrywing said:
Which would lead to the question: How much would they already qualify for?

Purely academic interest here.
Click to expand...


It is an interesting question and whilst I dismiss 711 he isn't entirely wrong.

Firstly there is no precedent for this in the European Union, an EU country splitting into two or more states but the fact of the matter is Scotland is not a member of the European Union but is part of a country that retains it so legally on independence they would not be a member.

Having said they will have had to abide by all the rules and regulations of the EU as they currently do, and given the nature of the UK legal system they already have their body of Scottish law that will be consistent with EU regulation. However what they do not have is the institutions as those related to the European Union are UK-wide and are based in London. They would have to ensure they have bodies that protects the constitution, the rule of law, human rights etc. then they will have to have bodies that affectively manages business monopolies, regulation of the media - things that Scotland currently does not do.

In order to judge Scotland's ability to do these things they would have to be judged and assessed by the EU as an independent country and therefore could not be fast tracked into the European Union. They would also have to negotiate their own terms as they would not be covered by the terms the United Kingdom is - all new members have to commit themselves to joining the Eurozone for instance which would be a major problem for them.

Firstly because of the state of the Euro and the fact that they have bigger things on their mind and the nature of their economy post-independence. They would have national debt in pound sterling and would have a banking sector with a balance sheet bigger than their economy more than ten times over if it didn't leave for London. Given the concerns that the EU has over banking and the future of the Eurozone they would very likely not allow Scotland to join the Euro, Germany certainly wouldn't allow it because alike the other failing economies they would have to assume Scotland's debts like they have Greece and Ireland's and perhaps more.

Therefore Scotland joining the European Union cannot be considered a done deal, especially not at the moment of independence, Scotland joining would require the approval of every member state and considering the trouble the EU is having with the Euro and the fine print of an independent Scotland's economy they most likely would not get it.
 
711 said:
Now sit back and think about your first sentence, you are all for 'giving' the Scots independence. Every post arrogant as feck mate, and doing Salmond's job for him.
Click to expand...

I am finding your critical thinking on this to be bizarre, I am saying that Scotland would be fully responsible for its integrity and wellbeing, would get no favours from the United Kingdom and would face severe economic fallout - and you think that is me doing Salmond's work? What exactly do you think does not do his work?

I am not exaggerating anything or slanting it anyway, it is the simple truth of the matter than what I am describing would come to pass. It is a fact that Scotland would have to float a new currency despite inheriting a national debt in another currency, it is a fact that as they would be outside the EU so we could have no special trade relations, it is a fact that we would have to consider what becomes of the 1.5 million people on either side of the new border who were born on the other side and it is fact that their shipbuilding, financial services and high-end electronics would reassess their presence in Scotland, to say the least.

If the UK would struggle in some regards due to leaving the European Union and it would with 63 million people, but what happens when a country of 5.5 million people breaks off? It would have severe trouble breaking off from the rest of the 63 million in the UK, let alone the 500 million of the EU.
 
Now sit back and think about your first sentence, you are all for giving the Scots independence. Every post arrogant as feck mate, and doing Salmond's job for him.

You don't get it I know.
 
So out of curiosity, what do they mean by Devolution Max, I see that banded out.
 
711 said:
Now sit back and think about your first sentence, you are all for giving the Scots independence. Every post arrogant as feck mate, and doing Salmond's job for him.

You don't get it I know.
Click to expand...


Erm, no you don't get it, you and Plech are saying we should be nice and cuddly with Scotland if they leave the United Kingdom and should do everything we can to ensure that they are a prosperous and tranquil country so they can compete with us because they cannot do it themselves.

I don't know what world you are living in.
 
Ixion said:
So out of curiosity, what do they mean by Devolution Max, I see that banded out.
Click to expand...

Essentially what I am arguing against and what Plech is arguing for. Scotland would effectively be an independent country but would be in currency union with the UK because it couldn't create its own and would print pound sterling, it would want a common travel area so companies would stay in Scotland and it would want defence cooperation by which they mean a British funded and run military which they would allow to operate at bases currently in Scotland.

Essentially such an option would mean independence in all of the areas that suit them and cooperation with UK in areas where it doesn't suit them to be independent. Something which they have absolutely no mandate to do, they can decide to leave the UK but they cannot redraw the constitution, they are either in or they are out.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Erm, no you don't get it, you and Plech are saying we should be nice and cuddly with Scotland if they leave the United Kingdom and should do everything we can to ensure that they are a prosperous and tranquil country so they can compete with us because they cannot do it themselves.

I don't know what world you are living in.
Click to expand...

You think half or Africa and Asia think they were 'given' independence, not to mention the US or Ireland? You are good at storing up facts, but have no understanding of how people think.

Although that doesn't explain why you see every other country in the world as an enemy. Trouble is, if that's how you treat them, that's what they'll become.
 
711 said:
You think half or Africa and Asia think they were 'given' independence, not to mention the US or Ireland? You are good at storing up facts, but have no understanding of how people think.

Although that doesn't explain why you see every other country in the world as an enemy. Trouble is, if that's how you treat them, that's what they'll become.
Click to expand...

You are being pedantic on 'giving' - insert any word that denotes transfer of sovereignty the point I was making is that I accept whatever it is that Scotland comes up with.

And whilst you define my use of word 'giving' specifically you do the opposite on competition and re-interpret it. How exactly do you see international competition as being synonymous with enemies? If you don't think globalisation leads to a world where we are all competing with each other to be the fastest and the first to innovate and invent and capitalise on globing trading patterns and investment opportunities you are very wrong. We compete on a daily basis with countries across the world on such a front and if Scotland were to become independent it would have to do that as an independent country and would have to do it against the United Kingdom.

The logical conclusion of that is The United Kingdom would pursue policies to attract businesses and whole industries to the UK which based themselves in Scotland because it was a part of the UK but is no longer. There is no problem in that and the rest of the developed world would be trying the same thing sensing the opportunity. You said earlier that they and France would get along but do you not think that this is the exact sort of thing that France would try to do? Of course they would and they would be perfectly entitled and justified in doing so.
 
I don't think there's any doubt that Scottish independence makes little sense from an economic standpoint, for that reason I'm fairly confident the Scots will make the right decision. Even if they don't, at least we'll be able to console ourselves in the knowledge that we'll see less Labour governments in the future.
 
evra said:
Even if they don't, at least we'll be able to console ourselves in the knowledge that we'll see less Labour governments in the future.
Click to expand...
Cameron should go for it - he could have a majority and feck the Lib Dems right off.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Erm, no you don't get it, you and Plech are saying we should be nice and cuddly with Scotland if they leave the United Kingdom and should do everything we can to ensure that they are a prosperous and tranquil country so they can compete with us because they cannot do it themselves.

I don't know what world you are living in.
Click to expand...

The thing is TBGB; it would most likely be in the UK interest and Scotland’s interest for independence to succeed. Should they decide to do it. That is not to say it would be mutually beneficial, but most likely mutually detrimental if either is detrimentally effected.

Scotland leaves the UK.

1. Scotland and the UK benefit.
2. Scotland benefits to the UK's detriment.
3. Uk benefits to the Scottish detriment.
4. Uk and Scotland are both reduced.
5. No difference to either.
6. Uk benefits while Scotland stays the same.
7. Scotland benefits while the UK stays the same.
8. UK stays the same while Scotland is reduced.
9. Scotland stays the same while the UK is reduced.

Have I missed any?

Since Scotland hasn't been independent in 300 years can anyone really say with any certainty which one of the possible logical outcomes prevails?

Let's not get angry about it and just try to work through the possible outcomes because I think it depends on the terms of separation which I haven't heard a good outlining of.

One possible detriment for the UK is the strengthening of the right in England, which might lead to the UK leaving the EU. Who knows where that outcome leads for example?
 
Team Brian GB said:
It is an interesting question and whilst I dismiss 711 he isn't entirely wrong.

Firstly there is no precedent for this in the European Union, an EU country splitting into two or more states but the fact of the matter is Scotland is not a member of the European Union but is part of a country that retains it so legally on independence they would not be a member.

Having said they will have had to abide by all the rules and regulations of the EU as they currently do, and given the nature of the UK legal system they already have their body of Scottish law that will be consistent with EU regulation. However what they do not have is the institutions as those related to the European Union are UK-wide and are based in London. They would have to ensure they have bodies that protects the constitution, the rule of law, human rights etc. then they will have to have bodies that affectively manages business monopolies, regulation of the media - things that Scotland currently does not do.

In order to judge Scotland's ability to do these things they would have to be judged and assessed by the EU as an independent country and therefore could not be fast tracked into the European Union. They would also have to negotiate their own terms as they would not be covered by the terms the United Kingdom is - all new members have to commit themselves to joining the Eurozone for instance which would be a major problem for them.

Firstly because of the state of the Euro and the fact that they have bigger things on their mind and the nature of their economy post-independence. They would have national debt in pound sterling and would have a banking sector with a balance sheet bigger than their economy more than ten times over if it didn't leave for London. Given the concerns that the EU has over banking and the future of the Eurozone they would very likely not allow Scotland to join the Euro, Germany certainly wouldn't allow it because alike the other failing economies they would have to assume Scotland's debts like they have Greece and Ireland's and perhaps more.

Therefore Scotland joining the European Union cannot be considered a done deal, especially not at the moment of independence, Scotland joining would require the approval of every member state and considering the trouble the EU is having with the Euro and the fine print of an independent Scotland's economy they most likely would not get it.
Click to expand...

In regard to the Euro, the 1978 Vienna Convension on the Succession of States would allow Scotland to benefit from all the treaties that apply to the UK, so the opt-out of the Euro would likely apply, and although they would have to negotiate their membership of the EU, they'd probably be fast tracked.

More likely, Scotland would continue to use Sterling for a while (in a similar manner to non-eurozone countries that use the Euro) and eventually move to the Euro, or a Scottish Pound initially pegged to Sterling.
 
Team Brian GB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the Pro AV camp played fair and gave the people clear and concise information and they lost badly, whilst the Anti AV camp slandered Clegg and made up lies, and they won by a heavy margin. If you want go out trying to "educate the masses" whilst the other camp "paints their faces blue and cry for freedom" your going to lose, even from a heavily winning position.

The referendum needs to be a yes/no with no details on how succession will occur. The details are simply too difficult for every person to understand, and is the entire reason we elect parties in the first place. We tell the parties to do what we want, the parties actually get it carried out.

Once it has been established that the Scottish people want freedom, and the one thing they should know is that it won't happen quickly, the parties of Scotland and Britain should work out how, over the next 20 years, Scotland can break away without Britain or Scotland suffering. In your version of future events, Britain will treat Scotland like a criminal, applying no quarter as it gives Scotland a harsh lesson in reality. But Scotland is an eternal ally of Britain and should be treated as such.

If Scotland ask for independence, they should know it won't happen quickly, but Britain and Scotland will work out over time how to do it so neither suffer. If a deal can be worked out with the EU so that Scotland goes straight into the Euro, great. If not, fine, they will work out another way to do it.
 
I don't know what you are all arguing about. There is zero chance that the Scottish people would vote for independence. They're not stupid, they only have too look across the Irish Sea to see what happens.
 
I've seen Brian repeatedly state that an independent Scotland would have to take a share of the UK national debt, is this true? Do the terms of the bonds allow for the UK to transfer responsibility to another country, especially one that does not use Sterling? It would seem odd if the UK could just pass on its debt like this without consequence or technical default.

And even if the UK could abdicate its responsibility over a share of the debt, what would stop Scotland strategically defaulting on the debt, and therefore bankrupting most of the UK banks?
 
Well, there is nothing constitutionally to suggest it either way. However, a particular part of the debt does relate to Scotland, especially the interventions in RBS and HBOS.

However, it's clear that the proportion of treasury debt that appertains to Scotland would be part of the deal regarding independence. There will be no independence without the nod of Westminster and also then Royal Assent.
 
Scotland would be expected to take a share of the national debt in some form. I don't know how it would work, though. I suppose something could be arranged so that the UK Treasury technically keeps all existing debt, but with Scotland agreeing to take out new debt with the UK to make up for their share. But that's just an idea plucked from my head, I don't know the details of how these things have worked in practice in previous secession arrangements, just that in theory the breakaway country should take a share of debt. Maybe TBGB could shed more light on the matter.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I've seen Brian repeatedly state that an independent Scotland would have to take a share of the UK national debt, is this true? Do the terms of the bonds allow for the UK to transfer responsibility to another country, especially one that does not use Sterling? It would seem odd if the UK could just pass on its debt like this without consequence or technical default.

And even if the UK could abdicate its responsibility over a share of the debt, what would stop Scotland strategically defaulting on the debt, and therefore bankrupting most of the UK banks?
Click to expand...

It is a very difficult matter that is for certain though there would be a transfer of certain assets that Scotland would like and as a consequence they would get a share of what they do not like. They certainly would not get to have no national debt at all that is for certain. One of the ways to do this might be to dissolve HM Treasury in its current guise, to be succeeding by two new treasury departments.

The principle is established of countries assuming each others debts when they grow upwards so they would likely go downwards also, you also have the adoption of first the ECU and then the Euro by Eurozone states so there is no concern with the impact on the national debt by switching currencies. They would still however have to pay down the debts to the terms in question which is one of the big concerns I have regarding an independent Scotland, having a national debt in one currency when you use another.

If Scotland wanted to default on the debt that would be their prerogative and as badly as our economy is damaged theirs is self-annihilated, the international markets would see that the UK has been screwed over due to the political interests of Scotland. That would however destroy any credibility that Scotland has in its currency and in the credit-worthiness of the Scottish state, not to mention in its financial services industry which if it managed to keep would make it relative to GDP just as large as Iceland's was.
 
Well the 1978 Vienna Convention of Succession as posted above says that:

Article 16 states that newly independent states receive a "clean slate", whereas article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated. Moreover, article 17 states that newly independent states may join multilateral treaties to which their former colonizers were a party without the consent of the other parties in most circumstances, whereas article 9 states that all other new states may only join multilateral treaties to which their predecessor states were a part with the consent of the other parties.
Click to expand...

As Scotland is a former state (surely) it counts as "newly independent" and not an "other new state" it should get a
"clean slate" rule, such that the new state does not inherit the treaty obligations of the colonial power (article 16).
Click to expand...

So if Scotland does count for this Vienna treaty what not, they should get a clean state.
 
rednev said:
Scotland would be expected to take a share of the national debt in some form. I don't know how it would work, though. I suppose something could be arranged so that the UK Treasury technically keeps all existing debt, but with Scotland agreeing to take out new debt with the UK to make up for their share. But that's just an idea plucked from my head, I don't know the details of how these things have worked in practice in previous secession arrangements, just that in theory the breakaway country should take a share of debt. Maybe TBGB could shed more light on the matter.
Click to expand...

Now you mention it that would be one way in which it could occur, and strategically for Scotland it would be clever as it would give the UK an interest in the economic viability of Scotland.
 
rcoobc said:
Well the 1978 Vienna Convention of Succession as posted above says that:

As Scotland is a former state (surely) it counts as "newly independent" and not an "other new state" it should get a

So if Scotland does count for this Vienna treaty what not, they should get a clean state.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love international law?

The Kingdom of Scotland was a former state indeed though in the Act of the Union it transferred its sovereignty, as did England, to Great Britain in perpetuity thus forming a unitary state with sovereignty held in one place, at the top.

As such that dissolved any notion of a Scottish state, in a federal structure you could make the distinction but not in the United Kingdom where any part of its territory is simply a part of UK territory and no more than that with regards to sovereign rights.

In practical terms it would be a painful issue for the European Union as to be a member in good standing you have to fulfill the criteria of the acquis communautaire or not be a member at all. It might just be so from a technical standpoint that they would allow Scottish membership if international law was to say it is a requirement but that they subsequently expell them for not meeting the terms as an independent state, purely for the purposes of covering themselves on paper.
 
lynchie said:
More likely, Scotland would continue to use Sterling for a while (in a similar manner to non-eurozone countries that use the Euro) and eventually move to the Euro, or a Scottish Pound initially pegged to Sterling.
Click to expand...

That is the problem though as none of those would be in the interests of both the United Kingdom and Scotland - Scotland continuing to use Sterling would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom if Scotland didn't devolve monetary and fiscal policy to London which Scotland would never do as it would completely undermine their indepedence. We have seen in the Euro-zone what happens when monetary policy and fiscal policy are not aligned and not centralised, the UK would not want the same for Pound Sterling for the benefit of an indepedent country plus domestic political pressure probably would not allow it.

A scottish currency is the only viable option and that is fraught with difficultly, the temptation would be to fix its value relative to Sterling though that would be a very dangerous move. On Scotland becoming independent its economy would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of issues and various confidences and as such its currency should be free floating to accomodate that. They would almost certainly have to devalue but that is better than the consequences of preventing market forces from allowing that to happen - Argentina 1999 - 2002 being the prime example of fixing your currency to the value of another far above market judgements of your worth.
 
But that implies the Vienna treaty only applies to federal states when it doesn't, what am I missing?
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't know what you are all arguing about. There is zero chance that the Scottish people would vote for independence. They're not stupid, they only have too look across the Irish Sea to see what happens.
Click to expand...

We'll bounce back. Besides this is a worldwide issue concerning economic turbulence not an Irish one.
 
rcoobc said:
But that implies the Vienna treaty only applies to federal states when it doesn't, what am I missing?
Click to expand...

I was trying to work out the distinction between 'newly independent' and 'other new state'

Though I have just realised what it means is 'other new states' are countries that have split from another country whereas 'newly independent' states are former colonies with no previous self-determination within a larger state at all.

As such Scotland would come under the 'other new state' heading.
 
When you admit new states into the EU, is that qualified majority voting or does it have to be unanimous?
 
Mick1991 said:
We'll bounce back. Besides this is a worldwide issue concerning economic turbulence not an Irish one.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was referring to the current financial crisis but it would have been fair to say he was referring to Irish economic history since 1921.

You were an impoverished country based on agriculture with little to offer the international economy, by many accounts you were not considered a developed, first world country until the 1990s. You have had one relatively short period of prosperity in your history which involved taking on very cheap debt in an environment devoid of the notion of risk, worth ten times more than the value of your economy.

I hope that you retain at the very least a semblance of the celtic tiger era Ireland, a wealthy country that we can do business with, a country with which it was no coincidence that we could come to terms on Northern Ireland with in the 1990s as your economic fortunes improve dramatically.
 
WeasteDevil said:
The Falklands and Gibraltar do it. The Irish sort of did it.
Click to expand...

Though the Falklands and Gibraltar are British territories and this is done in conjunction with the Bank of England. Scotland on the otherhand would be a completely independent country who would not want to surrender their monetary policy in any way, and on which terms it would not be in our interests to go along with it.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Though the Falklands and Gibraltar are British territories and this is done in conjunction with the Bank of England. Scotland on the otherhand would be a completely independent country who would not want to surrender their monetary policy in any way, and on which terms it would not be in our interests to go along with it.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that neither use the Pound Sterling, just something very closely linked to it, as the Irish Punt was to an extent. You also have the issue of Scottish banks being able to print their own notes as long as they are backed by a Bank of England equivalent. It's not an easy tapestry to unwrap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.