Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
To be fair, the latter problem is the product of the ramshackle architecture of devolution. That's Blair's fault, aided and abetted by all the even more useless Prime Ministers who have followed him and failed to correct the flaws.
As to blaming the English, well, it's easy and it's popular, isn't it? I imagine that some people in Scotland will still be blaming England for every problem that befalls them in a thousand years' time.
Oh yes goes with the territory but at elections their MSPs will need to find an actual answer they can come up with instead of blaming London. Post-independence simply saying "London is the problem, they need to fix this/we need independence" will no longer be an answer.
I don’t see how immediate Scottish membership of both the Euro and the EU would give rUK a “bloody nose”. It would be good for them and by extension us.
It would mean tariffs on Scottish exports and English exports if we were on WTO terms Brexit and border posts across the Scottish border
There will be no tariffs because Boris is currently negotiating the easiest deal in history with the EU. Nowt to worry about.
In all seriousness, who cares if there’s tariffs and border posts? That is what we voted for isn’t it?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
The EU likes a lot of fudge but the Euro entry rules are strict
They are. They can also be amended by the same method as accepting new members.
Given that Scotland doesn't have its own currency it seems reasonable to me that if the Scots want to join the EU and the Euro simultaneously that the EU could unanimously agree to amend the Euro membership rules for the unique circumstances of Scotland. They could maintain the existing rules for any nation with its own pre-existing currency.
The problem with Scotland is not that it doesn't satisfy the rules but it doesn't even have its own currency in order to begin satisfying the rules. So changing the rules to address that seems an equally valid answer.
Internal polling revealed by the Telegraph earlier this week claimed that by next year Labour would be consistently five per cent ahead of the Conservative party due to growing public disillusionment over the party’s competence in Government.
Polling parity soon!
Yep. As I have posted several times: Johnson will be seriously behind by next summer.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
You should be able to run a donkey against Trump and win. The Democrats chose Biden. Ho hum.
Biden is still ahead though by 9% after his convention and before Trump's do, had the Democrats picked Sanders I would expect Trump to have been ahead by the end of his convention.
I suspect you're right.
I operate as a charity for US political betting. My only claim to fame is that I didn't oppose Trump in 2016.
If I was a US citizen though I'd be voting Trump, and that just as a not-Biden vote. I'd have voted Hillary last time without a thought.
That's interesting, what would be your rationale for that?
Biden should condemn the extreme behaviour of both sides and appeal for calm.
I think he's done that hasn't he?
So if he has, what else should he be doing? Appeals for calm aren't major news when the media is used to the shitstorm it is getting from the POTUS and 2020 in general.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
You should be able to run a donkey against Trump and win. The Democrats chose Biden. Ho hum.
Biden is still ahead though by 9% after his convention and before Trump's do, had the Democrats picked Sanders I would expect Trump to have been ahead by the end of his convention.
I suspect you're right.
I operate as a charity for US political betting. My only claim to fame is that I didn't oppose Trump in 2016.
If I was a US citizen though I'd be voting Trump, and that just as a not-Biden vote. I'd have voted Hillary last time without a thought.
That's interesting, what would be your rationale for that?
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
I don’t see how immediate Scottish membership of both the Euro and the EU would give rUK a “bloody nose”. It would be good for them and by extension us.
It would mean tariffs on Scottish exports and English exports if we were on WTO terms Brexit and border posts across the Scottish border
There will be no tariffs because Boris is currently negotiating the easiest deal in history with the EU. Nowt to worry about.
In all seriousness, who cares if there’s tariffs and border posts? That is what we voted for isn’t it?
And if we get a great trade deal with the EU no need for Scottish independence then either.
Tariffs and border posts would hit Scotland more though as 70% of Scottish exports go to England
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
Internal polling revealed by the Telegraph earlier this week claimed that by next year Labour would be consistently five per cent ahead of the Conservative party due to growing public disillusionment over the party’s competence in Government.
Polling parity soon!
Yep. As I have posted several times: Johnson will be seriously behind by next summer.
And that would not be remotely unusual.
Absolutely. But it's good to point out that Johnson is not above the normal swing of politics as the grind of actually running an administration takes the toll.
I don’t see how immediate Scottish membership of both the Euro and the EU would give rUK a “bloody nose”. It would be good for them and by extension us.
It would mean tariffs on Scottish exports and English exports if we were on WTO terms Brexit and border posts across the Scottish border
There will be no tariffs because Boris is currently negotiating the easiest deal in history with the EU. Nowt to worry about.
In all seriousness, who cares if there’s tariffs and border posts? That is what we voted for isn’t it?
And if we get a great trade deal with the EU no need for Scottish independence then either.
Tariffs and border posts would hit Scotland more though as 70% of Scottish exports go to England
Whether there is a “need” for Scottish Independence is not yours to determine.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
I suppose that might be theoretically possible. Of course, the logic of jumping out of a currency union where you fret constantly about your interests being dominated by your larger neighbour, and into a currency union where your interests will be entirely dictated by those of your many larger partners (and where there's no effective mechanism for fiscal transfers and the ongoing issuance of common debt either) is somewhat questionable. But Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, not Vulcan.
If you consider yourself Scottish and not British then the logic makes sense to me. In the EU they'd be one small member of many - in the UK they're one small member next to one that has 90% of the votes.
Its like going a young adult going from their parents house into a house share they share with their mates - even if they don't control everything they've not got someone essentially saying "my house, my rules".
Not really since they do have a say in those rules at the moment - so the parental "do as you're told" analogy doesn't really work. It's more that they're in a house with one Welsh mate, a NI mate who pops in occasionally and eight English mates.
Nationalism begets nationalism. If Scotland was still returning mainly Unionist MPs they'd be far more influential at Westminster and part of a national UK conversation, including being far better represented in UK Government and in the official opposition.
Since they've chosen to return almost entirely SNP MPs they've cut themselves out of that thus fuelling the SNPs own arguments.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements. Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
I see no reason it would not work for a considerable time.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
I suppose that might be theoretically possible. Of course, the logic of jumping out of a currency union where you fret constantly about your interests being dominated by your larger neighbour, and into a currency union where your interests will be entirely dictated by those of your many larger partners (and where there's no effective mechanism for fiscal transfers and the ongoing issuance of common debt either) is somewhat questionable. But Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, not Vulcan.
If you consider yourself Scottish and not British then the logic makes sense to me. In the EU they'd be one small member of many - in the UK they're one small member next to one that has 90% of the votes.
Its like going a young adult going from their parents house into a house share they share with their mates - even if they don't control everything they've not got someone essentially saying "my house, my rules".
Not really since they do have a say in those rules at the moment - so the parental "do as you're told" analogy doesn't really work. It's more that they're in a house with one Welsh mate, a NI mate who pops in occasionally and eight English mates.
Nationalism begets nationalism. If Scotland was still returning mainly Unionist MPs they'd be far more influential at Westminster and part of a national UK conversation, including being far better represented in UK Government and in the official opposition.
Since they've chosen to return almost entirely SNP MPs they've cut themselves out of that thus fuelling the SNPs own arguments.
Indeed but that's why I started my post with "if you consider yourself Scottish not British . . . "
Ultimately the Union will survive if people feel British - and if they don't, why should it?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
I suppose that might be theoretically possible. Of course, the logic of jumping out of a currency union where you fret constantly about your interests being dominated by your larger neighbour, and into a currency union where your interests will be entirely dictated by those of your many larger partners (and where there's no effective mechanism for fiscal transfers and the ongoing issuance of common debt either) is somewhat questionable. But Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, not Vulcan.
If you consider yourself Scottish and not British then the logic makes sense to me. In the EU they'd be one small member of many - in the UK they're one small member next to one that has 90% of the votes.
Its like going a young adult going from their parents house into a house share they share with their mates - even if they don't control everything they've not got someone essentially saying "my house, my rules".
It's not a particularly good analogy. It's more like leaving Mum and Dad's house to go to a not particularly nice boarding school, where you're one of many little snotlets who gets bossed or bullied by a variety of teachers and prefects.
Independence buys Scotland a lot of power. Joining the EU means giving a lot of it away again. Joining the Euro leaves it weaker as a minuscule fraction of the Eurozone than it is as 8% of the UK. Its debts would be denominated in a currency it did not control, it couldn't print its own money, its interest rates would be set to suit the collective (Germany first, France second, everyone else nowhere,) its exchange rates would be determined by the performance of its larger partners and not of the Scottish economy, and there would be no fiscal transfers to help correct the imbalances in the system.
Now, you might think that all of that's worth it for the advantages of being a part of the EU's inner circle, but that's a lot of compromises to be making.
Remember that certain posters on here advocate for giving a post-independent Scotland as much grievance fuel as possible by trying to “screw them” in negotiations. Seems sensible.
Biden should condemn the extreme behaviour of both sides and appeal for calm.
I think he's done that hasn't he?
So if he has, what else should he be doing? Appeals for calm aren't major news when the media is used to the shitstorm it is getting from the POTUS and 2020 in general.
If he has, I've missed it.
It's important to get a message right that both sides here: his base need to hear he's against federal overreach and police violence but the WWC swing voters in places like Minnesota also need to hear he isn't going to put up with Marxist anarchy either.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
Fair bunch of tossers on here, wishing every evil possible for Scotland. You personally are not included in that, you are one of the decent ones. Pretty sickening to see the bile spouted on here about Scotland by many though. PS: the same dumb Fcuks then wonder why England is hated across the world.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
Yes, I think so since most Scottish nationalism is fuelled by an inferiority complex vis-a-vis England.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
Indeed.
Such arguments won't work with the 45.
The question is whether it's enough to sway soft unionists from last time again.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
You should be able to run a donkey against Trump and win. The Democrats chose Biden. Ho hum.
Biden is still ahead though by 9% after his convention and before Trump's do, had the Democrats picked Sanders I would expect Trump to have been ahead by the end of his convention.
I suspect you're right.
I operate as a charity for US political betting. My only claim to fame is that I didn't oppose Trump in 2016.
If I was a US citizen though I'd be voting Trump, and that just as a not-Biden vote. I'd have voted Hillary last time without a thought.
That's interesting, what would be your rationale for that?
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
You should be able to run a donkey against Trump and win. The Democrats chose Biden. Ho hum.
Biden is still ahead though by 9% after his convention and before Trump's do, had the Democrats picked Sanders I would expect Trump to have been ahead by the end of his convention.
I suspect you're right.
I operate as a charity for US political betting. My only claim to fame is that I didn't oppose Trump in 2016.
If I was a US citizen though I'd be voting Trump, and that just as a not-Biden vote. I'd have voted Hillary last time without a thought.
That's interesting, what would be your rationale for that?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Why?
Catalonia.
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation." Estaban Pons
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements. Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
I see no reason it would not work for a considerable time.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Considerable yes - not forever. There's a reason there's a pendulum effect in normal politics - such arguments lose their potency as time goes on.
Gordon Brown tried to use it 13 years into a Labour administration . . . and the voters said "jog on" and turned to the Opposition.
The Tories used it for the better part of a decade, but have stopped using it already, because it wouldn't be potent anymore. Instead to win the 2019 election there was negligible attacks on the last Labour government and instead Boris managed to rejuvenate the appeal of the party going forwards - gaining an almost unprecedented increase in both share of the vote and number of seats after nearly a decade of governance. If the election campaign had been a campaign against Brown and Blair then Boris would have lost.
Blaming London has worked for nearly a decade and a half for the SNP in Holyrood and they're stronger than ever as a result. Its not losing any potency as its still perceived to bea real issue. Blaming London might work post-independence for a decade or two max, but after that the Scottish voters would demand their own solutions and if the government is still doing that they'll turn to other politicians who offer their own solutions.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
I suppose that might be theoretically possible. Of course, the logic of jumping out of a currency union where you fret constantly about your interests being dominated by your larger neighbour, and into a currency union where your interests will be entirely dictated by those of your many larger partners (and where there's no effective mechanism for fiscal transfers and the ongoing issuance of common debt either) is somewhat questionable. But Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, not Vulcan.
If you consider yourself Scottish and not British then the logic makes sense to me. In the EU they'd be one small member of many - in the UK they're one small member next to one that has 90% of the votes.
Its like going a young adult going from their parents house into a house share they share with their mates - even if they don't control everything they've not got someone essentially saying "my house, my rules".
Not really since they do have a say in those rules at the moment - so the parental "do as you're told" analogy doesn't really work. It's more that they're in a house with one Welsh mate, a NI mate who pops in occasionally and eight English mates.
Nationalism begets nationalism. If Scotland was still returning mainly Unionist MPs they'd be far more influential at Westminster and part of a national UK conversation, including being far better represented in UK Government and in the official opposition.
Since they've chosen to return almost entirely SNP MPs they've cut themselves out of that thus fuelling the SNPs own arguments.
Indeed but that's why I started my post with "if you consider yourself Scottish not British . . . "
Ultimately the Union will survive if people feel British - and if they don't, why should it?
I agree it can only survive in the long-term if British identity continues to have purchase.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
Still bit early to be definitive. Though rrend since 1992 has been for limited post-convo bumps.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Why?
Catalonia.
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation." Estaban Pons
Biden should condemn the extreme behaviour of both sides and appeal for calm.
I think he's done that hasn't he?
So if he has, what else should he be doing? Appeals for calm aren't major news when the media is used to the shitstorm it is getting from the POTUS and 2020 in general.
If he has, I've missed it.
It's important to get a message right that both sides here: his base need to hear he's against federal overreach and police violence but the WWC swing voters in places like Minnesota also need to hear he isn't going to put up with Marxist anarchy either.
I urge the protesters to exercise their rights peacefully and safely. But people all across this country are enraged and rightly so. Every day African Americans go about their lives with constant anxiety and trauma of wondering, “Will I be next?” Sounds like an exaggeration but it’s not. These tragedies, these injustices, cut at the very heart of our most sacred of beliefs: that all Americans, equal in rights and in dignity, are part of an ingrained systemic cycle of racism and oppression...throughout every part of our society.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
Of course there is a positive vision, it's the whole point of being better together which unions (be they the UK or the EU) will always have as their go to move.
What may be lacking is sufficiently enthusiastic proponents of the positive vision (in the case of the EU, these mostly emerged after the vote had already occurred). But it's just plain silly to declare there is no possible positive vision, just because it is not used often enough or put well.
The thing about project fears is that it can certainly be overdone and thus become ineffective, but there are things people genuinely should be scared by, but anything negative automatically gets viewed as scaremongering (which is felt to be inherently false) if people have already made up their minds to go the other way.
Project fears only work if enough people still support for positive reasons to be firmed up by concerns. If project fears do not work, it is because the battle was already lost. That's why love bombing likely needs to be relentless.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
Still bit early to be definitive. Though rrend since 1992 has been for limited post-convo bumps.
I don't find it at all surprising that this year there would be no convention bounce - the electorate is already so polarized and energized that the "don't knows" are probably "will never cares"
Edit: i.e. they are the parts that even Heineken cannot reach
Can someone explain something to me about the QAnon loons please?
They're still banging on about Hillary and conspiracies like that Hillary kills children. Has nobody told them that its not 2016 anymore and to amend their conspiracies to being about Biden instead?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
It worked in 2014.
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
"The polls show that of the states holding gubernatorial elections in 2021-22, there are 10 Republican governors with job approval ratings related to managing the pandemic are under 45%; seven have approval ratings above 50%. The only Republican governors with strong job approval numbers are those who have been willing to challenge Trump’s handling of the virus."
I read that as saying that, even in GOP states, the population is to the left of Trump.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements. Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
I see no reason it would not work for a considerable time.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Considerable yes - not forever. There's a reason there's a pendulum effect in normal politics - such arguments lose their potency as time goes on.
Gordon Brown tried to use it 13 years into a Labour administration . . . and the voters said "jog on" and turned to the Opposition.
The Tories used it for the better part of a decade, but have stopped using it already, because it wouldn't be potent anymore. Instead to win the 2019 election there was negligible attacks on the last Labour government and instead Boris managed to rejuvenate the appeal of the party going forwards - gaining an almost unprecedented increase in both share of the vote and number of seats after nearly a decade of governance. If the election campaign had been a campaign against Brown and Blair then Boris would have lost.
Blaming London has worked for nearly a decade and a half for the SNP in Holyrood and they're stronger than ever as a result. Its not losing any potency as its still perceived to bea real issue. Blaming London might work post-independence for a decade or two max, but after that the Scottish voters would demand their own solutions and if the government is still doing that they'll turn to other politicians who offer their own solutions.
A decade or two will be enough. Getting over the line is all that matters, it'll be too late to go back after that, what would the SNP care if they lose control 15 years after having achieved their lifetime ambition? The UK will never reform once broken this time.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
Fair bunch of tossers on here, wishing every evil possible for Scotland. You personally are not included in that, you are one of the decent ones. Pretty sickening to see the bile spouted on here about Scotland by many though. PS: the same dumb Fcuks then wonder why England is hated across the world.
Most powerful countries are hated, the USSR, the USA, the British Empire, China, Japan, Germany, Israel etc comes with the territory
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Why?
Catalonia.
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation." Estaban Pons
So you're quoting one MEP at me.
Ok.
Well the alternative is you making stuff up so I'll go with quoting Spanish political figures for now.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
Fair bunch of tossers on here, wishing every evil possible for Scotland. You personally are not included in that, you are one of the decent ones. Pretty sickening to see the bile spouted on here about Scotland by many though. PS: the same dumb Fcuks then wonder why England is hated across the world.
Most powerful countries are hated, the USSR, the USA, the British Empire, China, Japan, Germany, Israel etc comes with the territory
You can tell in your heart of hearts you are a Europhile-you missed out France. No self respecting Leaver would miss an opportunity to say France are universally hated!
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
It worked in 2014.
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
And yet you are now the biggest pompom waver for Bozo's rock-hard no-deal Brexit. Funny old world.
For example, HYUFD keeps saying Trumpsky got a +4% post-convo bounce in 2016. Yet analysis (see Politico.com) suggest that actual bounce was closer to +2%
NOT a criticism of HYUFD (on this point) but instead just saying, keep a pinch of salt handy at ALL times.
Which would still be higher than the 1% bounce Biden seems to have got even then
You should be able to run a donkey against Trump and win. The Democrats chose Biden. Ho hum.
Biden is still ahead though by 9% after his convention and before Trump's do, had the Democrats picked Sanders I would expect Trump to have been ahead by the end of his convention.
I suspect you're right.
I operate as a charity for US political betting. My only claim to fame is that I didn't oppose Trump in 2016.
If I was a US citizen though I'd be voting Trump, and that just as a not-Biden vote. I'd have voted Hillary last time without a thought.
That's interesting, what would be your rationale for that?
Can someone explain something to me about the QAnon loons please?
They're still banging on about Hillary and conspiracies like that Hillary kills children. Has nobody told them that its not 2016 anymore and to amend their conspiracies to being about Biden instead?
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
Fair bunch of tossers on here, wishing every evil possible for Scotland. You personally are not included in that, you are one of the decent ones. Pretty sickening to see the bile spouted on here about Scotland by many though. PS: the same dumb Fcuks then wonder why England is hated across the world.
Most powerful countries are hated, the USSR, the USA, the British Empire, China, Japan, Germany, Israel etc comes with the territory
You can tell in your heart of hearts you are a Europhile-you missed out France. No self respecting Leaver would miss an opportunity to say France are universally hated!
France would be hated if they had managed to win a few more wars, apart from Napoleon, instead they are just seen as prissy
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Why?
Catalonia.
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation." Estaban Pons
So you're quoting one MEP at me.
Ok.
Think about it logically. The Spanish are desperate to avoid giving succour to the Catalonians.
If Scotland goes independent then how do they do that? 1: Act with impotent rage against newly independent Scotland while not preventing it from becoming independent? 2: Insist that the situation in Scotland is nothing like the situation in Catalonia?
Realpolitik would mean they would need to need to go down route 2, which means they'd want to facilitate making things relatively simple for Scotland to show how different that is to Catalonia and how it was more a unique issue with the UK.
Can someone explain something to me about the QAnon loons please?
They're still banging on about Hillary and conspiracies like that Hillary kills children. Has nobody told them that its not 2016 anymore and to amend their conspiracies to being about Biden instead?
I think the loons would say that the entire Democratic party knows and is protecting HRC from investigation.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
It worked in 2014.
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
And yet you are now the biggest pompom waver for Bozo's rock-hard no-deal Brexit. Funny old world.
No I still would prefer a deal but I also respected the will of the people to leave the EU
Can someone explain something to me about the QAnon loons please?
They're still banging on about Hillary and conspiracies like that Hillary kills children. Has nobody told them that its not 2016 anymore and to amend their conspiracies to being about Biden instead?
I think the loons would say that the entire Democratic party knows and is protecting HRC from investigation.
Only Trump is prepared to take them on.
Yep, I am sure that they logics, such that there is, is that it is a general smear on all Democrats.
Partly because Tory idiots have boxed themselves in with a manifesto pledge not to raise VAT or income tax.
A manifesto promise does not box them in, particularly when incredibly relevant unforeseen circumstances would make justifying ditching said promise very easy to justify. Their own choices and gutlessness are what will constrain their decision-making, not some principled adherence to a manifesto.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements. Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
I see no reason it would not work for a considerable time.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Considerable yes - not forever. There's a reason there's a pendulum effect in normal politics - such arguments lose their potency as time goes on.
Gordon Brown tried to use it 13 years into a Labour administration . . . and the voters said "jog on" and turned to the Opposition.
The Tories used it for the better part of a decade, but have stopped using it already, because it wouldn't be potent anymore. Instead to win the 2019 election there was negligible attacks on the last Labour government and instead Boris managed to rejuvenate the appeal of the party going forwards - gaining an almost unprecedented increase in both share of the vote and number of seats after nearly a decade of governance. If the election campaign had been a campaign against Brown and Blair then Boris would have lost.
Blaming London has worked for nearly a decade and a half for the SNP in Holyrood and they're stronger than ever as a result. Its not losing any potency as its still perceived to bea real issue. Blaming London might work post-independence for a decade or two max, but after that the Scottish voters would demand their own solutions and if the government is still doing that they'll turn to other politicians who offer their own solutions.
A decade or two will be enough. Getting over the line is all that matters, it'll be too late to go back after that, what would the SNP care if they lose control 15 years after having achieved their lifetime ambition? The UK will never reform once broken this time.
Precisely. Which is why I support Scottish independence - as I think the UK is already broken post-1997, that "British" no longer has any meaning and that the Scots can in perpetuity within the UK blame London for their problems. But post-independence after a decade or two (which is not that long quite constitutionally) they'll be forced to own their own issues.
Partly because Tory idiots have boxed themselves in with a manifesto pledge not to raise VAT or income tax.
A manifesto promise does not box them in, particularly when incredibly relevant unforeseen circumstances would make justifying ditching said promise very easy to justify. Their own choices and gutlessness are what will constrain their decision-making, not some principled adherence to a manifesto.
But why would you raise taxes during a crash anyway? Cutting them is what you need to do, not raise them!
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements.
The biggest issue may well turn out to be the sterling denominated debts of individuals and businesses in Scotland, which are owed primarily to institutions based in London. Assuming that the Scottish Parliament post-independence didn't attempt to convert them all to Scottish currency (which, for ease of reference, I'll refer to as dollars) by legislation - which would be a form of default and have very unwelcome consequences - then people in Scotland are going to be stuck with paying down their existing stock of debts in sterling whilst receiving their earnings in dollars.
Thus, if the dollar depreciates relative to the pound then the burden of the debt increases whilst Scottish exports to England become more competitive, whereas if the pound depreciates relative to the dollar then the inverse occurs. The only way to avoid these consequences of exchange rate volatility is to keep using the pound or to attempt to peg the dollar to it, both of which have the same effect of putting Scotland in an informal currency union with England, depriving it of important levers such as control of interest rates, and without the existing system of transfer payments to help make the arrangement workable. The relationship would be akin to that of Germany and one of the smaller states in the dysfunctional Eurozone: were the economic performances of Scotland and the rump UK to diverge significantly then Scotland would find itself stuck with an exchange rate and other policies tailored to the needs of its neighbour, with no recourse to a remedy.
Thinking about it, the Scottish Treasury would likely end up sharing a proportion of UK national debt as part of the carve-up of assets and liabilities, and that would also obviously be denominated in sterling, so probably the best option for Scotland is to float a new currency as soon as possible and then undertake a radical program of deregulation and tight control over spending, not unlike that instituted by Margaret Thatcher. The loss of transfer payments at independence will mean that existing Scottish public spending levels will be hard to sustain anyway, and a programme focussed on increasing Scotland's productivity and giving it sound money should yield more benefits, in terms of the effective reduction of Scotland's sterling-denominated debt pile through currency appreciation, than drawbacks.
Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
To be fair, the latter problem is the product of the ramshackle architecture of devolution. That's Blair's fault, aided and abetted by all the even more useless Prime Ministers who have followed him and failed to correct the flaws.
As to blaming the English, well, it's easy and it's popular, isn't it? I imagine that some people in Scotland will still be blaming England for every problem that befalls them in a thousand years' time.
Phillip's belief in the healing power of political separation is a wonder to behold.
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
Well, again, it's not entirely unlike Brexit - difficult but doable, and with a menu of possible choices to be made, none of which might necessarily be described as ideal. Obviously there's going to be a trade-off between bringing more policy levers under Scottish control and parting with some of the conveniences of the current arrangements. Yes, that might do the trick. Independence, followed by Adam Smith.
That's why I support Scottish independence. Because it will force Scotland to make grown up decisions and simply blaming the English or spending without being liable for taxes will no longer be an option.
Why would you assume independence would prevent the area becoming independent blaming others for its woes and the decisions it makes? Has independence ever prevented the blaming of outside forces?
Yes, the SNP would blame England for a bad Scexit deal even after independence
The SNP will blame England forevermore.
But will the voters accept that as justification post-Scexit?
I see no reason it would not work for a considerable time.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Considerable yes - not forever. There's a reason there's a pendulum effect in normal politics - such arguments lose their potency as time goes on.
Gordon Brown tried to use it 13 years into a Labour administration . . . and the voters said "jog on" and turned to the Opposition.
The Tories used it for the better part of a decade, but have stopped using it already, because it wouldn't be potent anymore. Instead to win the 2019 election there was negligible attacks on the last Labour government and instead Boris managed to rejuvenate the appeal of the party going forwards - gaining an almost unprecedented increase in both share of the vote and number of seats after nearly a decade of governance. If the election campaign had been a campaign against Brown and Blair then Boris would have lost.
Blaming London has worked for nearly a decade and a half for the SNP in Holyrood and they're stronger than ever as a result. Its not losing any potency as its still perceived to bea real issue. Blaming London might work post-independence for a decade or two max, but after that the Scottish voters would demand their own solutions and if the government is still doing that they'll turn to other politicians who offer their own solutions.
A decade or two will be enough. Getting over the line is all that matters, it'll be too late to go back after that, what would the SNP care if they lose control 15 years after having achieved their lifetime ambition? The UK will never reform once broken this time.
Precisely. Which is why I support Scottish independence - as I think the UK is already broken post-1997, that "British" no longer has any meaning and that the Scots can in perpetuity within the UK blame London for their problems. But post-independence after a decade or two (which is not that long quite constitutionally) they'll be forced to own their own issues.
They will still blame England, we will still be their closest neighbours so any economic problems will be England's fault for exploiting their smaller neighbour, the SNP will ensure it, that is their raison d'etre, hatred of England
If correct, that is some bounce back. I suspect though that it was the Swinsongasm as Prorogation and No Deal were on the cards, before the rug was pulled due to the "Oven ready" Deal.
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
I don’t know about most, malcolm. Certainly the loudest voices.
I don’t want to see Scottish independence, either, but that is no reason to deny another referendum, if that’s the democratic will of Scotland. Nor is it reason to seek anything but a cooperative relationship, should Scotland become independent.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
It worked in 2014.
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
And yet you are now the biggest pompom waver for Bozo's rock-hard no-deal Brexit. Funny old world.
No I still would prefer a deal but I also respected the will of the people to leave the EU
Which is why you are and will forever be a tory in name only. No true Conservative would "respect the will of the people" as expressed in something as unBritish and as profoundly incompatible with the constitution as a referendum. They might think for other reasons that leaving the EU was a good thing and that the Crown in Parliament should cause it to happen, but that's not the point.
Number (3) is possible, but difficult. And it would require the support of the IMF and the World Bank.
Is there not a way around #2?
Actually, a mix of two and three is probably the easiest option of all for an independent Scotland. The Scottish Groat would be pegged one-to-one with the Euro, and the ECB (on the basis that Scotland would be joining the EU in due course) could help support the peg.
Couldn't Scotland simply jump straight to #2?
It takes unanimity to join the EU and it takes unanimity to amend the EU treaties (including the single currency rules).
So with the unique nature of Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU could it not simply seek to jump straight from Britain & the pound to ending a transition period immediately in the EU & the Euro?
That would take unanimous agreement but so does simply joining in the first place. And if the EU decides it wants to facilitate Scottish membership of the EU (and inflict a bloody nose upon the UK) they could simply agree to it could they not?
Spain.
If the referendum isn't wildcat and is endorsed by the UK Parliament then I don't think Spain will have a problem with it. Spain will have a problem giving succour to a wildcat referendum.
Spain won't want to make it easy and painless for Scotland to join.
Sounds like project fear to me.
That's all they've got. There is no positive vision of Union to sell to the people of Scotland.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
It worked in 2014.
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
And yet you are now the biggest pompom waver for Bozo's rock-hard no-deal Brexit. Funny old world.
No I still would prefer a deal but I also respected the will of the people to leave the EU
Which is why you are and will forever be a tory in name only. No true Conservative would "respect the will of the people" as expressed in something as unBritish and as profoundly incompatible with the constitution as a referendum. They might think for other reasons that leaving the EU was a good thing and that the Crown in Parliament should cause it to happen, but that's not the point.
Well they also won a majority in Parliament to deliver Brexit last year and it was delivered.
Partly because Tory idiots have boxed themselves in with a manifesto pledge not to raise VAT or income tax.
A manifesto promise does not box them in, particularly when incredibly relevant unforeseen circumstances would make justifying ditching said promise very easy to justify. Their own choices and gutlessness are what will constrain their decision-making, not some principled adherence to a manifesto.
But why would you raise taxes during a crash anyway? Cutting them is what you need to do, not raise them!
There may be good or bad reasons for doing specific things at the present moment. The point was a fear of breaching a manifesto promise (or indeed for other matters upsetting the grey vote) would be an excuse to dodge certain options, not a good reason.
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
malcolm, I think there are a fair few on this site who believe firmly in self-determination. I for one think it silly for Westminster to talk about not allowing another referendum when the SNP is so dominant in Scotland and is calling for one. And even without neighbourly goodwill, it would simply be in England's self-interest to have a prosperous and happy Scotland on its doorstep post independence.
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
I don’t know about most, malcolm. Certainly the loudest voices.
I don’t want to see Scottish independence, either, but that is no reason to deny another referendum, if that’s the democratic will of Scotland. Nor is it reason to seek anything but a cooperative relationship, should Scotland become independent.
If Scotland goes English and Scottish relations will be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, with tariffs and border posts across the Borders most likely given the UK will likely be out of the single market and customs union by then
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
malcolm, I think there are a fair few on this site who believe firmly in self-determination. I for one think it silly for Westminster to talk about not allowing another referendum when the SNP is so dominant in Scotland and is calling for one. And even without neighbourly goodwill, it would simply be in England's self-interest to have a prosperous and happy Scotland on its doorstep post independence.
If Scotland was granted indyref2 and voted Yes London would correctly treat Edinburgh in as tough a manner as Brussels has treated London, no favours and as a foreign power
Scotland they are mainly in HDU if really sick , only in ICU if on ventilator, as far as I am aware.
What's the dream Scottish Nationalist path now Malcolm?
The SNP isn't quite what it was. Scottish Nationalism though is very much on the up.
Economically the idea is facing some hurdles.
Diplomatically too - I'm not sure the EU is that keen now.
I imagine you'll be generally of the view to wait a small while. Would you target a 2024 date? (There's a nice 10 year thing that can be sold in Westminster)
(It clashes with a likely GE, and that's not so good)
Sooner the better for me. If they do not make next year a vote on independence then the SNP will suffer badly. Will take time to organise referendum and then negotiate the split.
So if you could choose? 2024 seems a nice date to me - not a rush (10 years).
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Thanks, nice to see an intelligent decent post , most on here only wish us ill and are praying we end up destitute and wrecked, extremely sad.
malcolm, I think there are a fair few on this site who believe firmly in self-determination. I for one think it silly for Westminster to talk about not allowing another referendum when the SNP is so dominant in Scotland and is calling for one. And even without neighbourly goodwill, it would simply be in England's self-interest to have a prosperous and happy Scotland on its doorstep post independence.
If Scotland was granted indyref2 and voted Yes London would correctly treat Edinburgh in as tough a manner as Brussels has treated London, no favours and as a foreign power
Why, and why would that be correct rather than idiotic?
Comments
In all seriousness, who cares if there’s tariffs and border posts? That is what we voted for isn’t it?
Given that Scotland doesn't have its own currency it seems reasonable to me that if the Scots want to join the EU and the Euro simultaneously that the EU could unanimously agree to amend the Euro membership rules for the unique circumstances of Scotland. They could maintain the existing rules for any nation with its own pre-existing currency.
The problem with Scotland is not that it doesn't satisfy the rules but it doesn't even have its own currency in order to begin satisfying the rules. So changing the rules to address that seems an equally valid answer.
So if he has, what else should he be doing? Appeals for calm aren't major news when the media is used to the shitstorm it is getting from the POTUS and 2020 in general.
Tariffs and border posts would hit Scotland more though as 70% of Scottish exports go to England
What?
Nationalism begets nationalism. If Scotland was still returning mainly Unionist MPs they'd be far more influential at Westminster and part of a national UK conversation, including being far better represented in UK Government and in the official opposition.
Since they've chosen to return almost entirely SNP MPs they've cut themselves out of that thus fuelling the SNPs own arguments.
Take for example, the usual government response to criticism of blaming the last government. Gordon Brown actually used it 13 years into a Labour administration, and the Tories certainly have used it for the better part of a decade.
Such reasoning would be amplified in a seismically important change like independence (be it Brexit or Sindy), there will no doubt be some level of justification (though the amount disputed) and could well work for a long time. Particularly when it's treated like a rubicon having been crossed.
Ultimately the Union will survive if people feel British - and if they don't, why should it?
Independence buys Scotland a lot of power. Joining the EU means giving a lot of it away again. Joining the Euro leaves it weaker as a minuscule fraction of the Eurozone than it is as 8% of the UK. Its debts would be denominated in a currency it did not control, it couldn't print its own money, its interest rates would be set to suit the collective (Germany first, France second, everyone else nowhere,) its exchange rates would be determined by the performance of its larger partners and not of the Scottish economy, and there would be no fiscal transfers to help correct the imbalances in the system.
Now, you might think that all of that's worth it for the advantages of being a part of the EU's inner circle, but that's a lot of compromises to be making.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1297278025864814592
It's important to get a message right that both sides here: his base need to hear he's against federal overreach and police violence but the WWC swing voters in places like Minnesota also need to hear he isn't going to put up with Marxist anarchy either.
PS: the same dumb Fcuks then wonder why England is hated across the world.
In my opinion Luntz is whistling in the wind (I admit to not having a very high opinion of him).
Such arguments won't work with the 45.
The question is whether it's enough to sway soft unionists from last time again.
Your beef is with Biden??
I really don't want to see Scotland go, but if it is going to do so (and I think that likely) I'd really like you guys to have the best of the winds on your backs.
The covid thing has made this a bit more tricky, but perhaps a little bit of wind is out of the sails all round. Scotland, if it departs, will wish to seek the good wishes of the rest of us, and there's no doubt that you'll have them. No barging on really.
Gordon Brown tried to use it 13 years into a Labour administration . . . and the voters said "jog on" and turned to the Opposition.
The Tories used it for the better part of a decade, but have stopped using it already, because it wouldn't be potent anymore. Instead to win the 2019 election there was negligible attacks on the last Labour government and instead Boris managed to rejuvenate the appeal of the party going forwards - gaining an almost unprecedented increase in both share of the vote and number of seats after nearly a decade of governance. If the election campaign had been a campaign against Brown and Blair then Boris would have lost.
Blaming London has worked for nearly a decade and a half for the SNP in Holyrood and they're stronger than ever as a result. Its not losing any potency as its still perceived to bea real issue. Blaming London might work post-independence for a decade or two max, but after that the Scottish voters would demand their own solutions and if the government is still doing that they'll turn to other politicians who offer their own solutions.
Or Yorkshire, for that matter.
Austerity 2.0!
Ok.
I urge the protesters to exercise their rights peacefully and safely. But people all across this country are enraged and rightly so. Every day African Americans go about their lives with constant anxiety and trauma of wondering, “Will I be next?” Sounds like an exaggeration but it’s not. These tragedies, these injustices, cut at the very heart of our most sacred of beliefs: that all Americans, equal in rights and in dignity, are part of an ingrained systemic cycle of racism and oppression...throughout every part of our society.
What may be lacking is sufficiently enthusiastic proponents of the positive vision (in the case of the EU, these mostly emerged after the vote had already occurred). But it's just plain silly to declare there is no possible positive vision, just because it is not used often enough or put well.
The thing about project fears is that it can certainly be overdone and thus become ineffective, but there are things people genuinely should be scared by, but anything negative automatically gets viewed as scaremongering (which is felt to be inherently false) if people have already made up their minds to go the other way.
Project fears only work if enough people still support for positive reasons to be firmed up by concerns. If project fears do not work, it is because the battle was already lost. That's why love bombing likely needs to be relentless.
Edit: i.e. they are the parts that even Heineken cannot reach
They're still banging on about Hillary and conspiracies like that Hillary kills children. Has nobody told them that its not 2016 anymore and to amend their conspiracies to being about Biden instead?
It also worked in Quebec in 1995 where it was not love of Canada which saw a 51% No vote but companies starting to move out and fear of the economic damage with the carrot of devomax.
It almost worked in 2016, most of the 48% like me did not vote Remain out of any love of the EU but because we feared the economic damage of leaving it
"The polls show that of the states holding gubernatorial elections in 2021-22, there are 10 Republican governors with job approval ratings related to managing the pandemic are under 45%; seven have approval ratings above 50%. The only Republican governors with strong job approval numbers are those who have been willing to challenge Trump’s handling of the virus."
I read that as saying that, even in GOP states, the population is to the left of Trump.
And my low opinion of him is not based on the article.
Or something.
If Scotland goes independent then how do they do that?
1: Act with impotent rage against newly independent Scotland while not preventing it from becoming independent?
2: Insist that the situation in Scotland is nothing like the situation in Catalonia?
Realpolitik would mean they would need to need to go down route 2, which means they'd want to facilitate making things relatively simple for Scotland to show how different that is to Catalonia and how it was more a unique issue with the UK.
Only Trump is prepared to take them on.
I'll be missing you
I don’t want to see Scottish independence, either, but that is no reason to deny another referendum, if that’s the democratic will of Scotland. Nor is it reason to seek anything but a cooperative relationship, should Scotland become independent.
I'm guessing maybe Beibheirli_C but I'm not sure about her.
However, losing 50-odd anti-Tory MPs is a bit of a downer.