You don’t keep up with the news much then.
There’s no physical or economic reason that Scot. needs to stay part of GB. I just wonder where GB will get enough soldiers and sailors to man their bases and ships without the 40% Scot enlistments? Scotland needn’t be forced to be part of the same country as England. Scotland needn’t have a monarchy. Scotland has extremely well educated and smart people who don’t drink too much and who don’t pretend to be indispensable.
Paul Krugman weighs in on the currency issue: [INDENT]In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.
I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. [/INDENT] Britain would be doing Scotland a favor if they refused to share currencies without a detailed agreement involving fiscal integration. Which Scotland may or may not balk at. Far better to try the Argentinian model (seriously) or better still Hong Kong or a free float.
Not incidentally, Krugman writes a standard textbook on international economics. He really does know all the issues on this topic, though of course there are column space restrictions.
Another warning: the Lesser Depression confirmed that politicians can’t be trusted to follow textbook economics, even when it results in lost decades. Witness Germany. MEGO policy error is a very real risk when overturning centuries of institutions overnight.
On a related note - where is Scotland going to get ships for its navy? Somehow, I don’t see the UK being forced to give, or even sell, any of its ships.
And what stops the UK from, as its second course of action following a successful “yes” vote (the first being the dismissal of the Scottish MPs - and I assume all Scottish peerages become null and void? Are there any Irish peerages that are still valid?), “protecting our interests in the North Sea” by sending out ships to keep oil on existing North Sea platforms out of Scottish hands?
Presumably Scotland will argue that some share of the public assets of the United Kingdom will rightfully go with Scotland.
As for peerages, why should independence-minded Scots care about that?
For the record, the Irish Peerage still exists so far as the British crown is concerned. But the government of the Republic of Ireland imposes restrictions on accepting titles of nobility on its citizens.
Scottish peerages would remain in existence. Peerages of the United Kingdom would also remain in place, but life (and excepted hereditary) peers could only sit in the House of Lords if they are resident in the rUK for tax purposes.
Scottish MPs would remain in the Commons until the actual date of independence. There has been talk of postponing the 2015 election until after that date to avoid a situation where Scotland sends a bunch of MPs to Westminster who then all leave mid-term.
As to what stops the rUK from starting a war with Scotland, well, nothing I guess, except perhaps common sense and the fact that they’re not idiots.
Well, Scotland certainly contributed to paying for them.
Peerages, you will be fascinated to know, may be retained if the holder goes to live in England, Northern Ireland or Wales. Former LibDem MP JIm Wallace - oops “Lord” Wallace of Tankerness - enquired about this. Personally, I think it’s not the most important issue, but I can see that £300 a day for just turning up and falling asleep is quite a good deal. 
The House of Lords is indefensible as an institution. Count how many countries in the world give positions in parliament to people purely because they represent one particular religion. Not many, not many at all. I think only Iran, but my computer is going slower than a sloth on downers, so I cannot realistically check that right now.
I don’t think the rUK would make itself very popular by stealing Scottish oil. Ignore UNCLOS entirely? I daresay such an approach would have some appeal for the loopier Tories - oh forget that - the loopier swivelly-eyed rUK politicos from whatever party, as the differences between them now are vanishingly small.
Oh, and the 59 Scottish MPS cannot be got rid of immediately following a “Yes” vote, as Scotland will still be part of the UK for approx 18 months, and therefore requires representation in the Westminster parliament during that time. This is causing a little bit of fuss, with suggestions being made that the current lot in power could just postpone the General Election due to take place in May next year. As you can imagine, not everyone likes that idea. 
I think my post might be a bit messy, but please forgive me and join me in swearing at slow internet connection.
Aarggh! Two replies while I was typing. Oh well, I am slow. <embarrassed face>
Kevin Drum hopes that in the event of a yes vote, the Scottish powers that be see reason and adopt their own currency. Recent experiences in Argentina, Spain and Greece have not inspired.
More: [INDENT]As for Scottish independence itself, I don’t have much of an opinion. I do have a generic opinion that secession usually sounds better than it actually is in practice. Every province or state or city or neighborhood always thinks they have deep and justified grievances against whatever polity they belong to, and often they’re right. That’s the nature of large agglomerations of human beings. But often those grievances are, in truth, fairly skin deep—usually some version of “cultural identity,” the last refuge of the person with no actual arguments to make—and secession merely resolves some of them while creating whole new ones. I think it rarely accomplishes much.
My super-rough rule of thumb is this: I support secession of (a) territories that speak a different language, (b) territories that are physically distant, and (c) territories that have genuinely suffered at the hands of a brutal regime. Jokes aside on items (a) and (c), none of these really apply to Scotland, so I’d put myself down as moderately opposed to independence. But if it does happen, I sure hope currency union really does turn out to be a charade. If you’re going to have your own country, then you should have your own money and your own monetary policy. If we’ve learned nothing else over the past half decade, surely we’ve at least learned that. [/INDENT] If Scotland Secedes, They Better Secede From the Pound Too – Mother Jones
Hard to argue with that… but some will.
The Shetland islanders are apparently none too pleased with possible Holyrood rule. They could ask to stay with the U.K. in which case the situation with the oil fields could be very interesting.
The House of Lords is an entirely defensible institution and one of the best parts of Parliament! However I won’t divert the debate.
It was a tragedy for Britain IMO, that Alec Salmond became a Nationalist. He is perhaps the best politician in Britain and would have been a fine PM.
CNN.com has a good, concise overview of the upcoming Scottish vote: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/europe/scottish-referendum-explainer/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
That strikes me as an incredibly weak article.
I’m sensitive to the main idea: this move carries some genuine financial and economic risks that are (naturally) being glossed over by the advocates of independence. But his examples are all not quite apposite, and he comes down strongly against independence while ignoring any possibility that a new Scottish government might take advantage of its situation to create better buffers than they currently have.
And crucially, he ignores that the Scottish have their own banknotes. They would have absolutely none of the logistical nightmare in setting up their own currency that Spain would have. They already kind of have their own money, at very least a strong foundation that would be extremely easily to build upon.
Don’t get me wrong. It could totally suck. But I find the article lacking in a lot of ways.
The Scottish banks issue Sterling notes, true. But every penny of that issue has to be backed by a deposit with the central bank, the Bank of England. Setting up a currency is a bit more complicated.
According to the rules that are in place now.
This thread – in particular the article I was responding to – is about Scottish independence. At that point, they can make their own rules.
It really isn’t. Setting up a currency is practically the easiest thing a country can do.
Managing it well is another thing entirely.
I find this a bit odd. A rather large chunk of the UK may break away and the Queen considers that “politics”? I understand she doesn’t take public positions on issues. Saving the country would seem to be worthy of at least urging people to consider the ramifications of splitting apart the UK. <shrug> Maybe she just doesn’t give a crap.
I guess no one really knows what an independent Scotland would mean? Would it be similar to the relationship between Britain and Australia?
It would be in Britain’s best interest to keep a close relationship with Scotland. They are so intertwined that they really need each other. Even if Scotland leaves the UK they should remain in the Commonwealth of Nations.