The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I accept Scotland should take it's share of the UK debt. This is also the position of the yes campaign as far as i understand it. There were some silly tit-for-tat comments suggesting Scotland might not take its share. Many foolish things are said in the heat of debate - I do not see anyone seriously suggesting we could or should walk away from "our" share of the UK debt. As you & the Yes campaign correctly point out the exact share would be up for negotiation along with gazillions of other stuff.

they aren't - never said they were. They are politicians.

Both campaigns do this. As do All parties at elections. Its called politics.

there is a world of difference between a currency union that ties Greece and Portugal to Germany & France with all their differences to a union between two very similar countries.

I didn't say it was them ganging up on Scotland, I said that was the perception in Scotland. the Daily Mail appears to agree

see above

Hmmm, I think you will find that until 1978 the UK & the Republic of Ireland both used the Pound & as I was in Dublin in about 1977, I have personally experienced this. So for 56 years from Independence there was a currency union between the UK & the republic of Ireland. This was only ended when Ireland decided to join the European Monetary System & Britain didn't. Please check your fact before asking me to improve my expertese.

It is not in either government's interests to "make things difficult " for the other. It IS in both Campaign's interests to make things different for the opposing Campaign. I wish they were both grown up & mature enough to rise above that but then I also wish for Free Beer & the Rolling Stones to play Belladrum.

Edited March 29, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

This is what many of those who say they'll vote yes just don't get. As an example: the white paper says that iScotland will have different immigration rules to the rUK.

This means that, if there were open borders between England and Scotland, Scotland can be used as an open route for illegal immigration into the rUK.... and the rUK is not just going to open it's borders to anyone by allowing that, is it?

Does the Republic of Ireland have the same immigration rules as the UK? There are not full border controls between the two countries.

Saying "I don't see why we just can't get along" only works if you're working from the same script. If Scotland chooses a different script it chooses the consequences of its choices too.

It's likely that many of these things will get sorted out by mutual agreement in the end, but that means Scotland gets something very different to what the white paper says - much like what you have now (but with fewer meaningful guarantees), as it happens.

of course everything is up for negotiation and that means compromise. I completely agree with you. But once the campaign is over it is actually in the interest of both countries to work together & not fight each other.

You know, the thing you say is so awful that you want something different.

putting words in my mouth again. Where have I said the status quo is awful? I think it could be better but never said it was awful.

you cannot have a serious discussion with a sovereignty campaign that believes it has the right to demand the sovereignty of other sovereign states.

Whatever anyone else is demanding, I am not demanding any such thing. In fact I am not DEMANDING anything. I am debating the rights & wrongs of independence for Scotland . I see the flaws in both campaigns. You, despite your oft proclaimed neutrality, only appear to see the flaws in the yes campaign. Come off the fence. Nail your colours to the mast!!

I shall close with a song

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wOBcFt5tevY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Stash]

Hmmm, I think you will find that until 1978 the UK & the Republic of Ireland both used the Pound & as I was in Dublin in about 1977, I have personally experienced this. So for 56 years from Independence there was a currency union between the UK & the republic of Ireland. This was only ended when Ireland decided to join the European Monetary System & Britain didn't. Please check your fact before asking me to improve my expertise.

I think you will find that from 1928 to 1978 the Irish Punt was pegged to Sterling, it was never at any point part of a currency union with Sterling. You correctly identify the pegging of Sterling was broken by the introduction of the EMS in 1979, but even then Ireland didn't enter a currency union, the EMU until 1999.

Scotland can also peg a Scottish Pound to Sterling if it so chooses, but it does not make it a currency union either.

[LJS]

I think you will find that from 1928 to 1978 the Irish Punt was pegged to Sterling, it was never at any point part of a currency union with Sterling. You correctly identify the pegging of Sterling was broken by the introduction of the EMS in 1979, but even then Ireland didn't enter a currency union, the EMU until 1999.

Scotland can also peg a Scottish Pound to Sterling if it so chooses, but it does not make it a currency union either.

I stand corrected, it was not a full currency union. However both countries used the same currency for 50 years.

The whole debate has taken a rather interesting turn in the last day or so.

A UK Government Minister described by a leading newspaper as being 'at the heart of the No campaign' has admitted that there will be a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.

According to the Guardian, the minister told the paper: "Of course there would be a currency union", before adding: "Saying no to a currency union is obviously a vital part of the no campaign. But everything would change in the negotiations if there were a Yes vote."

Of course Osbourne & co.have immediately refuted this. However it does indicate that the issue is perhaps a little less clear cut than the No camp would have us believe.

as does the following clip (assuming I have been successful in linking it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQi8KvjOBD0

All in all, I don't doubt there are potential problems & pitfalls with currency union, and in the end it may not be the best option for either or both countries, It does however seem more & more as if the No campaign has decided to rule it out completely i an attempt to undermine the Yes campaign. Considering the massive number of cross border transactions it would be really nice to think our politicians (on both sides) were prepared to at least look at something which would save businesses & individuals millions of pounds a year.

Edited March 29, 2014 by LJS

[Stash]

I stand corrected, it was not a full currency union. However both countries used the same currency for 50 years.

You're right about Ireland and Britain sharing a currency, but wrong about the duration or timing.

There was a shared currency, Sterling, for 102 years between 1826 and 1928. After that Ireland had its own currency, the Punt. Having an equal exchange rate does not make it the same currency.

[LJS]

You're right about Ireland and Britain sharing a currency, but wrong about the duration or timing.

There was a shared currency, Sterling, for 102 years between 1826 and 1928. After that Ireland had its own currency, the Punt. Having an equal exchange rate does not make it the same currency.

You are correct but perhaps being a wee bit picky. From 1826 to 1928 Ireland was part of the UK so, of course it had the same currency & that is not really relevant to this discussion. From 1928 to 1978 it technically has its own currency but was tied to the pound & for the ordinary man in the street was identical to the pound & being old enough to have holidayed in the Irish Republic during this period & not having had to change my pounds to punts before going - hey it pretty much looked like the same thing.

whether I have all the details of the Pound/Punt relationship is not what this is about & if we have wasted time because I got things a wee bit wrong at the start - I'm sorry.

What matters is what is best for both iScotland & rUK going forwards.

Edited March 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Does the Republic of Ireland have the same immigration rules as the UK? There are not full border controls between the two countries.

See, this is where the yes campaign is mugging people - by the suggestion that this applies.

Ireland and the UK operate a common borders agreement - one immigration policy.

So when iScotland say they'll operate a different policy (and they have), it's iScotland forcing borders to be considered and not "England's being mean again".

Whether or not border posts would appear would depend on what exactly those differences were. It's not bluff, it's real life as it happens.

But once the campaign is over it is actually in the interest of both countries to work together & not fight each other.

Do behave.

When iScotland says it's idea of "enterprise" is to try to steal the rUK's tax base to make Scotland more prosperous (and it has), please tell me how it's in the rUK's interests to help Scotland do that.

In fact I am not DEMANDING anything.

the white paper is, the official document for an independent scotland.

You, despite your oft proclaimed neutrality, only appear to see the flaws in the yes campaign. Come off the fence. Nail your colours to the mast!!

and now we have the default of the cybernat. PMSL.

Unless I agree with lunacy and lies - the white paper - I must be a secret tory. I probably went to Eton too.

And following on from that, any Scot that dares vote no is no true Scot.

If you care to read back, i've taken the piss out of some no stuff. But 'no campaign'? There's no real campaign, no one has to be told what it'll be, they already live it. What there mostly is is some facts being stated back at some very common and big misconceptions - like you've said about borders and Ireland, like someone said about Ireland and currency. Etc, etc, etc.

The most common misconception? That the UK has said all their debt is there and nothing is Scotland's. Read the treasury statement - it specifically says that a proportion is Scotland's.

I'm happy for you to do what you like, I'm even happy for you to fall for Salmond's lies. But I know things will be better for yourself if you don'#t fall for the lies and out Salmond as the conman of Scotland that he is.

Edited March 30, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The whole debate has taken a rather interesting turn in the last day or so.

yep, that currency union will cost Scotland it's sovereignty over Faslane (or might you have selectively ignored that part of the story?).

Up for it? Thought not.

So no currency union, and let's here Salmond tell Scotland about how his plan B will have bad economic effects for iScotland.

[eFestivals]

Considering the massive number of cross border transactions it would be really nice to think our politicians (on both sides) were prepared to at least look at something which would save businesses & individuals millions of pounds a year.

It's comments like this that I find so very frustrating about what the yes campaign are doing. It's about so much more than just this.

CU would have rUK underwrite all of iScotland's debt.

Chances are your mum is not happy to underwrite any debts you might have, but she'll probably do it because she's your mum.

Why do you think a bunch of strangers should act like your mum?

[Stash]

Considering the massive number of cross border transactions it would be really nice to think our politicians (on both sides) were prepared to at least look at something which would save businesses & individuals millions of pounds a year.

An iScotland wouldn't require a currency union to solve that problem. Peg the Scottish Pound to Sterling. No exchange fees necessary then. It would be just like your trip to Dublin in the '70s, without asking the UK to underwrite your future debts.

You would have to deal with the problem of diverging markets, but probably by the time that is too much of a worry, you'll be safely part of the EMU. Which of course means that trips to the UK will be subjectto a Euro<>Sterling exchange rate.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Stash

[LJS]

See, this is where the yes campaign is mugging people - by the suggestion that this applies.

Ireland and the UK operate a common borders agreement - one immigration policy.

So when iScotland say they'll operate a different policy (and they have), it's iScotland forcing borders to be considered and not "England's being mean again".

Whether or not border posts would appear would depend on what exactly those differences were. It's not bluff, it's real life as it happens.

well, again its about negotiation after independence. Here's what the Scottish government website says

The Scottish Government has no plans in the foreseeable future to recommend to the people of Scotland that an independent Scotland should begin the process of joining the Schengen area. While endorsing the objectives underpinning the Schengen Agreement, protecting the integrity of the UKand Ireland social union means that an independent Scotland will join the Common Travel Area (CTA).

Following independence the Scottish Government will take the steps required to participate in the Common Travel Area. This will ensure that the citizens of Scotland, rUK and Ireland will continue to enjoy the benefits of unimpeded travel and social engagement in every aspect of their lives as they do at present.

Now, of course as with everything else that will require negotiation & rUK would clearly want assurances from iScotland before agreeing to that.

Do behave.

When iScotland says it's idea of "enterprise" is to try to steal the rUK's tax base to make Scotland more prosperous (and it has), please tell me how it's in the rUK's interests to help Scotland do that.

Putting words in my mouth again. the irish republic has attracted investment by the use of advantageous tax rates & incentives. This has not caused the UK to threaten to impose border controls. All countries set their tax rates based on a range of different. It is pretty much inevitable that over time differences will emerge between the tax policies of rUK & iScotland. It is more likely than not that some of these will act as an incentive for some to locate in Scotland but equally others will axct as an incentive in the other direction. If Better together are right & the general level of taxation in iScotland will need to rise, that will clearly limit the ability of iScotland to "bribe" hordes of businesses to relocate.

the white paper is, the official document for an independent scotland.

The White paper was published by the Scottish Government which is the SNP. It is the SNP's vision for an independent Scotland.

Were the SNP to be the party of government after independence one would of course assume that they would attempt tom implement the ideas therein although as I have continually acknowledged much of it depends on negotiation with r UK EU etc.

If the SNP is not the party of government, it would reasonable to assume Labour will be & they will presumably have run an election campaign based on a different set of proposals.

A coalition government would also change the situation.

Now of course, the immediate post referendum negotiations would be the responsibility of the current Scottish Government which barring something extraordinary will be led by the SNP. They have however stated "The Scottish Government will invite representatives of other parties and wider civic Scotland to negotiate and agree the independence settlement"

It would be easy to be cynical about this but I would argue it is in their best interests to do this & it makes sense as the yes vote would have been won by the Better Together campaign which consists of much more then the SNP.

and now we have the default of the cybernat. PMSL.

Unless I agree with lunacy and lies - the white paper - I must be a secret tory. I probably went to Eton too.

And following on from that, any Scot that dares vote no is no true Scot.

Just for clarity I have no time at all for the notion that to be a true Scot you must be pro Independence. I have no issue at all with people wishing to remain in the UK - I don't agree with them but I absolutely accept their right to have & express their opinion. The truth is life will not change dramatically for the average man in the street whichever way we vote. Its sometimes easy for us all to forget that.

The most common misconception? That the UK has said all their debt is there and nothing is Scotland's. Read the treasury statement - it specifically says that a proportion is Scotland's.

It may be a misconception but its not mine. Of course we will take some of the debt & from what I have read there has no serious suggestion to the contrary.

Love & Peace

[LJS]

It's comments like this that I find so very frustrating about what the yes campaign are doing. It's about so much more than just this.

CU would have rUK underwrite all of iScotland's debt.

Chances are your mum is not happy to underwrite any debts you might have, but she'll probably do it because she's your mum.

Why do you think a bunch of strangers should act like your mum?

not entirely sure what you are on about here- I'm only saying it would be reasonable for politicians both sides of the border to try & see if they can work out an arrangement that would be more convenient for individuals & businesses on both sides of the border.

I'm no economist but I don't think that would mean rUK underwriting IScotlands debt, indeed I have seen it suggested that the oil & gas reserve's of iScotland would be a benefit to the stability of the pound under a currency union. Clearly the wouldn't if rUK refuses to consider that route.

For me, as previously stated it's not a deal breaker - if we have to have our own currency that's fine.

[LJS]

An iScotland wouldn't require a currency union to solve that problem. Peg the Scottish Pound to Sterling. No exchange fees necessary then. It would be just like your trip to Dublin in the '70s, without asking the UK to underwrite your future debts.

You would have to deal with the problem of diverging markets, but probably by the time that is too much of a worry, you'll be safely part of the EMU. Which of course means that trips to the UK will be subjectto a Euro<>Sterling exchange rate.

We seem to have enough trouble working out where we will be in 2 years - let's not try crustal ball gazing any further

[LJS]

yep, that currency union will cost Scotland it's sovereignty over Faslane (or might you have selectively ignored that part of the story?).

Up for it? Thought not.

So no currency union, and let's here Salmond tell Scotland about how his plan B will have bad economic effects for iScotland.

Do I want Nuclear subs in Scotland? No

Will we get all we want right away? No

Will we have to compromise? Yes

It is strange, however that rUK is so keen on the nuclear deterrent but also so keen that it is not based in England!

[kaosmark2]

It is strange, however that rUK is so keen on the nuclear deterrent but also so keen that it is not based in England!

We're not, the government we've been lumbered with is.

[LJS]

We're not, the government we've been lumbered with is.

You have my sympathy. One reason why I am a Yes is too many elections where no matter what Scotland votes we either get the bloody Tories again or a Labour party transformed beyond all recognition so as not to scare the Home Counties.

Edited March 30, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

You have my sympathy. One reason why I am a Yes is too many elections where no matter what Scotland votes we either get the bloody Tories again or a Labour party transformed beyond all recognition so as not to scare the Home Counties.

I have my sympathy for that argument, but I don't actually think Salmond and his SNP have any more integrity, any more distance from Murdoch, or any less bullshit than the Westminster lot.

[LJS]

I have my sympathy for that argument, but I don't actually think Salmond and his SNP have any more integrity, any more distance from Murdoch, or any less bullshit than the Westminster lot.

I get terribly fed up with the view that this is all about Salmond. We will be free to vote for him or not - the referendum does not guarantee him power after independence.

My own view is that he is is a bit over fond of the sound of his own voice & probably as susceptible to being over influenced by folk like Murdoch as the rest of them, But in practice him & his gang have made a reasonable fist of running Scotland. I'd certainly prefer to have him running my country than Dave & his Eton cronies.

But whatever, Alex will not last for ever & at least you can't accuse him of angling for a peerage.

If (& it stil remains a huge if) Scotland does vote yes, i think the period following the vote will be fascinating - will the SNP stay together or will some feel their job is done & realign to the traditional parties? How will Scottish Labour adjust from outright opposition to Independence to campaigning to run an independent Scotland? And what the hell will the Tories do?

Almost worth voting yes just to watch.

[kaosmark2]

I get terribly fed up with the view that this is all about Salmond. We will be free to vote for him or not - the referendum does not guarantee him power after independence.

My own view is that he is is a bit over fond of the sound of his own voice & probably as susceptible to being over influenced by folk like Murdoch as the rest of them, But in practice him & his gang have made a reasonable fist of running Scotland. I'd certainly prefer to have him running my country than Dave & his Eton cronies.

But whatever, Alex will not last for ever & at least you can't accuse him of angling for a peerage.

If (& it stil remains a huge if) Scotland does vote yes, i think the period following the vote will be fascinating - will the SNP stay together or will some feel their job is done & realign to the traditional parties? How will Scottish Labour adjust from outright opposition to Independence to campaigning to run an independent Scotland? And what the hell will the Tories do?

Almost worth voting yes just to watch.

Oh yeah, an independent Scotland isn't a permanent vote for the SNP, it's just they're heading the yes campaign and trying to get independence on their terms, something which just isn't going to happen. I have a strong disagreement with the yes campaign themselves, but I don't really have a problem with anyone who wants to vote for independence for any reason other than Salmond's BS. I disagree with it personally, but I think there's good reasons to vote for it, even I think both countries will be worse off as a result.

[Buff124]

Interdependence, not independence.

Every nation is dependent to a greater or lesser degree on every other nation, not least due to being located on the same (small) planet. Let's just acknowledge that as part of the bigger landscape. It might help to unstick the somewhat circular debate going on here ?

[LJS]

Every nation is dependent to a greater or lesser degree on every other nation, not least due to being located on the same (small) planet. Let's just acknowledge that as part of the bigger landscape. It might help to unstick the somewhat circular debate going on here ?

i'll buy that

[eFestivals]

Edited March 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm no economist but I don't think that would mean rUK underwriting IScotlands debt

that's *EXACTLY* what a currency union does.

indeed I have seen it suggested that the oil & gas reserve's of iScotland would be a benefit to the stability of the pound under a currency union.

there's lots of practical benefits of a CU, no one says differtent to that.

But there's also massive risks too. And lots of people say differently to that - mostly those who do not understand what a CU is, like you.

For me, as previously stated it's not a deal breaker - if we have to have our own currency that's fine.

Is it fine, tho?

Each choice has consequences - and not only good ones.

The consequence of an iScotland currency is that Scotland's economy might get screwed over, either by a concerted attack by speculators (even the far bigger UK economy couldn't fend those off 20-ish years ago, and it cost tens of billions as a result), or by the variance in oil prices.

If it's the 2nd of those its not a weak Scottish pound that would be the issue, but a strong one. Even the upsides have downsides.

[eFestivals]

It is strange, however that rUK is so keen on the nuclear deterrent but also so keen that it is not based in England!

yeah, even the natural geography of the UK conspires against Scotland. Scotland's geography must be a part of the no campaign.

[eFestivals]

I get terribly fed up with the view that this is all about Salmond. We will be free to vote for him or not - the referendum does not guarantee him power after independence.

My own view is that he is is a bit over fond of the sound of his own voice & probably as susceptible to being over influenced by folk like Murdoch as the rest of them, But in practice him & his gang have made a reasonable fist of running Scotland. I'd certainly prefer to have him running my country than Dave & his Eton cronies.

Ummm ... Salmond is the UK politician that is the most in Murdoch's pocket. He's not the same as other politicians, on this particular part he's much worse.

But whatever, Alex will not last for ever & at least you can't accuse him of angling for a peerage.

true - he's aiming so much higher, and so is prepared to lie much much more to try and ensure he gets the reward he wants.

You will vote for politicians and still get politicians. Scotland does not breed them any differently to anywhere else.