Yeah, among the many obvious ones are that Isobella (Edward II's bride) was @ nine-year-old when Wallace was executed, so maybe Gibson was portraying Wallace as a proto-Saville? Smashing line when, during a battle, Edward I, when asked what he wanted to do with his Irish allies, replied "Just throw them some potatoes".... two hundred years before Columbus had even set foot in the Americas.
Perhaps it's just wishful thinking but I thought Salmond lacked his usual fire and looked tired yesterday. When he tried to pull that "I've shot your fox" trick over the Treasury discussion with the BBC it really lacked impact. To me he had the look of a leader who knows that the game's lost but has no option but to keep going.
A week is a long time in politics as the old saying goes and he's gone from the euphoria of last weeks poll that had them ahead, to the No's ramming home the economic issue this week with the invasion of Edinburgh by half of Westminster. Which has lead to the No' vote regaining the lead with as many as 10% still undecided - who for me are more likely to vote No, as the Yes campaign is highly Nationalistic and therefore their support is far more hardened.
Money is the problem. If they keep with our currency they will stay a float, but we'll have to bail them out if they get n to trouble, which I'm not sure on. If they have their own currency they could really struggle. Talk yesterday was that living expenses would rise in Scotland. A lot of thing are still undecided. Like currency. To me that means they are not ready and I think the vote is coming to soon.
I'm not an economist, and listening to jeremy Vine on R2 this week has made me even more confused (talk about petty - Vine was actually suggesting that a Dali picture in Glasgow could be taken from them over ownerhip issues - totally bogus), but could those of you who know these things clarify these points:- 1) The issue over currency is not spite, but that the BoE will not underwrite Scotish banks. 2) If the BoE wil not allow the Scots to share sterling they are entitled to write off their share of the national debt (approx £150bn). 3) If the Scots write off their share of the national debt without agreement their credit raing will go through the roof, BUT, being debt free that would cancel out their bad credit ratings. 4) All economies work on an annual deficit, so in order to pay this year's pension, health, wefare, infrastructue, etc, the scots would have to borrow a year's proportionate national debt, and having all that oil it wouldn't normally be that diificult BUT... 5) Because the scottish banks are not underwritten, comming back to point 1, the rate at which they boorow would be astronomical, leading to cuts and austerity. If any or all the above points are crap I blame R2 and Newsnight, but please, if there are any stephanie Fandersisis out there who can put me right, please do so.
On point 2) they'd not be entitled to write off their share of the debt under those circumstances at all. It'd be viewed as a default and their credit rating would fall through the floor. To say that the increased interest rates would be balanced out the the removal of the deficit might be a sum that equates, but it ignores the salient point i.e. that they'd be viewed as a nation who are high risk. It'd also not be the greatest start to their fledgling relationship with their closest neighbour i.e. us. Who could inflict some massive pain on them in numerous ways to gain recompense. All in all, it'd be a shocking call.
1) Basically, if Scotland is independent why would the BoE want to take any responsibility for Scottish Banks? It's not a question of spite. The BoE would not take responsibility for German banks so why Scottish ones? 2) & 3) I think Tobes has answered this adequately. 4) It doesn't work that way. Scotland would have to demonstrate that they were able to raise via taxation and borrowing enough money to pay all of those bills. If they are not prepared to repay any of the UK national Debt then they will find it difficult to convince lenders that they are a good risk. Plus, the SNP have not even reached an agreement as to what what would actually constitute territorial waters. Therefore there is no agreement as to what would be Scottish oil and what UK oil. 5) As the Scottish banks would have no Lender of Last Resort (eg BoE) then they would have to keep very very high currency depositis thereby robbing the whole Scottish economy of liquidity ie they would be very very limited in their ability to lend.
Let's see who can predict the split in the vote. I will start with 67% no, 33% yes. I think a lot of the people saying they will vote Yes are just doing so to avoid the aggression from the mad Yes campers who are blinded by nationalism to the realities of a very small country suddenly being invented as an independent state, and having to cope with world trade, European Union,taxation, debt, etc. It would sink without trace. Once people get into the ballot box they will vote with their brains, not their rose tinted view of a kilted Scotland!
