Scottish Independence

The guy already has views that match Yes Scotland, so they offered him the chance to put his views in article form and paid him a nominal fee for it, without having any input into the content of the article. Obviously they knew the article would match their ideas anyway. I can't see a lot wrong with that, really.

Yes, I'm just talking about how it appears to an outside observer. What people will tend to see is a payment being made by the campaign team to a speaker, and assume that the speaker is being paid to say what the campaign team want, regardless of whether that is the case or not.

edited 24th Aug '13 9:09:33 AM by Deadbeatloser22

Obviously a well-rehearsed smear campaign is the intent here, and the (well-funded) Unionist lobby is trying hard to carry it, but the real story is in how an illegally obtained document came to be in the hands of a journalist in the first place.

Who took it upon themselves to undermine legitimate opposition in a profoundly anti-democratic and illegal manner, who okay'd it, and who else knew about it?

Oh I understood what you were saying, I was just clarifying the actual state of affairs.

Looks like the BBC's admittance that they may struggle to remain impartial on this subject has already proven accurate.

Scotland better not become independent, they've got f-ing Xenomorphs!

edited 24th Aug '13 1:27:50 PM by optimusjamie

"If we were prepared to burn Dresden and Hamburg to the ground to save the UK, then why not just rig the referendum."

Actual quote from an actual Better Togetherite I met in the pub.

What. Not the biggest fan of Scottish independence, but seriously?

nm

edited 25th Aug '13 7:42:10 PM by Joesolo

So, that lying bastard George Osborne is claiming that Scotland can't use the pound after independence, as if the claim actually has any merit and its his choice to make.

Yes, I feel passionately about this, not going to pretend I'm neutral. The claim is absolute rubbish. Currency unions exist and have existed for ages. After Republic of Ireland seceded, they used the pound for decades. Panama still uses the US dollar. Etc.

See also, this: http://www.cityam.com/blog/1392289544/osbornes-claims-scotland-couldnt-use-pound-dont-stack (the article has links to its sources which obviously aren't in the below quote from it_

edited 14th Feb '14 3:31:39 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Just because something has happened in the past does not meant it is required for it to happen this time.

But neither does it mean Osborne has any legal authority to stop it happening. And it's not just happened in the past, there are current agreements in place between countries.

This is scaremongering on the part of the No campaign that doesn't reflect the facts.

It's not just Osborne; Labour and the Liberal Democrats support the idea too. But...doesn't a currency union just create the same situation that lies behind the problems the Eurozone is having? And don't some in the SNP want a full Scottish currency?

edited 14th Feb '14 4:32:24 PM by Greenmantle

An independent Scottish currency is more problematic for all concerned, really. Changing currency is expensive, and the exchange rate issue (one of the few undeniable benefits of the Euro even among sceptics) simplifies things a great deal, making trade far easier. Some in the SNP do want a Scottish currency, but it's not the majority favoured option. Ideally Scotland would be looking to eventually join the Euro I believe, but even Salmond now knows that won't happen right away even if Scotland gets into the EU without issue.

I'm not really seeing how England loses by having Scotland in the currency union, or how it gains by forcing Scotland out of one. From the Scottish POV it would of course require compromise, and losing some financial control, but that's not the same thing as the hyperbolic "Yes vote would not mean real independence" headlines going around. From the English POV, its a lot of hassle and far more complicated trade and relations between rUK and Scotland without obvious upside.

http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Irish_pound#Decimalisation The Irish had the Irish pound until 1826, where 13 Irish pence = 1 British shilling. Then they used the pound sterling until 1928, then a return to an Irish pound (at first by a different name), which was pegged to the pound sterling. An exchange rate was re-introduced in 1979.

As I understand it: from 1928 the two countries had pounds of the same value, but they were technically different currencies and different governments were in control of them. They stayed at the same value for as long as that was in the countries' interests. Nobody is saying Scotland could not do the same. They are saying Scotland can't have the same currency with shared control between two independent countries. Not because it's not possible, but because it's not desirable. The UK turned that down when they voted against the euro - and I don't think they've seen much that would change their mind as a whole if they were asked again. Actually, it seems to me like it's a bad idea for an independent Scotland as well as for the rest of the UK.

Of course, I know almost nothing about currency, so it's entirely possible that I'm understanding things wrong.

However: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o (some advice: ignore the comments. They are depressing, whichever side they're arguing for.)

Also I do wish the Scottish (and sometimes English, but it seems to be coming more from the Scottish side currently) would stop talking about what England wants and what would benefit England, conveniently forgetting the existence of Wales and Northern Ireland. I've also seen some people assume that the majority in Wales and Northern Ireland want out of a political union with England, which seems highly presumptive, given that they've not been asking for a referendum en-mass (I've no doubt some individuals have).

What really annoys me is that both sides are muddying the issue with hyperbole and sweeping statements. This is a complex issue and the decision will have real, lasting consequences. If politicians on either side really gave a damn, they'd focus more on giving a complete picture rather than feeding everyone a "we're right, here's why". I don't want to know what the 'yes'es and 'no's have to say, I want to know what the 'well...'s have to say.

Edited to fix some punctuation.

edited 14th Feb '14 5:19:36 PM by annemarisa

Northern Ireland is a total cluster fuck in terms of this sort of thing, nobody is talking about them because they value their on sanity/safety. Far too dangerous to even go there. Wales is a tough cookie as well because independence isn't nearly so dominant an issue, Plaid Cymru are insipid (granted, that's not really relevant just my opinion) and have nowhere near the SNP's level of support or power, and there's the fact that Scotland's union with England was voluntary in a way that the Welsh one wasn't.

Obviously there's little practical impact from that aside from the fact that more English laws affect Wales, and the legal small print would make it far harder for Wales to go independent. It can be argued that Scotland do have the legal right to voluntarily secede, which I agree with, as we voluntarily joined. With Wales, I believe it would be difficult if not outright impossible to do it without explicit English consent due to the terms of that union. Since the Welsh are so heavily affected by English law anyway, with devolution not being as strong there, what affects England in terms of Scottish independence is likely to largely filter through to Wales anyway.

So for the most part, the focus is on England because England are the most relevant part of things. A currency union that England controls seems far more beneficial to them as far as I can see, rather than forcing Scotland out. It's different with the Euro because control of the monetary union would in the latter case be totally outwith British control. But since the Bank of England, with its ties to the rUK government, would be in charge of a currency union here, how would a separate Scottish currency be of benefit to any component of the UK?

edited 14th Feb '14 5:31:00 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

We can also add this to the list of Coalition policies that Labour are supporting. The Labour party in Scotland, led by the laughably incompetent and conspicuously absent Johann Lamont, continue to sell out their voters by giving the thumbs up to yet another fantastical diktat from Whitehall.

Osborne's latest threat is little more than a panic measure that the Prime Minister is too cowardly to defend in front of the Scottish people himself.

I'm sure Cameron's got bigger problems down South at the moment...

edited 15th Feb '14 12:12:18 AM by Greenmantle

Loathe as I am to defend Cameron, he's Salmond's best recruiting sergeant for the Yes vote and both of them know it. If this is a matter for Scotland to decide, the opinions of an English Tory Prime Minister aren't going to do anything but play into the hands of the Yes campaign.

Why is is that, every time someone points out there might be some drawbacks to independence, the SNP whines that it's just more bullying from Westminster?

Because it's easier than trying to find a way to stop it being a drawback?

To be fair, in this case at leastits true. Though yes, I support the guy and it's a bit annoying.

So when the government knows it's lost a mature debate before it's already began (good to know the Unionists have such genuine faith in their argument, though), it's acceptable for the man who is supposed to be leading the country into the most important vote in its history to continually bottle it and send a lacky north to say "leave me and I'll cut you"?

Almost three full years of running away. Positively Churchillian leadership right there.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we live in a world where Labour and the Lib Dem's unquestioningly falling in line with yet another diktat from a Tory Chancellor that the majority of people in Scotland and the UK disagree with is somehow a good idea.

edited 15th Feb '14 4:02:40 AM by TheBatPencil

No, it is for the Scottish Unionists to put forth the case for being in the Union because this is Scotland's decision. You can't have it both ways - complaining about meddling from Westminster and then complaining that Westminster isn't getting involved smacks of hypocrisy.

I also don't see what the problem is with the Westminster parties coming to a clear consensus about where things stand if Scotland chooses to become independent.

And yet Osborne, nor anyone else, has not explained why forcing Scotland out of a currency union could possibly be a good thing for rUK. I'm at a loss as to how they would possibly benefit, especially since they'd be in charge of a currency union. Anyone here have any ideas?

It's called 'scaremongering'. It doesn't have to have any relationship to reality.

I know, and of course the comments don't have any relation to reality. But I'd assume some of the people saying that Gideon is right have at least some kind of basis for saying so, and I'd like to hear it as it's so far missing from the discussion.