Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

Scottish Independence Referendum

Should Scotland be an independent country?   55 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

    • Yes
      27
    • No
      28

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,134 posts in this topic

the increasingly punchable Alex Salmond thinks that Scotland has the right to retain the pound, because it's theirs as much as everyone else's.

 

The pound is the currency of the UK. Scotland won't be in the UK won't be their decking currency. The UK is in the EU. Scotland won't be in the UK and therefore will have to negotiate itself into the EU. Get the bloody border posts up now.

Core ground clarifications part 2 for this morning:  The pound.

 

The Act of Union 1707 merged the currencies of England and Scotland, creating a single pound.  The UK government, by Act of Parliament, a few years later then ordered the Scottish banks to hand over their reserve capital to the Bank of England which would form a UK-wide lender of last resort and central bank.  The Bank of England is mis-named, it is the Bank of the UK, and each member nation has paid its dues into it when their national banks had their reserve capital centralised.  If Scotland gains its independence then it has just as much right to the assets, capital and central banking power of the Bank of England as the rump UK would have.  It would be effectively bank robbery on a national scale if the Bank of England removed central banking rights from Scotland.  I suppose Westminster could compensate the Scots for removing their rights to the BoE but it'd most likely be in the hundreds of billions that it would cost as that'd be what it would take to restore effective central banking powers to the Scottish banks.

 

Not as simple as those nice people from Westminster say, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional law was one of my highest scoring subjects in law school :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L'Ange...are you SURE you are not me but with a beard and a Yorkshire accent?  :ohmy:  :)  :)

maybe if I hit my head with a hammer a few times to knock my IQ down a few notches you could have a point :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Core ground clarifications part 2 for this morning:  The pound.

 

The Act of Union 1707 merged the currencies of England and Scotland, creating a single pound.  The UK government, by Act of Parliament, a few years later then ordered the Scottish banks to hand over their reserve capital to the Bank of England which would form a UK-wide lender of last resort and central bank.  The Bank of England is mis-named, it is the Bank of the UK, and each member nation has paid its dues into it when their national banks had their reserve capital centralised.  If Scotland gains its independence then it has just as much right to the assets, capital and central banking power of the Bank of England as the rump UK would have.  It would be effectively bank robbery on a national scale if the Bank of England removed central banking rights from Scotland.  I suppose Westminster could compensate the Scots for removing their rights to the BoE but it'd most likely be in the hundreds of billions that it would cost as that'd be what it would take to restore effective central banking powers to the Scottish banks.

 

Not as simple as those nice people from Westminster say, is it?

I had a general idea about that Craig, and am being mildly facetious…I don't really fancy punching anyone including Salmond, but thanks for supplying the detail. What I would say is that Scotland has enjoyed the benefits of being a member of the central bank as well as contributing to it. Cameron et al have seemed stone cold certain that they could deny the Scots the right to have the pound as its currency. One wonders where they got the idea from.

 

Edit: Here's the result of the most cursory of googles

 

http://news.yahoo.com/britain-tell-scotland-lose-pound-exit-uk-164535577--sector.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a general idea about that Craig, and am being mildly facetious…I don't really fancy punching anyone including Salmond, but thanks for supplying the detail. What I would say is that Scotland has enjoyed the benefits of being a member of the central bank as well as contributing to it. Cameron et al have seemed stone cold certain that they could deny the Scots the right to have the pound as its currency. One wonders where they got the idea from.

I'd suggest a mixture of ignorance, arrogance and a belief that no-one can stop them.  Much like they do with virtually everything else they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional law was one of my highest scoring subjects in law school :)

 

I would keep quiet about that if I were you. You know what people on here think of lawyers. Anyway, it was skool, not the real world.

 

In any case,  it a fair bet that in the event of  a " yes" vote all the points that are raised by the Better Together people ill be negotiated,. that means the pound, the EU, Schengen,  BBC, Armed Forces, nuclear etc etc etc etc , in fact everything, despite a widespread desire to see the odious Salmond get what he deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest a mixture of ignorance, arrogance and a belief that no-one can stop them.  Much like they do with virtually everything else they do.

well yes

but they can't be that stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe if I hit my head with a hammer a few times to knock my IQ down a few notches you could have a point :tongue:

 

I can help with the first part but but the second bit is up for debate as you choosing Yorkshire doesn't support your second point. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep quiet about that if I were you. You know what people on here think of lawyers. Anyway, it was skool, not the real world.

 

In any case,  it a fair bet that in the event of  a " yes" vote all the points that are raised by the Better Together people ill be negotiated,. that means the pound, the EU, Schengen,  BBC, Armed Forces, nuclear etc etc etc etc , in fact everything, despite a widespread desire to see the odious Salmond get what he deserves.

1. The remainder of the UK cannot and will not be able to provide suitable facilities for maintaining our nuclear missile submarines anytime soon, the SNP have very clearly said they'll be kicking out Trident from Scottish waters.

2. Scotland cannot and will not be able to provide suitable central banking facilities anytime soon, all main Westminster parties have said they'll not give Scotland access to the BoE system.

 

Easy to see a mutual point of major co-operation there, isn't it?  The rest is covered in the SNP's actually very fair separation proposal document, the Westminster government would have to be in real pre-school nursery tantrum mode to quibble about well over 90% of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The remainder of the UK cannot and will not be able to provide suitable facilities for maintaining our nuclear missile submarines anytime soon, the SNP have very clearly said they'll be kicking out Trident from Scottish waters.

2. Scotland cannot and will not be able to provide suitable central banking facilities anytime soon, all main Westminster parties have said they'll not give Scotland access to the BoE system.

 

Easy to see a mutual point of major co-operation there, isn't it?  The rest is covered in the SNP's actually very fair separation proposal document, the Westminster government would have to be in real pre-school nursery tantrum mode to quibble about well over 90% of it.

although a change of defence policy would throw a spanner in that works.

Even if Trident were renewed, there's a kind of time scale anomaly.

Scotland keeps the pound and it's like that forever.

 

The non Scottish part of the UK and its naval nuclear deterrent are relatively(I hope) ephemeral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although a change of defence policy would throw a spanner in that works.

Even if Trident were renewed, there's a kind of time scale anomaly.

Scotland keeps the pound and it's like that forever.

 

The non Scottish part of the UK and its naval nuclear deterrent are relatively(I hope) ephemeral

If the UK loses its nuclear deterrent then there's absolutely no reason at all for us to retain our UN Security Council seat.  The ego loss of that alone would get most UK Prime Ministers willing to sell everything from their grannies to the fine china from Number 10 to renew the nuclear deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news that Boris might be back in Parliament should be encouraging people to vote "no".  After all, who in their right mind wouldn't want to be part of a UK with Boris as PM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK loses its nuclear deterrent then there's absolutely no reason at all for us to retain our UN Security Council seat.  The ego loss of that alone would get most UK Prime Ministers willing to sell everything from their grannies to the fine china from Number 10 to renew the nuclear deterrent.

I'm talking about the far future here, because that's what independence will represent.

 

 

one is a political issue

the other a constitutional one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK loses its nuclear deterrent then there's absolutely no reason at all for us to retain our UN Security Council seat.  The ego loss of that alone would get most UK Prime Ministers willing to sell everything from their grannies to the fine china from Number 10 to renew the nuclear deterrent.

It doesn't follow. We have a UN seat. There is no mechanism or precedence for having it taken away. Therefore a loss of nuclear status would not mean losing our UN seat unless we chose to give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Core ground clarifications part 2 for this morning:  The pound.

 

The Act of Union 1707 merged the currencies of England and Scotland, creating a single pound.  The UK government, by Act of Parliament, a few years later then ordered the Scottish banks to hand over their reserve capital to the Bank of England which would form a UK-wide lender of last resort and central bank.  The Bank of England is mis-named, it is the Bank of the UK, and each member nation has paid its dues into it when their national banks had their reserve capital centralised.  If Scotland gains its independence then it has just as much right to the assets, capital and central banking power of the Bank of England as the rump UK would have.  It would be effectively bank robbery on a national scale if the Bank of England removed central banking rights from Scotland.  I suppose Westminster could compensate the Scots for removing their rights to the BoE but it'd most likely be in the hundreds of billions that it would cost as that'd be what it would take to restore effective central banking powers to the Scottish banks.

 

Not as simple as those nice people from Westminster say, is it?

No, it would most likely be 9% of the UK total assets as that's "Scotland's share" of assets / liabilities. If it isn't enough to start their own central bank that's not our problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It suits the little-Englanders to state that Juncker is an unelected bureaucrat but he holds just as much of a democratic mandate as David Cameron.  It's also amusing to see people talking about him "currently dictating" to us when he doesn't take up power until November!

 

 

He's still a nonentity from a micky mouse country though, isn't he. Biggest budget he's ever handled is probably the Luxembourg MEPs' train fares to Brussells.

 

And I am in no way little or an Englander.

:tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's still a nonentity from a micky mouse country though, isn't he. Biggest budget he's ever handled is probably the Luxembourg MEPs' train fares to Brussells.

 

And I am in no way little or an Englander.

:tongue:

no, what you are is even littler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Salmond for me didn't look good under pressure from the cool and calm Alistair Darling. I can see why he was chosen by the better together camp.

If Dave had been there in might have been a different story.

From an entertainment point of view i would like to see Alex Salmond debate this with George Galloway, but its never going to happen. We all know George is not very popular, but his mastery of the English language would have Alex Salmond wriggling like a fish on a hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Core ground clarifications part 2 for this morning:  The pound.

 

The Act of Union 1707 merged the currencies of England and Scotland, creating a single pound.  The UK government, by Act of Parliament, a few years later then ordered the Scottish banks to hand over their reserve capital to the Bank of England which would form a UK-wide lender of last resort and central bank.  The Bank of England is mis-named, it is the Bank of the UK, and each member nation has paid its dues into it when their national banks had their reserve capital centralised.  If Scotland gains its independence then it has just as much right to the assets, capital and central banking power of the Bank of England as the rump UK would have.  It would be effectively bank robbery on a national scale if the Bank of England removed central banking rights from Scotland.  I suppose Westminster could compensate the Scots for removing their rights to the BoE but it'd most likely be in the hundreds of billions that it would cost as that'd be what it would take to restore effective central banking powers to the Scottish banks.

 

Not as simple as those nice people from Westminster say, is it?

It's alright this kind of thing being brought out whenever this matter is being debated, but why should the Scots have a say in this when the English don't?  If as you are claiming the currency matter was one of union, then we should all have a vote on independence and all matters pertaining to independence since everything was based upon a union of two countries in the first place. However, given that the English (and Welsh) have no say in the matter of Scotland's independence or otherwise, how would Scotland having a say in the matter of ongoing monetary union be valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's alright this kind of thing being brought out whenever this matter is being debated, but why should the Scots have a say in this when the English don't?  If as you are claiming the currency matter was one of union, then we should all have a vote on independence and all matters pertaining to independence since everything was based upon a union of two countries in the first place. However, given that the English (and Welsh) have no say in the matter of Scotland's independence or otherwise, how would Scotland having a say in the matter of ongoing monetary union be valid?

Because they're wildly different subjects?  The independence vote is a matter of self-determination that only the Scots get to vote on, if the English, Welsh or Irish want their own vote then they're perfectly entitled to have it.  The currency union is a legal matter, it's not for one side to unilaterally decide it's theirs and no-one else's.  If I sign a contract with you to give you all my money in return for a safeguard should bad things happen then you don't get to simply say "nope, it's my bank, not yours and you're getting nothing".

 

De-mergers tend to follow some fairly simple guidelines, much like divorces: if it's joint property then either it's split, shared or it's bought out by the other party.  As soon as you let the dumped ex have a public rant though it becomes personal and no-one wins but the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they're wildly different subjects?  The independence vote is a matter of self-determination that only the Scots get to vote on, if the English, Welsh or Irish want their own vote then they're perfectly entitled to have it.  The currency union is a legal matter, it's not for one side to unilaterally decide it's theirs and no-one else's.  If I sign a contract with you to give you all my money in return for a safeguard should bad things happen then you don't get to simply say "nope, it's my bank, not yours and you're getting nothing".

 

De-mergers tend to follow some fairly simple guidelines, much like divorces: if it's joint property then either it's split, shared or it's bought out by the other party.  As soon as you let the dumped ex have a public rant though it becomes personal and no-one wins but the lawyers.

Split is fine. The Scots deserve their share of UK assets (as well as liabilities) but what Salmond demands is a continued relationship with rUK. It's like demanding the right to live in a shared home after you've asked for a divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they're wildly different subjects?  The independence vote is a matter of self-determination that only the Scots get to vote on, if the English, Welsh or Irish want their own vote then they're perfectly entitled to have it.  The currency union is a legal matter, it's not for one side to unilaterally decide it's theirs and no-one else's.  If I sign a contract with you to give you all my money in return for a safeguard should bad things happen then you don't get to simply say "nope, it's my bank, not yours and you're getting nothing".

 

De-mergers tend to follow some fairly simple guidelines, much like divorces: if it's joint property then either it's split, shared or it's bought out by the other party.  As soon as you let the dumped ex have a public rant though it becomes personal and no-one wins but the lawyers.

The Scots wanted the Euro until Euro started to look dodgy and they changed their mind and wanted the pound. If they do vote for independence, but have the pound as their currency how will they be independent? If anything they'll be less independent than they are now.  They'll have a currency which is controlled by another country. They'll have no say in economic policy or fiscal policy where that currency is concerned. Personally i don't think Salmond has thought this currency thing through. Once his dream of using the Euro and being in some sort of economic confederacy with Iceland and the Irish Republic had fallen apart due to the recession, he just used a bit of economic sticking plaster by saying they'd use the pound. I think the SNP at bottom are a bit like the Lib/Dems, they adopt policies that they never expect to see enacted just to gain votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scots wanted the Euro until Euro started to look dodgy and they changed their mind and wanted the pound. If they do vote for independence, but have the pound as their currency how will they be independent? If anything they'll be less independent than they are now.  They'll have a currency which is controlled by another country. They'll have no say in economic policy or fiscal policy where that currency is concerned. Personally i don't think Salmond has thought this currency thing through. Once his dream of using the Euro and being in some sort of economic confederacy with Iceland and the Irish Republic had fallen apart due to the recession, he just used a bit of economic sticking plaster by saying they'd use the pound. I think the SNP at bottom are a bit like the Lib/Dems, they adopt policies that they never expect to see enacted just to gain votes.

Salmond is a very smart man and knows his economics. The reason why he wants to keep the pound is because analysts will have told him that cross-border trade is good for the Scottish economy and that iScotland couldn't afford to bail out its banks alone - he wants us to help resolve any future Scottish banking crises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wants the pound to win over the undecided voters. We will be independent and you will not notice the change.

He and the guaranteed yes voters don't care about the pound or the queen, they just want a yes. But to win he has to grab the undecideds who respond better to 'no change' than a revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salmond is a very smart man and knows his economics. The reason why he wants to keep the pound is because analysts will have told him that cross-border trade is good for the Scottish economy and that iScotland couldn't afford to bail out its banks alone - he wants us to help resolve any future Scottish banking crises.

But it still means that effectively Scotland would be no more independent than is now, or will be if the Dmax policies are implemented after a "no" vote.  TBH I reckon it's all posturing to achieve Dmax. If Scotland voted "yes" I think Salmond et al would be flummoxed as to what to do next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017