Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At last..a non-internet Scottish IndyRef poll

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited September 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At last..a non-internet Scottish IndyRef poll

One of the features of the referendum polling is that so much of it has been Online. Survation, Panelbase and, of course, YouGov poll in this way. In addition the ICM polls that we see are the same – unlike the firm’s long-standing phone poll series for the Guardian.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • Brave IFA speaks out against Yes Vote - he's quite right as well!

    Martin Bamford‏@martinbamford·50s
    90% of Scottish FS customers are south of border. Scottish FS will move South if 'yes' vote, removing up to £7bn pa from Scottish economy.

    Martin Bamford‏@martinbamford·2m
    If Scotland votes for independence next week, Scottish firms will become as rare a recommendation to our clients as Irish firms #offshore
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    first? That is getting old.
  • Buy NO then?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Latest betfair prices

    Yes 3.6/3.65
    No 1.39/1.4

  • Huzzah
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    FS ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    FS ?

    Financial services.
  • SeanT said:

    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland might be required to have a lower budget deficit than England. Such a stringent discipline...
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."
  • SeanT

    Yup. They're buying into the Nat BS. Caveat emptor.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    Would you buy a poll from this man?
  • TGOHF said:

    Latest betfair prices

    Yes 3.6/3.65
    No 1.39/1.4

    The political betting fraternity is simply not believing that last YouGov Indy poll (even if the share and money markets do, at least to some extent).
  • SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    I could imagine Scotland accepting some seriously shitty terms to minimize the economic disruption. As you say looked at from a practical standpoint they'd make independence fairly ludicrous, but emotionally it's still a big step forward for nationalistically-minded people.

    The people who are going to be really disappointed are left-wing Scots who think they're getting a left-wing country, but they're going to get shafted whatever happens.
  • Neil said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    Would you buy a poll from this man?
    No
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
  • There will be a currency union Sean T. This will not be independence in the most formal of senses but there are similar examples from history.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    If people are interested in the long term prosperity of this country then whether Scotland stays or goes is of minor concern compared to this:

    "Nearly half of poor children are unable to read and understand books, newspapers and websites by the time they leave primary school, according to research released by backers of a major new campaign to wipe out illiteracy in Britain.

    Disadvantaged 11-year-olds are as much as seven years behind their more able peers for reading, the study has found, making Britain one of the most unequal countries in the Western World. In the EU, only Romania fares worse."

    "...almost a quarter of children leave primary school each year [unable to read], with the figure rising to two-in-five among disadvantaged groups"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11080151/Nearly-half-of-poor-11-year-olds-unable-to-read-books-newspapers-and-websites.html

    Any child unable to read at the age of eleven is not going to benefit from secondary school and is heading for life on welfare as they will be effectively unemployable in the modern world. This is an utter scandal, a massive waste of talent and lives and a demographic time bomb (where will the taxes come from to pay their benefits).

    Yet we still have people saying the education system is working well.
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    If you take the poll at face value there's still only something like a 70% chance that YES is in the lead, so you're being a bit unfair.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336
    The good Mayor of London Town in the DT today:

    "Together the English and the Scots built the British foreign service and the British Army, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the British Museum. It is very far from clear what would happen to any of those institutions – all of them world-class, all of them now in peril from this vote.

    Is Salmond going to ask for the Elgin Marbles to be restored to Elgin? No one has thought any of this through, and I am frankly appalled by the complacency and apathy of so many of my non-political friends – people who haven’t focused at all on the debate, and think we can afford to let the Scots go because a) we subsidise them, and b) they have so many Labour MPs."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html

    I know Edinburgh is the Athens of the North, but this takes the power of the Scottish Enlightenment to a new level!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Neil said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    Would you buy a poll from this man?
    No
    Peter Kellner said in the past that "Yes can't win" or words to that effect - which was pretty extraordinary given that a pollster should attempt to be, and appear to be as neutral as possible.

    Now his own poll is showing "Yes" ahead it gives him a bit of a headache.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited September 2014
    @Roger FPT border control compulsory if Scotland not in EU - not true, Channel Islands are not in EU but are in common travel area.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Latest betfair prices

    Yes 3.6/3.65
    No 1.39/1.4

    The political betting fraternity is simply not believing that last YouGov Indy poll (even if the share and money markets do, at least to some extent).
    Or profit taking in advance of the TNS poll.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    That's a Gerald Ratner of answer to that question. Surely there is no other answer that would do more harm to his business.
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    I kind of critiqued the poll last night. Peter Kellner agrees with me.

    Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.

    So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    I kind of critiqued the poll last night. Peter Kellner agrees with me.

    Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.

    So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
    And the poll buyer was made up - he was tweeting his delight all day.

    Everyone is a winner ;)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    For the sake of my loved ones and friends in Scotland I hope with all my heart that it does not come down to the end of the UK. So far only one poll has had Yes in front and there are many sensible people in Scotland battling hard to stave off disaster. At stake is a wonderful Union with a successful single market and a shared heritage of artistic, scientific, diplomatic, humanitarian and military endeavour. If all that is lost – sacrificed for a lie and replaced with bitterness and resentment – it will be a historical tragedy of epic proportions.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100285621/the-scots-need-to-wake-up/
  • Anyone have an idea of the lag and period of polling for this TNS? If it's the same as last time it could have started before the last debate and finished last Monday.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    HanDodges said:

    There will be a currency union Sean T. This will not be independence in the most formal of senses but there are similar examples from history.

    'Bring out the McGimp!'
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Carnyx said:

    No one has thought any of this through

    Actually, they have, he's just far too lazy to read what those who have thought it through have produced.
  • Carnyx said:

    The good Mayor of London Town in the DT today:

    "Together the English and the Scots built the British foreign service and the British Army, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the British Museum. It is very far from clear what would happen to any of those institutions – all of them world-class, all of them now in peril from this vote.

    Is Salmond going to ask for the Elgin Marbles to be restored to Elgin? No one has thought any of this through, and I am frankly appalled by the complacency and apathy of so many of my non-political friends – people who haven’t focused at all on the debate, and think we can afford to let the Scots go because a) we subsidise them, and b) they have so many Labour MPs."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html

    I know Edinburgh is the Athens of the North, but this takes the power of the Scottish Enlightenment to a new level!

    I gather Boris didn't repeat his no new powers for Scotland schtick? A week is a long time etc
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Do we get a poll from Lord Ashcroft today?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336
    Neil said:

    Carnyx said:

    No one has thought any of this through

    Actually, they have, he's just far too lazy to read what those who have thought it through have produced.
    That is of course the good Mr B. Johnson you are quoting, rather than me. But I must add that his mistake on the marbles does astound me given his reputation as one interested in the classics. Or did someone else write it for him and he didn't read his 'own' piece carefully enough?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Everyone is talking about an independent scotland, but no one is thinking about what happens when the oil runs out in 10 years?

    Will a bankrupt scotland go cap in hand for an english bailout and will see a repeat of 1707?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:


    Do we get a poll from Lord Ashcroft today?

    Suspended until after the independence referendum I think?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    I kind of critiqued the poll last night. Peter Kellner agrees with me.

    Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.

    So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
    Yet we're told that weighted data > raw data.

    Which is it ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    Would you buy a poll from this man?
    No
    Peter Kellner said in the past that "Yes can't win" or words to that effect - which was pretty extraordinary given that a pollster should attempt to be, and appear to be as neutral as possible.

    Now his own poll is showing "Yes" ahead it gives him a bit of a headache.
    Peter Kellner's precise words were

    A number of recent polls have produced widely-reported stories that the contest is close. They are wrong. It isn’t. The No campaign is well ahead. Its lead has held up for some months. Unless things change markedly in the next eleven weeks, Scotland will vote to remain in the United Kingdom, and by a decisive enough margin to settle the matter for many years to come.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/

    An aside, Peter Kellner has had his impartiality slammed by all sides for years.

    He's a Tory troll, Ken Livingstone tried to report him to the BPC and MRS for his polls showing Boris ahead in 2008, YouGov came on top then.

    Some Kippers said he was biased because his wife an EU official, who won the pollsters race in the Euros?

    There are other examples.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    Carnyx said:

    The good Mayor of London Town in the DT today:

    "Together the English and the Scots built the British foreign service and the British Army, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the British Museum. It is very far from clear what would happen to any of those institutions – all of them world-class, all of them now in peril from this vote.

    Is Salmond going to ask for the Elgin Marbles to be restored to Elgin? No one has thought any of this through, and I am frankly appalled by the complacency and apathy of so many of my non-political friends – people who haven’t focused at all on the debate, and think we can afford to let the Scots go because a) we subsidise them, and b) they have so many Labour MPs."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html

    I know Edinburgh is the Athens of the North, but this takes the power of the Scottish Enlightenment to a new level!

    I gather Boris didn't repeat his no new powers for Scotland schtick? A week is a long time etc
    Yeah, it's all hankies and sliced onions, not a mention of new powers (is he keeping clear of that particular Snark, lest he be bitten, I wonder?). No mentions of contour canals to drain the water from Scotland to London though.
  • The Scottish Indy Referendum is of such moment as to deserve a generous bookie-sponsored prize competition ........ based I would suggest on the Yes %, perhaps with a turnout % tie breaker.

    What about it Shadsy? Open up that big fat leather satchel and blow those moths away.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    The oil will run out in 10 years? Where did I hear the before? Oh yes, in the 70's, then in the 80's then in the 90's and now. It's amazing that all theses oil companies have made a record year of investment in the continental shelf only for it to be drained and gone by 2024.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    HanDodges said:

    This will not be independence in the most formal of senses but there are similar examples from history.

    So, it will not really be an independent sort of independence? In other words, not independence at all. Does your vision of "independence" mean that we south of the border do everything and supply everything whilst Holyrood gets to spend it? Not so much independence as nepotism and cronyism with the bill paid by someone else?

    If you get independence then you get independence and that means doing everything yourself and accepting the consequences of it.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    I kind of critiqued the poll last night. Peter Kellner agrees with me.

    Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.

    So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
    Yet we're told that weighted data > raw data.

    Which is it ?
    Depends on whether the weighting is right!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    Would you buy a poll from this man?
    No
    Peter Kellner said in the past that "Yes can't win" or words to that effect - which was pretty extraordinary given that a pollster should attempt to be, and appear to be as neutral as possible.

    Now his own poll is showing "Yes" ahead it gives him a bit of a headache.
    Peter Kellner's precise words were

    A number of recent polls have produced widely-reported stories that the contest is close. They are wrong. It isn’t. The No campaign is well ahead. Its lead has held up for some months. Unless things change markedly in the next eleven weeks, Scotland will vote to remain in the United Kingdom, and by a decisive enough margin to settle the matter for many years to come.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/

    An aside, Peter Kellner has had his impartiality slammed by all sides for years.

    He's a Tory troll, Ken Livingstone tried to report him to the BPC and MRS for his polls showing Boris ahead in 2008, YouGov came on top then.

    Some Kippers said he was biased because his wife an EU official, who won the pollsters race in the Euros?

    There are other examples.
    An unfortunate ambiguity there, given his recent spat with other pollsters.

    I assume he means that 'widely-reported stories' are wrong, but what he literally says is that the other polls are wrong.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    Speedy said:

    Everyone is talking about an independent scotland, but no one is thinking about what happens when the oil runs out in 10 years?

    Will a bankrupt scotland go cap in hand for an english bailout and will see a repeat of 1707?

    The ECB in Frankfurt would be their saviour.
  • Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).

    The above is just a horrible response from Nick, someone who I usually have a lot of time for. As a leftie I am furious that Labour has been so complacent, absolutely disgusted at the lies being peddled by the SNP and flabbergasted at the credulous self-indulgence of the yes supporting leftie commentariat in Scotland, whose naïve posturing about the rebirth of social democracy is aiding nationalists create a new international border as a precursor to years of terrible austerity for the Scottish people and a good deal of worry down south too. It's self-harming nihilism the likes of which I think is unprecedented in recent British (world?) history. Nick you should be fuming. Labour has played a central part in letting down the Scottish and British people, so leading to this forthcoming separation that will only cause pain for all involved. A consolation, I guess, is that the divorce will force the left in England and Wales to take a long, hard look at itself and finally to engage with this century. But the break-up of the UK is not a price worth paying for that.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    Peter Kelner of @yougov on Sky News: "hand on heart I could not say Yes are ahead, but significant move to Yes..."

    So Kellner (an 'ell of a difference) doesn't believe his own poll!
    I kind of critiqued the poll last night. Peter Kellner agrees with me.

    Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.

    So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
    Yet we're told that weighted data > raw data.

    Which is it ?
    Weighted data.

    However, in an election/referendum with turnout higher than normal, looking at the unweighted numbers can be useful.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Alistair said:

    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    The oil will run out in 10 years? Where did I hear the before? Oh yes, in the 70's, then in the 80's then in the 90's and now. It's amazing that all theses oil companies have made a record year of investment in the continental shelf only for it to be drained and gone by 2024.
    Look for yourself.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/crude-oil-production

    Scotland will be bankrupt in 10 years and england should demand in exchange for a bailout the same terms as the last one in 1707.
    No scottish parliament and no devolution anymore.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited September 2014
    Lol, rereading some of the comments beneath that Kellner article, is a hoot, it should be remember YouGov were the most accurate pollster when it came to Scotland in the Euros.

    But this one is a keeper

    YouGov are consistently wrong about Scottish voting intentions and at least one statistician has remarked on YouGov's manipulation of raw data - I suspect that is statistician speak for YouGov ensuring they get the result they want.

    Some Scots would go further and suggest Mr Kellner's close association with the Tory Party and donations to said party makes YouGov a dubious sources of Scottish political polling analysis.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/#comment-1464055289
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389
    What happened to the "Viking-gate" and "Viking-gate"scandals that were supposed to damage Salmond? Doesn't seem long for them to do so. Or is the Unionist press waiting until they see the whites of his eyes?
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389
    John_N said:

    What happened to the "Viking-gate" and "Viking-gate"scandals that were supposed to damage Salmond? Doesn't seem long for them to do so. Or is the Unionist press waiting until they see the whites of his eyes?

    Oops, that second one was meant to be "Rydergate".

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336
    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    Neil said:

    Carnyx said:

    No one has thought any of this through

    Actually, they have, he's just far too lazy to read what those who have thought it through have produced.
    That is of course the good Mr B. Johnson you are quoting, rather than me. But I must add that his mistake on the marbles does astound me given his reputation as one interested in the classics. Or did someone else write it for him and he didn't read his 'own' piece carefully enough?
    If you are referring to the Elgin remark it is clearly a barbed Johnsonian joke, designed to underline the bizarreness of break-up. I'd have thought that was fairly clear.
    Yes, I did actually wonder about that. But it does not really make sense, especially when he has a far, far better actual example in the also famous Lewis Chessmen (illegally expropriated from HM the Queen's forebear under Scots law of Bona Vacantia, and whose restitution, if to Lewis, has actually been discussed)).

    Also enough of his readers won't get it to make it a failure in a writer as experienced as he is.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    To change the subject a little bit.
    I found a nice article that is precisely what SeanT ordered.

    http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/0/

    "the Japanese tend to lump all Muslims together as fundamentalists who are unwilling to give up their traditional point of view and adopt modern ways of thinking and behavior. In Japan, Islam is perceived as a strange religion, that any intelligent person should avoid."
  • Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.
  • Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
    It will come down to negotiation - a few of which the Scots may get (non-Shengen may be among them), many which it will not - the UK rebate and exemptions (eg VAT on food) it is unlikely to.

  • Lol, rereading some of the comments beneath that Kellner article, is a hoot, it should be remember YouGov were the most accurate pollster when it came to Scotland in the Euros.

    But this one is a keeper

    YouGov are consistently wrong about Scottish voting intentions and at least one statistician has remarked on YouGov's manipulation of raw data - I suspect that is statistician speak for YouGov ensuring they get the result they want.

    Some Scots would go further and suggest Mr Kellner's close association with the Tory Party and donations to said party makes YouGov a dubious sources of Scottish political polling analysis.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/#comment-1464055289

    Eh? Surely Peter Kellner (and of course his wife) are both long term ardent Labour supporters?
  • Lol, rereading some of the comments beneath that Kellner article, is a hoot, it should be remember YouGov were the most accurate pollster when it came to Scotland in the Euros.

    But this one is a keeper

    YouGov are consistently wrong about Scottish voting intentions and at least one statistician has remarked on YouGov's manipulation of raw data - I suspect that is statistician speak for YouGov ensuring they get the result they want.

    Some Scots would go further and suggest Mr Kellner's close association with the Tory Party and donations to said party makes YouGov a dubious sources of Scottish political polling analysis.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/#comment-1464055289

    Eh? Surely Peter Kellner (and of course his wife) are both long term ardent Labour supporters?
    I know that, you know that, but we're talking the cybernats
  • A consolation, I guess, is that the divorce will force the left in England and Wales to take a long, hard look at itself and finally to engage with this century. But the break-up of the UK is not a price worth paying for that.

    The power of water to erode mountains is mind-bending in its awesomeness and persistence.

    And yet Denial is stronger than The Nile. You underestimate it at your peril.
  • SeanT said:

    All the odds on NO are shortening, and all the odds on YES are drifting

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

    Profit taking, I imagine?

    Yeah, and people realising that Kellner doesn't even believe his own poll.
  • SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    pr hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).

    The above is just a horrible response from Nick, someone who I usually have a lot of time for. As a leftie I am furious that Labour has been so complacent, absolutely disgusted at the lies being peddled by the SNP and flabbergasted at the credulous self-indulgence of the yes supporting leftie commentariat in Scotland, whose naïve posturing about the rebirth of social democracy is aiding nationalists create a new international border as a precursor to years of terrible austerity for the Scottish people and a good deal of worry down south too. It's self-harming nihilism the likes of which I think is unprecedented in recent British (world?) history. Nick you should be fuming. Labour has played a central part in letting down the Scottish and British people, so leading to this forthcoming separation that will only cause pain for all involved. A consolation, I guess, is that the divorce will force the left in England and Wales to take a long, hard look at itself and finally to engage with this century. But the break-up of the UK is not a price worth paying for that.
    You know why Nick is like this. He's admitted it himself. He has no patriotic feelings for Britain, he has no patriotic feelings for anywhere, apart from a mild liking for Switzerland. He does not understand patriotism, as he has confessed on here - and he probably mistrusts it.

    So it matters not a whit to him if our United Kingdom breaks up, except that it might make it a little harder for him to win Broxtowe.

    There are far too many people like him in Labour, who either don't care about Britain (like Nick) or actively dislike Britain, and will secretly rejoice at its dismemberment. Thus our present appalling situation, as Labour have been "leading" the fight in Scotland.

    Sadly, I fear that you are right. But Nick should care as a leftie, even if he does not give a monkeys about the UK. Millions of people are about to have their standards of living severely cut and all on the back of nationalist snake oil and lies. He should be absolutely fuming and sick to the pit of his guts.

  • Speedy said:

    Alistair said:

    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    The oil will run out in 10 years? Where did I hear the before? Oh yes, in the 70's, then in the 80's then in the 90's and now. It's amazing that all theses oil companies have made a record year of investment in the continental shelf only for it to be drained and gone by 2024.
    Look for yourself.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/crude-oil-production

    Scotland will be bankrupt in 10 years and england should demand in exchange for a bailout the same terms as the last one in 1707.
    No scottish parliament and no devolution anymore.
    If Scotland votes for Independence there will not be another Union.

    In 1707 England had good reason to form a Union with Scotland, to secure itself with a land border and reduce the risk of invasion from the Continent.

    There is no such pressing need in the 21st century.
  • SeanT said:

    All the odds on NO are shortening, and all the odds on YES are drifting

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

    Profit taking, I imagine?

    Hysterics calming down?
  • SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    pr hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).

    The above is just a horrible response from Nick, someone who I usually have a lot of time for. As a leftie I am furious that Labour has been so complacent, absolutely disgusted at the lies being peddled by the SNP and flabbergasted at the credulous self-indulgence of the yes supporting leftie commentariat in Scotland, whose naïve posturing about the rebirth of social democracy is aiding nationalists create a new international border as a precursor to years of terrible austerity for the Scottish people and a good deal of worry down south too. It's self-harming nihilism the likes of which I think is unprecedented in recent British (world?) history. Nick you should be fuming. Labour has played a central part in letting down the Scottish and British people, so leading to this forthcoming separation that will only cause pain for all involved. A consolation, I guess, is that the divorce will force the left in England and Wales to take a long, hard look at itself and finally to engage with this century. But the break-up of the UK is not a price worth paying for that.
    You know why Nick is like this. He's admitted it himself. He has no patriotic feelings for Britain, he has no patriotic feelings for anywhere, apart from a mild liking for Switzerland. He does not understand patriotism, as he has confessed on here - and he probably mistrusts it.

    So it matters not a whit to him if our United Kingdom breaks up, except that it might make it a little harder for him to win Broxtowe.

    There are far too many people like him in Labour, who either don't care about Britain (like Nick) or actively dislike Britain, and will secretly rejoice at its dismemberment. Thus our present appalling situation, as Labour have been "leading" the fight in Scotland.
    That's basically it, but Labour voters are the key swing consitutency in Scotland, so that leadership sort of made sense at the start. Both Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have been solid. It's Labour who have slipped and slipped.

    What that tells you about how well Labour understands it's own voters is, of course, interesting.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
    It will come down to negotiation - a few of which the Scots may get (non-Shengen may be among them), many which it will not - the UK rebate and exemptions (eg VAT on food) it is unlikely to.

    There wont be any negotiation, Spain and Italy will force the EU to be very hostile towards scotland. Together with england they will do everything they can to cutoff scotland from the rest of the world.
    Be it trade, be it finance, be it movement of people, you name it, they'll ban it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited September 2014
    Rude nasty nats shouting Jim Murphy down on Sky News
  • SeanT said:

    All the odds on NO are shortening, and all the odds on YES are drifting

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

    Profit taking, I imagine?

    Sean perhaps it's time for you to do some profit taking and bring your money home?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Isnt the point that the Free State and successor states never had a currency union with the UK? So that's not what a currency union means.

    (Of course Ireland went from being in the Sterling sphere to the DM sphere in 1978 and rejecting a currency union could well see Scotland making a similar journey in the future. It's hard to see how that would benefit the rest of the UK.)

  • SeanT said:

    What if the oil doesn't even need to run out, for it to become much less of an asset?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html

    Scotland is betting the farm on oil, just as oil might be going out of fashion.

    I'm sure in the end iScotland would wise up, get down to work, and become a leaner harder right wing country, and therefore prosper. But it will be a very painful process.


    Alex Salmond.

    This is the man that wanted an Arc of Prosperity, before the financial crisis hit.

    This is the man that wanted to join the Euro, before the EU currency mayhem.

    This is the man that wants to invest in oil, as solar power begins its ascendency.

    This is the man that wants to break-up Britain.

  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited September 2014
    If things go badly what would prevent the partition of Scotland? The borders will vote strongly against independence even if the overall result is YES. It's how things are in Ireland after all. And then there's the Shetland Isles - union with Norway?
  • Speedy said:

    Alistair said:

    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    The oil will run out in 10 years? Where did I hear the before? Oh yes, in the 70's, then in the 80's then in the 90's and now. It's amazing that all theses oil companies have made a record year of investment in the continental shelf only for it to be drained and gone by 2024.
    Look for yourself.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/crude-oil-production

    Scotland will be bankrupt in 10 years and england should demand in exchange for a bailout the same terms as the last one in 1707.
    No scottish parliament and no devolution anymore.
    If Scotland votes for Independence there will not be another Union.

    In 1707 England had good reason to form a Union with Scotland, to secure itself with a land border and reduce the risk of invasion from the Continent.

    There is no such pressing need in the 21st century.
    Really? Why?

    Perfectly possible we might get a land border again, which becomes a barrier to trade and migration.

    Defence might also be compromised. Russia (and in future China) may be able to penetrate Scotland's sea and air defences more or less at will, thus compromising the mutual defence of the entire British isles.

    The sensible thing would be to have permanent rUk/NATO bases in Scotland with a joint defence strategy, but politics might preclude that.
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    someone trying to shout down Jim Murphy doing a Sky News interview with heckles such as "nasty britnats"...
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Neither YES nor NO like to make a comparison with Ireland, even though as a country which left the UK you'd have thought it was the obvious comparison to make.

    Oh but wait a minute - it's neutral.

    But just wait for the Orange Order march in Edinburgh... There's bound to be trouble, given how YES have fired up so many of their activists. Anyone who has witnessed an Orange walk knows that the Orangemen do like to, er, 'respond' to any insults received.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:


    During the five years of EU negotiation twixt iScotland and Brussels there will be approximately zero foreign direct investment north of the Border.

    The FUK will also suffer, of course.

    FUK will presumably also be suffering from the negotiations between Westminster and Brussels and the uncertainty surrounding the result of the 2017 referendum on EU membership.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014

    Speedy said:

    Alistair said:

    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    The oil will run out in 10 years? Where did I hear the before? Oh yes, in the 70's, then in the 80's then in the 90's and now. It's amazing that all theses oil companies have made a record year of investment in the continental shelf only for it to be drained and gone by 2024.
    Look for yourself.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/crude-oil-production

    Scotland will be bankrupt in 10 years and england should demand in exchange for a bailout the same terms as the last one in 1707.
    No scottish parliament and no devolution anymore.
    If Scotland votes for Independence there will not be another Union.

    In 1707 England had good reason to form a Union with Scotland, to secure itself with a land border and reduce the risk of invasion from the Continent.

    There is no such pressing need in the 21st century.
    England will demand no less in the event of a scottish bankruptcy than last time.
    The excuse that it's not 1707 is very hollow, the 21st century is not different in its foreign affairs than the 18th, countries are still invaded and annexed.

    Scotland will lose its parliament and independence again, once the oil runs out.
  • SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
    It will come down to negotiation - a few of which the Scots may get (non-Shengen may be among them), many which it will not - the UK rebate and exemptions (eg VAT on food) it is unlikely to.

    And what company is going to invest in Scotland until they know Scotland's true position vis a vis the euro, Schengen, VAT, etc

    During the five years of EU negotiation twixt iScotland and Brussels there will be approximately zero foreign direct investment north of the Border.

    The FUK will also suffer, of course.
    I sense that Salmond and the SNP want all of that so they can play a full part in grandstanding in the council chambers of the EU. However, their voters probably don't.
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    someone trying to shout down Jim Murphy doing a Sky News interview with heckles such as "nasty britnats"...

    Oh, the humanity!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    PeterC said:

    If things go badly what would prevent the partition of Scotland? The borders will vote strongly against independence even if the overall result is YES. It's how things are in Ireland after all.

    Ireland was partitioned before independence, not after.
  • Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1m

    someone trying to shout down Jim Murphy doing a Sky News interview with heckles such as "nasty britnats"...

    Oh, the humanity!
    I was disappointed that no one shouted Britnat turnip
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited September 2014
    Speedy said:

    There wont be any negotiation, Spain and Italy will force the EU to be very hostile towards scotland. Together with england they will do everything they can to cutoff scotland from the rest of the world.
    Be it trade, be it finance, be it movement of people, you name it, they'll ban it.

    Spain certainly won't. They are very keen on fish.

    Both sides have been talking arrant nonsense on the question of the EU. Of course Salmond's nonsense was the more ridiculous of the two - the idea that Scotland would suddenly automatically become a member of the EU was completely laughable. On the other side, the suggestion that Scotland would be locked out of access to EU markets is, in practice, scarcely less silly.

    The question is, not whether an independent Scotland could eventually become a full EU member, but on what terms and in what timescale. You are right that there is a political issue in respect of Spain in particular, and that is likely to delay things, possibly for some years. But in the meantime there would certainly be some interim agreement to allow trade (and fishing!) to continue with as little disruption as possible.
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389
    Carnyx said:

    a far, far better actual example in the also famous Lewis Chessmen (illegally expropriated from HM the Queen's forebear under Scots law of Bona Vacantia, and whose restitution, if to Lewis, has actually been discussed)).

    The Lewis theme in the usual provenance story is as fake as the rest of it.

  • Neil said:

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Isnt the point that the Free State and successor states never had a currency union with the UK? So that's not what a currency union means.

    (Of course Ireland went from being in the Sterling sphere to the DM sphere in 1978 and rejecting a currency union could well see Scotland making a similar journey in the future. It's hard to see how that would benefit the rest of the UK.)

    Nope. There was a currency union (sterling) from '22 to '27. From then on until 1978 every Irish pound was backed by a deposit in the BoE in sterling or of British government bonds.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited September 2014
    SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
    It will come down to negotiation - a few of which the Scots may get (non-Shengen may be among them), many which it will not - the UK rebate and exemptions (eg VAT on food) it is unlikely to.

    The FUK will also suffer, of course.
    Actually I'm beginning to think it will not. As reality bites in the Jockanese Kingdom of Bankruptopia there will be a flight of capital, jobs, investment and wealthier individuals to the south. There's a real risk IMHO that the horror of what they just did could see Scotland getting hollowed out and England inadvertently getting the cream. It would be a tragedy of epic propotions for Scotland but if this happens and iScot goes all Venezuela while England sucks all the wealth out then who should the newly impoverished Scots look to for blame or succour? I'm sure it will somehow end being Maggie's fault. Or Edward Longshanks'.

    We may end up with a tartan Albania for a neighbour.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Isnt the point that the Free State and successor states never had a currency union with the UK? So that's not what a currency union means.

    (Of course Ireland went from being in the Sterling sphere to the DM sphere in 1978 and rejecting a currency union could well see Scotland making a similar journey in the future. It's hard to see how that would benefit the rest of the UK.)

    Nope. There was a currency union (sterling) from '22 to '27. From then on until 1978 every Irish pound was backed by a deposit in the BoE in sterling or of British government bonds.
    No - the Free State used Sterling in the early years. That was not a currency union.

    Then the Free State fixed it's exchange rate to Sterling. Again, not a currency union.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014
    Neil said:

    PeterC said:

    If things go badly what would prevent the partition of Scotland? The borders will vote strongly against independence even if the overall result is YES. It's how things are in Ireland after all.

    Ireland was partitioned before independence, not after.
    Its a good idea to partition an independent scotland, the borders and the islands (were the oil is) actually want to become independent from scotland.
    Any negotiation should revolve on an independence referendum from scotland for the orkneys, the shetlands and the hebrides.

    That would show the SNP.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited September 2014
    Patrick said:

    SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    panic mode. But I can live with either a Yes or a No. I'm mildly concerned, so are my leftie friends, and clearly it's good that the party is trying to persuade supporters to vote no. But it's not a potential calamity - that's just the media selling papers with their usual arm-waving. It's a matter for the Scots - we'd be sorry to lose them, both as Brits and as lefties, but it's really up to them. And if you talked to the average English voter, you'd find that's I suspect a fudge could be reached. Getting out of VAT on food and the other UK exemptions on the other hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).
    It will come down to negotiation - a few of which the Scots may get (non-Shengen may be among them), many which it will not - the UK rebate and exemptions (eg VAT on food) it is unlikely to.

    The FUK will also suffer, of course.
    Actually I'm beginning to think it will not. As reality bites in the Jockanese Kingdom of Bankruptopia there will be a flight of capital, jobs, investment and wealthier individuals to the south. There's a real risk IMHO that the horror of what they just did could see Scotland getting hollowed out and England inadvertently getting the cream. It would be a tragedy of epic propotions for Scotland but if this happens and iScot goes all Venezuela while England sucks all the wealth out then who should the newly impoverished Scots look to for blame or succour? I'm sure it will somehow end being Maggie's fault. Or Edward Longshanks'.

    We may end up with a tartan Albania for a neighbour.
    Some enterprising 'yes' campaigner should copy and paste some of the more entertaining posts from today's thread and turn it into campaign material.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Afternoon troops. Been driving down the A9 this morning from Easter Ross to sunny Comrie near Crieff. Reckon the YES posters beat the NO posters 5:1 on roadside sites. Almost all the NO posters I saw were in the Crieff area which is as Tory as one can get in Perthshire these days.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    Neil said:

    PeterC said:

    If things go badly what would prevent the partition of Scotland? The borders will vote strongly against independence even if the overall result is YES. It's how things are in Ireland after all.

    Ireland was partitioned before independence, not after.

    It's an issue that could just come into play before independence too. Passions would be running extremely high.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:

    Speedy said:

    FPT:

    Roger said:

    I met someone this morning who told me that as Scotland were not likely to be accepted immediately (if at all) into the EU it would be compulsory according to EU rules to have a closed border between Scotland and England.

    As I'm sure this will have been examined on these threads ad nauseam can someone answer this smart arse conundrum?

    Not true.
    pr hand....
    The EU would have every interest to kick an independent scotland in its balls, lest some others get ideas (catalonia, venice ect).

    The above is just a horrible response from Nick, someone who I usually have a lot of time for. As a leftie I am furious that Labour has been so complacent, absolutely disgusted at the lies being peddled by the SNP and flabbergasted at the credulous self-indulgence of the yes supporting leftie commentariat in Scotland, whose naïve posturing about the rebirth of social democracy is aiding nationalists create a new international border as a precursor to years of terrible austerity for the Scottish people and a good deal of worry down south too. It's self-harming nihilism the likes of which I think is unprecedented in recent British (world?) history. Nick you should be fuming. Labour has played a central part in letting down the Scottish and British people, so leading to this forthcoming separation that will only cause pain for all involved. A consolation, I guess, is that the divorce will force the left in England and Wales to take a long, hard look at itself and finally to engage with this century. But the break-up of the UK is not a price worth paying for that.
    You know why Nick is like this. He's admitted it himself. He has no patriotic feelings for Britain, he has no patriotic feelings for anywhere, apart from a mild liking for Switzerland. He does not understand patriotism, as he has confessed on here - and he probably mistrusts it.

    So it matters not a whit to him if our United Kingdom breaks up, except that it might make it a little harder for him to win Broxtowe.

    There are far too many people like him in Labour, who either don't care about Britain (like Nick) or actively dislike Britain, and will secretly rejoice at its dismemberment. Thus our present appalling situation, as Labour have been "leading" the fight in Scotland.
    This is clear on other topics. He thinks knowledge and understanding of British history is completely unimportant. To him there's nothing special that binds this country together. That's why he's happy to bring in people from anywhere in the world, and doesn't care about the cultural effects.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited September 2014
    Yes ahead, helps sell newspapers, fills air time, triggers a run on Scottish financial firms and fills the internet with comments. Has there has been a fundamental flaw with past polling methods, or have Scots had been looking at the not proven option for a long time?
  • On another note, it has been amazing to hear so many French voices here in Hong Kong. I asked about it at our office today and was told that after London Hong Kong is the most popular destination for emigrants from France. They mainly come over to work in luxury goods and the burgeoning wine trade apparently.
  • Afternoon troops. Been driving down the A9 this morning from Easter Ross to sunny Comrie near Crieff. Reckon the YES posters beat the NO posters 5:1 on roadside sites. Almost all the NO posters I saw were in the Crieff area which is as Tory as one can get in Perthshire these days.

    Easterross, the posters seem to be having the effect the YES campaign want them to have on you: destroying your morale and increasing your despondency.

    Ignore them. Don't let them grind you down. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

    Please don't give up.
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389

    The question is, not whether an independent Scotland could eventually become a full EU member, but on what terms and in what timescale.

    True - and then there is the question of whether they could actually meet those terms.

    One of the terms would be that they protect bank account deposits to the tune of the first €100,000 (£85000). That's hard to do if you haven't got a central bank or lender of last resort, and if the Herfindahl index of your retail banking system is over 3000, with two banks accounting for about 70% of it. That said, both RBS and Lloyds would move south. But rUK isn't going to protect Scottish accounts with rUK-registered banks. (Why should it?)

    Lloyds only registered in Scotland after being broken up on EU orders, because it was so appallingly managed. Moving back south might come at great cost. It's not something they could just push a button to do.

  • Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Isnt the point that the Free State and successor states never had a currency union with the UK? So that's not what a currency union means.

    (Of course Ireland went from being in the Sterling sphere to the DM sphere in 1978 and rejecting a currency union could well see Scotland making a similar journey in the future. It's hard to see how that would benefit the rest of the UK.)

    Nope. There was a currency union (sterling) from '22 to '27. From then on until 1978 every Irish pound was backed by a deposit in the BoE in sterling or of British government bonds.
    No - the Free State used Sterling in the early years. That was not a currency union.

    Then the Free State fixed it's exchange rate to Sterling. Again, not a currency union.
    You seem to be missing the point.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Interesting to compare the experiences of Ireland. I believe John Bruton has said that from 1922 to 1978 interest rates were determined in London without any Irish input, and they went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain. Ireland used sterling from 1922 to 1927, but then started running its own currency at 1:1 parity with Sterling. Neither made any difference to that fundamental point.

    That's what a currency union without any political union means.

    Isnt the point that the Free State and successor states never had a currency union with the UK? So that's not what a currency union means.

    (Of course Ireland went from being in the Sterling sphere to the DM sphere in 1978 and rejecting a currency union could well see Scotland making a similar journey in the future. It's hard to see how that would benefit the rest of the UK.)

    Nope. There was a currency union (sterling) from '22 to '27. From then on until 1978 every Irish pound was backed by a deposit in the BoE in sterling or of British government bonds.
    No - the Free State used Sterling in the early years. That was not a currency union.

    Then the Free State fixed it's exchange rate to Sterling. Again, not a currency union.
    You seem to be missing the point.
    Was the point that you dont know what a currency union is?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Speedy said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt, for Whoever it Was:



    Do you honesty, sincerely, really believe there will be a formal currency union? The ONLY way such a thing would be acceptable to English voters, bankers and politicians is if England had total, unilateral control over Scotland's taxes, borrowing, spending, etc: as we know, from bitter experience in euroland, that is the only way currency unions can work.

    Scotland would be significantly less independent than she is now: she would be told what to do by England, without any MPs in Westminster.

    Therefore, a formal currency union would surely be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.

    Consequently, if you do believe that a formal currency union will happen, you are very stupid, or you accept that independence will be a sham.

    What concerns me is how many Scots haven't realised this: how many share your beliefs.

    Just like with Panama and the dollar, scotland will have the english pound with the amount controlled by the Bank of England. So the scottish pound notes and coins that exist now will have to be withdrawn from circulation.

    But the monetary effects will be interesting, scotland would need higher interest rates due to the oil revenues, while england will need lower rates.
    Inflation will be higher in scotland and lower in england and the price differences will favour english products, just like in the eurozone between Germany and everyone else.

    The oil money also will be concentrated in the SNP hands as its scotland's largest revenue, and as scotish private businesses will get squeezed by the dutch disease, until the oil runs out Salmond can play Gaddafi of the North.
    But the oil will run out, at this rate, in 10 years.
    As I have said before, the oil companies will want - and ultimately will get - a better tax deal from iScotland than it currently gets from the UK Exchequer. That is just the way of risk on massive infrastructure projects. So all the tax projections of the SNP will have to be seriously discounted.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Easterross

    Last week driving from Inverness to Oban it was Yes winning 7:3 on posters,plus a Yes stall in Fort William town centre.

    But zero posters on Mull & Iona !
  • John_NJohn_N Posts: 389
    SeanT said:

    I particularly loved the "independence won't be independence but it will still be independence" line.

    This is par for the course - trying to win over the middle ground by saying you're not so different from the other side. Some YESsers are now saying independence wouldn't be a big change, so let's go for it. (So says billionaire Jim McColl). And some NOers are saying "the status quo isn't an option", and NO means 'more power to Scotland' (So says Gordon Brown.)

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336
    john_zims said:

    @Easterross

    Last week driving from Inverness to Oban it was Yes winning 7:3 on posters,plus a Yes stall in Fort William town centre.

    But zero posters on Mull & Iona !

    Rechecked a former Labour core area this morning - now increased to 10:1 (and two flagpoles with Saltires). And it is not an area where a No poster would attract a brick more than a Yes one.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Speedy said:

    Everyone is talking about an independent scotland, but no one is thinking about what happens when the oil runs out in 10 years?

    Will a bankrupt scotland go cap in hand for an english bailout and will see a repeat of 1707?

    No - Norway will just buy it....

  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    @Roger FPT border control compulsory if Scotland not in EU - not true, Channel Islands are not in EU but are in common travel area.

    CI-their visas are granted through UK embassies.
    Will Scottish visas be issued by the UK?
    Will Scotland be invited into the CTA?
This discussion has been closed.