PDA

View Full Version : Scotland warned it could lose the pound and be forced to join Euro



AtW
11th January 2012, 20:20
A spokesman for David Cameron said there were no guarantees that the Scots could keep sterling if they voted against remaining affiliated with the rest of the union.

Mr Cameron’s spokesman said: “Once you start asking the question about independence, one part of that is what currency to have. Would Scotland retain the pound, and if so, how does that work? Or does it join the euro? That’s one part of the independence question.”

Other issues which Downing Street said would need ironing out are shared defence capabilities, the national debt and border security.

A carve up of assets between England and Scotland could leave both countries facing years of legal wrangling.

Today Mr Cameron told MPs that he passionately believed in the United Kingdom and accused Scottish nationalists of attempting to delay a referendum on separation indefinitely.

Source: Scotland warned it could lose the pound and be forced to join Euro as price of independence - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9007878/Scotland-warned-it-could-lose-the-pound-and-be-forced-to-join-Euro-as-price-of-independence.html)

AtW's political comment: is this the worst threat Westmister can master?!?! :confused:

Personally I think Scotland should become independent and Gordon Brown among other people should be made persona non-grata in England.

Paddy
11th January 2012, 20:47
The question is; who will be given the vote in the referendum? Everyone living in Scotland? Or Scots living everywhere in the world? Will the English be able to vote that they don’t want the Scots anyway so they may have leave the UK even they don’t want to?

AtW
11th January 2012, 20:54
The question is; who will be given the vote in the referendum?

Presumably the same people who are currently eligible to vote for Scottish MPs.

Perhaps the Westminster should demand that all ballot papers are printed in Gaelic and only persons fluent in it can be allowed to vote.

TimberWolf
11th January 2012, 20:56
Apparently the Scots want to hold the vote on the anniversary of a battle fought 6 or 7 hundred years ago, a date burned into the frontal lobes of every Scotsman and not even heard of by anyone else. Long memories or what.

AtW
11th January 2012, 20:58
Apparently the Scots want to hold the vote on the anniversary of a battle fought 6 or 7 hundred years ago, a date burned into the frontal lobes of every Scotsman and not even heard of by anyone else. Long memories or what.

:rollin:

I bet a fair few people in Westminster wish the battle took place 650-750 years ago...

BigTime
11th January 2012, 21:01
The question is; ..Will the English be able to vote that they don’t want the Scots anyway so they may have leave the UK even they don’t want to?

I was thinking that and came to the conclusion it would almost guarantee their independence.

I can see the going the same way as Quebec. Montreal used to be Canada's New York until they started making separation noises. This resulted in the multinational companies moving on and lots of people following them.

RSoles
11th January 2012, 21:03
Just more Westminster sabre-rattling pish.

Nothing wrong with the Scots having their own pound.
I still have some Scottish pound notes.

They could track a Scottish pound like the Irish used to track Sterling.

AtW
11th January 2012, 21:03
If Scotland cuts corp tax to 15% they'll get lots of companies relocate domicile.

RSoles
11th January 2012, 21:05
I would.

mrdonuts
11th January 2012, 21:24
OIL backed currencies are very desirable,so you can shove your pound

EternalOptimist
11th January 2012, 21:27
There is also the strategic argument, If Scotland goes, who is next ? Liverpool ?






:rolleyes:

shaunbhoy
11th January 2012, 21:27
Not sure that Westminster can "force" Scotland to do anything much if they choose Independence.
I assume this nonsense has been flushed through the Daily Wail filters prior to publication?

:eyes

AtW
11th January 2012, 21:28
Not sure that Westminster can "force" Scotland to do anything much if they choose Independence. I assume this nonsense has been flushed through the Daily Wail filters prior to publication?

You've lived in Devon so long that you've turned into English? :tongue

shaunbhoy
11th January 2012, 21:30
You've lived in Devon so long that you've turned into English? :tongue

No. But last time I checked, Devon was not in Scotland, therefore I would not be eligible to vote on the matter.

HTH BIDI

:eyes

DimPrawn
11th January 2012, 21:30
I'd like to see the border with Scotland moved south to encompass the bulk of the shitty northern England towns and cities. I'd like to see an independant Wales and independance for the Cornish people too.

Then without having to prop up all these chavs and neds with their huge social problems and unemployment, England would we like Monaco, packed full of wealthy bankers and property speculators.

Boomed!

Bring it on.

:happy

AtW
11th January 2012, 21:31
No. But last time I checked, Devon was not in Scotland, therefore I would not be eligible to vote on the matter.

If you are a true Scot you'd move back to your homeland for this historic vote - after all your ancestors must have died fighting for freedom of your land... or not? :eyes

shaunbhoy
11th January 2012, 21:35
If you are a true Scot you'd move back to your homeland for this historic vote - after all your ancestors must have died fighting for freedom of your land... or not? :eyes

If my ancestors had died, I would not be here you muppet. :eyes

And they fought for the freedom of the entire island group, so that I can choose anywhere I like to live.
It is never a great idea to die for your country, much better to make the other guy die for his.
Here endeth the lesson.

:smokin

CheeseSlice
11th January 2012, 21:57
Other issues which Downing Street said would need ironing out are shared defence capabilities, the national debt and border security.

A carve up of assets between England and Scotland could leave both countries facing years of legal wrangling.

For a start we can load up RBS with all remaining toxic assets, and bury it in the Scottish asset pot at full loan book value,... after all it is the Royal Bank of Scotland. :D

AtW
11th January 2012, 21:58
For a start we can load up RBS with all remaining toxic assets, and bury it in the Scottish asset pot at full loan book value,... after all it is the Royal Bank of Scotland. :D

It might be transferred to Royal Lloyds Group...

EricBartlett
11th January 2012, 22:00
If my ancestors had died, I would not be here you muppet. :eyes


Eh? I am pretty sure that most of your ancestors, and indeed mine and everyones, have died.

In battle or not they all certainly died..... yet here we all are!!

AtW
11th January 2012, 22:06
yet here we all are!!

We are here, but not you - 35 posts is the time for you to get banned.

Please remain where you are - banning is a relatively painless procedure.

EternalOptimist
11th January 2012, 22:09
As IT contractors we are well positioned to understand how much of a complex proposition this is.

Complexity is not a real reason for not doing something, but it should be fully understood before taking the leap. This is the type of thing that can lead to war or years of legal wrangling

EricBartlett
11th January 2012, 22:10
We are here, but not you - 35 posts is the time for you to get banned.

Please remain where you are - banning is a relatively painless procedure.

I have a suggestion for you........

DodgyAgent
11th January 2012, 22:10
As IT contractors we are well positioned to understand how much of a complex proposition this is.

Complexity is not a real reason for not doing something, but it should be fully understood before taking the leap. This is the type of thing that can lead to war or years of legal wrangling

It will be the year 2000 for lawyers :laugh

EternalOptimist
11th January 2012, 22:12
It will be the year 2000 for lawyers :laugh

and for agents and contractors


jeez. toot toot

all aboard

TiroFijo
11th January 2012, 22:18
Apparently the Scots want to hold the vote on the anniversary of a battle fought 6 or 7 hundred years ago, a date burned into the frontal lobes of every Scotsman and not even heard of by anyone else. Long memories or what.

Lets get his right, it's not the Scots who are asking for the vote on the anniversary of Bannockburn but Alex Salmond.
And according to opinion poles the majority of Scots and non Scottish residents living there they would vote to stay in the union.
Any one who is a registered voter in Scotland and living there will have the right to vote on independence, so you could be English and living there as a registered voter and be able to cast your vote.

AtW
11th January 2012, 22:20
so you could be English and living there as a registered voter and be able to cast your vote.

So does it mean a temporary real estate boom will happen in Scotland?

Scooterscot will be pleased - he'll be voting remotely from his comfortable Dubai prison for a bounced cheque.

sasguru
11th January 2012, 22:24
Anyway, according to the figures, even after North Sea Oil, Scots are subsidised to the tune of £2000K a year per head, apparently because of their health profile. I suppose the free education doesn't even touch the sides.
Good riddance I say, keep the oil, remove the South East subsidy and join the Euro, Scots. You know you want to :laugh:laugh:laugh

AtW
11th January 2012, 22:26
Anyway, according to the figures, even after North Sea Oil, Scots are subsidised to the tune of £2000K a year

That's only £2 mln, less than a quid per Scottish person without counting shaunbhoy.

shaunbhoy
11th January 2012, 22:27
That's only £2 mln, less than a quid per Scottish person without counting shaunbhoy.

Arithmetic never was a strong point with sas. He can't count any higher than that without taking his socks and shoes off.

:laugh

TimberWolf
11th January 2012, 22:28
Lets get his right, it's not the Scots who are asking for the vote on the anniversary of Bannockburn but Alex Salmond.
And according to opinion poles the majority of Scots and non Scottish residents living there they would vote to stay in the union.
Any one who is a registered voter in Scotland and living there will have the right to vote on independence, so you could be English and living there as a registered voter and be able to cast your vote.

This forum seems to be full of Scotsmen. Can't we have a separate forum for southerners? Only people in the southern forum can vote on this.

AtW
11th January 2012, 22:30
Good point - let's have a poll.

Eligible voters - Scots who reside in Scotland and pay taxes.

sasguru
11th January 2012, 22:31
Arithmetic never was a strong point with sas. He can't count any higher than that without taking his socks and shoes off.

:laugh

You haven't been on here for a while. How is the night shift as a security guard BTW?:laugh:laugh:laugh

shaunbhoy
11th January 2012, 22:32
You haven't been on here for a while. How is the night shift as a security guard BTW?:laugh:laugh:laugh

Great. I get free run of the eco-shed next to the gate barrier.

:laugh

TimberWolf
11th January 2012, 22:33
A positive vote might mean we never get yet another Scottish Prime Minster.

TestMangler
11th January 2012, 22:35
A positive vote might mean we never get yet another Scottish Prime Minster.

Don't think that follows.....Do you not have Scots serving English seats at the moment ?

TimberWolf
11th January 2012, 22:39
Don't think that follows.....Do you not have Scots serving English seats at the moment ?

Moot point. At the moment we have a 'union', or as non-Scots refer to it: don't give a stuff where you come from.

AtW
11th January 2012, 22:43
When I was in Glasgow many years ago taxi driver gave me change with Scottish fiver - for a mooment I thought it was fake five quid, later in England canteen in the company I worked for refused to take it saying there is no legal tender or something :eyes

RSoles
11th January 2012, 23:46
I'd like to see the border with Scotland moved south to encompass the bulk of the tulipty northern England towns and cities.


This has been done before. Got as far as York I believe.

EricBartlett
12th January 2012, 00:01
This has been done before. Got as far as York I believe.

For a true Laaandoner it would be somewhere like Stoke....... Newington!

Freamon
12th January 2012, 00:02
The question is; who will be given the vote in the referendum? Everyone living in Scotland? Or Scots living everywhere in the world? Will the English be able to vote that they don’t want the Scots anyway so they may have leave the UK even they don’t want to?

Everyone in the UK (i.e. Scotland, England, Wales and NI) should be able to vote on it. I can't see why the Scots should be allowed to vote, and yet if I want England/Wales/NI to be independent from Scotland I can't have my say?

TiroFijo
12th January 2012, 07:17
Everyone in the UK (i.e. Scotland, England, Wales and NI) should be able to vote on it. I can't see why the Scots should be allowed to vote, and yet if I want England/Wales/NI to be independent from Scotland I can't have my say?

Why is there not an ENP that would propose an independence referendum?

Joeman
12th January 2012, 07:19
I say let them leave on the codition they take 90% of the UK debt with them, and allow us to rebuild the wall, so they cant all come flocking back over the border to England when it all goes tits up..

Ignis Fatuus
12th January 2012, 07:57
Everyone in the UK (i.e. Scotland, England, Wales and NI) should be able to vote on it. I can't see why the Scots should be allowed to vote, and yet if I want England/Wales/NI to be independent from Scotland I can't have my say?You can have your say on your country leaving the UK. You just have to get your government to hold a referendum. It is not for the Scottish Government to hold a referendum for the English on their participation in the union.

Ignis Fatuus
12th January 2012, 08:01
The question is; who will be given the vote in the referendum? Everyone living in Scotland? Or Scots living everywhere in the world? Will the English be able to vote that they don’t want the Scots anyway so they may have leave the UK even they don’t want to?It is about Scotland, so voters in Scotland will vote on it. As a Scot living in England I quite rightly will not be able to vote on Scottish independence: it is about government, not about race. Registered voters in Scotland will be able to vote, without regard to their origins, as is also only right.

People voting in England should of course not be able to vote on Scotland leaving the union. They should perhaps be able to vote on England leaving the union, but that's a matter for them and their government, not for the Scottish government.

FWIW polls show that English settlers in Scotland are a pretty solid "yes" voting bloc.

TimberWolf
12th January 2012, 08:13
A lot of English people appear have voted in this poll. 8 in favour, 1 against.

bobspud
12th January 2012, 08:22
OIL backed currencies are very desirable,so you can shove your pound

Thats not a problem because we own your oil! :D

BrilloPad
12th January 2012, 08:40
When do the English get a vote on kicking Scotland out? Or maybe on Independence for England?

doodab
12th January 2012, 08:52
I think it's a splendid idea. Let them find out what it's like to be a real country instead of a province. .

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 09:19
Thats not a problem because we own your oil! :D

£6 bn.. not enough to pay your welfare bill.

The_Equalizer
12th January 2012, 09:25
When I was in Glasgow many years ago taxi driver gave me change with Scottish fiver - for a mooment I thought it was fake five quid, later in England canteen in the company I worked for refused to take it saying there is no legal tender or something :eyes

You should see the notes in Northern Ireland. Those really confuse people back in Blighty. There are five different banks issuing their own notes. Still Morrisons self service till seamed happy to eat them.

For the record, I think notes from Scotland and NI are similar to cheques in their legal standing.

TestMangler
12th January 2012, 09:47
When do the English get a vote on kicking Scotland out? Or maybe on Independence for England?

No one is voting to 'kick anyone out' you twat :laugh

If England wants to leave the UK, vote in a party that supports such a move at the next general election and organise a referendum. It's not difficult if there is enough support for it.

If Scotland is such a financial burden why do the leaders of the Uk parties want to fight so hard to keep it in the UK ? Can't be political motives in Cameron's case. He's got nothing to gain in terms of party support. There are more ******* pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs :laugh

Mich the Tester
12th January 2012, 09:54
I would.

'You would' whom? Pics please. :tongue

Ignis Fatuus
12th January 2012, 10:07
A spokesman for David Cameron said there were no guarantees that the Scots could keep sterling if they voted against remaining affiliated with the rest of the union.

Mr Cameron’s spokesman said: “Once you start asking the question about independence, one part of that is what currency to have. Would Scotland retain the pound, and if so, how does that work? Or does it join the euro? That’s one part of the independence question.”

Source: Scotland warned it could lose the pound and be forced to join Euro as price of independence - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9007878/Scotland-warned-it-could-lose-the-pound-and-be-forced-to-join-Euro-as-price-of-independence.html)

AtW's political comment: is this the worst threat Westmister can master?!?! :confused:
There's a lot of FUD going on here. Among the more obvious possibilites are:

1. Keep using Sterling. Nobody can stop Scotland doing that. Obviously it would not be Scotland's own currency to meddle with, but it is feasible. Not a good idea IMHO because currency manipulations that are designed for England/UK and not for Scotland are part of the problem.
2. Use Scottish pounds but tie them to Sterling. See for example formerly Irish Punt to Sterling, or Dutch Guilder to Deutschmark. Works fine. Could be done interim for stability, insofar as Sterling can be called stable.
3. Use Euro without joining Euro. See #2, not great but could be done.
4. Join Euro.
5. Just use Scottish pounds.

Incidentally I am not impressed by the FUD that suggests on the one hand that Scotland might not be allowed to join the EU, and on the other hand that Scotland might be forced to join the Euro. Try the EEA with Scottish Pounds. That works for me.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 10:48
No one is voting to 'kick anyone out' you twat :laugh

If England wants to leave the UK, vote in a party that supports such a move at the next general election and organise a referendum. It's not difficult if there is enough support for it.

If Scotland is such a financial burden why do the leaders of the Uk parties want to fight so hard to keep it in the UK ? Can't be political motives in Cameron's case. He's got nothing to gain in terms of party support. There are more ******* pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs :laugh
For an assessment of the economic outcomes of Scottish Independence:

An independent Scotland would struggle for AAA rating - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9008246/An-independent-Scotland-would-struggle-for-AAA-rating.html)

The Scottish drive for independence may well prove to be a lesson for the Eurocrats on what may happen to the European Union. Scotland has long and close ties with the UK and its people have considerable power and influence over Westminster yet they still want "out".

Roll the clock forward and we will see a fully politically and economically integrated Europe with 27 member states with far more diverse cultures than the differences between the Scots and Brits. In a Union controlled by Germany and France and a populace with very little democratic influence (in contrast to the influence wielded by only 5 million Scots in a population of 70 million) just think how Nationalist movements will grow and gather momentum to gain independence.

Scotland should have its independence for the very same reasons that the UK should not join the Euro - to be free to take their own decisions and take responsibility for the decisions that they make.

Scotland should have its independence and enjoy being able to stand on its own two feet. As for the scots not being allowed to join the EU, if they bent over backwards to let the Greeks join the Euro they will hardly throw up any objections to Scotland joining the EU. And even if Scotland does not join the EU what difference will it make anyway?

doodab
12th January 2012, 10:50
You should see the notes in Northern Ireland. Those really confuse people back in Blighty. There are five different banks issuing their own notes. Still Morrisons self service till seamed happy to eat them.

For the record, I think notes from Scotland and NI are similar to cheques in their legal standing.

Going the other way, English notes are apparently not legal tender in Scotland or NI.

Legal Tender Guidelines (http://www.royalmint.com/corporate/policies/legal_tender_guidelines.aspx)

The_Equalizer
12th January 2012, 10:57
Going the other way, English notes are apparently not legal tender in Scotland or NI.

Legal Tender Guidelines (http://www.royalmint.com/corporate/policies/legal_tender_guidelines.aspx)

I hear English notes are worth double in both countries. :wink

doodab
12th January 2012, 10:59
There's a lot of FUD going on here. Among the more obvious possibilites are:

1. Keep using Sterling. Nobody can stop Scotland doing that. Obviously it would not be Scotland's own currency to meddle with, but it is feasible. Not a good idea IMHO because currency manipulations that are designed for England/UK and not for Scotland are part of the problem.
2. Use Scottish pounds but tie them to Sterling. See for example formerly Irish Punt to Sterling, or Dutch Guilder to Deutschmark. Works fine. Could be done interim for stability, insofar as Sterling can be called stable.
3. Use Euro without joining Euro. See #2, not great but could be done.
4. Join Euro.
5. Just use Scottish pounds.

Incidentally I am not impressed by the FUD that suggests on the one hand that Scotland might not be allowed to join the EU, and on the other hand that Scotland might be forced to join the Euro. Try the EEA with Scottish Pounds. That works for me.

I don't think we can stop Scotland using Sterling but obviously they wouldn't be able to issue it so they would have to obtain banknotes from us in exchange for something else.

Any notes & coins issued by the Scottish bank would not be sterling, by definition, and although they might try and peg the exchange rate with Sterling experience tells us that is doomed to failure without fiscal and political union.

swamp
12th January 2012, 11:02
They should bring back the Scottish Groat. It would be worth one bowl of porridge or half a haggis.

TheFaQQer
12th January 2012, 11:05
I don't think we can stop Scotland using Sterling but obviously they wouldn't be able to issue it so they would have to obtain banknotes from us in exchange for something else.

Current official users of the pound as currency are:

British Antarctic Territory
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Guernsey
Isle of Man
Jersey
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands


Some of those also have their own variant pegged to the pound. Zimbabwe still unofficially uses the pound as their currency. Scottish notes and NI notes are also pegged to the pound.

Chances of the rest of the union forcing Scotland to change currency are nil - for a start, they'd have to recall and replace all the Scottish £1 coins....

doodab
12th January 2012, 11:16
Current official users of the pound as currency are:

British Antarctic Territory
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Guernsey
Isle of Man
Jersey
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands


Some of those also have their own variant pegged to the pound. Zimbabwe still unofficially uses the pound as their currency. Scottish notes and NI notes are also pegged to the pound.

Chances of the rest of the union forcing Scotland to change currency are nil - for a start, they'd have to recall and replace all the Scottish £1 coins....

But those are all crown dependencies or overseas territories where the UK has sovereignty. Where they have a local currency exchangeable at par it's backed by sterling reserves. Explicitly choosing to be independent would put the Scots in a very different category.

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 11:31
I see lots of opinions being stated here, but how many of them are backed up with law or any evidence?

Much of what is being said is mere speculation. Even the newspaper reports and what DC and AS are saying are less than supported.
It seems that a lot of the "supporting" arguments are based on individual interpretations rather than legal fact.

I have read that the Scottish parliament has no legal right to hold a referendum.
I have also read that any new EU applicant will have to commit to joining the Euro.
I have not read that Scotland would be quitting the EU if it quits the UK.
I am fairly sure that the UK would cease to exist due to the complexities of Scotland leaving (UK only exists by act of Union) that England may also have to re-apply to become an EU member.

doodab
12th January 2012, 11:34
I have also read that any new EU applicant will have to commit to joining the Euro.


This has been the case for all the new joiners, but Scotland might have a case for retaining the UK's opt out.

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 11:38
This has been the case for all the new joiners, but Scotland might have a case for retaining the UK's opt out.This is the kind of speculation I am asking about. how do you support that argument? What is the logic?
If Scotland extracts itself from the UK how can it claim any "rights" provided by its membership of the UK?

doodab
12th January 2012, 12:06
This is the kind of speculation I am asking about. how do you support that argument? What is the logic?
If Scotland extracts itself from the UK how can it claim any "rights" provided by its membership of the UK?

For new joiners the commitment to join the euro is part of the treaties.

There is a precedent for negotiated opt-outs for new joiners in that Poland and the Czechs have negotiated an opt-out for the charter of fundamental rights.

TheFaQQer
12th January 2012, 12:16
I have read that the Scottish parliament has no legal right to hold a referendum.

That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 12:21
That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.

That's too much of an informed argument for this site to cope with :spank: Please stick to sweeping generalisations made according to personal prejudices.

AtW
12th January 2012, 12:31
The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

After that SNP will order freshly liberated nuclear subs to move into strike positions and demand unconditional surrender :eyes

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 12:36
That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.That is what I meant, but CBA with the long explanation.
I suspect that if the Scots do hold their own referendum that, legally binding or not, it would be difficult for Westminster to ignore the result.

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 12:40
Apparently the Scots want to hold the vote on the anniversary of a battle fought 6 or 7 hundred years ago, a date burned into the frontal lobes of every Scotsman and not even heard of by anyone else. Long memories or what.


Something tells me you'll still be banging on about 1966 in 700 years time n all.

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 12:43
A spokesman for David Cameron said there were no guarantees that the Scots could keep sterling if they voted against remaining affiliated with the rest of the union.

Some threat.

Exactly why, like the BOE, could the BOS not conjure up Scottish bank notes out of thin air? Voila - we could then start speculating on the sterling. Ohh oh involuntary naughty spasm.

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 12:46
So does it mean a temporary real estate boom will happen in Scotland?

Scooterscot will be pleased - he'll be voting remotely from his comfortable Dubai prison for a bounced cheque.

Investments in land and BTL in scotty land. Special price for you.

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 12:53
Everyone in the UK (i.e. Scotland, England, Wales and NI) should be able to vote on it. I can't see why the Scots should be allowed to vote, and yet if I want England/Wales/NI to be independent from Scotland I can't have my say?

They're are those in Scotland who (the majority I believe) want the union to remain, myself included, but there's also a majority who want nothing to do with London polities. Clearly wealth is not distributed equally or we would not have London sitting up on high while the rest of the economy sinks into oblivion. Yet this is the position the Tory's are supporting. As long as this remains the case AS I believe shall do everything in his power to finically separate the Scotland from the union and he'll probably get the support, which seems to grow by the day.

Asking the whole of the UK would achieve nothing and make those in the north more miserable than they already are. Is that what you want?

BrilloPad
12th January 2012, 12:57
Clearly wealth is not distributed equally or we would not have London sitting up on high while the rest of the economy sinks into oblivion.

This is because most of the wealth is generated in London.

EternalOptimist
12th January 2012, 13:00
They used to call it the 'core-periphery' effect when I were a lad.

inevitable blah blah blah




:rolleyes:

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 13:01
For an assessment of the economic outcomes of Scottish Independence:

An independent Scotland would struggle for AAA rating - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9008246/An-independent-Scotland-would-struggle-for-AAA-rating.html)


Not having the debt of England why would we give a flying fig for triple AAA?

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 13:03
This is because most of the wealth is generated in London.

No it is not generated, it's conjured. Everybody knows why London wealth is there but the result for the rest of the country is hardly sustainable and if anything shall only lead to :ladybags:

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 13:05
They're are those in Scotland who (the majority I believe) want the union to remain, myself included, but there's also a majority who want nothing to do with London polities. Clearly wealth is not distributed equally or we would not have London sitting up on high while the rest of the economy sinks into oblivion. Yet this is the position the Tory's are supporting. As long as this remains the case AS I believe shall do everything in his power to finically separate the Scotland from the union and he'll probably get the support, which seems to grow by the day.

Asking the whole of the UK would achieve nothing and make those in the north more miserable than they already are. Is that what you want?That doesnt wash though does it.
The argument that Westminster is too remote from Scotland is laughable when AS wants to join the EU. All the money in Europe is centralised, small economies like Greece dont see much of it. Why would it be different for Scotland.

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 13:07
Not having the debt of England why would we give a flying fig for triple AAA?The debt is not English it is British and Scotland accounts for a greater percentage of it than England does. Even if Scotland was only held responsible for its "per capita" share it would struggle to cope.
Or are you suggesting that Scotland can part from the Union and not take any of the debt with it?

Notascooby
12th January 2012, 13:09
All bets are OFF one of the pandas at Edinburgh zoo are sick!

This is a serious international incident.

doodab
12th January 2012, 13:10
Exactly why, like the BOE, could the BOS not conjure up Scottish bank notes out of thin air? Voila - we could then start speculating on the sterling. Ohh oh involuntary naughty spasm.

They could, but once you've gone your own way nobody is obliged to exchange them for English pounds at a favourable rate, except the BOS if they chose to. If the markets decide BOS pound is worth less than a BOE pound then they would have a hard time of it.

TestMangler
12th January 2012, 13:14
All bets are OFF one of the pandas at Edinburgh zoo are sick!

This is a serious international incident.

Oh no !! If it dies, we'll have as many dead pandas as tory MPs (and as many live pandas too).

Spacecadet
12th January 2012, 13:23
There is another added benefit to scotland becoming independant

Labour will lose the 41 westminster seats it currently holds north of the border, The conservatives will lose 0

Ignis Fatuus
12th January 2012, 14:25
That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.The problem here is that the constitutional position is different in England and Scotland. In England, parliament is sovereign, but in Scotland this is not so: the people are sovereign, not parliament. Not the parliament in Edinburgh, and not the parliament in London, however much they might like to apply the purely English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to Scotland. The Scottish parliament of 1707 that signed the Act of Union did not cede sovereignty to the parliament of the UK, because it was not theirs to cede.

ISTM that this means that it doesn't matter who calls a referendum - you can't dispute the result on the basis that it was called by the wrong parliament, only on the basis that it does not represent the will of the people of Scotland.

TheFaQQer
12th January 2012, 14:29
ISTM that this means that it doesn't matter who calls a referendum - you can't dispute the result on the basis that it was called by the wrong parliament, only on the basis that it does not represent the will of the people of Scotland.

Part of the problem is also in the wording of the question.

The SNP know that they won't win an outright Yes/No vote, which is why they want a third question which might give them some kind of way to force independence through at a slower pace.

If the SNP stage a referendum with what is perceived to be a rigged question, then it opens up yet another can of worms.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 14:42
Not having the debt of England why would we give a flying fig for triple AAA?

I am sure the scots are perfectly capable of creating their own debts


Yours for Scotland," was the sign-off Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, gave in a May 2007 letter to Sir Fred Goodwin, then chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, as he endorsed the Edinburgh-based bank's bid for Dutch financial group ABN Amro.
Seventeen months later, Mr Salmond's words would come back to haunt him as RBS, crippled by billions of pounds of losses and facing a run by corporate depositors, went cap in hand to the British government for an emergency bail-out.
Days earlier, another Scottish lender, HBOS, had made its own request for taxpayer funds. Together the two banks received direct cash injections of more than nearly £70bn as well as hundreds of billions of pounds of British state guaranteed loans and credit insurance.
As the scale of the losses made by the two banks became apparent it did not take long for many to observe that the UK had faced not a British banking crisis, but a Scottish one.
With a population of 5.2m and an economy worth just over £140bn the scale of the rescue required by RBS and HBOS in October 2008 would have easily swamped an independent Scotland.
RELATED ARTICLES
Scotland warned it could lose the pound and be forced to join euro 11 Jan 2012
Scottish independence: a history of Anglo-Scottish rivalry 11 Jan 2012
Cameron: Scottish nationalists want 'neverendum' not referendum 11 Jan 2012
Scotland vote: Cameron accused of 'Thatcher-esque' interference 11 Jan 2012
Taken together, the assets of the two banks are still about 14 times the size of the Scotland's annual economic output, a figure greater even than the engorged balance sheets built up by Iceland's bloated lenders during the credit boom.
Speaking at an event in Glasgow in November, former Chancellor Alistair Darling, who authorised the bail-outs, had some cutting observations for his audience.
"If there are any Nationalists in the room, let me tell you this. This didn't happen [the banking crisis] because of what was happening in the sub-prime market, or in New York, or in London, it happened because of bad decisions being taken 40 miles away on the other side of the M8."
With Scottish independence once again high on the agenda the costs of the "Scottish banking crisis" are more than just a theoretical question and have very real implications for the debate on what a 'yes' vote in a referendum might mean financially for the UK and an independent Scotland.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 14:44
No it is not generated, it's conjured. Everybody knows why London wealth is there but the result for the rest of the country is hardly sustainable and if anything shall only lead to :ladybags:


You are free to create your own wealth so keep your hands off ours

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 14:48
Or are you suggesting that Scotland can part from the Union and not take any of the debt with it?

The debt was generated in London casinos.

The_Equalizer
12th January 2012, 14:54
The debt was generated in London casinos.

I guess what you're saying is if it were profit you wouldn't be interested in that either. :wink

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 14:55
The debt was generated in London casinos.

Like the purchase of ABN Amro?

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 14:56
That doesnt wash though does it.

Yes, it does.


The argument that Westminster is too remote from Scotland is laughable when AS wants to join the EU.

Physically no, politically yes. Westminster may as well be in Antarctica. The policies of those countries in Europe are a lot closer with those in Scotland the London, where equilibrium is sought.




4Europe is centralised, small economies like Greece dont see much of it. Why would it be different for Scotland.

Imagine a small country with no debt and strong natural resources. Bliss.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 15:01
Imagine a small country with no debt and strong natural resources. Bliss.

Norway must be a great place to live :happy

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 15:02
You are free to create your own wealth so keep your hands off ours

What wealth?

UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis (http://www.debtbombshell.com/)

The debt still continues to grow. Think that if you spout enough it'll go away?

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 15:03
Norway must be a great place to live :happy

Done that been there and yes it was.

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 15:10
Scooter. You are deluded, blinkered and bitter.

The debt belongs to the UK and Scotland is part of that. If anything an independent Scotland should take on Scottish debt so RBS and HBOS debts should go with the independence as well as approximately 10% of UK debt.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 15:11
What wealth?

UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis (http://www.debtbombshell.com/)

The debt still continues to grow. Think that if you spout enough it'll go away?

Your words:

Clearly wealth is not distributed equally or we would not have London sitting up on high while the rest of the economy sinks into oblivion

Which is it to be? Or are you feeding the Scottish attitude of entitlement

Once again pooperscoop you are taking a tribal position with your "argument" and entrenching yourself. You make yourself look utterly ridiculous

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 15:13
What wealth?

UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis (http://www.debtbombshell.com/)

The debt still continues to grow. Think that if you spout enough it'll go away?and a major reason for the UK being in such a sorry state was that the Country was being run by a "canny" Scot.

TimberWolf
12th January 2012, 15:14
Scooter. You are deluded, blinkered and bitter.



:spel Scottish

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 15:48
Scooter. You are deluded, blinkered and bitter.

The debt belongs to the UK and Scotland is part of that. If anything an independent Scotland should take on Scottish debt so RBS and HBOS debts should go with the independence as well as approximately 10% of UK debt.


The debt was generated using systems put in place by Westminster. Clearly not many people in the north believe in those systems.

The_Equalizer
12th January 2012, 15:50
The debt was generated using systems put in place by Westminster. Clearly not many people in the north believe in those systems.

And all southerners are a bunch of spivs. :grin

Arturo Bassick
12th January 2012, 15:51
The debt was generated using systems put in place by a Scot. Clearly not many people in the north believe in those systems.If you are going to be pedantic about it.

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 16:10
If you are going to be pedantic about it.

A double agent sent in by the SNP.

If you attend the clan meetings you'd know about those things.

Incognito
12th January 2012, 16:16
Scooter. You are deluded, blinkered and bitter.

The debt belongs to the UK and Scotland is part of that. If anything an independent Scotland should take on Scottish debt so RBS and HBOS debts should go with the independence as well as approximately 10% of UK debt.

You do realise that HBOS was a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland? To call it a Scottish bank is wrong, it is quite clearly a British bank.

And the profile of the two at the top as it crashed and burned:

Andy Hornby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hornby) and James Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crosby_(banker)), both English. However, unlike you I will look past the blinkers and not say it was an English problem. It was a City of London problem though.

Whilst 'Broon' may have been at the helm, he was no sole fallguy. Bills are put to Parliament where they are scrutinised, debated and then if accepted they are enacted. This was a British creation and saving the banks benefited the British because I will guarantee you that more English debt is tied up in both those banks than Scottish debt.

You want us to take the debt? Fine, we'll just call in all those English loans and mortgages. Not really a good idea though is it, (a) for Scotland or (b) for England.

The_Equalizer
12th January 2012, 16:29
You do realise that HBOS was a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland? To call it a Scottish bank is wrong, it is quite clearly a British bank.

And the profile of the two at the top as it crashed and burned:

Andy Hornby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hornby) and James Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crosby_(banker)), both English. However, unlike you I will look past the blinkers and not say it was an English problem. It was a City of London problem though.

Whilst 'Broon' may have been at the helm, he was no sole fallguy. Bills are put to Parliament where they are scrutinised, debated and then if accepted they are enacted. This was a British creation and saving the banks benefited the British because I will guarantee you that more English debt is tied up in both those banks than Scottish debt.

You want us to take the debt? Fine, we'll just call in all those English loans and mortgages. Not really a good idea though is it, (a) for Scotland or (b) for England.

I think this is a fair example of why the whole Scottish independence thing is a bum idea. The minimum result will be to stoke up a whole load of resentment, but it'll probably be a whole lot worse. This is why Salmond gets up my nose. Basically he plans to keep winding up the English (note he'll never make any direct reference to Wales or Northern Ireland) until English public opinion say okay, do what you want. In return Scots will be told that this is what the English have always thought and probably vote for the break-up.

If you think there is ill feeling now, imagine what it will be like afterwards. Salmond's tactic is to tulip stir for all it is worth.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 16:38
The debt was generated using systems put in place by Westminster. Clearly not many people in the north believe in those systems.

and what is this drivel meant to mean?

scooterscot
12th January 2012, 17:03
and what is this drivel meant to mean?

Beyond the IQ of the average agent I'm afraid.

Incognito
12th January 2012, 17:18
This is why Salmond gets up my nose. Basically he plans to keep winding up the English (note he'll never make any direct reference to Wales or Northern Ireland) until English public opinion say okay, do what you want.

El Presidente was not the one who brought this conversation up. Alex is standing up for what the people of Scotland voted for. More people in Scotland voted for the SNP than all three other parties put together. The SNP achieved what was meant to be impossible, i.e. a majority in a Scottish PR Parliament.

To say he doesn't have a mandate to ask any question he wants around Independence is ludicrous. He has the support of the electorate.

What exactly is it he says that winds you (I'm assuming you're an Englishman) up so much? That he wants to set the question? That he wants to set the date?

Don't forget, most of what you read about Salmond is tainted by the English Press. I notice a clear difference in reporting in English and Scottish editions of papers such as The Times, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc. In my opinion he's actually a great statesman.

Incognito
12th January 2012, 17:33
Read his keynote speech and tell me where this anti-English rhetoric is coming from?

Alex Salmond delivers keynote speech | Scottish National Party (http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/alex-salmond-delivers-keynote-speech)

I do like this line though:


THE DAYS OF WESTMINSTER POLITICIANS TELLING SCOTLAND WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO THINK ARE OVER. THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WILL SET THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.

EternalOptimist
12th January 2012, 17:35
And whats your prediction Incognito ? how do you think it will go
assuming its a yes / no question






:rolleyes:

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 17:45
Beyond the IQ of the average agent I'm afraid.

So you have no idea of what you are saying?

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 17:55
Read his keynote speech and tell me where this anti-English rhetoric is coming from?

Alex Salmond delivers keynote speech | Scottish National Party (http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/alex-salmond-delivers-keynote-speech)

I do like this line though:

I prefer this one more

THE DAYS OF SCOTTISH POLITICIANS TELLING ENGLAND WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO THINK ARE OVER. THE ENGLSH PEOPLE WILL SET THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.

I think we need to do the deal here on CUK.

I propose, you pay your fair share of the debt and take your fair share of responsibility for the banking crisis which lets be honest happened under the watch of two Scottish chancellors, who then agreed to bale out a scottish bank that went bust under a Scottish CEO. We are not asking any more than you pay a share according to the size of your population.

We'll take back our Nuclear subs and you can have 90% of the OIL.

You create you own national bank and do what you like with your currency.

Most important of all you can have back your thieving incompetent politicians and keep your noses out of our trough.

I think you will find it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Scotland (poulation 5 million) wields far more influence over the English (population 60 million) than it should

Fair?

We need to capitalise the value of the deal and charge 5% - I am happy with a 50:50 split on this.

DodgyAgent
12th January 2012, 18:00
You do realise that HBOS was a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland? To call it a Scottish bank is wrong, it is quite clearly a British bank.

A.

As in "Andy Murray being British until he loses" ?

TestMangler
12th January 2012, 19:38
You do realise that HBOS was a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland? To call it a Scottish bank is wrong, it is quite clearly a British bank.

And the profile of the two at the top as it crashed and burned:

Andy Hornby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hornby) and James Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crosby_(banker)), both English. However, unlike you I will look past the blinkers and not say it was an English problem. It was a City of London problem though.

.

To be more precise, it was a takeover of BOS by Halifax. All retail customers were migrated to halifax banking systems, BOS (and IBM) staff were TUPE'd and business policy going forward was strictly Halifax.

As Max Boyce would say, I know, cause I was there.

AtW
12th January 2012, 20:04
I propose, you pay your fair share of the debt and take your fair share of responsibility for the banking crisis which lets be honest happened under the watch of two Scottish chancellors, who then agreed to bale out a scottish bank that went bust under a Scottish CEO.

Would you apply the same approach to failures made under English PMs, CEOs etc?

Incognito
12th January 2012, 23:32
And whats your prediction Incognito ? how do you think it will go
assuming its a yes / no question

:rolleyes:

I don't know, if you'd asked me five years ago I'd say it'd be a resounding No. The times though they are a changing. The battleground is the West (i.e. Glasgow). Follow the M8 to Edinburgh and that is the heartland of the No vote.

If we get the 3 question referendum and allow the kids to vote then I feel the Yes vote will win.

That there will be the problem though, Westminster won't accept it if we have 3 questions and the kids voting.

What will only help the Yes vote though is the Tories getting involved and trying to dictate the question. That and the prejudice that will only get stronger come closer to the vote.

You see we have an argument that it is our Oil, the counter argument is that we receive more per head from the coffers.

We have the hard evidence that the majority of the North Sea reserves are in Scottish waters. The counter argument refuse to include any income from the North Sea into their calculation. Lies, lies and more damn lies.

Incognito
12th January 2012, 23:33
Would you apply the same approach to failures made under English PMs, CEOs etc?

Of course he wouldn't, it doesn't fit with his blinkered attitude you silly boy.

vetran
12th January 2012, 23:44
The debt was generated using systems put in place by Westminster. Clearly not many people in the north believe in those systems.

Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes Brownstuff - is it a 'Scottish Thing'?


When one reporter asked why he had let banks get out of control, Mr Brown leaned towards him and said: ‘You’re saying I got it wrong? But I didn’t. The same problems have happened all over the world and our regulations have been better than anyone else’s.

‘Get in the real world. People are saying it is my fault and that I caused the recession. They are wrong. It is not my fault.

‘It did not start in Britain, it started in America. We have had low interest rates and low inflation. Every other recession in Britain has been created by high interest rates and high inflation. That has not happened under me.’

apparently Scotland is/isn't bust:

Study undermines economic case for Scottish independence, opponents claim | Politics | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/22/new-study-undermines-economic-independence-scotland)

I must admit it might be interesting to see how they get on if they do get independence.

But I suspect they may struggle and plunder the Oil until they are bust.

It would be sad to see the union dissolve but it must be done fairly, they get their fair share of debts and a clean break.

I think most people in England fear it will be more like a divorce the Scots will get the house and maintenance, we carry on paying the mortgage and they will complain bitterly about how bad they were treated.

i.e. they will get the Oil, a Debt free RBS & HBOS and a Barnett formula subsidy,we will get messed about on the border, Scottish MPs will be allowed at Westminster and English ownership of Scottish property will be outlawed.

If they succeed it might spur England on so it might be worth it.

Freamon
12th January 2012, 23:45
You can have your say on your country leaving the UK. You just have to get your government to hold a referendum. It is not for the Scottish Government to hold a referendum for the English on their participation in the union.

Anyone can hold a referendum any time that they like, but only the UK Government (not the Scottish government) has the legal authority to remove Scotland from the UK.

AtW
12th January 2012, 23:45
Heid Meinister o Scotland Alex Salmond has a chance to go in history as the man who brought freedom to Scotland.

He can be the chosen one to do just that...

AtW
12th January 2012, 23:47
Anyone can hold a referendum any time that they like, but only the UK Government (not the Scottish government) has the legal authority to remove Scotland from the UK.

And what if China recognises Scottish independence and starts buying oil directly from them paying in yuans as well as providing a "security" force to defend liberty of local population? :eyes

Incognito
12th January 2012, 23:49
I think most people in England fear it will be more like a divorce the Scots will get the house and maintenance, we carry on paying the mortgage and they will complain bitterly about how bad they were treated.

i.e. they will get the Oil, a Debt free RBS & HBOS and a Barnett formula subsidy,we will get messed about on the border, Scottish MPs will be allowed at Westminster and English ownership of Scottish property will be outlawed.

If they succeed it might spur England on so it might be worth it.

I have no problem with us taking our share of the debt. However, I would imagine that Halifax stays part of Lloyds and BOS gets diverged with whatever the share of the debt is at that point. Which in 2014 will be looking a lot better.

Why would we ban the English from Scotland? We do not hate the English, we simply want to be independent. Why do people automatically take that as meaning hatred.

Freamon
12th January 2012, 23:55
And what if China recognises Scottish independence and starts buying oil directly from them paying in yuans as well as providing a "security" force to defend liberty of local population? :eyes
I don't think Scotland itself (the state) has any oil to sell. It's all extracted and sold by oil companies (some British, some foreign). The state collects tax revenue on the oil exported and the profits from its sale. I suspect that if the Scottish devolved government started trying to collect these taxes from BP itself and spend them locally, then Westminster would have something to say about it.

AtW
13th January 2012, 00:00
I don't think Scotland itself (the state) has any oil to sell. It's all extracted and sold by oil companies (some British, some foreign).

Scotland (if it was independent state) would be able tax those companies, not on profits mind you - they are very good at not showing much of those, but based on price of barrel of oil on foreign markets - anything above price of X would go straight to Scotland's coffers.

And if BP decides it's not profitable enough to stay there then I am sure Statoil would take a longer term view, especially given that they actually have proper expertise in doing the drills.

I guess BP will just have to keep outsourcing work to Haliburton in the Gulf of Mexico.

Freamon
13th January 2012, 00:10
Scotland (if it was independent state) would be able tax those companies, not on profits mind you - they are very good at not showing much of those, but based on price of barrel of oil on foreign markets - anything above price of X would go straight to Scotland's coffers.

And if BP decides it's not profitable enough to stay there then I am sure Statoil would take a longer term view, especially given that they actually have proper expertise in doing the drills.

I guess BP will just have to keep outsourcing work to Haliburton in the Gulf of Mexico.

But as it's not an independent state, it can't. And it certainly can't sell oil to China, as it has none to sell.

AtW
13th January 2012, 00:16
But as it's not an independent state, it can't. And it certainly can't sell oil to China, as it has none to sell.

It can sell a couple of nuclear subs parked on its shores though, say rental of the sub pens would fetch a few trillion yuans?

Also few more paid by ChGCHQ for rental of a few "domes" on mountain peaks.

Paddy
13th January 2012, 00:55
I don't think Scotland itself (the state) has any oil to sell. It's all extracted and sold by oil companies (some British, some foreign). The state collects tax revenue on the oil exported and the profits from its sale. I suspect that if the Scottish devolved government started trying to collect these taxes from BP itself and spend them locally, then Westminster would have something to say about it.

But that would be against EU regulations

Freamon
13th January 2012, 07:13
But that would be against EU regulations

Why?

Arturo Bassick
13th January 2012, 07:34
You do realise that HBOS was a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland? To call it a Scottish bank is wrong, it is quite clearly a British bank.

And the profile of the two at the top as it crashed and burned:

Andy Hornby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hornby) and James Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crosby_(banker)), both English. However, unlike you I will look past the blinkers and not say it was an English problem. It was a City of London problem though.

Whilst 'Broon' may have been at the helm, he was no sole fallguy. Bills are put to Parliament where they are scrutinised, debated and then if accepted they are enacted. This was a British creation and saving the banks benefited the British because I will guarantee you that more English debt is tied up in both those banks than Scottish debt.

You want us to take the debt? Fine, we'll just call in all those English loans and mortgages. Not really a good idea though is it, (a) for Scotland or (b) for England.Dont be an arse. You are lecturing me on exactly the point I was making to Scooter. Current debt is a joint venture, something he is in denial about.

Incognito
13th January 2012, 08:11
Dont be an arse. You are lecturing me on exactly the point I was making to Scooter. Current debt is a joint venture, something he is in denial about.

No, I was lecturing you on the fact that HBOS shouldn't be called a 'Scottish bank' with 'Scottish debt' as you said:


If anything an independent Scotland should take on Scottish debt so RBS and HBOS debts should go with the independence as well

Ignis Fatuus
13th January 2012, 08:16
Anyone can hold a referendum any time that they like, but only the UK Government (not the Scottish government) has the legal authority to remove Scotland from the UK.Where do you get that idea? It sounds to me as if you are implicitly adopting the doctrine that parliament is sovereign, which in fact is an English doctrine and is not the constitutional position in Scotland. The Act of Union did not change that, because the Union did not consist of Scotland becoming part of England and adopting her laws and constitution.

See for example the judgement in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 in the High Court. (That's the High Court in Edinburgh). Or refer to Mitchell's 'Constitutional Law' (pub. Green and Son, Edinburgh).

To be pedantic, either the Scottish or the English parliament could abrogate the Act of Union (the Scottish Act or the English Act respectively) - but the British parliament has no such power since it is not a party to either of the two Acts of Union. Since there is no English parliament at the moment, that leaves only the Scottish parliament with the right to abrogate the Act of Union.

Arturo Bassick
13th January 2012, 09:15
Where do you get that idea? It sounds to me as if you are implicitly adopting the doctrine that parliament is sovereign, which in fact is an English doctrine and is not the constitutional position in Scotland. The Act of Union did not change that, because the Union did not consist of Scotland becoming part of England and adopting her laws and constitution.

See for example the judgement in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 in the High Court. (That's the High Court in Edinburgh). Or refer to Mitchell's 'Constitutional Law' (pub. Green and Son, Edinburgh).

To be pedantic, either the Scottish or the English parliament could abrogate the Act of Union (the Scottish Act or the English Act respectively) - but the British parliament has no such power since it is not a party to either of the two Acts of Union. Since there is no English parliament at the moment, that leaves only the Scottish parliament with the right to abrogate the Act of Union.If you are going down that route then you might want to look at the legal existence of a Scottish parliament.
I think the act of union states that Westminster is the only LEGAL government for the whole of the UK. Could be wrong on that one so happy to hear alternative evidence.

sasguru
13th January 2012, 09:24
I read somewhere that Scottish independence would much reduce Labour's chances of winning in England again.
For that reason alone its worth it. Now if only Wales would go too.

Spacecadet
13th January 2012, 09:32
I read somewhere that Scottish independence would much reduce Labour's chances of winning in England again.
For that reason alone its worth it. Now if only Wales would go too.

It was here :smokin


There is another added benefit to scotland becoming independant

Labour will lose the 41 westminster seats it currently holds north of the border, The conservatives will lose 0

DodgyAgent
13th January 2012, 09:57
I dont know why we are bothering with legal minutiae.

Let the Scots have their independence and let them keep 90% of the Oil. They can have their own currency/join the Euro - call it what they like- have their own central bank. they take on their fair share of the UK debt. They raise their own taxes.
England can take back its Nuclear bases as required by the Scots, shut down all their public sector offices and relocate them somewhere else that is poor like Birmingham.
They can then take out their sense of entitlement with their own ruling parties.

I have not seen one single practical reason why it is in the UKs interests to keep Scotland within the Union.
Even if they leave nothing much is going to change. OK they will have to fund their own infrastructure projects, but at least they will be able to choose what these are.

Shorn of public sector jobs, Nuclear jobs and public subsidies from the UK, What will probably happen is that a Scottish equivalent of a Tory party will emerge and turn Scotland into a Tiger economy. Either way that revolting little man Alex Salmond will be out of power.

scooterscot
13th January 2012, 09:59
If you are going down that route then you might want to look at the legal existence of a Scottish parliament.
I think the act of union states that Westminster is the only LEGAL government for the whole of the UK. Could be wrong on that one so happy to hear alternative evidence.

Thankfully decisions are based on knowing not thinking.

Regardless of legality it is clearly not appropriate to wave legal black card in the face of people who want change.

doodab
13th January 2012, 10:00
Shorn of public sector jobs, Nuclear jobs and public subsidies from the UK, What will probably happen is that a Scottish equivalent of a Tory party will emerge and turn Scotland into a Tiger economy.

You mean jobs in Scotland will end up on the verge of extinction?

BrilloPad
13th January 2012, 10:00
I read somewhere that Scottish independence would much reduce Labour's chances of winning in England again.
For that reason alone its worth it. Now if only Wales would go too.

Why does it make any difference? I can't see there would be much difference if Labour were in power now. Of course if DC were to become more like Maggie.....

The_Equalizer
13th January 2012, 10:37
. Either way that revolting little man Alex Salmond will be out of power.

Can't this be done without the break up of the United Kingdom? I am sure it will save a lot of trouble.

vetran
13th January 2012, 11:49
Why would we ban the English from Scotland? We do not hate the English, we simply want to be independent. Why do people automatically take that as meaning hatred.

Was intended to be slightly humour-us but after the university funding issue EU students don't pay but UK non Scottish students do it isn't that much of a leap. Also with both sides unable to agree whether Scotland is a cost or profit centre it seems unlikely there is going to be an amicable separation.

You may not personally dislike the English but quite a few do, suggesting the referendum is held on a historical battle date is hardly conciliatory is it?

TestMangler
13th January 2012, 11:52
Why would we ban the English from Scotland? We do not hate the English, Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just *******. We, on the other hand, are colonized by *******. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any ******* difference.



FTFY :laugh