Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35890364)

If Scotland leave the UK does that mean all those with honours will lose them, I hop so.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35890373)

Unlike Greece and Italy, Scotland can share in the prosperity of a United Kingdom.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35890375)

Well they're not at the moment, apart from being subsidised by England. That would end with any independence.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35890375)

Well they're not at the moment, apart from being subsidised by England. That would end with any independence.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890377)

London and the South East could make the argument they subsidise a lot of England. If we're going to start breaking up the country based on how much they contribute then Scotland isn't going to be the first to go by a long shot.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890301)

As I said I think it's 50/50 if they'll go Independent but I also we have a better chance if we do it whilst their case is weak.

Maybe the Tories will get enough seats to prevent a SNP majority but with Corbyn being as useless as he is, and possibly even campaigning for a Yes vote, I think it won't help much.

I think May should have announced what you said though. The way she has done makes it easy for the Nats to spin it as the referendum being blocked.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890377)

London and the South East could make the argument they subsidise a lot of England. If we're going to start breaking up the country based on how much they contribute then Scotland isn't going to be the first to go by a long shot.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35890380)

With independence they would have to find the money elsewhere. The English regions are funded by a set of criteria. Scottish funding goes way above that. If they were funded by the same criteria, which are based upon need, they would lose out massively. If the Scots were funding their freebies by doing things more efficiently, then good for them, but they're not.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35890372)

Every day and in every way, Little England is coming closer and closer. You reap what you sow with Brexit. Thank God I have Welsh blood, maybe they​'ll let fellow Celts emigrate north ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890385)

The English regions are funded because it's all the same country. Scotland is different because of the devolved Parliament but, although independence would cost them, they're reasonably prosperous compared to a lot of English regions.

Breaking up the Union would damage us both. It's completely nuts and counterproductive. It will achieve nothing but cause more problems for everyone.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35890399)

Yep, like Leanne Wood & Plaid Cymru have really got a handle on it! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghdvVbtowM

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35890406)

A crucial difference: the SNP governs in Scotland, Plaid Cymru does not in Wales and probably never will.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35890417)

The point was to show, for Mr K's benefit (his Welsh blood reference), how confused Leanne Wood & Plaid Cymru are over Brexit and the single market.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890443)

Scotland In Union poster campaign launched today: :

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35890463)

Edit Salmond's ugly mug into that image and it'd be perfect. :D

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35890481)

I'd vote in this referendum, definitely

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/...st-bugger-off/

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35889845)

Many in the SNP joined when the party was a small bunch of wackjobs with no chance or prospect of power. Don't underestimate the sacrifices they would go to to achieve their goal. They would drive the party into the ditch if it meant Independence.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35890369)

Steady on old chap. The SNP might not be everyone's cup of tea south of the border but Scots are fantastic people; we should distinguish between the political ambitions of a minority and the integrity, bravery and decency of the Scottish people as a whole whom we should all celebrate and value.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35890369)

Steady on old chap. The SNP might not be everyone's cup of tea south of the border but Scots are fantastic people; we should distinguish between the political ambitions of a minority and the integrity, bravery and decency of the Scottish people as a whole whom we should all celebrate and value.

Originally Posted by nashville (Post 35890608)

Thanks for your comment, I am ashamed that the way the SNP are behaving I am proud of Scotland and Britain, I would hate a division in the U K,

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35890684)

GARY!!! You're back. Yay! :D

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35890776)

Up to the Scottish people. No problem letting them have a vote, if we are confident of the result, surely?
Scotland voted to remain, the goalposts have moved significantly since the last independence vote. No matter what you think of Nicola, there is no justification to stop them having a vote. The SNP have an overwhelming mandate in Scotland. Brexit is going to mean the end of the UK, sooner or later. Little England will be very little.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35890777)

Scotland had their vote you can't just have a vote for every little thing.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35890779)

If you believe in democracy what's wrong with letting them have a vote?

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35890784)

Democracy doesnt meen you just keep having votes. :erm:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890796)

Scotland did not have a block vote in the EU referendum. Each of us had an individual vote on the UK's membership of the EU, same as everyone else. More than a million of us contributed to the total of more than 17 million votes for leave. Around 2 in 5 people who voted in Scotland, voted for leave. And we are rather fed up of Sturgeon trying to erase our voice from the record with her Scotland Voted Remain guff.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890801)

That's pretty how much half the UK could potentially feel if you substitute Sturgeon for May and Remain with leave.
But it doesn't. It's democracy and we have to embrace it even if it doesn't give the results we feel the country deserves.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890802)

May's position at least has the merit of being accurate. The result of the referendum was that, by majority, the U.K. voted to leave the EU.

Sturgeon's misrepresentation of the truth is that, first, Scotland didn't vote to leave (whereas Scotland wasn't even on the ballot paper - even in Scotland, we were asked whether the UK should leave, not whether Scotland should leave) and, second, there being a majority for remain within Scotland, she seeks to portray it as a block vote - which,of course, it wasn't; my vote, and more than a million others, contributed to the only total that matters, which is the one for the whole UK.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35890808)

The majority of scottish people do not want another independence referendum so they are to be ignored to pander to the snp hell lets make an independence vote an annual thing because circumstances constantly change. During the last one the snp agreed with everyone else it was a once in a generation vote and they seem to have forgotten that now. Perhaps what they should have said is " this is a once in a generation vote because we expect to win and will not allow another vote for a longtime unless we lose this vote then we will call for another vote every chance we get".

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890805)

Scotland has a considerable degree of autonomy from England. Nicola Sturgeon warned that if Scotland voted to remain in the EU and the UK left the EU then this would trigger a referendum. She cut the data that way, whether we like it or not.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890829)

She also said the referendum was a once in a lifetime event, at the same time as David Cameron promised an EU referendum if he won the 2015 general election.

Please don't be taken in by SNP spin. Nothing has occurred since the 2014 referendum that Scottish voters were unaware of. Brexit is a handy pretext. If it had not been that, it would have been something else.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890829)

She also said the referendum was a once in a lifetime event, at the same time as David Cameron promised an EU referendum if he won the 2015 general election.

Please don't be taken in by SNP spin. Nothing has occurred since the 2014 referendum that Scottish voters were unaware of. Brexit is a handy pretext. If it had not been that, it would have been something else.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890834)

Scotland can keep the pound, pegged to our pound, but they can't force us into a Currency Union.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890829)

She also said the referendum was a once in a lifetime event, at the same time as David Cameron promised an EU referendum if he won the 2015 general election.

Please don't be taken in by SNP spin. Nothing has occurred since the 2014 referendum that Scottish voters were unaware of. Brexit is a handy pretext. If it had not been that, it would have been something else.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890835)

The lack of understanding of what the currency issue actually is, is shocking, even amongst Nats who presume to stand up and lecture the rest of us about it.

A currency is a means of evaluating and dividing up the total wealth of an economic area, and permitting trade within that area. One Pound Sterling has no intrinsic value. Its value is a reflection of the health of the economy within which it is the accepted currency.

A currency can only function properly if it is managed as part of the overall management of that economic area. That's why the US Dollar works and the Euro has been on the brink of collapse for the last 5 years. There is a single overarching financial authority in the US and there is a federal government which collects and redistributes the majority of tax income. That's the only reason Idaho can remain in currency union with California. The reverse - extremely limited central control and no means of wealth transfer via federal tax - is the reason Germany and Greece are straining at opposite ends of the Euro area.

Eventually, there will have to be a federal economic policy and fiscal transfers to keep the Euro working. Exactly the same level of integration would be required to keep a currency union between England and Scotland working. Of course, such a system already exists between England and Scotland; both Crowns and Parliaments were united, there is one government and wealth is transferred wherever it is needed.

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 ----------



Yup. Scottish banks holding an equal value of Pound Sterling in order to guarantee the value of Pound Scots, which just about works until you start to wonder where the money is going to come from to finance mortgages, business loans and the rest.

All the wealth creation will be in England. All the banks would be English banks with offices in Scotland, regulated by English law and operating according to the interests of head offices in London. No money markets or indigenous financial services institutions in Edinburgh whatsoever. What a glorious state of affairs to aspire to.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890846)

Some countries like Montenegro use the Euro but are not members of the Eurozone whilst many countries peg their currency to other currencies, primarily the Euro and Dollar.
In addition, Ireland used to have the same shared currency as the UK until 1978 but was fully independent.
So, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as the text books may suggest.

Anyway, it looks as if the referenndum timing may be pushed back a bit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-independence/

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35890779)

Brexit is certainly not a 'little thing'. It's massive and Scotland didn't vote for it.

If you believe in democracy what's wrong with letting them have a vote? They might well vote to remain inspite of Brexit. Only reason to object, is if you thing they might vote a way you don't want. However it's up to the Scottish people, not us. They voted to Remain and they voted for the SNP.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890848)

I think you may need to re-read my post.

What the SNP demanded in 2014 - a full Sterling currency union - will not happen. Not ever. Full currency union requires a common fiscal and monetary policy to be secure. The Euro does not have one and is highly insecure. The US Dollar does have one, is utterly stable and is the world's reserve currency. The UK Treasury argued in 2014 - quite reasonably - that full currency union, complete with unified fiscal and monetary policy, is exactly what Scotland has right now, and to detach the government of Scotland from that of the rest of the UK would unavoidably end that state of affairs. You can't have a common fiscal and monetary policy between two governments which also claim both to be sovereign over their own affairs. It is a contradiction.

There is nothing to stop a third party country from using a currency that is not its own, either by directly circulating foreign banknotes, or else holding a supply of foreign notes equivalent to the value of domestic promissory notes it circulates within its own territory. For small, stagnant economies this can work fine. They lose some flexibility and dynamism but they save a lot of time and money because they don't have to worry about managing a currency for themselves.

You mentioned Ireland - they didn't quite do as you're suggesting. They hoarded a range of foreign currencies as backing for Pound Irish, buying and selling as necessary to ensure that the Punt retained parity with Pound Sterling. This approach is called a "currency board" and is widely used in many of the world's smaller economies.

The problem with any of the above from a Scottish perspective is that, by its rhetoric, the SNP doesn't see an independent Scotland as one of the world's small economies. In 2014 they talked it up endlessly. Their economic ambitions simply weren't in line with any achievable solution to the currency problem.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890855)

In what way is the Euro insecure?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35890857)

I can't believe you said that, Andrew! That made my day! :D

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35890844)

Ahh but did she specify whose lifetime?...

;)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890859)

My pleasure. :tu: I always like to take an evidence-based approach rather than a Project Original Fear one. If Chris proves me wrong I'm happy to have learnt something. :)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35890865)

I wasn't agreeing with you, old chap! I just thought it was hilarious to ask so innocently how anyone could think the euro wasn't secure.

I'm still not sure if you were joking. I hope you were! :p:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35890866)

Didn't you know, there are no financial problems/uncertainties in Europe/the Eurozone? That's why we should have stayed in... :D

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35890868)

...and Greece's predicament is just fake news...:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890859)

My pleasure. :tu: I always like to take an evidence-based approach rather than a Project Original Fear one. If Chris proves me wrong I'm happy to have learnt something. :)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890872)

Not meaning to sidestep the question but it has been addressed at length in the Eurozone Colapse thread, many times over.

In essence, without a system of federal tax and redistribution, the Eurozone will always inevitably end up in the situation it is now in, with countries like Greece, Italy and Ireland coming perilously close to bankruptcy while massive amounts of currency accumulate in more efficient states like Germany. Bailouts have followed protracted negotiation and brinkmanship whereas in a properly functioning diverse currency zone, such as the USA, it is automatic.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890872)

Not meaning to sidestep the question but it has been addressed at length in the Eurozone Colapse thread, many times over.

In essence, without a system of federal tax and redistribution, the Eurozone will always inevitably end up in the situation it is now in, with countries like Greece, Italy and Ireland coming perilously close to bankruptcy while massive amounts of currency accumulate in more efficient states like Germany. Bailouts have followed protracted negotiation and brinkmanship whereas in a properly functioning diverse currency zone, such as the USA, it is automatic.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35890848)

There is nothing to stop a third party country from using a currency that is not its own, either by directly circulating foreign banknotes, or else holding a supply of foreign notes equivalent to the value of domestic promissory notes it circulates within its own territory. For small, stagnant economies this can work fine. They lose some flexibility and dynamism but they save a lot of time and money because they don't have to worry about managing a currency for themselves.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35891001)

No scotland will never adopt the dollar and the close ties mean the US wouldn't favour scotland over the remaining UK, if scotland voted for independence they are on their own for a good few years while their EU application is processed. Unless unlike last time the snp have a credible economic plan they may not meet the criteria to join the EU so leaving the UK could see scotland struggling on it's own not something the scottish people deserve.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35891002)

But if you become separated from your family, wouldn't a rich uncle be a desirable alternative? Why not adopt the dollar and freeze out the rest of the UK?

Scotland would surely be welcomed to the EU if it had the backing of a very affluent 'relative'.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35891017)

Nope.

Joining the EU means accepting the Euro. Acceptingbthe Euro means first having your own currency. Scotland won't be allowed to join the EU without first setting up its own currency.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35891022)

Montenegro wants to join the EU and currently has the Euro. So, if it joined the Euro, would it have to ditch the Euro, set up its own currency and then rejoin the Euro?
I just think Scotland should just unofficially keep the £ or have the Euro if it becomes independent, as it's a small country.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35891066)

Leaving the Euro aside, could Scotland adopt the dollar and would there be any advantage in doing so?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35891077)

Scotland will need to adopt the Brass Razoo. Only thing left. :D

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35892556)

Nicola Sturgeon writes to PM requesting a second Scottish independence referendum

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will tell Theresa May in a letter that they need to make a start on arrangements for an independence referendum.

the full text of the letter to be made public on Friday.

http://news.sky.com/story/nicola-stu...endum-10818701

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35892556)

the full text of the letter to be made public on Friday.]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35892891)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35892906)

This is surprising given their own problem in Catalonia. I am thinking that that Brussels is behind this to increase the pressure on the UK

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35892920)

Oh i gaurantee there is brussels mischief playing a part here and spain wouldn't do this without some form of agreement safeguarding their position. Fact is though it's only the SNP and their fanatics that want another indyref.