Scottish Independence

Nigeria being a Commonwealth member means that they accept HMQ as the head of the Commonwealth. Not as the head of their country.

I have say I agree with this letter:

Yeah, it's only the 16 Commonwealth realms that have the Queen as head of state. Republics are allowed in these days

All former British colonies in Africa, including Nigeria, removed the queen as their head of state (like India did). As has been said, this doesn't interfere with being a member of the Commonwealth.

Oops I'd misremembered. I wish the no campaign would d stop fallaciously insisting keeping the pound means watering down independence. It's simply not true unless you consider other nations that use currencies not of their own to also not be fully independent. And I've yet to see someone admit to the latter.

It is not fallacious in the slightest. Using a currency of a different country means that you are subjected to that country's monetary policy whims, which as the Euro crisis shows can cause considerable problems.

edited 4th Sep '14 1:23:24 AM by SeptimusHeap

Most countries who use another nation's currency like Panama et al do not have a currency union. Scotland would be free to use the pound if it wishes, nothing could stop it from doing so, but asking the Bank of England to underwrite it is a different matter altogether.

Panama is still considered an independent country. Si are the euro zone nations. And so would Scotland be regardless of the currency situation.

Panama does have an own currency along with the dollar (which is also a global reserve currency), and the Euro countries are dependend upon the EU currency bodies as we are seeing now. Plus, I am not convinced that the requisite monetary policies are all that similar.

Plus, the usual "the other thing is not called X is not a reason to say that this thing shouldn't be called X" issue.

edited 4th Sep '14 3:22:01 AM by SeptimusHeap

Panama has no control over the dollar and the euro is a complete mess because of the lack of a central European bank with teeth. Neither are great examples to follow.

I'm not commenting on the economic merits, I'm pointing out that plenty of other nations without full currency control have still been considered fully independent sovereign states in their own right. Ireland was this for decades. So would Scotland be. The currency issue is a sideshow.

But why does the currency issue have to be sorted right now? What's wrong with complete and total independence coming slowly? Cut the political ties now, cut the financial ties in a few years, leave the Commonwealth in a few more years if that's what Scotland wants. Does it have to do everything immediately? Wouldn't that just leave it a bit unstable? It just seems more logical to me to do it all slowly, in different stages, and worry about the financial issue when it's a bit closer, and decisions can be made based on the state of the economy then.

And it's not like doing it slowly means it's less independent or anything. Canada's head of state is the British queen. In Ireland, we used the pound for a few years after independence, and use the euro now, so we've only had our own currency for about thirty years. But we're both independent nations. Scotland doesn't need to change everything immediately, it just needs political separation first, if it's looking for independence.

I don't know, I feel a bit stupid, because I know I must missing something, but that's just how I've been thinking.

The SNP have said that they will default if they don't get the currency union though.

Both sides want all or nothing. The original idea was that there would be 3 options on the ballot - the third being Devo Max which is basically just mire powers. It was an appealing idea - too much so as the Snp (probably correctly) feared that more would be Yes voters would go for Devo max than would be no voters.

It's also true that the Snp are saying that if an independent Scotland doesn't get a fair share of UK assets, they shouldn't be considered liable for a share of UK debt either.

Ruling out devo-max was a dumb idea on the part of the UK government. Everyone would have basically got what they wanted.

In the event of a currency union, as preferred by Salmond and co., the currency arrangements would essentially be as they are now. This would mean that Scotland wants to keep the monetary benefits of being in the union without actually being in the union - therefore, not exactly true independence.

Basically, don't tell it to us, tell it to the SNP.

This.

It's in the name. A currency union is a union of multiple countries. Only in monetary policy but it remains a union.

Well, a dumb question.

If Scotland does decide to go independent, does that mean St. Andrew's cross would have to be removed from the Union Jack? I mean, didn't their monarchies technically come together with James I?

The Union Flag dates to the Acts of Union from the 1700s.

edited 4th Sep '14 3:20:54 PM by Deadbeatloser22

None of you have explained why we still consider other countries that are in currency union to be independent in a way that would not apply to Scotland. This is not some unique concept here. We would still be an independent state, a member of the UN in our own right and, in time, the EU (no one really disputes that it would happen eventually, it's just a question of when).

Two more interesting articles with a different perspective:

Scotland voting No would be an astonishing act of self harm

A pro-England AND pro-Yes perspective. This one I particularly like. I too am mostly English, and live on the border, having lived and worked in England for years. I really do appreciate the country and its people. But I still think we're better off apart.

you'd be an independent state holding on to the bits of union you like.

It has a definite "have our cake and eat it too" feel about it.

Australia/New Zealand were considering (pointlessly, to be honest) a monetary union a while back according to The ABC. A report on the matter determined that "some degree of political union would be needed to make a monetary union effective". The idea implies "a loss of autonomy [for New Zealand] over monetary policy and exchange rate flexibility, which are important tools for macroeconomic stability".

So presumably smaller countries in a currency union would be considered somewhat dependent, to a limited degree. But this may be too dissimilar to what's proposed by the SNP, I'm not really sure.

Because de jure independence and de facto independence are two quite different things. Greece isn't looking too independent right now in terms of fiscal policy.

And doesn't joining the EU involve losing a certain amount of independence?

Emphasis on certain.