Honestly, I couldn’t tell you, that is the sort of information I would love to hear but feel national debates like this are more about emotional pleas to both sides than anything else. (Bit like the old debate about ‘are we better off in or out of the EU’? I don’t think the electorate ever gets a straight answer. Maybe nobody knows).
I was just perusing some polls (at whatscotlandthinks.org) and was surprised to note that support for independence is lowest among young voters. Whys is that? Is animosity towards the English less pronounced amongst the young? Or are they less nationalistic generally?
There is nothing which makes it automatically impossible for Scotland to join the EU, but they would have to go through the joining process. They wouldn’t be in without going through all the hoops and loops, and it’s a process which takes years. Some EU members (those with independentist movements in their own territories) are expected to be extremely reluctant to let them in, to avoid encouraging les autres.
Somehow, people manage to read the above paragraph as both “of course Scotland will join the EU” and “there is no way Scotland will ever be able to join the EU”. Every comment I’ve seen made by an actual EU officer has amounted to the whole paragraph; the reporting distorts it quite rapidly, tho.
It’s unfortunate that such debates boil down to tribalism on the one hand and fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) on the other. I mean if this was really about conservative policies, one would think that the Scots would have voted themselves a higher VAT tax to provide themselves more services. In the US, state spending shares as a percentage of GDP can vary quite a bit. And as for the poll tax, that was intended to screw the London mayor; it wasn’t about Scotland. Hey, I didn’t like it either.
The debate should be about topics like optimal currency areas, Tiebout sorting, and the Dutch disease. Those for independence should need to demonstrate explicitly why devolution can’t properly handle varying preferences for public services in the UK.
As for stereotypes, while bagpipes and kilts come to mind when I think of Scotland, I also imagine bankers, engineers (Scotty!), Edinborough intellectuals past and present and an annual arts festival. I don’t think they have a brand problem and if they want to level up via a modest industrial policy or public welfare initiative, I encourage them to do so. Methinks the English wouldn’t stop them. An increase in the VAT by 0.5% could buy a lot of symbolism, if Scottish leaders remain focused. And if they can’t… well the problem isn’t really in Westminster now, is it?
I had to visit wikipedia to figure out what the Highland and Lowland were. I really had no idea.
Also: holey moley, they really do have a top notch brand, don’t they?
Finally: there’s something to be said for free migration into a more southerly latitude, especially when ocean currents from the Caribbean could be disrupted due to natural or anthropogenic factors.
They could. But Ireland didn’t get to sit in the BoE and help make decisions, nor do those Latin American countries which use the USD as much or more as their local currency sit in the US Treasury. Monetary union and pegging your currency are two completely different animals.
It surprises me that the young are not supporting independence in greater numbers.
I have no idea why that is though.
From the youngsters I know, the Yes voters are passionate, the No voters are almost ambivelent so are defaulting to the status-quo.
Maybe a lot of the youth just don’t want to engage in politics?
Don’t think all those voting Yes have animosity towards the English though.
An income tax hike would be ok too, if they have the authority. (I don’t know what they have the authority to do.) VAT was an example. Though thinking it over, if Scottish nationalists are really gung-ho about policy X, they shouldn’t mind a small increase in a broad-based, albeit regressive, tax.
My point though is that they’ve had the power to adjust tax rates for years now and haven’t used it AFAIK. That’s ok, but it indicates to me that their disagreements with Westminster’s social welfare policy don’t run very deep. Which implies that the reasons for separation are emotional, possibly sentimental. That’s a poor foundation for policy and a distraction from matters more important than tribal identity.
I’m also rather dubious about the suggestion Scotland can leave the UK, but of course they would retain institutional influence on central bank policy. Woah. One of the defining characteristics of a nation is controlling its own currency. Is this a confederation they are pursuing? Whatever they want, ISTM that separation or redefinition should be a joint decision and a matter for negotiation with Westminster: this sort of thing is understood in Belgium and Quebec.
Adjusting the tax rate alone would do nothing but drive people south of the border.
In order to implement their social policies properly they need full control of all taxation and spending to ensure people aren’t driven away.
Just sticking up the tax rate on it’s own would be a sure fire way of losing the next election.
Why should one tenth of the population of the UK unilaterally decide that the other nine tenths should support them in a currency union post-independence? A currency union for the rUK entails a lot of risk for very little benefit. The Scottish financial sector alone is approximately 12 times GDP. For reference, both Cyprus and Iceland had a financial sector ~6 times GDP when they came crashing down.
As for lying: the UK as a whole has a longstanding antipathy to currency unions ever since Black Wednesday and us crashing out of the Eternal Recession Mechanism. We’re not in the Euro, for example, despite the EU being our main trade partner. Why, then, would we ever join in a currency union with our second largest trade partner? It is hardly surprising that the UK parties rule out even negotiating this, as it is unpopular in the rest of the UK (~60% oppose it), Salmond has signalled any currency union would only be temporary therefore opening up Sterling to speculative attacks, Salmond has threatened economic warfare against the rest of the UK by promising to undercut their corporation tax rates by 3% post-independence, and any currency union would need both the rUK and iScotland to pool sovereignty.
Frankly, it is breathtaking that Salmond did not anticipate an announcement like this. The last week he’s been looking like an idiot trying to convince everybody that when the UK parties say they don’t want a currency union they really mean that they do, instead of regrouping and coming up with a plan B. From what I can gather, the “Better Together” campaign has been mostly anonymous, until now. Yet with a single punch from the Westminster Parties, Salmond’s on the ropes with what looks to be a concussion.
Were I a Scottish voter, why should I believe you instead of them? They’re the ones who have complete control over the currency, and they say it won’t happen.
I must admit the more I read about this currency union, the more I can see why the rUK wouldn’t consider it.
If I was Scottish, I would be more concerned about what will happen with the EU. Salmond seems to be working under the assumption that Scotland gets a free pass directly in, whereas everything else I’ve read suggests that (a) other countries could object (Spain), (b) membership approval could take years and (c) aren’t new members supposed to agree to joining the Euro and the Shengen zone anyway? Both things the ‘yes’ campaign doesn’t want? The whole idea seems like a right mess from here.
I do have a vote and think that a currency union is a seriously bad idea. ISTM that Salmond wants a currency union so he can have someone to blame when things don’t work out.
Negotiation is about giving something as well as taking something. Most people, especially governments, go into negotiations looking to take as much as they can while giving as little in return as possible. I’m not talking about sharing resources, I’m saying that I don’t believe that Holyrood is any more generous when it comes to what they give in negotiations than Westminster is.
Westminster is claiming a currency union would be a bad thing. Assuming we at least act as if we think these are genuine beliefs, they need to be offered something in order for there to be a real negotiation. That’s what I mean by Holyrood/SNP “giving up” something.
I’ve read the article. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be taking away from it. It’s largely opinion, and makes some good points, but its particular relevance is a little lost on me.
As for the white paper, sorry, but no. This is of interest to me, but not quite so much that I want to spend hours working through almost 700 pages.
As an Englishman and a Unionist, I wouldn’t want Scotland to leave the Union, but if it is the democratic will of a majority of the Scottish people, then I hope that we can part as friends.