- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,616
- Media
- 50
- Likes
- 4,782
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The story is moving a bit. The suggestion is that SNP may try for a referendum in 2015/2016. Their reasoning seems to be that they are sure they would lose now, but if they wait until another Conservative victory in the 2015 election (which they seem to be betting on!) then they might benefit from some anti-Tory sentiment. Polls on Scots views on independence vary a lot but all appear to show a clear majority against indpenedence, anything from low 50s% to low 70s%.
Also being talked about by SNP is a three-way referendum, where instead of being asked whether they want independence, yes or no, the Scots would be given a third option of "fiscal independence". The idea seems to be that faced with a choice of three (and an AV system of voting?) most people will plump for the middle option. I doubt many in Scotland (or anywhere else) understand what fiscal independence means, but it does sound rather cute and cuddly. In fact this would put Scotland in a position where it has a monetary union with the UK without a fiscal union, which is precisely the faultline that has caused problems for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Possibly the "fiscal independence" could exclude the issue of sovereign debt issue and be otherwise restricted - ie it could be called fiscal independence but wouldn't be. But it strikes me as a mess.
There are interesting issues in international law that I'm sure the experts will pick over. There is the idea that there should be a settled view for independence, not that a party picks the "right" moment to get the result they want. IMO to have validity SNP should go for a referendum asap, otherwise they face challenges that they are deliberately trying to pick their moment - indeed the outcome could be challenged if it were for independence, and the people of Scotland given a second vote after say five years. There are also issues in international law around a referendum question that is anything other than yes/no - I think the UN would get involved with this if it were tried.
By population Scotland is just over 8% of the UK, so as a rule of thumb Crackoff's 1/12 of the UK's debts has validity. However this has to be corrected for the debts associated with Scots-registered companies including RBS, so it would be upwards of the £400bn, around half a trillion. To get a feel for this debt it is about £100,000 per person in Scotland - or double this per wage-earner. The UK can just about support debts at this level - Scotland cannot.
I think SNP is just going to be a pain in the neck. They are going to demand more fiscal autonomy without the responsibility that goes with it (ie they are asking for subsidy) - and they won't actually demand independence because they know it is impossible. This will breed resentment in England - the idea will be that England is being bled dry to support Scotland, and the Scots should be made to have their independence whether they want it or not. The problem with this idea is that it has a degree of validity.
The nationalist genie is dangerous and shouldn't be let out of the bottle. But it is out, and we have to find a way of putting it back. In the meantime perhaps we should reinstate the suppressed verse in the national anthem:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the Queen. (When the independence issue is put to bed for another generation we probably do need a new UK anthem.)
Also being talked about by SNP is a three-way referendum, where instead of being asked whether they want independence, yes or no, the Scots would be given a third option of "fiscal independence". The idea seems to be that faced with a choice of three (and an AV system of voting?) most people will plump for the middle option. I doubt many in Scotland (or anywhere else) understand what fiscal independence means, but it does sound rather cute and cuddly. In fact this would put Scotland in a position where it has a monetary union with the UK without a fiscal union, which is precisely the faultline that has caused problems for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Possibly the "fiscal independence" could exclude the issue of sovereign debt issue and be otherwise restricted - ie it could be called fiscal independence but wouldn't be. But it strikes me as a mess.
There are interesting issues in international law that I'm sure the experts will pick over. There is the idea that there should be a settled view for independence, not that a party picks the "right" moment to get the result they want. IMO to have validity SNP should go for a referendum asap, otherwise they face challenges that they are deliberately trying to pick their moment - indeed the outcome could be challenged if it were for independence, and the people of Scotland given a second vote after say five years. There are also issues in international law around a referendum question that is anything other than yes/no - I think the UN would get involved with this if it were tried.
By population Scotland is just over 8% of the UK, so as a rule of thumb Crackoff's 1/12 of the UK's debts has validity. However this has to be corrected for the debts associated with Scots-registered companies including RBS, so it would be upwards of the £400bn, around half a trillion. To get a feel for this debt it is about £100,000 per person in Scotland - or double this per wage-earner. The UK can just about support debts at this level - Scotland cannot.
I think SNP is just going to be a pain in the neck. They are going to demand more fiscal autonomy without the responsibility that goes with it (ie they are asking for subsidy) - and they won't actually demand independence because they know it is impossible. This will breed resentment in England - the idea will be that England is being bled dry to support Scotland, and the Scots should be made to have their independence whether they want it or not. The problem with this idea is that it has a degree of validity.
The nationalist genie is dangerous and shouldn't be let out of the bottle. But it is out, and we have to find a way of putting it back. In the meantime perhaps we should reinstate the suppressed verse in the national anthem:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the Queen. (When the independence issue is put to bed for another generation we probably do need a new UK anthem.)