Scottish Independence.

[Trigger_Andy]

That is correct come March 2016 Scotland would be fully independent if there was a yes vote.

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts
However, something should be noted. The 'Yes' vote does not guarantee that Scotland will suddenly leave the Union. That would require a protracted negotiation about many of the topics being discussed above.
The behind the scenes civil service negotiations following Devolution were complex to say the least. Anyway, as I understand it Scotland is not currently empowered to just break away fro the Union following a 'Yes' vote.

You may not know or recall, but when the Good Friday Peace Agreement was signed back in '99 both sides had to agree to future discussions about Ireland becoming re-united. Pretty sure such a 'road map' does not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong though, in that if there is a "yes" vote, there will be a "sovereign state" formed - an independent Scotland, as it were?

I don't know the "in's & out's" - what happens if one party decides not to give on an issue, and the negotiations stop? How would that be resolved?

Interesting, as I had assumed that "no matter what", Scotland would become independent. And, if so minded, could walk away from everything with no "come-back" (as you can't tell another independent country what to do - well, without force of arms, that is).

[CLPete]

Free do do as we wish, well thats not true. There is various things that have been forced on, the picture lists 4 main ones. ...

Sorry to be selective Andy, have not the time to fully reply!

Just a quick comment - "various things that have been forced on".

Loads of things are "forced" on me that I didn't vote for.

Sadly, that is the price you pay for being in a collective. I don't think that by being independent, you would have a situation where everyone feels they have had what they voted for!

I don't think that this is a fair argument, as the only way to get what you vote for is to live in a country of one - and vote for yourself. (Of course, I have met people for whom that wouldn't work - they could start an argument with only themselves in a room!)

[MilesnMiles]

Andy, thanks for the date! interestingly all the articles I read just now give the Scottish view, but no statement on what the UK Parliaments position would be regarding the proposed transition. I'm surprised it seems so clear cut.
I'd best start reading the Irish news to see if they will follow!

[CLPete]

That is correct come March 2016 Scotland would be fully independent if there was a yes vote.

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts
However, something should be noted. The 'Yes' vote does not guarantee that Scotland will suddenly leave the Union. That would require a protracted negotiation about many of the topics being discussed above.
The behind the scenes civil service negotiations following Devolution were complex to say the least. Anyway, as I understand it Scotland is not currently empowered to just break away fro the Union following a 'Yes' vote.

You may not know or recall, but when the Good Friday Peace Agreement was signed back in '99 both sides had to agree to future discussions about Ireland becoming re-united. Pretty sure such a 'road map' does not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong though, in that if there is a "yes" vote, there will be a "sovereign state" formed - an independent Scotland, as it were?

I don't know the "in's & out's" - what happens if one party decides not to give on an issue, and the negotiations stop? How would that be resolved?

Interesting, as I had assumed that "no matter what", Scotland would become independent. And, if so minded, could walk away from everything with no "come-back" (as you can't tell another independent country what to do - well, without force of arms, that is).

How does that work in practical terms? Passports? Items that belong to rUK / Scotland in the "wrong" country. Splitting of the bills?

Is it "finders keeps" so to speak (as in, when the music stops, he/she who "holds" the thing keeps it?). Lol. Loads of last moment running over the "border" with various items?

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't it a bit more complex than that? As in, it is more of a commitment to the formation of a new nation, but with the terms to be decided?

[Trigger_Andy]

I can see you have a much firmer understanding on the currency side than than I do so I will bow to your greater understanding.

I guess we will see see come the 18th if there is a yes vote. I still firmly believe after all the posturing and scaremongering has taken place and the votes have been counted both sides will sit down and get back to reality and do what is best for their particular country. Will just be a game of Poker I expect, see who is bluffing and see who folds their cards first.

Why would someone lend money to someone who has defaulted on debt in the past, to put it simply.


Scotland would not be defaulting on its loan though. If Scotland does not get a share of the financial assets then it would be under no obligation to share the debt either. The debit is not owned by Scotland it is owned and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund ( the Treasury).

I think the below article is the most balanced Ive seen and basically says nobody knows,lol.

There is very little mention of what Scotland would be entitled to either, ie Armed forces and Gold for an example. If Westminster refuse to asset share then why would Scotland only accept the bad parts of the deal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... debts.html

Hi Andy,

I did see that article (& the other coverage) at the time.

I did think it was a shame that an attempt by the current UK as a whole to reassure investors that the money that they were lending to the “whole” as it were would be paid back, no matter the outcome (& thus ensuring that the “whole” could continue to borrow and function as a sovereign state) was used as a political tool.

The downsides of the treasury not taking that action would not only have impacted on the rUK but on Scotland – in real time, not after the vote. Simply put, they had no choice to say what they did, and it was poor of Mr Salmond to use it as a political tool (as he’d have paid the price along with the rest of us in an economic crisis had it not been done).

… Scotland would not be defaulting on its loan though. If Scotland does not get a share of the financial assets then it would be under no obligation to share the debt either. The debit is not owned by Scotland it is owned and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund ( the Treasury).
…

Scotland does own the debt in so far as Scotland owns a share of the Consolidated Fund (The Treasury) along with the rUK. We are all jointly the backers of this debt (when it was taken out)

As I said earlier, if Scotland becomes a Sovereign State (a separate nation), it doesn’t have to listen to anyone else.

An extreme example of that policy is North Korea – it listens to no-one, but still exists and functions (after a fashion).

However, the point I was trying to make is that debts are run up currently as a union.

Rather like a marriage. If one partner in the marriage happens to say “I’ll pay back the cash, no matter what happens to the marriage” (so as to obtain good rates on credit etc for them both), it doesn’t follow that the debt is in the name of that person only. Both could be on the paperwork as an “entity”.

“Scotland” as an independent sovereign state doesn’t exist at the moment, so can’t default on a loan – as it can’t have one. However, it is part of a union that has taken on the debt (for better or worse).

It could say “debt isn’t my issue”. Of course, how the international markets take that is up for debate. My own opinion is “not well”.


I think the issue of shared assets and debt are not linked, in terms of international finance. What does a large cash-rich bank care about the negotiations in terms of who owns how much of British Rail, for example? All they will care about is “will I get paid back”.


And, why wouldn’t Scotland get a share of the assets? It should be due their fair share, after all. This would of course include things right down to the local park bins. After all, they are owned by a local authority which forms part of a political unit with ownership ultimately ending in the hands of the UK as it stands at the moment.

I think three issues are getting muddled together here (in my opinion only, of course!).

1. Assets – I feel should be shared (but the exact formula for sharing will be fun! Rarely in a divorce does one party calculate their share in such a way that reduces their share!)

2. Debt – An independent Scotland could walk away (as I’ve discussed above), but I don’t think this is practical for either party, not just “rUK would go broke if we walk away”.

3. Currency Union – I don’t feel this is an automatic outcome or even a “right” of a separation.


Simply put, point one is a “right” for Scotland, Point Two is a commercial reality, and Point Three something that could be negotiated but isn’t a right.


Sorry for the long post – I do get carried away sometimes!

[CLPete]

... We have no control on where the Oil revenue goes. ...

Neither do I sadly. Collectively, we all do though.

... We have no control over the privatization of the NHS should it happen.
...

I thought the NHS in Scotland was already "devolved" to the Scottish Government?

[Trigger_Andy]

I agree, there is plenty that is forced upon us that we do not want. But taking the 4 in the picture we as a nation would actually have a real say on if they actually are implemented or not. Thats the whole yes campaign's point, we no longer want to be in this collective and wish to make our own decisions, decisions thats right for 5 million people, not 60 million people. We really have no say in anything,

Free do do as we wish, well thats not true. There is various things that have been forced on, the picture lists 4 main ones. ...

Sorry to be selective Andy, have not the time to fully reply!

Just a quick comment - "various things that have been forced on".

Loads of things are "forced" on me that I didn't vote for.

Sadly, that is the price you pay for being in a collective. I don't think that by being independent, you would have a situation where everyone feels they have had what they voted for!

I don't think that this is a fair argument, as the only way to get what you vote for is to live in a country of one - and vote for yourself. (Of course, I have met people for whom that wouldn't work - they could start an argument with only themselves in a room!)

[CLPete]

... I guess we will see see come the 18th if there is a yes vote. I still firmly believe after all the posturing and scaremongering has taken place and the votes have been counted both sides will sit down and get back to reality and do what is best for their particular country. Will just be a game of Poker I expect, see who is bluffing and see who folds their cards first.
...

I'm sure life will go on after the uncertainly settles down.

After all, it should be one of pleasures to be able to look at your elected representatives and thing "what a bunch of knobs ... but at least they are our knobs".

Then go to the pub and bitterly complain about them.

[Trigger_Andy]

I have no idea how it will work. How does it work in other countries that have gained independence? This has been planned for years and years. Countless hours have been put in to ensure that if there was such a vote it would go smoothly, or as smoothly as these things can be. Westminster would have poured over what Salmond has proposed and if there was any weak links in the chain Im sure he and Cameron would be all over it, much like currency is perceived as a weak link. Darling brings this up again and again as he knows this is an issue for the undecided voters. There is no mention of how the Union would be broken up.

That is correct come March 2016 Scotland would be fully independent if there was a yes vote.

Correct me if I am wrong though, in that if there is a "yes" vote, there will be a "sovereign state" formed - an independent Scotland, as it were?

I don't know the "in's & out's" - what happens if one party decides not to give on an issue, and the negotiations stop? How would that be resolved?

Interesting, as I had assumed that "no matter what", Scotland would become independent. And, if so minded, could walk away from everything with no "come-back" (as you can't tell another independent country what to do - well, without force of arms, that is).

How does that work in practical terms? Passports? Items that belong to rUK / Scotland in the "wrong" country. Splitting of the bills?

Is it "finders keeps" so to speak (as in, when the music stops, he/she who "holds" the thing keeps it?). Lol. Loads of last moment running over the "border" with various items?

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't it a bit more complex than that? As in, it is more of a commitment to the formation of a new nation, but with the terms to be decided?

[Trigger_Andy]

Correct, its much nicer to know we elected them and also have the actual power to remove them again. And we Scots do like a moan.

Many people would want the SNP gone as they are very left. I myself have a distinct rigth lead and would vote for a party that was that way inclinded.

Many No voters say a vote for independence is a vote for Salmond. Thats like going to look at a new house and refusing to buy it because the Wallpaper was not to their liking.

... I guess we will see see come the 18th if there is a yes vote. I still firmly believe after all the posturing and scaremongering has taken place and the votes have been counted both sides will sit down and get back to reality and do what is best for their particular country. Will just be a game of Poker I expect, see who is bluffing and see who folds their cards first.
...

I'm sure life will go on after the uncertainly settles down.

After all, it should be one of pleasures to be able to look at your elected representatives and thing "what a bunch of knobs ... but at least they are our knobs".

Then go to the pub and bitterly complain about them.

[Trigger_Andy]

No, collectively Scotland has no say at all. Remember, no matter if Scotland votes as one that vote would not sway the actual vote at all. We would still have no say what-so-ever. If ehr had control of our own resources we could have a collective control from Scotland. England still has its own fields, Ive worked on them. You guys can collectively vote on what happens to them.

If England was in a 'Union' where no matter what what they voted the largest country in that union always held sway on what party was voted would you not with to be free of that?


No, the funding for the NHS still comes from down south and the funding would stop if/when rUK is privatised.

To be honest I all for privatisation. Im sick of paying for Dole Bums, Immigrants and hospital vacationers.

... We have no control on where the Oil revenue goes. ...

Neither do I sadly. Collectively, we all do though.

... We have no control over the privatization of the NHS should it happen.
...

I thought the NHS in Scotland was already "devolved" to the Scottish Government?

[Trigger_Andy]

This has to be the funniest back-fire yet.



Its just Bananarama! so many women off that many are now firmly voting yes.

[MilesnMiles]

Andrew rawnsley alley writing in the Guardian sums it all up. Excellent writing, covers so many issues;

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... w-rawnsley

[Trigger_Andy]

Nice wee vid showing the world support we are getting (bar England it seems. )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tland.html

Cameron and the Queen bricking themselves. Why would that be?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -time.html

Millipede using threatening actions yet again. Guards on our boarders? Maybe they should start with the Channel Tunnel? This is only helping the Yes Vote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -edge.html

Yes vote finally ahead in the Polls, which I believe are Bananarama! anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -time.html

You dont see this in the news.



Nor this, great speach by the way. I particulary like this quote;

" voting in your own government isn't inward looking . It's normal. ".




Gone from having serious doubts to the yes vote to more than quietly confident now.

[mopar_mark]

I Bananarama! would hurry up & be over with....