[POLL] Should Scotland be an independent country?

[elsiegee40]

Does that mean we would be independent of the debt?

Considering no one can stop Scotland using the pound I would get your shoes ready if we vote yes or are you talking about a currency union?

Although having no currency union and still using pound is not ideal by a long long margin there is nothing to stop us.

I have found plenty of info about how lack of a union would be detrimental to the rUK and studies about how politically it cant work but few about the other real negatives.

 

Scotland won't get the British pound by right. Getting the British pound means that the country must sign up to the Bank of England's rules regarding printing money (which it already does) and also on other financial rules to ensure that a political whim of a politician in another country doesn't destablise the British pound. This would give the Scottish government less control over their finances than they would like.

 

It is because of our inability to control the economies of other countries that the UK refused to join the Euro... the pound is ours and only one government can mess it up. It is by no means certain that Scotland would retain the pound. The closest comparison is the Republic of Ireland and they broke away from the British Pound, their currency was the Irish Pund, before joining the Euro.

 

I have no idea whether RoI was forced to leave the currency, but it's something I will read up on when I have time. Their split from the union was much more bitter, however the fiscal obstacles are the same.

Edited September 10, 2014 by elsiegee40

[localzuk]

Does that mean we would be independent of the debt?

Considering no one can stop Scotland using the pound I would get your shoes ready if we vote yes or are you talking about a currency union?

Although having no currency union and still using pound is not ideal by a long long margin there is nothing to stop us.

 

You are indeed correct. If there's co currency union, there is nothing to stop Scotland using the pound - either by having a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling, or by using Sterling itself (like a few countries do with the USD).

 

However, both are bad ideas as it prevents the country from effectively having any real control over its own economy. The UK would be able to financially cripple Scotland on a whim effectively.

 

I have found plenty of info about how lack of a union would be detrimental to the rUK and studies about how politically it cant work but few about the other real negatives.

 

There's plenty of info about how it'd be detrimental to Scotland too. Most of it is based on it being a big risk that could cost the Scottish people dearly if it doesn't play out like Salmond expects.

 

I'd love to see a set of probabilities for it all, as part of a mathematical risk assessment.

[Dos_Box]

It has also been pointed out that if Scotland pegs it's currancy to the pound they could not join the EU do to membership prerequsits:

 

An independent Scotland couldn't rejoin EU if it kept pound - British minister | Reuters

 

BBC News - Scottish independence: Sterlingisation 'would threaten EU membership'

[pcstru]

The UK would be able to

The what?! How could you have a United "kingdom" with one Kingdom, one province and a principality? I appreciate there is some debate that Wales might in fact be a country (and David Cameron has referred to it as "both a Principality and a Country" as have various Secretaries of State for Wales) but I don't think there is any debate that it is not a Kingdom, nor has it been since 1284.

[pcstru]

It has also been pointed out that if Scotland pegs it's currancy to the pound they could not join the EU do to membership prerequsits:

But the debate with the EU would be that since Scotland is already a member of the EU under the auspices of the UK membership, why should it be kicked out? Why wouldn't the whole of the UK be kicked out? Independence will be granted from Westminster, so there is a good argument that if independence means Scotland is no longer a member of the EU, then neither is the remainder of the 'union' since it is the Union that has decided to change the composition under which the membership was granted.

 

And again this seems typical of the debate from the "No" side. The message is "If you are not with us we will make your life miserable and we get to keep all the political benefits which accumulated as a result of the union". Which is exactly the kind of rhetoric which is pushing not just wavering Scots to vote yes, but people who would previously have voted "No". No one likes a bitter bully and Scots are particularly sensitive to bullying from south of the border (I know, I grew up in Scotland and lived there for over half of my life).

[featured_spectre]

Independence = independence from all holdings, governments, foreign agreements, military agreements etc, therefore, the rUK would stay within the EU and Scotland would be independent from it.

[sparkeh]

But the debate with the EU would be that since Scotland is already a member of the EU

Not true. The UK is member of the EU, Scotland is a territory in a member state. The EU has stated that if a territory leaves the member state then its no longer part of the EU. The Yes Campaign just refuse to listen.

Quote: European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso

 

"If part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the (EU) treaties would no longer apply to that territory,"

 

Source: Independent Scotland would have to reapply to EU, NATO, officials say | Reuters

 

Oh yeah and they would have to reapply to NATO but that's another thing that the Yes People refuse to listen to.

Edited September 10, 2014 by sparkeh

[CAM]

There is also no way that Spain or any other EU member with a secession crisis on their hands will allow them back in to preserve their own home politics. If Scotland breaks away it is gone and will be unlikely to go back into the EU fold (assuming the anti-EU stance of the public even lets them in. Funny that, plenty want to leave the EU whilst attached to the UK...)

 

As for making life miserable for a break away, not necessarily. Seems fair to me that if someone wants to break away then they are on their own. Scotland shouldn't expect continued benefits flowing their way if they leave, if they want something from the UK then they will need to pay for it through international trade agreements. And that won't be a nice process since they are effectively divorcing the UK and attempting to split up the dog, the house and the car.

[SovietRussia]

I also assume if Scotland goes independent, they can no longer use the NHS as its owned by the UK Government

[sparkeh]

There is also no way that Spain or any other EU member with a secession crisis on their hands will allow them back in to preserve their own home politics. If Scotland breaks away it is gone and will be unlikely to go back into the EU fold (assuming the anti-EU stance of the public even lets them in. Funny that, plenty want to leave the EU whilst attached to the UK...)

Mmm another quote from Jose Manuel Barroso:

"All EU states would need to back the membership of any new country that emerged from a member state. It would be extremely difficult to get approval of all the other member states ... I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible,"

Oh and Mark Carney effectively ruled out a currency union (again): BBC News - Mark Carney warns Scotland over pound

 

But of course Alex Salmond says that everyone will miraculously change their mind after the Yes vote and allow them to do whatever they want!

[localzuk]

But the debate with the EU would be that since Scotland is already a member of the EU under the auspices of the UK membership, why should it be kicked out? Why wouldn't the whole of the UK be kicked out? Independence will be granted from Westminster, so there is a good argument that if independence means Scotland is no longer a member of the EU, then neither is the remainder of the 'union' since it is the Union that has decided to change the composition under which the membership was granted.

 

That'd be due to the fact that independence would mean that Scotland and its government (which would be new entities according to international law) would never have been signatory to any treaties or laws that included them in the EU. So, the EU would have nothing which Scotland had signed saying they were part of the EU and nor would Scotland. It would, in fact, be entirely undemocratic also.

 

And again this seems typical of the debate from the "No" side. The message is "If you are not with us we will make your life miserable and we get to keep all the political benefits which accumulated as a result of the union". Which is exactly the kind of rhetoric which is pushing not just wavering Scots to vote yes, but people who would previously have voted "No". No one likes a bitter bully and Scots are particularly sensitive to bullying from south of the border (I know, I grew up in Scotland and lived there for over half of my life).

 

It isn't about making life miserable. Its about the reality of law, treaties and the world around them. If people can't see that, then that's their own fault. You're framing this as Scotland and its people being some form of victim, which is entirely nonsense.

[SiliconAlley_Sam]

It's ridiculous. He's just passing off wild speculation as fact in the hope that it'll convince people to vote Yes. Presumably he intends to get over this hurdle first and actually take time to consider everything else afterwards.

 

If the Scots genuinely want their independence then fair enough but they should at least be presented with the facts before making the decision.

[localzuk]

I also assume if Scotland goes independent, they can no longer use the NHS as its owned by the UK Government

 

No it isn't. The NHS is a structure of multiple NHS trusts, individually homed in their geographic areas, funded from a central budget. The UK couldn't stop Scotland using their own bits of the NHS even if they tried - what would they do? Repatriate the staff and demolish the buildings? Ha! Not to mention, Scotland's NHS is actually entirely separate anyway (NHS Scotland)...

[featured_spectre]

Correct. NHS, Social Benefits (encompassing everything from child benefit to housing and council tax benefit), would all be abolished to an extent for Scotland. They have the infrastructure so they wont have to start from scratch, but the transition will be painful to say the least. NHS, Police, Fire services etc and benefit costs in Scotland, whilst lower per capita than in England or Wales, is still nearly 50 % of Scotlands GDP (If I remember my figures correctly).

 

It was worked out a while ago on reddit that the Average person in Scotland is £22.5k (factored in by wages across the country etc). Average benefits bill per person in scotland is £8.5k, and NHS bill is around £1.9k per person. That said Scotlands NHS is a separate entity, but still gets a large chunk from a central UK budget.

 

By my maths, that is £10.4k per person on benefits and NHS. Factor in police costs, fire service etc which comes out of council tax. I would not like to be in Scotland when that gets pushed through if they want to keep things on the same sort of level.

Edited September 10, 2014 by featured_spectre
Spelling fixed.

[localzuk]

You're wrong about things being "abolished" @nephilim. Scotland already enjoys devolved powers in health, social care, housing and local government (amongst many others). The only area of social benefits which are currently centrally controlled is the bit the DWP does. The only part of health that is centrally controlled is the regulation of medicine and dentistry, which wouldn't take a huge amount to set up.

 

The finances of the current NHS wouldn't make much difference to the balance of their budget should they become independent.

[CAM]

Wouldn't mind betting they spend a big chunk on rebranding though! SHS anyone?

[Hefferzzzz]

Honeslty, its like having a conversation with my children. Just because you are telling someone something that they dont want to hear you are automatically a naysayer, doom mongerer, bully.

 

Dont do that it will be bad for you

No it wont, I can do it, I can make it work, It will be fine

No, really, it wont be, you havn't thought it through properly and are just hoping it will be ok without thinking of the consequences.

It will be fine, its all ok, I know what I am doing, you just dont want me to do it.

Ok then, off you go.

Ow that hurt, and now that thing is broken.

Well, I did tell you.....

[witch]

Does that mean we would be independent of the debt?

Considering no one can stop Scotland using the pound I would get your shoes ready if we vote yes or are you talking about a currency union?

Although having no currency union and still using pound is not ideal by a long long margin there is nothing to stop us.

I have found plenty of info about how lack of a union would be detrimental to the rUK and studies about how politically it cant work but few about the other real negatives.

I think that the rest of the country could actually stop Scotland using the pound. You could of course have the Scottish pound but that would, in effect, be a foreign currency to the rest of us.

Bank of England governor Mark Carney has told trade unions that currency union in the event of Scottish independence would be "incompatible with sovereignty".

 

Mr Carney told the TUC conference that a currency required a centralised bank and shared banking regulations.

 

Common taxation and spending were also needed, he said.

 

Sounds like what you have already - and not very independent after all

[SYNACK]

I think that the rest of the country could actually stop Scotland using the pound. You could of course have the Scottish pound but that would, in effect, be a foreign currency to the rest of us.

Bank of England governor Mark Carney has told trade unions that currency union in the event of Scottish independence would be "incompatible with sovereignty".

 

Mr Carney told the TUC conference that a currency required a centralised bank and shared banking regulations.

 

Common taxation and spending were also needed, he said.

 

Sounds like what you have already - and not very independent after all

 

Sounds like cherry-picking to me, the USD is used in a huge number of countries ostensibly as their main currency for anything of value with no real links back to the US federal Reserve, it actually worked for the USD for many years as a vote in confidence of the USD making it more valuable and stable as a result. From what I can see saying they can't use it would be more of a punitive measure because some are unhappy with their decision.

[ZeroHour]

From what I can see saying they can't use it would be more of a punitive measure because some are unhappy with their decision.

 

That is how a lot of the No campaign seems especially since Darling literally said we could use the pound and he is the head of Better Together... no wonder they called in Brown...

I know they have substance but the picture is always so bleak. The NHS is a big concern as I see whats happening now (rUK) as a slow back door to privatization which I am entirely against.

Edited September 10, 2014 by ZeroHour

[pcstru]

Common taxation and spending were also needed, he said.

I suppose that must mean these offshore tax havens like Jersey and the Isle of Man have common tax systems which is why they are not known as tax havens. Either that or they don't use the pound.

 

No. How odd. Perhaps a suitable description of Mr Carney just rhymes with Banker!

[pcstru]

Honeslty, its like having a conversation with my children. Just because you are telling someone something that they dont want to hear you are automatically a naysayer, doom mongerer, bully.

If what you are saying is factually untrue and said for no other reason than to put pressure on people to vote a particular way, then such words are quite possibly entirely accurate.

[midweek]

Sounds like cherry-picking to me, the USD is used in a huge number of countries ostensibly as their main currency for anything of value with no real links back to the US federal Reserve, it actually worked for the USD for many years as a vote in confidence of the USD making it more valuable and stable as a result. From what I can see saying they can't use it would be more of a punitive measure because some are unhappy with their decision.

 

I think the problem is that the bloated financial sector in places like Edinburgh would like to continue to have the security of the Bank of England should they require bail outs in the future as they did recently. A non-aligned pound wouldn't have that (I presume countries who use the USD don't have Federal Reserve protection either?).

 

Personally I think Scotland will be fine either way. We've been producing high quality, educated people & political figures (not that snake-oil salesman Salmond of course) for centuries and punching above our weight so, in the long term, Scotland would do ok. It's the short/medium term that is the danger. £100's of millions have already been transferred from Scottish institutions to English counterparts on the back of the last poll. That would leap in the event of of a "Yes" and who knows what damage that could do.

 

Or Scotland could gamble, use the Euro, leave rUK with all the debt and start fresh with a big two fingers south. Might work....!

[localzuk]

I suppose that must mean these offshore tax havens like Jersey and the Isle of Man have common tax systems which is why they are not known as tax havens. Either that or they don't use the pound.

 

No. How odd. Perhaps a suitable description of Mr Carney just rhymes with Banker!

 

You're mixing up a currency union with "using the pound". They have their own pounds - the Manx Pound and the Jersey Pound. They are simply pegged to Sterling, much like the Irish Punt was. The Isle of Man economy went all to hell when the UK unilaterally changed a heck of a lot, changing the value of the pound significantly.

 

Not to mention, the Isle of Man is 81,000 people (ish) compared with 5 million+ in scotland. Bit of a different scale.

[sparkeh]

You're mixing up a currency union with "using the pound".

I think a lot of people are making that mistake.

 

Scotland could call their currency whatever they like and peg it to whatever other currency they want. However currency union makes no sense for the (potential) rUK.

Why shackle our financial stability to the spending habits of a foreign country?