With regard to the possible effects upon the rest of the UK. If Scotland votes for independence then they are automatically in an 18 month interim period towards complete independence (upon ratification from Westminster). what consequences could this have for the UK general election next year ? Would the Labour party in Westminster have to surrender its Scottish seats immediately ? If this were so then a Scottish 'yes' vote would increase the chances of a Tory majority in the remainder of the UK - thus opening the way for an EU referendum. This possible chain of events leads me to pray for a no vote because leaving the EU would be a disaster for Britain (and also for myself).
i have not seen any polls but a cant see it happening ,why vote for a maybe better , when you know westminster will cut you off .and you mite not be able to be in the eu.(that mite not be a bad thing ) lol
I do not play politics - it is you that are doing that - you keep telling people that what they say is the position of the Better Together campaign. Well I do not know whether it is as I have never looked at anything the Better Together Campaign - nor the Yes campaign have written as I am NOT a politician. As a free thinking individual I have my own ideas and thoughts and whether they coincide with yours or anybody else's is irrelevant. You are very rude to belittle every comment I make and dismiss it as pure politics - that is the tactic of someone who does not have answers. Salmond did not say that. He said plan A is a currency union and there are three plan Bs. He would not say anything about them though. I will try to provide the answer the Yes campaign have not. Let us examine each option: A) Currency Union - the Yes campaign may have given THEIR reasons why it is in the best interests of rUK but you cannot deny this is open to a lot of question and debate. The telling arguments AGAINST a currency union are (i) the UK does not like currency unions and refused to join the Euro for that reason; there is no evidence to suggest they would prefer a currency union with an independent Scotland. (ii) As I have said many times, currency unions can only work if the economies are tied together. Every economist knows this and I am one. The reason the Euro is struggling is because of economic divergence between members. This creates different pressures on inflation and the exchange rate needed to enable a balance of imports and exports and to keep a full working economy running smoothly without either overheating or creating unemployment. In the Eurozone the Germans control the Euro to work for them - ask the southern European nations how well it works for them. Would an independent Scotland really accept political control via their currency - if they do it is not real independence. B) Use sterling without a currency union. Fine. As Darling said Scotland can use Sterling, the US Dollar, the Euro or the Dong if it wants to. However the same problems exist in that they then have to match their economy to the "host" country. Taxes and spending have to be controlled to ensure that this happens. So it becomes another example of a tail following the dog - not very satisfactory independence. C) Use the Euro - if you like the Euro. D) Use a new currency like the Irish did with the Punt. "The Pound Scottish" perhaps. That is perfectly viable and gives Scotland real independence. Why is this not the Yes campaign's preferred route? Perhaps because any new currency would attract costs of doing business as it has no credit history. The could even match it to the Pound Sterling to begin with and only let it diverge when the economies move apart. Given Salmond's oil revenue claims I am, as I say, surprised he has not chosen this as his preferred option as maybe taxes on oil could help pay for any reasonably short term finance costs. I am sorry but using incorrect terms like "expel" is in my experience a very weak style of argument. Misrepresent something to gain an emotional advantage. The UK is a member of the EU. A Yes vote by Scotland means they voluntarily leave the UK - they are not expelled. It is just a simple fact and needs no quotes from any politician on either side -or indeed from within the EU. It is a legal FACT. Scotland would withdraw from an entity that has EU membership so would not be a member. Now you can argue all you like about in whose interests it would be for Scotland to become a member. It is possible that Scotland would be welcomed and even given fast track entry - but that is what it would be. There would be an extra star on the EU flag as it would have an extra member. Equally there are those who argue Scotland would find it difficult to gain membership for a variety of reasons. Also a price for membership could be joining the Euro. That is now mandatory for new members but, who knows, Scotland could be given a waiver due to it's previous membership as part of the UK. Personally I doubt that but what do I know? Whatever the answers to these questions, the Yes campaign cannot deny they exist and the position is not clear and things COULD go wrong. Not being honest and admitting this is playing with the lives of future generations in Scotland. What legal advice has Salmond taken over his and can he show it t anyone. NOT to take legal advice on an issue so fundamental would be criminal. Why should Labour, Tory or Liberal have a plan? They already know how everything stands. There is no change for rUK in any treaty or other form? rUK just loses 5.5m people. The pound sterling continues for them as is, EU membership continues - as is - it is not rUK's job to plan for how Scotland will move forward on its own.
Lenny - Absolutely agree with everthing written and far more eloquently than I could manage. But I actually suspect that the Westmister Government has made some high-level planning based on a Yes vote. Each Gov department would have drawn up their own areas of impact, even a very high level they would have to do this to ensure that they can do all they need to do within 18 months. For government this will not be a trivial matter. In the event of a Yes vote, my company will immediately kick off a project to unwind it's systems and processes to create a new legal entity. This will be a new exercise that has not been done before in a large economy.
I actually agree with you but refused to get sidetracked as it is not relevant to the Scots - what do they care how we cope? It is like a wife divorcing her husband and then worrying how he will pay for his car. If the Scots want out then they are the ones who are making the decision - the rest of us can only react. Personally I suspect rUK will be so pi**ed off with Scotland that they will cooperate to the minimum - and only on anything in their own interests. However Cameron and others cannot say to them " we will try to shaft you" as that would play into their hands. I suspect if won this divorce will not be harmonious. I, for one, will not want to pay a single pound more on my taxes to support people who want out. How many people would? Scots want independence - they get it - completely. They though only want the good bits of independence but think rUk and EU should be kind to them. In their dreams.
Are you simply posing a rhetorical question, or are you saying that you have a problem with the idea of the Yes campaign trying again?
Given that the NO campaign could win 10 times and it is still open for the Yes campaign to try again but if Yes succeed the No campaign can never go back I think that Scotland needs to not have these sort of referenda too often. At best if they come once every 25 years it is unsettling. Yes only have to wait for a major economic downturn in the UK and then use that and its aftermath austerity based recovery to fool their fellow countrymen into giving up three centuries of heritage. Oh, silly me , that is what has happened
I could level an accusation of that being a typically unfair No attitude, but I'll resist. Unfair, of course, on two counts. At least this time around, the people of the country are being asked - the antithesis of what happened in the lead up to 1707. And always remembering that what happened in 1707 was at the fourth attempt. What's good for the goose....
That is just silly. Do you seriously believe Scotland has not done well out of 300 years Union. We got foisted with your King in 1603 and bailed you out in 1707 What would you like - an annual vote knowing you will eventual get an own goal?
That depends upon one's perspective. The very first act of that new UK parliament was to declare martial law due to fears of civil unrest on the part of the 75% of the Scottish population who opposed the Union. The very second act was to drag Scotland into the Spanish war of succession - a bad start that simply carried on and on and on, so in that respect I'd say no. As to whether or not Scotland has done well in economic terms, there's more than a hint of Westminster's attitude towards the country in that question - the 'too wee, too poor, too stupid to have succeeded on it's own' attitude. Like other Western societies over that time, the country has certainly improved - but there's nothing to definitively say that that wouldn't have happened anyway.
Yesterday I watched a bit on the news from Shetland I think. The leader of the council said that the Scottish government had already removed some of their powers and the people were not happy. Knowing little about the Island communities I had a look to see what information was on the internet. I find that discussions between the UK government and Shetland, Orkney and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles) have been going on for some time and that special measures have been put in place to improve communication and services to these remote parts of the UK with London. In a statement from all three councils they are very pleased with the arrangements. Apart from complaints about the treatment they get from the Scottish government there was little information. Do these people not count because they speak of independence from Scotland?
Can the VÃkingar have their land back? The red and blood coloured bits. After these there are the not island parts.
If Scotland and it's 5.5 million were excluded from the EU why would it make special arrangements for EU citizens to stay? AS with many comments on this thread the viewpoint to comments is from an English perspective that does not exist in Scotland. The fees charged to English students in Scotland is because of English legislation not Scottish. So your argument seems to be that Scotland in the EU or not makes no difference to what happens in SCotland. I don't follow that.
A typical England centric comment, the plan A in question is what will these partys do in Scotland. It is after all Scotland that becomes Independent following a YES vote. If you have never looked at anything from Better Together or YES then it is odd that you can quote what they are saying. It also makes your comments a bit irrelevant to the debate.
I am looking from a not from England and not in the ESB view. EU membership will ruin Ãsland. Our prime minister Sigmunður DavÃð Gunnlaugsson said no to the EU, but the EU are desparate for us so they can have makerel and access to any oil we may find. Scotland does not need to make any arrangement to allow citizens of the EU to stay, they could all be sent home in the same way the Scots will be expelled from EU nations, and if you believe this will happen there is something wrong with you. Scotland could join the Schengen Area, like Ãsland, Norway and SvÃss. We are all happy outside. If the Scottish are so minded to leave one group organized from Westminster why are they so eager to join anothr where their value will be even smaller organized from Brussel? I am trying to understand why students do not pay fees in Scotland, except English ones is a problem for English legislation. To me this looks like a stick to poke England.
My question is slightly rhetorical, in that with other examples (Quebec out of Canada, the Danes voting against the EU) those who want a yes vote will just keep going until they get just that. The "no" voters do not have the respect afforded to them that no mean no, rather than no means we'll try again later. I don't have a problem with another campaign, but how soon? If it is too speedy is there not a chance of voter fatigue or even apathy.
How many times are you going to repeat that silly England centric phrase? I cannot see what business it is of mine what happens if there is a Yes vote. I am not Scottish and do not live in Scotland and have no interest in Scotland's internal politics. I am only concerned with Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. If it quits the UK then its own politics is as relevant to the English as is Iceland's (sorry Ak) Try to concentrate on the debate in hand before you worry about your future internal politics. It is only you who claim that I do quote them. I don't. It is not surprising though that anyone who considers the issue will come up with the same basic questions. It just seems a shame that arch supporters of Scottish independence like yourself do not want detailed answers - but perhaps you don't really care as you are English - you can leave them in a mess and clear off back to good old blighty if it all goes wrong. You betray your own lack of thought. Can you only present arguments made by someone else - you seem fixated on quoting from every source you can find to support your case while ignoring others by your own admission. Some of us can think for ourselves and contribute genuine thoughts and questions. How can my comments only be relevant if they come out of the Yes or No manual. Try thinking things properly through for yourself and you may surprise yourself by opening your mind a bit to others arguments and viewpoints.
