Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
jimmyjimjim said:
pcvdriver is entirely correct on this.
Scotland has to vote yes, the negotiations have to have started, and Salmond has to formally, as part of the separation process, ask about currency union.
Then and only then can the rUK negotiators say, "No chance, as we've told you time and time again".
Until then, it's not formally ruled out. Despite it having been make clear that when the time comes it will not be an option.
I think that is a semantic argument at best - because it fails to take into account the stance taken by the SNP, which is to effectively promise the Scottish people that the outcome of negotiations will be positive for Scotland and that, therefore, there is no need for a "Plan B".Scotland has to vote yes, the negotiations have to have started, and Salmond has to formally, as part of the separation process, ask about currency union.
Then and only then can the rUK negotiators say, "No chance, as we've told you time and time again".
Until then, it's not formally ruled out. Despite it having been make clear that when the time comes it will not be an option.
The cold hard probability is that formal currency union will not be possible, either politically ( the rUK population won't want it ) or practically ( it would be very difficult technically ) .
The SNP have hinted that they "don't need the cooperation of the rUk to keep the pound" (sic) but this implies that Scotland would instead have their own currency and peg it to the pound. This is all fine and dandy, it could work, but in this case the SNP should therefore do some calculations to assess how much GBP the Scottish central bank would have to hold in order to support the peg. And they would have to hold a LOT of GBP - if not, the Scottish currency would be attacked in the FX markets and pretty soon a loaf of bread would cost a million grotes, or Salmonds, or whatever they will call their currency.
No-one has said what impact on Scotlands finances would be the result of having to peg their currency. No one has done the maths.
It could all end in disaster. And it probably would, given the scenario above. It is frankly deceitful and disingenuous to pretend these factors are not real and not provide some answers to them.
Interesting point popped up on the LinkedIn forum on Scottish Independence:
Scotland: A Parent Sate of the UK. Therefore should be allowed to secede democratically and without international barriers.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1Independent Researcher
I am currently studying Causes of War with King's College London and came across this;
Re: 'Becoming a sovereign state isn't easy...' 'The international system prefers a status quo and very rarely will a new state be allowed to emerge on to the national stage with full sovereignty, especially if that state is trying to secede from a parent state'.
In that case then, and in the current case for Scotland; Scotland is a parent state of the UK with England being the other parent state. Therefore the difficulties in becoming a 'new state' even though Scotland has ancient state history and status already should not be a problem for an independent Scotland or for the international community to recognise it as such on the international stage.
Scotland was/is a parent state of the UK and can democratically decide if it still wants to be a parent state of the UK or not, and should therefore not face any international barriers to returning to being an independent sovereign state, should it? K
5 comments:
Dave Ball
Technical Project Manager at Improvement Service
Also how is the fact that the Union of the crowns is going to remain effect things ?
Since all treated are signed by the United Kingdom and that this will still exist by the Union of the crowns.
So surely that mean that we will never leave the EU as we are still part of the United Kingdom.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
Re the Crowns and all that it's always been a contested business as I'm finding out while reading; A History of Scotland by Professor JD Mackie OBE... of Glasgow University it makes for intersting reading,currently looking at Attempts at Union in 1652... but surely the Crowns is different to the Parliament and the Crowns was more relevant to a time when monarchs were seen as leviathans and believed they had a divine right to rule as covered in Thomas Hobbes book The Leviathan of 1651.
Excuse me if I'm comig over all historical 'n' that! Parliament since took over from monarchs after Cromwell and gradually monarch's greater powers diminished over time to where we're at today with a symbolic/ceremonial participation of sorts in political events.
Therefore in many senses the Crown part of the union is less important than the political union which is where the real contest is. Scotland as the SNP say will still retain their relationship with the Queen and that is not necessarily contested. I can't see the monarch giving up Scotland if independence is achieved, as there are too many assets to lose. So I suppose the focus remains on independence from the political union and as a Parent State in that union we can resign from it should the will of the people want it, hopefully?
Hope that makes sense at the end of a long day Dave? Cheers. K
Jeremy Watson
Architecture and conservation
Lots of semantics : How can independence mean leaving the United KINGDOM, but the ability to retain the monarch? I am finding and contributing to referendum issues more on www.kiltr.com than here and have got to know http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/,http://wingsoverscotland.com/,http://bettertogether.net/ etc. Worth a look.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
The question of independence is about breaking from a political union that proceeds a separate union of monarchys 100 years before. There have been changes since 1603 in what monarchs roles are and government,parliament and politics is the main stay of political discourse today, with the monarchy acting ceremonially. This can be seen in the gilt glory of the House of Lords where the Queen delivers her speeches in comparison to the simple plainness of the House of Commons. You can tell that the real action happens in the Commons as all that glisters is not gold elsewhere.
The people of Scotland are being asked to vote over Scotland's political union with England and not its monarchical union with England. I beleive that the monarchical treaty can be maintained while the political treaty can be challenged in light of international political changes and domestic political differences and ideology.There needs to be a distinction between the two.
Scots are being asked to vote regarding the Act of Union 1707 which whatever way you look at it historically and academically and at attempts at union in the mid and late 17thC including during the restoration of Charles II and the reign of James VII/II the political union was forced on the people and even some elites and clergy were against it then. I realise we've moved on from then as it's an historic 'agreement', things have changed today and that's why the SNP are calling for a change of direction from an oudated, historic and in some case enforced treaty, well at least not a democratic treaty. However the vote in September will be democratic.
I'll read up on your attachments Jeremy, thank you. K
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
Parent State not 'sate' as in earlier typo incase anyone has any doubts. Scotland is a parent state of the UK which has some significance, including legally. K
Scotland: A Parent Sate of the UK. Therefore should be allowed to secede democratically and without international barriers.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1Independent Researcher
I am currently studying Causes of War with King's College London and came across this;
Re: 'Becoming a sovereign state isn't easy...' 'The international system prefers a status quo and very rarely will a new state be allowed to emerge on to the national stage with full sovereignty, especially if that state is trying to secede from a parent state'.
In that case then, and in the current case for Scotland; Scotland is a parent state of the UK with England being the other parent state. Therefore the difficulties in becoming a 'new state' even though Scotland has ancient state history and status already should not be a problem for an independent Scotland or for the international community to recognise it as such on the international stage.
Scotland was/is a parent state of the UK and can democratically decide if it still wants to be a parent state of the UK or not, and should therefore not face any international barriers to returning to being an independent sovereign state, should it? K
5 comments:
Dave Ball
Technical Project Manager at Improvement Service
Also how is the fact that the Union of the crowns is going to remain effect things ?
Since all treated are signed by the United Kingdom and that this will still exist by the Union of the crowns.
So surely that mean that we will never leave the EU as we are still part of the United Kingdom.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
Re the Crowns and all that it's always been a contested business as I'm finding out while reading; A History of Scotland by Professor JD Mackie OBE... of Glasgow University it makes for intersting reading,currently looking at Attempts at Union in 1652... but surely the Crowns is different to the Parliament and the Crowns was more relevant to a time when monarchs were seen as leviathans and believed they had a divine right to rule as covered in Thomas Hobbes book The Leviathan of 1651.
Excuse me if I'm comig over all historical 'n' that! Parliament since took over from monarchs after Cromwell and gradually monarch's greater powers diminished over time to where we're at today with a symbolic/ceremonial participation of sorts in political events.
Therefore in many senses the Crown part of the union is less important than the political union which is where the real contest is. Scotland as the SNP say will still retain their relationship with the Queen and that is not necessarily contested. I can't see the monarch giving up Scotland if independence is achieved, as there are too many assets to lose. So I suppose the focus remains on independence from the political union and as a Parent State in that union we can resign from it should the will of the people want it, hopefully?
Hope that makes sense at the end of a long day Dave? Cheers. K
Jeremy Watson
Architecture and conservation
Lots of semantics : How can independence mean leaving the United KINGDOM, but the ability to retain the monarch? I am finding and contributing to referendum issues more on www.kiltr.com than here and have got to know http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/,http://wingsoverscotland.com/,http://bettertogether.net/ etc. Worth a look.
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
The question of independence is about breaking from a political union that proceeds a separate union of monarchys 100 years before. There have been changes since 1603 in what monarchs roles are and government,parliament and politics is the main stay of political discourse today, with the monarchy acting ceremonially. This can be seen in the gilt glory of the House of Lords where the Queen delivers her speeches in comparison to the simple plainness of the House of Commons. You can tell that the real action happens in the Commons as all that glisters is not gold elsewhere.
The people of Scotland are being asked to vote over Scotland's political union with England and not its monarchical union with England. I beleive that the monarchical treaty can be maintained while the political treaty can be challenged in light of international political changes and domestic political differences and ideology.There needs to be a distinction between the two.
Scots are being asked to vote regarding the Act of Union 1707 which whatever way you look at it historically and academically and at attempts at union in the mid and late 17thC including during the restoration of Charles II and the reign of James VII/II the political union was forced on the people and even some elites and clergy were against it then. I realise we've moved on from then as it's an historic 'agreement', things have changed today and that's why the SNP are calling for a change of direction from an oudated, historic and in some case enforced treaty, well at least not a democratic treaty. However the vote in September will be democratic.
I'll read up on your attachments Jeremy, thank you. K
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1
Independent Researcher
Parent State not 'sate' as in earlier typo incase anyone has any doubts. Scotland is a parent state of the UK which has some significance, including legally. K
Edinburger said:
Offered a random bunch of amateurs with 2:1s that cropped up on LinkedIn as a credible and scholarly source
That is bloody funny, Edinburger. Bloody funny.I am sure I can find a linked-in group where a group of post grad 2:1's in baking and hello kitty, get to offer their opinion on the challenges facing the research into the puzzle of Baryon Asymmetry and why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. I am sure it is roughly equivalent.
The Yes campaign is short of scholarly work. You should step up. Get involved. You'd fit right in.
toppstuff said:
Edinburger said:
Offered a random bunch of amateurs with 2:1s that cropped up on LinkedIn as a credible and scholarly source
That is bloody funny, Edinburger. Bloody funny.I am sure I can find a linked-in group where a group of post grad 2:1's in baking and hello kitty, get to offer their opinion on the challenges facing the research into the puzzle of Baryon Asymmetry and why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. I am sure it is roughly equivalent.
The Yes campaign is short of scholarly work. You should step up. Get involved. You'd fit right in.
McWigglebum4th said:
It is a stated aim of the SNP to have unlimited immigration
It is....I see no problem with it, in fact I see it as a positive, not a negative.McWigglebum4th said:
It is also stated that to vote YES means we will end the bedroom tax and reverse all benefits cuts
And your point is?......McWigglebum4th said:
It is also stated that scotland has zero growth due to tory policies
Stated where?....McWigglebum4th said:
Meanwhile it is stated that a tory majority government in england will slash benefits and throw them out of their houses
What does throwing tenants out of their homes in England have to do with anything?...McWigglebum4th said:
So what is to stop everyone in england who is on benefits moving on mass into the workers paradise that is Scotland and going straight onto benefits?
If, as you and others seem to be at delight pointing out Scotland would not be in the EU, therefore, English benefit claimants wouldn't be illegible to claim benefits in Scotland...... so another non-issue. Either that, or you're wrong about your opinion of Scotland not being in the EU. So which one is it?Edited by pcvdriver on Wednesday 16th April 21:14
Here's another interesting find. It seems some Scottish Tories may be voting against their party and voting YES
Four reasons a Scottish Conservative might vote ‘Yes’ in 2014
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/... ......back to what I was saying the other day about independence actually being of benefit to the Tories.
Four reasons a Scottish Conservative might vote ‘Yes’ in 2014
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/... ......back to what I was saying the other day about independence actually being of benefit to the Tories.
pcvdriver said:
Here's another interesting find. It seems some Scottish Tories may be voting against their party and voting YES
Four reasons a Scottish Conservative might vote ‘Yes’ in 2014
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/... ......back to what I was saying the other day about independence actually being of benefit to the Tories.
Forget your unhealthy obsession with the Tories for a minute.Four reasons a Scottish Conservative might vote ‘Yes’ in 2014
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/... ......back to what I was saying the other day about independence actually being of benefit to the Tories.
Apart from immigration, where you can't seem to explain what exactly it is you want or what the benefit will be, when will you tell us about all those other decisions to be made in, by, for Scotland and the associated benefits.
You must have had time to google something by now, either that or you've gone into full on nat mode by ignoring the tricky s
t.Why not just try a straight answer. We're all waiting.
Lol at Burgers post, some chap with a 2.1 talks about Scotland being parent state and burger quotes it like its a revelation, then viper pict mark 2 quotes an lse blog. Might aa well quote from the "arm belt" thread about as relevant or factual.
In fact why not hunt out the lad who's dad had a mapped 335d see if he has interesting ideas.
In fact why not hunt out the lad who's dad had a mapped 335d see if he has interesting ideas.
pcvdriver said:
If, as you and others seem to be at delight pointing out Scotland would not be in the EU, therefore, English benefit claimants wouldn't be illegible to claim benefits in Scotland...... so another non-issue. Either that, or you're wrong about your opinion of Scotland not being in the EU. So which one is it?
So your choices are either:Edited by pcvdriver on Wednesday 16th April 21:14
1. Scotland is not in the EU - which is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
or
2. Unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
So while you might be correct that the choices are mutually exclusive, they both have the quality of being crap.
Actually, I'm editing to add that a few pages ago, you were adamant that Scotland would have no barriers to immigration - so there is a third scenario:
3. No EU membership plus an open door policy allowing unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
Or would you immigration policy not extend south of the border?
Edited by blinkythefish on Wednesday 16th April 21:50
pcvdriver said:
McWigglebum4th said:
It is a stated aim of the SNP to have unlimited immigration
It is....I see no problem with it, in fact I see it as a positive, not a negative.McWigglebum4th said:
It is also stated that to vote YES means we will end the bedroom tax and reverse all benefits cuts
And your point is?......McWigglebum4th said:
It is also stated that scotland has zero growth due to tory policies
Stated where?....McWigglebum4th said:
Meanwhile it is stated that a tory majority government in england will slash benefits and throw them out of their houses
What does throwing tenants out of their homes in England have to do with anything?...McWigglebum4th said:
So what is to stop everyone in england who is on benefits moving on mass into the workers paradise that is Scotland and going straight onto benefits?
If, as you and others seem to be at delight pointing out Scotland would not be in the EU, therefore, English benefit claimants wouldn't be illegible to claim benefits in Scotland...... so another non-issue. Either that, or you're wrong about your opinion of Scotland not being in the EU. So which one is it?Edited by pcvdriver on Wednesday 16th April 21:14
You can't doubt the word of king alex as only tories doubt king alex
But do note as with all nationalists you have dodged actually answering the question.
If we do as king alex says and join the EU and have greatly increased benefits what is to stop all the unemployables from coming up to Scotland
McWigglebum4th said:
King alex says we shall be in the EU therefore we will be in the EU
You can't doubt the word of king alex as only tories doubt king alex
But do note as with all nationalists you have dodged actually answering the question.
If we do as king alex says and join the EU and have greatly increased benefits what is to stop all the unemployables from coming up to Scotland
Not dodging the question at all....just waiting for you to respond to my qualifying question. Anyhow, the thing that will stop them all piling North is the fact that none (OK there may be a handful) of them will have actually worked in Scotland for a minimum period of 6 months in the past two years, so wouldn't actually be illegible to claim benefits (or not Scottish benefits anyway). They would however be able to claim English benefits (paid at the English benefits rate) and the benefits bill would be sent to England's Exchequer, so no expense to the Scottish tax payer. So they simply would not gain from piling North.You can't doubt the word of king alex as only tories doubt king alex
But do note as with all nationalists you have dodged actually answering the question.
If we do as king alex says and join the EU and have greatly increased benefits what is to stop all the unemployables from coming up to Scotland
blinkythefish said:
So your choices are either:
1. Scotland is not in the EU - which is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
or
2. Unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
So while you might be correct that the choices are mutually exclusive, they both have the quality of being crap.
Actually, I'm editing to add that a few pages ago, you were adamant that Scotland would have no barriers to immigration - so there is a third scenario:
3. No EU membership plus an open door policy allowing unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
Or would you immigration policy not extend south of the border?
We don't have an issue with immigration from anywhere - especially England. However, as I've just explained to Wiggly - in order to claim benefits, first of all you need to have worked for a minimum of 6 months in Scotland in the past 2 years. So no rush North by benefits claimants.1. Scotland is not in the EU - which is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
or
2. Unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
So while you might be correct that the choices are mutually exclusive, they both have the quality of being crap.
Actually, I'm editing to add that a few pages ago, you were adamant that Scotland would have no barriers to immigration - so there is a third scenario:
3. No EU membership plus an open door policy allowing unfettered migration from the rUK to take advantage of Scotland's "fairer" benefit system.
Or would you immigration policy not extend south of the border?
Edinburger said:
Kevin Keating-Doyle BA(Hons) 2:1Independent Researcher
I am currently studying Causes of War with King's College London and came across this;
Scotland was/is a parent state of the UK and can democratically decide if it still wants to be a parent state of the UK or not, and should therefore not face any international barriers to returning to being an independent sovereign state, should it?
If we are both parents states then the land owner and cotton picker were equal members of American society.I am currently studying Causes of War with King's College London and came across this;
Scotland was/is a parent state of the UK and can democratically decide if it still wants to be a parent state of the UK or not, and should therefore not face any international barriers to returning to being an independent sovereign state, should it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff