Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 13, 2014, 10:58:26 am
-
Since this is a topic I have not really followed and genuinely don't know much about, could some of our UK residents explain if there is an actual sensible reason Scotland wants to leave the UK, or if this is typical nationalist BS that makes no economic sense a la Quebec?
Because from what I'm reading, I cannot fathom why a group of 4 million people inside a country of 60 million want to go it alone and endure the economic hell that independence is ultimately going to spawn, at least in the short term.
Anyone?
-
Every Scots person I know, including the really smart ones (RIP Iain Banks) has been pro-independence. And that's about all I know on the topic.
-
If the Scotts secede does the Union Jack revert to the Cross of St George?
-
The latest on the issue is all about Scotland keeping the Pound Sterling if they go independent. The SNP says that if they are successful then they will negotiate a currency union with the rest of the UK like a mini Euro arrangement. This has made the Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and Labour say in a nutshell 'LOL! NOPE!'
The theory is that if Scotland goes independent and manages to get a currency union (lol we don't want to be ruled by you guys, but we got to have your spiffy money guarantees and so on...) then it will have to be under some pretty unpopular terms for the Scottish populace and eventually demands to split from the currency union would rise. This would most likely lead to a run on the Scottish banks which would eventually lead to the UK treasury bailing them out, which they don't want to do... as some bloke on Radio 4 said as I was driving home from work this evening.
The scuttlebutt I have head from some people is that some well known brands may decide to pull out of Scotland if the vote goes YES.
-
I've got no problem with Scotland wanting s referendum on Independence, God knows after the way they've been treated in the past (And no, not Braveheart past, Poll Tax past), they certainly have a right to have an axe to grind.
My concern is that some members of the SNP seem to be behaving like a kid throwing a tantrum in a Woolworths PicknMix.
SNP : We want Sterling!
Westminster : It's a bit more complex than that...
SNP : You're oppressing us!
Westminster : No, but the wider fiscal effects....
SNP : Now you're bullying us!
Westminster : Look, lets discuss....
SNP : FREEDOM!!!
-
I, for one, don't think it's a good time to mess with economy in general and Pound Sterling in particular. It's a good, stable, very strong currency. I don't know how exactly the secession of Scotland would affect the Pound, but I don't think it will be for the better. The world economy is still shaken after the crisis, and because of that, seceding now might not be good for Scotland (TBH, I don't see the currency union happening). Scots do have reasons to want independence, but economically speaking, it could be wiser to wait a while with that.
If the Scotts secede does the Union Jack revert to the Cross of St George?
Probably so. Perhaps they would re-design the flag to include Welsh dragon after that, but they might as well go with the Cross of St. George.
Also, I wonder what kind of government would Scots want? They may go with a republic, but a constitutional monarchy seems to work quite well. It'd certainly be interesting to see another European monarchy. I imagine the king would be somebody from Clan Stuart, they seem to be the most appropriate, historically speaking. There are still people who'd like to see descendants of The Bonnie Prince on the throne, afteall. While a republic seems the most likely choice, monarchy has a long tradition in UK, and I think it'd be a bit of a shame to see it gone from Scotland.
-
Also, I wonder what kind of government would Scots want? They may go with a republic, but a constitutional monarchy seems to work quite well. It'd certainly be interesting to see another European monarchy. I imagine the king would be somebody from Clan Stuart, they seem to be the most appropriate, historically speaking. There are still people who'd like to see descendants of The Bonnie Prince on the throne, afteall. While a republic seems the most likely choice, monarchy has a long tradition in UK, and I think it'd be a bit of a shame to see it gone from Scotland.
Ahaahahhahahahahahahahahaaha
The SNP (the driving force behind the referendum) is currently advocating for a "Realm of the Commonwealth" model similar to Canada or Australia. Others are in favour of abandoning rule by the crown entirely.
Also, Monarchy is a laughably terrible form of government. Constitutional monarchies only very slightly less so.
-
As I understand it, the Monarchy is another item on their wishlist that they want to keep, which really struck me as odd. I can't quite understand how they can define it as Independence when both currency and Monarch are based in a different country.
Basically what happened is, when the Referendum was agreed, the SNP came up with a list of what they would like to see in an Independent Scotland. Not surprisingly it was weighed heavily in Scotlands favour. Rather than treating this list as a negotiable starting point for the whole process, they instead seem to think that it is a list of irrefutable rights that any discussion over is just an attempted attack on Scotland.
It's getting kind of tiring seeing the 'English Oppressors' mentality pulled out every single time the UK Government starts to debate from their own point of view on the matter.
-
What I find very interesting about all those rationalistic movements (it's not just Scotland, also Basque country and South Tirol) is that they want to become independent from their current national states, but still want to be member of the European Union. A lot of the promoters of regional independence even want their wanna-be-countries immediately become members of the Euro Area, as far as I know.
I am personally of the opinion that such regionalism (we also see this in Bavaria in a way weaker form) is kinda dumb backward-looking. The national state, in my opinion, is a phase-out model, especially in Europe. But I also think that if most of the people want it so badly, becoming independent, they should get it. You cannot force people to live in a they don't recognize. This never worked in the past and it'll never work in the future.
As for the specific situation in Scotland I cannot say very much about it. The arguing about a possible currency union, however, is interesting, because technically GB cannot forbid Scotland to use the GBP. Scottish banks would have no access to the central bank, but theoretically it could work. Kosovo, for example, does use the Euro as official currency without being a member of the Euro Area.
-
They can't stop them using it. But I see no reason whatsoever why after giving them independence they should be allowed to have any control over Sterling. Control should remain in the hands of the Bank of England. The main reason the UK didn't join the Euro was precisely to avoid the kind of shenanigans that go on when you have independent countries using the same currency.
-
Also, I wonder what kind of government would Scots want? They may go with a republic, but a constitutional monarchy seems to work quite well. It'd certainly be interesting to see another European monarchy. I imagine the king would be somebody from Clan Stuart, they seem to be the most appropriate, historically speaking. There are still people who'd like to see descendants of The Bonnie Prince on the throne, afteall. While a republic seems the most likely choice, monarchy has a long tradition in UK, and I think it'd be a bit of a shame to see it gone from Scotland.
Ahaahahhahahahahahahahahaaha
The SNP (the driving force behind the referendum) is currently advocating for a "Realm of the Commonwealth" model similar to Canada or Australia. Others are in favour of abandoning rule by the crown entirely.
Also, Monarchy is a laughably terrible form of government. Constitutional monarchies only very slightly less so.
The current monarch is just as much Scotlands as England's - since the Stewart dynasty unified the thrones, where they live is barely relevant. We in Australia don't care that the Queen lives in England, no reason the Scots should.
As for your beliefs on constitutional monarchy, I disagree wholeheartedly E - constitutional monarchy is the best system,of government in the world, because it leads to a powerless and truly independent technical executive, while unifying real executive power with the legislature. Add in a decent house of review (in Australia that's the senate) and a strong, independent judiciary, and you get a functional, safe government with a full set of checks and balances and no instance of the executive fighting with the legislative branches (and therefore, no resultant gridlock like you see in America).
I don't really,give a crap about the individuals that make up the royal family - they're just meaningless faces. But the role they play by safely absorbing loose political power as pure figureheads means I'm a staunch monarchist out of pure pragmatism.
-
You also create a situation where there's a glass ceiling between citizens who are able to ascend to the highest offices, and citizens who aren't. In addition, a monarchy gets into trouble as soon as the succession is unclear; democracies have that part pretty well covered.
Historically, monarchies have been hilariously unstable and prone to a variety of failure conditions. That isn't to say democracies are perfect, as we're seeing right now, they're all too vulnerable to turning into oligarchies, but I nevertheless prefer them to systems that already start off as one.
-
As someone who lives in the US, I'm of the opinion that a large deal of our gridlocking comes from the two parties blocking anything else the other one puts out in Congress, not a branch-v-branch sort of deal as BW has put it. It's simply more of a thing of party politics.
-
They can't stop them using it. But I see no reason whatsoever why after giving them independence they should be allowed to have any control over Sterling. Control should remain in the hands of the Bank of England. The main reason the UK didn't join the Euro was precisely to avoid the kind of shenanigans that go on when you have independent countries using the same currency.
The point is that Scotland would not have control over the Pound Sterling. They wouldn't if the made a formal currency union with GB and they would have even less if they just used the GBP without a formal currency union.
A monetary union, by the way, can work, even between sovereign nations. It primarily depends on whether they a) manage to equalize their inflation rates and b) have convergent business cycles. But I don't have any information about the Scottish economy and any specific differences between it and the economy in the rest of GB, so I cannot give a professional opinion on that.
-
The problem is the left wing/right wing divide as you move from North to South in the UK. Scotland has, I think, one MP that is a member of the party that currently controls a lot of Scotlands financial and social policy, and those policies tend to be centered around a more Right-Wing mentality, so there is definitely an issue there that needs dealing with.
Also, there is the question of pride, from both the SNP and the Westminster, they both decided to show how 'determined' they are by marking out territories before the vote has even taken place, and have both trapped themselves in a corner out of sheer stubbornness. To put it another way, they've got so wrapped up in Politics, they forgot its twin brother, Diplomacy.
-
A long time ago I had this thinking that well, if all the monarchies I see in Europe are all wealthy and with good living standards, surely it is the case that monarchies are probably the best political system available.
Then I grew up and developed the kind of thinking you need to understand several phenomena, like say Evolution and Natural Selection, and realised it was the exact other way around: the only monarchies that survive in Europe so far are precisely the richer countries because in all of the others some kind of angry revolution over the human conditions they were in smashed their monarchies and substituted them for a Republic. You could consider Spain a sort of an exception, except that it is a very special case indeed. Spain had its monarchy dissolved by Franco, but in a smart political move they were able to come back due to some contingent necessities at the time. Were the King a bit less charismatic and it wouldn't have happened.
-
The whole point of a currency union is that it only lasts over the short to medium term in order to limit the impact on trade. Estimates released from the SNP are between 5 - 10 years before market confidence is at the level were Scotland can successfully float its own currency or properly prepare the country for entry in to the eurozone. This Benefits both the newly independent Scotland as well the remainder of the UK as:
- the markets are not spooked
- Scottish exports (and natural resources) continue to back up the pound (without these the UK would have a massive trade deficit which would weaken the UK economy)
- Trade between the countries that make up the current UK would continue unimpaired (Scotland and England are each others largest trading partners)
Personally I would rather just join the euro as soon as we are able and tie our currency to the pound in the meantime. The SNP however are trying to make independence appear as painless as possible and senior economists from the no camp have stated that an ongoing currency union would be the best path in the short term following a yes vote for the reasons stated above. In the event of a yes vote this would probably be the most likely outcome depending on who is doing the negotiations. (The SNP would not be the automatic government of Scotland following a yes vote - there would have to be further elections to form the first government)
-
The problem is that after the problems the Euro has had recently, I can't see the population of England, Wales and Northern Ireland going for it.
I did meet a Scotsman in a bar last week who agreed with me that having a referendum was one of the dumbest decisions the Scottish ever made.
If they win, they've actually voted to be part of the UK for the first time ever. If they lose, they can no longer blame the English for their problems. :p
-
I think the problem is that 15 years ago, the First Minister was saying that Sterling was a 'Millstone around Scotlands' neck' (http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204), and whilst I can understand that markets change and the sensible thing is to change with them, the fact that the SNP are picking what suits them best depending on the circumstances, a sensible move when viewed dispassionately, doesn't come across quite so clinically when the charged emotions involved with the Referendum are concerned.
To be honest, I don't see any real way forward for Independence unless Scotland use Sterling in the interim, but when you get two people that are, at heart, as similar as the English and the Scottish, particularly in their pride in their own bloody-mindedness, the discussion is likely to turn into both sides banging their heads together until necessity overrules any other choice.
-
There are lots of differing opinions in this debate Karajorma - The guy you met in a pub probably is not the best place to start :)
A few recomendations from all sides of the debate would be:
http://www.allofusfirst.org/what-is-common-weal/
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.bettertogether.net/
http://www.newstatesman.com/subjects/Scottish%20independence
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom
-
The whole point of a currency union is that it only lasts over the short to medium term in order to limit the impact on trade.
?! :confused:
What do you mean with that?
There are a number of examples where monetary unions or de facto monetary unions between a limited number of countries did work for quite a long time, take the Louxemburg-Belgium union for example or Austria-Germany in the 80s and 90s. In fact you could take the entire D-Mark block as a stable de facto monetary union. Anyway, it is totally understandable that people in the rest of UK are not very enthuastic about this idea.
Oh, and UK even now does have a substantial deficit in their trade balance. :p
-
Short term currency union as proposed by the SNP in this circumstance - not in all through history :). I can also understand why the population in the remainder of the UK would not like this situation, especially in the manner it has been reported in the UK press (which is without exception pro union). This is one of the reasons that I would prefer to join the Euro as soon as possible.
Yes there is a substantial deficit already in place - this is why it would be silly for the westminster government to make this even worse.
-
There are lots of differing opinions in this debate Karajorma - The guy you met in a pub probably is not the best place to start :)
Who said that was where I was starting from? I was pointing out that there are Scots who don't want independence anywhere near as much as some people will claim. Especially once you start getting into the issue of the differences between the highlands and lowlands. Or the Shetland / Orkney Islands.
-
You also create a situation where there's a glass ceiling between citizens who are able to ascend to the highest offices, and citizens who aren't. In addition, a monarchy gets into trouble as soon as the succession is unclear; democracies have that part pretty well covered.
Historically, monarchies have been hilariously unstable and prone to a variety of failure conditions. That isn't to say democracies are perfect, as we're seeing right now, they're all too vulnerable to turning into oligarchies, but I nevertheless prefer them to systems that already start off as one.
I think you might be missing the point that Black Wolf is making - technically, the UK, Australia, Canada, etc are all constitutional monarchies with legislatures structured as parliamentary democracies. Each of those countries has the Queen as their Head of State - who has no power whatsoever - while the government is entirely democratic. And say what you will about day-to-day functioning, but on the whole each of those countries managed to be generally well-run. Generally.
Frankly, I'm on the side of Canadians who want to abolish the role of the monarchy in our government and reform our existing system - I have no use for the monarchy whatsoever - but I can't deny that constitutional monarchies work, even if they aren't exactly ideal.
As for Scotland, from what I've read in the Yes Scotland campaign it appears they intend to stick with a system of government styled after the Westminster parliamentary system, and they've said they will retain ties to the monarchy, so a republic is not in the cards.
-
Well one interesting point about a constitutional monarchy is that most of the military operates in the name of the monarch. I don't know about in the case of the commonwealth nations but I suspect that would function as a last line of defence against tyranny if it was ever needed. I suspect quite a few soldiers would ignore a tyrannical government in favour of the Queen / King if it ever came down to it. That's something you don't have in a system where a government can control all the branches.
The current monarch is just as much Scotlands as England's
She spends quite a bit of time there too. It's not like she never stays in the castles up there.
-
I was pointing out that there are Scots who don't want independence anywhere near as much as some people will claim.
Yes you are right, that is exactly why I gave a list of some of the more prominent blogs and reports in the debate so people can see the points from both sides - unfortunetly the print and television media is pro-union so the majority of the internet forums tend to be pro-independence. Hence why the quality of nationalist blogging tends to be far superior.
Especially once you start getting into the issue of the differences between the highlands and lowlands. Or the Shetland / Orkney Islands.
The geographical differences are not all that great when it comes to the yes/no question. Some of the more remote regions are reported to be more likely to be in favor seen as they have been promised more autonomy in the event of independence whereas the industrial belt has a strong labour voting tradition (Labour are the main unionist party in Scotland). Polling however has shown steady figures across the board.
-
I have recently wondered what America would look like if we had a parliamentary Congress, all other things being equal.
-
If nothing else, C-SPAN would probably be a lot less boring. :p
-
I am Scottish, and I would like to see independence, for the reasons that we would like to make our own choices about how to run our country instead of some numpties down in london. As they have now said that if we go it alone we cant keep the drjnk buckfizz??? Also cameron was to put up border controls and if I want to visit my family in england I will need my passport. Also our economy is in a far far better state than englands, most of the fuel and oil in england comes from us. So we could do it whether its the right thing to do I dont know
-
Primary resources don't necessarily mean a good, stable economy.
-
Yup, considering the rise of Fracking and other techniques, the price of North Sea Hydrocarbons may not be quite as stable as first thought, especially considering there are plans for an Oil Fund based on that resource as well. It can either be spent or be saved, but if the price fluctuates too much, it cannot be both.
I suppose in summary, I would say that Scotland as a country would benefit from more autonomy (though not necessarily full Independence), however, I'm a long way from convinced the SNP, with their own axe to grind with Westminster, are really the best people to be organizing the terms for that autonomy, it's getting more and more about vendettas on both sides than about Scotland and England as modern societies.
-
I can't remember where I heard this but oceanic national borders extend out in the general direction of the land border (I could be completely wrong about this). If this is true then considering that the border between England and Scotland starts at the top of Cumbria and extends roughly North-East then a sizeable chunk of the North Sea would be in English waters. Scotland may end up with not as many of those hydrocarbons as they thought they would...