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

Excellent...... :laugh:  :laugh:

 

except the last few words: Except you going. We couldn't bear that.

 

 

 I think they'll find we could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although that said, it does all seem quite exciting the thought of a yes vote even if I vote no.

 

The main reason the end result will be a 'no' will be all of the English folk who've been shipped into Edinburgh over the last couple of years. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the intervention last week of a couple of posh English chappies from the Tory party, supported by their pet Scot and Lib Dem lapdog as well as the London based Labour party has effectively halved the "no" lead?  That worked well then.

No, the polling company changed the basis on which they calculated the poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason the end result will be a 'no' will be all of the English folk who've been shipped into Edinburgh over the last couple of years. :)

Disagree. I think the only way they'll get a "yes" vote is if more English people are allowed a vote. I'd certainly be voting to get rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the polling company changed the basis on which they calculated the poll.

That was convenient then, certainly explains it rather than it just being a gross misunderstanding of the Scottish people by some London based politicians ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was convenient then, certainly explains it rather than it just being a gross misunderstanding of the Scottish people by some London based politicians ;)

I think the gross misunderstanding is by the Scottish people who think that they alone should dictate the terms of any Scottish-English relationship or even with regard to the EU.

 

Waah we want to keep our oil - so we will.

Waah we want to keep using British money - and you'll agree to this.

Waah we think we'll be automatically in the EU - so we will.

 

Perhaps they should consider that countries other than Scotland might like an opinion on what arrangements they enter into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the gross misunderstanding is by the Scottish people who think that they alone should dictate the terms of any Scottish-English relationship or even with regard to the EU.

 

Waah we want to keep our oil - so we will.

Waah we want to keep using British money - and you'll agree to this.

Waah we think we'll be automatically in the EU - so we will.

 

Perhaps they should consider that countries other than Scotland might like an opinion on what arrangements they enter into.

 

How dare countries negotiate in their own interest first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare countries negotiate in their own interest first.

Indeed. Wicked England. Wicked EU. Scotland must punish them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Wicked England. Wicked EU. Scotland must punish them.

 

Well, no.  But you don't start a negotiation by going, "Right, well what we'd like is to be utterly dicked over.  Which way should we bend?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no.  But you don't start a negotiation by going, "Right, well what we'd like is to be utterly dicked over.  Which way should we bend?"

 

Unless you're the Liberal Democrat Leader going into Coalition negotiations. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're the Liberal Democrat Leader going into Coalition negotiations. :ph34r:

 

The agreement was (more or less) fine.  The implementation of it and the roll-over nature of the coalition partners especially in years 1 & 2, less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that annoyed me about this yesterday... another example of how patronising the "no" campaign is being.  Late last year, the Treasury officially said that the public debt belonged to rump-UK if Scotland went their own way and that the BoE would stand behind every pound of that debt to protect rump-UK's status in the world.  Then, yesterday, Danny Alexander (he does something at the Treasury I believe, I think he's an admin assistant or secretary or something) said that Scottish people will have to pay £5000 extra a year on their mortgages if Scotland defaults on what rump-UK sees as their share of the debt.  Erm.  No.  Pick a story and stick to it.

 

Two scenarios:

 

1.  Scotland take ownership formally of their share of the debt, this then becomes theirs to service.  Scotland get £100bn worth of UK "assets" to compensate for taking £100bn worth of debt, say maybe access to central banking facilities of the BoE.

 

2.  Scotland refuse to take ownership of their share of the debt, this still remains with the BoE as they have admitted, the rump-UK government gets very narked about it and has to put up taxes to help pay for it.  Rump-UK has no legal recourse against Scotland beyond Cameron being able to use it as an excuse for cutting yet more services for those earning below the higher tax brackets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no.  But you don't start a negotiation by going, "Right, well what we'd like is to be utterly dicked over.  Which way should we bend?"

Negotiation? There never was any negotiation.

 

Once the SNP had stopped describing the pound as a "millstone around our necks" and decided that it was, in fact, in Scotland's best interests, they simply announced that this is what they would do. There was never any discussion about whether the rUK would agree to this unprecedented policy, they just assumed that they would.

 

Likewise with the EU, they just assumed that Scotland would stay in the EU. They never even took legal advice on this let alone discuss it with the EU. They decided that they would stay in the EU therefore the EU will agree to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negotiation? There never was any negotiation.

 

Once the SNP had stopped describing the pound as a "millstone around our necks" and decided that it was, in fact, in Scotland's best interests, they simply announced that this is what they would do. There was never any discussion about whether the rUK would agree to this unprecedented policy, they just assumed that they would.

 

Likewise with the EU, they just assumed that Scotland would stay in the EU. They never even took legal advice on this let alone discuss it with the EU. They decided that they would stay in the EU therefore the EU will agree to it.  

 

I hadn't realised that Scotland had in fact become independent and that what the SNP are saying now is in fact what is going to happen.

 

Neither side can actually negotiate until the vote has been held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that annoyed me about this yesterday... another example of how patronising the "no" campaign is being.  Late last year, the Treasury officially said that the public debt belonged to rump-UK if Scotland went their own way and that the BoE would stand behind every pound of that debt to protect rump-UK's status in the world.  Then, yesterday, Danny Alexander (he does something at the Treasury I believe, I think he's an admin assistant or secretary or something) said that Scottish people will have to pay £5000 extra a year on their mortgages if Scotland defaults on what rump-UK sees as their share of the debt.  Erm.  No.  Pick a story and stick to it.

 

Two scenarios:

 

1.  Scotland take ownership formally of their share of the debt, this then becomes theirs to service.  Scotland get £100bn worth of UK "assets" to compensate for taking £100bn worth of debt, say maybe access to central banking facilities of the BoE.

 

2.  Scotland refuse to take ownership of their share of the debt, this still remains with the BoE as they have admitted, the rump-UK government gets very narked about it and has to put up taxes to help pay for it.  Rump-UK has no legal recourse against Scotland beyond Cameron being able to use it as an excuse for cutting yet more services for those earning below the higher tax brackets.

1. No, this is not how it works. Scotland must accept its share of the debts and in return it gets its share of any assets (the two don't necessarily equal each other). Central banking facilities is a service not an asset and they get nothing from that.

2. The rUK then refuse to give Scotland any share of the UK's assets, sell their shares in RBS and make it difficult for Scotland to join the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't realised that Scotland had in fact become independent and that what the SNP are saying now is in fact what is going to happen.

 

Neither side can actually negotiate until the vote has been held.

Most people would have at least discussed it informally first, most people would have a Plan B. The SNP seem genuinely surprised that the rUK didn't just give them exactly what they wanted despite no country ever doing likewise previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland must accept its share of the debts

 

Why?

 

(Actually a genuine question.  Is that how it works when bits of countries become new, independent countries?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no.  But you don't start a negotiation by going, "Right, well what we'd like is to be utterly dicked over.  Which way should we bend?"

 

 

I think you mighty be thinking more of compromise than negotiation.

 

However, is clear you agree with me  as Conservative, Labour and your beloved Lib Dems have just told the Scots that we will not be "utterly dicked over and will not bend either way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mighty be thinking more of compromise than negotiation.

 

Nope.  Was thinking of negotiation.  You know, that thing that two sides do to reach an agreement.

 

I don't know who thought of the line-up of Gideon plus other London politicos but it might as well have been an independence campaign video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

 

(Actually a genuine question.  Is that how it works when bits of countries become new, independent countries?)

Yes.

 

The normal basis (aside from wartorn countries like Yugoslavia) is that debts and assets are shared out according to the %age of the population that each part has. The new country then creates its own institutions (such as a central bank and own currency) and is recognised by the old country. There is no actual right to independence, much depends on the goodwill of the old country.

 

Salmond is literally insane for thinking that he can just ignore normal protocol and demand that the rUK and EU just falls into line with what he wants without even considering a Plan B. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, this is not how it works. Scotland must accept its share of the debts and in return it gets its share of any assets (the two don't necessarily equal each other). Central banking facilities is a service not an asset and they get nothing from that.

2. The rUK then refuse to give Scotland any share of the UK's assets, sell their shares in RBS and make it difficult for Scotland to join the EU.

In other words, act like the spurned spouse in a divorce case where they want everything their way rather than being willing to concede towards the middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, act like the spurned spouse in a divorce case where they want everything their way rather than being willing to concede towards the middle ground.

The middle ground is what the SNP are rejecting. Normal protocol is exactly how I described it and it has never included a currency union. Never.

 

Unless the independence was won by force settlement always includes divvying up assets and debts.

 

Salmond is the one saying that "Unless you agree to something that has never been part of any divorce settlement before then we will refuse to follow any of the normal procedures. Oh and by the way you are a bully".

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