Scotland vote to break away from Uk rule.

Corky

Scotland is in the EU right now, has six seats in the european parliament and does not use the Euro. This is a precedent not tested in the courts. While I personally don't care which currency they go with, Salmond is not wrong to want to pursue it. Just because some initial opinions were floated by e.g. John Major that Scotland would be a new application does not automatically make it so. Until it is tested, neither you nor I really know the answer - it is not a binary situation yet. But it's a great thing to use to draw attention away from the real question, makes for great PR, there are no easy answers but the questions can keep getting thrown with confidence. Will Scotland, as an OPEC nation, have sufficient appeal to negotiate? Will the rest of the UK continue to have the same status it holds right now? Posturing and campaigning from either side of the debate will never be able to answer that because they have not tried - they can't until such times as the conditions exists to attempt it.

Leaving the currency (or being kicked out of it) is part of the euro deal, irrespective of whether or not it is sensible or viable. Your own link refers to article 50 of the Lisbon treaty - it's rather brief, but France do not NEED to consider leaving, they would choose to. Choosing to leave and having to leave it are two different things, but again without precedents (even just one would barely represent a sample) nobody can truly know the effect. I seem to remember (I can't find the reference to it right now) that Scotland cannot choose to NOT use the Pound Sterling at the moment. I'll need to do some digging on that, though, as I can't recall the full context.

Capital flight...that's an interesting one. HSBC are predicting that, but I suspect that is a position of self-interest, perhaps to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least for them.

Paying punitive interest seems, on the surface, to be something of a given. But it would not last long. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend it would be a painless change, but I imagine the IMF would be keeping a close eye on things.

Runaway inflation - well, how do Scotland stop that right now? they can't, they have insufficient fiscal control. That's as much a risk with a No vote as a Yes one.

I also do not blame Sweden for not entering the euro even after all this time. I do wish they would do something with their beer prices though, even London seems cheap by comparison.

I understand the pause, I understand the questions, but I do wish the questions were being asked of both sides of the debate and given the same amount of due diligence. Right now I don't think they are though - as that link I posted this morning clearly demonstrates, the No campaign think it's a bit complicated so focussing on what might be lost rather than what might be gained. It may not be the "freedom!" moment Mel Gibson's Wallace was crusading for, God forbid, but you can be sure it will be the majority voice of the Scottish people. What I'm seeing from Cameron right now is decades of armed conflict, a departure from the EU, closed border policies and increasing xenophobia, tertiary education only the rich can afford, private healthcare....basically all the things that Scotland voted against in the last general election.

Scottish banknotes are not legal tender in Scotland either. Strange but true. The BofE side of things is explained http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#sandni
Scotland's is explained here http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php

 

It was an attempt at levity...


...and in a minor way...


...I'll get my coat.

 

Oh, spending Scottish notes in England is comedy indeed.

2nd link not working...?

 

Yes Scotland is in the EU right now, but it's part of the EU because it's a part of the UK, AFAIK if Scotland chooses to go independent it's going to have to apply to become an EU member state, many, many leading EU bigwigs have said as much, even former EU economics chief Olli Rehn said it would "simply not be possible" to combine a policy of sterlingisation with EU membership.

Sure we are never going to get a binary yes, or no answer until it is tried, but when the vast majority of people in the know are saying it's not going to happen are you willing the bet the future of your children, and their children's children for generations to come on an unproven theory, or the hope that they are just posturing ?

Yes leaving the euro is part of the deal, but that clause was only added in 2007, after they realised the original Lisbon treaty didn't have anything in it saying how they should deal with a member state leaving, the people that thought up the euro never envisioned any member state leaving, so no mechanism was put in place for such an event.

You can say without precedents no one knows but people with a greater understanding than your or I can, with a fair bit of certainty envision what the likely outcomes would be and none of them turn out well. Leaving the euro is, as they say the nuclear option, and just like a nuclear bomb no one can truly predict what the damage, deaths and fallout will be until after they drop it, all they can do is make predictions based on the available information.

Sorry that part was in reference to what would happen if an EU member state decided to leave the euro, not at Scotland in particular.

Well the No campaign wouldn't be doing a very good job if they focused on what Scotland would gain, the gains are meant to be put forward by the Yes campaign.

That (imho) is part of the problem, people are looking at it as this party vs that party, or Cameron vs Salmond. Personally i find that very short sighted. Scottish independence is something that would by far out live their rather insignificant lives, it may even out live their political parties, forever is a long time.

 

What I meant about the Swedish way:

Sweden is as obliged to join as are all the others, they just found a way to not fullfill te criteria, and therefore don't join.
Other states could do this.

Here's Wikipedia explaining it: (Tag "Eurozone")

 

Sweden is an anomaly.

Yes they have found a loophole that at present is tolerated, but i can't find one EU politician that says new members could exploit the same loop hole, in fact most say that membership of the ERM II would be a requirement for all future euro aspirants. The Maastricht Treaty even states applicant countries should have joined the ERM II for two consecutive years.

 

Kind of moot at the moment, Scotland wouldn't be able to apply without its own central bank.

I think Scots should just vote how they feel. It's like a married couple, one goes off and has an affair - it may work out, it may not.

 

The Yes campaign have taken the lead in the polls.

 

While reading up on stuff i came across this site and thought about you guys who said they wished for some straight forward answers, I'm not sure if they are supporting either side but i found some of the info interesting.

 

Whilst wondering around Edinburgh yesterday I saw Yes posters everywhere. I also walked past 3 stands handing out 'Yes' flyers. In contrast there was absolutely no representation of the better together campaign.

We also only saw one poster saying no, vs 20 staying yes. I couldn't believe how poor the 'No' campaign is, an abysmal performance - 2 weeks before the referendum!

I can't see Scotland voting anything other than 'Yes' - it's a real shame.

 

Yeah, what has Europe ever done for us, right? Well, apart from:

• Peace (talk to someone who lived through WWII)
• Student exchange and easier working (and retiring!) abroad
• Access to free health care while abroad under the NHS-European Health Insurance arrangement
• Easier trade (57% of the UK trade is with Europe)
• EU wide protection of patents and copyrights
• Better labour laws and protection, including maximum working hours and minimum holidays and pay
• Equality in pay and equal opportunities
• Better protection of human and civil rights
• Regional funding of civil and health projects to equalise standards of living for citizens across Europe (that fancy new National Rare Diseases Centre in Birmingham? Funded by £13million of EU funds)
• EU funded research projects
• Improved EU wide consumer protection
• Improved product safety
• Improved air and water quality
• Restriction of landfill dumping and improved recycling
• Cheaper flights and roaming telephone charges
• Protection of internet freedom (saying no to ACAS)
• Saving fish stocks from depletion
• Agricultural reforms
• Strongest wildlife protection in the world
• Improved animal welfare in livestock farming and the banning of growth hormones
• Clearer labelling of foods and bans on harmful food additives
• Financial regulation inc. capping of bankers' bonuses and salaries
• EU bloc negotiations with the WTO

And most importantly, it decentralises power and hence protects democracy.

But apart from that, what has the EU ever done for us, right?

 

jrs77 is in Finland, they don't need as much protection from their own Government there as in the UK

 

The Government in Finland know more about their citizens than the UK Government do.

My GF is Finnish BTW, hence why I know.

Oh there's also National/Civil Service if you fancy that.

I do miss the markka.

 

Osborne enters panic mode over Scotland referendum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099431

Meanwhile Wales will not be given same powers as Scotland in case of a no:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-29100037

Meanwhile in a separate development relating to the past:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-in-northern-ireland-in-the-70s-30565691.html

While it is probably a bit early to conclude anything on that particular historic abuse case, it certainly has the potential to cause serious harm to Northern Irish - English relations...

So how long until the rest of the UK falls apart as well?

 

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that many people who can vote in the referendum would not be eligible to vote in a General Election?

Scotland's future could depend on the votes of people who have no real interest in it whatsoever and/or would not be able to vote in the same nation to elect the government.

Ex-pat Scots being denied a vote is also stupid.

Odd. One for the lawyers to pick at after the vote?

 

Well... I doubt that the lawyers will be picking over it in the event of a Yes vote given that the eligibility criteria were agreed by all sides beforehand. Secondly, if you are suggesting that some people who are eligible to vote in the referendum might not be eligible to vote in a General Election in an independent Scotland, then that's a bit presumptious (given that no-one knows what the eligibility criteria for such an election will be).

Finally, as you need to be resident in Scotland to be eligible to vote, I'd say that everyone who can vote does have an interest in the future of Scotland, personally. And that goes for both those who will vote Yes and those who will vote No. As for ex-pat Scots, they've chosen to leave the country, so why should they get to vote? It might be harsh on them, but the point is that the decision is being made by those who have chosen to make their homes in Scotland, regardless of their nationality - I see that as inclusive, and not exclusive, but others may disagree, of course.

 

You would think the Conservatives would be relishing the thought of an independent Scotland, seeing as Labour would probably never get into Number 10 ever again.

Sorry to sound dumb, but when they use the term "resident in Scotland" what exactly do they mean ? Are they just saying anyone living there, paying tax to the Scottish tax man, paying council tax to a Scottish council.

 

No I was saying people who wouldn't be allowed to vote in a General Election are able to vote in this referendum.

I chatted this over with my Finnish OH as we used to live in Edinburgh and she thought it highly strange that she would have been able to have a say in whether to split Britain up or not and yet not be able to vote in a General Election.

Just because a Scot has moved elsewhere does not give them any less right to their say than any other Scot - they can vote in elections if abroad so why not on this more important issue?

Should someone, say, from France or Spain studying in Scotland for 4 years be able to decide the future of not just Scotland, but the rest of the UK? Seems odd, seems very odd indeed.

 

From yesscotland.net
There's about 120,000 eligible EU votes in the referendum AFAIK, could be a decider. If you're an EU student resident in Scotland you won't even be paying taxes but you can vote.

Mind you today the Scotsman is reporting 3 and 5 year olds are getting voting papers so I think basically anybody can vote unless your living outside of Scotland.

 

Scotland need to sort out 3-4 key things before id ever want to vote yes.

NHS ( They will have to pay alot to keep it is the general consenses.
Currency ( will take 10 years + to join the EURO they can not just leave the UK and be a member state of the euro does not work like that)
Jobs ( My friend who lives in Glasgow and works for the local Sky TV site has been told already a Yes vote would be bad for the jobs they currently hold. )

been the big 3. Cant just assume all will be well as some of the stuff ive read suggests.