Scottish Independence

Well, it's certainly true that an "independent" England, as things go now, would elect a Conservative government in perpetuity. Of course, that wouldn't happen because some party would adapt or arise that would provide an alternative to the Conservatives that was more palatable to the English electorate than the present alternatives are – but that would take time.

Photos (11)

The debt isnt paid, it has simply been financed elsewhere. Although RBS is recording a loss, this is simply because it is writing off its rather big operating profits against its existing debts. Its true position is probably that it remains insolvent but it wont declare that on the accounts.

You overlook the fact that although it might technically be scottish, in practice it is british and international. The organisation with the biggest problems should RBS go bust would still be the English government. All Scotland would have to do would be bail out its Scottish creditors and then put the bankrupt bank back into operation without its debts. Might work out well for scotland.

Projection based on the local election result yesterday was for a 90 labour majority. Are we leaving out wales as well as Scotland? Without Scotland Id still call this as a labour win.

It isnt true that labour is unpalatable to the English. It is conservative propaganda that a labour government could only survive with support from areas outside England. At the last general election some 20% of votes went to liberals and some 30% each to labour and conservatives. At the next election I imagine a majority of those liberal votes will be going labour. Despite the conservatives getting liberals into a coalition, the liberals are naturally a left wing party. The Tories are the party of the established aristocracy, still.

I think Scottish people should have a referendum about it, but I dont think Scottish people will vote for indepence, the people know what they want, and they arent so dumb that will get out of the Kingdom....

The same referendum should be made to Welsh and Northern Ireland....

I'm all for a referendum on Scottish independence - and a referendum on UK independence from Europe.

What amazes me is so much of the early Scottish debate seems to be couched in money terms, with the pro-independence camp arguing that Scotland would somehow be better off independent. First of all I cannot see any way at all that this is true - almost certainly Scotland would actually go broke. But over and above this I'm shocked that a nation would be willing to break the union not because it truly wants to be independent but because it wants to be tuppence ha-penny richer.

The financial implications of the UK leaving the EU are complex - you get a different answer whomever you ask. But the moral case is overwhelming. Europe is unifying as a deeply flawed democracy which now props up a dictatorship in Italy and an authoritarian state in Hungary while meddling in the internal affairs of Greece and others. The legal system of the European courts smothers the common law of England. Euro-socialism is a failed political dogma. The CAP is IMO a crime against humanity which shames every nation in the EU. I would support a UK outside the EU whatever the financial cost.

I just don't see any zeal for independence in Scotland, rather a shoddy financial calculation which isn't even right. If Scotland truly wants independence it is a 30 year process which starts with getting the Scottish economy sorted (small economies have to be stronger than big ones, so Scotland has to lead the UK) and then needs a meaningful statement of the advantages.

Photos (2)

[QUOTE=Jason;4104839]I'm all for a referendum on Scottish independence - and a referendum on UK independence from Europe.

I'm shocked that a nation would be willing to break the union not because it truly wants to be independent but because it wants to be tuppence ha-penny richer.

ok but the point is scotland is an independent country. not an english colony as it is treated

" I would support a UK outside the EU whatever the financial cost."

well shocked at tuppence better of scotland ? but leave europe at any cost ? and then what become an add on american state. maybe not the best of full time allies either

The West Lothian question is not answered. Scottish MPs can and do make laws which affect England, Wales and NI, but not Scotland. By definition this is a form of colonialism - of Eng, Wales and NI by Scotland. The Barnet Formula transfers money from E and W (not NI) to Scotland - again a form of colonialism. All through the C20th the people of Eng, Wales and NI have voted for Conservative governments - only Scottish votes have allowed Labour to form a UK government. And the two last PMs Brown and Blair have been Scots (granted Blair had an English seat). And Scotland is substantially over-represented in the UK parliament.

"Braveheart" and Thatcher have between them had an enormous impact on the Scottish psyche. People in Scotland really do believe they are colonised by England. For England, Wales and NI the position is fast becoming intolerable. I'm not saying that there are absolutely no additional powers that could be given to Scotland, but there has to be a solution to the West Lothian Question (ie Scottish MPs don't vote on E, W and NI matters that do not affect Scotland), an end to over-representation and an end to the Barnet formula. DevoMax is utterly unacceptable to E, W and NI as it would damage these three economies. Scotland either embraces the union or becomes independent - I don't see a plan B.

Independence for Scotland means a generation of poverty. Greece and Ireland are examples - remember Scotland would have a bigger debt per capita than either of these. This wouldn't just be a matter for Scotland and the rump UK but for the international community. In Greece and Italy we've seen the solution - it is clearest in Italy where an unelected PM leads an unelected cabinet. Imagine a scenario where Scotland votes for independence and Alex Salmond becomes the first PM of an independent Scotland. As the nation goes broke the international community will appoint some Brussels bureaucrat as PM, replacing the elected PM. This is what has happened in Italy.

We're not playing Braveheart and mediaeval nation states. Scotland can certainly leave the UK - that is the choice of the people - but it wouldn't be an independent nation. indeed it would be in a position where every financial decision (which is all the important ones) are made elsewhere.

Photos (11)

This is absurd. The matter is trivial. Scotland gets slightly more chance to be heard in parliament than its numbers would imply and in return England gets to set its laws.The west lothian question never was a question but a historic deal in which England got what it wanted. The morality of spending more on underdeveloped parts of the UK hasnt changed either.

Likewise, nonsense. Poverty is starving africans. IF Scotland decides to leave the UK and IF that results in a lower per capita income, then the people will, in effect, have decided to spent that money on something they value more, their independence.

And whatever may be said about Scotland leaving the Uk applies in spades about Britain leaving the EU.

What reason is there for union/independence if not the relative prosperity of the nation? Surely you wouldn't advocate voting on emotional grounds. That would be idiotic. Besides, the union came about through largely economic issues, did it not?

I want what is best for Scotland, and will vote as such in the referendum when it comes. As it stands, I am entirely unconvinced that independence would be in Scotland's interest. The lesson from the economic crisis is clear as far as I'm concerned*. We're better off as part of a larger economy than as a Portuguese/Greek/Irish sized economy.

*You no longer hear the SNP proclaiming that Scotland would be a great, small, high-end economy "like Iceland". Interesting, that.

I think the economic argument is important, but not sufficient.

I think Scotland would be poorer out of the union. I think Scotland gets a spectacularly good deal from the union. However I think there are issues around perception on both of these. Scots are being told they would be richer, while Scots are being told and even believing they are being colonised.

Scotland has to want its independence because it wants to be independent and thinks reduced wealth - higher taxes and lower public services - is a price worth paying. I think we are looking at the sort of collapse we've seen in Greece and Hungary which in European terms would put very many in Scotland below the EU poverty line, and much poorer than in England. This may be a price worth paying. Independence costs. Scots have to make this decision.

The West Lothian question can be fudged all the time all parties want it fudged, but the independence debate is going to prompt a move towards a solution.

Photos (4)

If Scotland every does become independent from the rest of the UK, a major factor in whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing economically for Scotland will come down to how assets and debts are split at the time of separation. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to how this should be done. On each of the major items there will probably be strong arguments in different directions. Some may think it is clear that certain assets are (or ar not) Scottish but after so many years of Union this will not be completely obvious. Similarly, how much of the UK national debt should be born by Scotland will be a huge question to be answered. You can be sure than England will not keep it all, and why should it?

I am happy for Scotland to go it's own way if the majority of the Scottish people were to decide that, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them. However, the Scots need to be prepared for the fact that independence may not be an easy ride.

There's quite a body of international law on this - much of it around the Velvet Divorce of the Czech and Slovak Republics and the breakup of the USSR. The breakdown of debt has been done by population, and I don't think there is any reason why this should change. The problem is that bigger nations and those with a track record of managing a debt can on average carry more debt per person than smaller nations or new nations. The UK can support the debt of the UK, but Scotland could not support the debt of Scotland.

There are also issues around RBS which is in effect guaranteed by the UK government, and in an independent Scotland as a Scottish company would need to be guaranteed by Scotland. I accept Dandelion's point that a collapse of RBS would hurt Britain and NI and that therefore B&NI would probably continue some sort of support, but it is still a cost to Scotland. I think the reality would be that B&NI would provide the guarantees but that ultimately Scotland would pay.

I think there is an elephant in the corner that no one wants to talk about. If Scotland were to vote for independence the result of actioning this would be instant national bankruptcy and an enormous bill for the international community - and the reality is that the international community would tell the UK not to ratify independence. And I dread to think how that would pan out!

Salmond knows independence is impossible, hence the DevoMax idea. The UK must reject this. Asymmetrical devolution has major stresses for any nation, and DevoMax has the potential to destabilise the UK. Just as Greece may be the catalyst that wrecks the euro a Scotland with it's own fiscal policy could well wreck sterling. This cannot be an acceptable solution.

Photos (11)

I can think of some very good reasons. The use which has been put to windfall taxes over the decades of scottish oil, and the UKs excess expenditure on defence, which Scotland as an independant nation would not have bothered with at all.

Questionable whether the Ukcan support the debt of the Uk.

Which is exactly why the UK would be forced not to pass on a big debt to Scotland. In its own interest it could not.

Independence is not impossible, so I doubt he does! Its just a question of negotiation. However, I doubt he will get a majority for it, never mind a substantial one which is really what you would need for such a big step.

On the other hand I can see him getting strong support for devolving virtually everything to the Scottish government except defence, and I dont really see why not. If scotland had control of its own financial system we might not be arguing about who would have to pay for the RBS crash.

Then how has the UK survived thus far with Scotland ruled by the english parliament? We already have an English parliament at westminster.

Photos (4)

There is plenty of scope for manipulation as many Czech and Slovaks will tell you. In the end both sides usually end up feeling they got the wrong end of the stick. There are many reasons why population is not the best way. Also, if population is the best way to divide debt, then would assets be divided in the same way? I doubt it. I'm sure there is precident but there will also be significant grey areas and scope for manipulation. For example, deliberately running debt up or down in the prelude (and many more subtle approaches).

Maybe this should be done on the lines of an MBO? The Scottish people vote for how much they are willing to pay to buy Scotland out of the UK. The rest of the residents of the UK vote on whether to accept Scotland's offer. If both agree - deal! If not, Scotland can make a fresh offer etc....[Joke]

If Scotland has control of its fiscal policy we have the same problem as the euro area - a currency union without a fiscal union. This would destabilise sterling. As @Dandelion has pointed out above it is questionable whether the UK can sustain its debts - the system is already under strain and it would not be prudent to add the strain of fiscal variance. I think DevoMax has to be ruled out.

In effect the argument of some of the posts above is that if Scotland goes its own way it cannot be with a proportional share of debts. Rather Scotland would need to be given some sort of clean slate. I think England, Wales and NI would find this better than DevoMax as at least it is just one bill rather than bills forever and a destabilised currency. I think there are enormous issues of fairness - but then what is fair about the enormous sums Greece has received? Maybe the offer should be made to Scotland - either vote for the Union and no additional powers for Scotland or vote for devolution and all debts forgiven - a clean-slate start. Perhaps an independent Scotland on these terms is the best outcome for E, W and NI. The cost could be managed - it would be something like two or three pence on the basic rate of income tax in E, W and NI for say a decade. And that would be it - problem solved.

Photos (1)

It's never going to happen, the vast majority of Scottish people want to remain part of the UK, it's just the young kids who have watched too much Bravehart that want their indepandance. At least 80% will vote to stay part of the UK in the 2014 referendum and we'll be able to forget this silly, unworkable idea.