Where does the Scottish Everendum stand?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

There is no argument. There’s just you making weird assertions without evidence.

As for this earlier post:

@Pjen

Gordon Brown promised Scots “home rule” within the UK if they vote No yesterday as panic engulfed Westminster over rising support for independence.

The former prime minister moved to seize the initiative after the campaign to save the 300-year-old Union was rocked by a weekend poll showing a majority support Yes.

With just nine days to go before the historic vote, a new survey published today by TNS Scotland confirmed that the race was on a knife-edge, finding Yes and No tied on 41%.

This is exactly the sort of disingenuous bullshit that’s come to characterise your posts on this topic. Gordon Brown’s words were not part of “The Vow”, were never presented as such, and were always understood to be non-binding by anybody who was paying attention, given that he’s a constituency MP with absolutely no power even within his own party, never mind over the government of the United Kingdom. What “The Vow” consists of is fairly unambiguous: it’s the promises of the three main party leaders as presented on the front page of the Daily Record. Did you see Brown’s words there? No. So they’re not part of The Vow. Trying to tie Brown’s words into “The Vow” is just another obfuscation on your part.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Pjen

Do you do anything other than straw man arguments. That is not what I said.

Given distortions on both sides ( especially the vow and Gordon Brown’s promise of Home Rule) led to a doubtful answer to the question. Current public opinion according to several consecutive polls suggest that a large majority of people would vote for DevoMax or Home Rule, and a small majority would vote for Independence.

I expect this to come to a vote again within the decade.

The Vow was not a distortion. Stop lying. New powers were promised, the report detailing those new powers was delivered last week, and those new powers look set to be implemented. Gordon Brown’s speeches have nothing to do with The Vow. Stop trying to tie them together.

Further, as I said earlier, No had been in the lead for two years prior to the referendum date. The idea that The Vow is what swung the vote to No is completely incorrect.

[Malden_Capell]

@Pjen

Oh, but it is a very appropriate answer. Things change over time and every independent country needs to swing with that. I see no argument that claims that Scotland is the only nation in Europe unable to run its own national policy. The same was claimed for Slovakia, and there independence led to renewed industrial base for them.

Claims of financial and industrial incompetence of the Scots is the type of campaigning that was so close to driving a majority onto the Yes camp from an historically low base at the start of the campaign.

Every such claim of inference works to convince more people that it is mere propaganda.

I don’t think that makes it an appropriate answer at all. Sometimes, shock and horror, economic problems and the need to cut spending aren’t down to being downtrodden slaves to the Evil Empire and simply due to a poor economy. The argument about whether Scotland would do better on its own is by the by; it would still have to make sacrifices.

[qazwart]

The thing that got me about the referendum is how it was so non-committal. Yes! Scotland will be an independent nation once more. Down with those English swine! We’ll show them! – Except we want to use that English pound. And, oh yeah, that Queen of the Realm thing is okay too. And, we’ll still be part of the EU too, so it’s not like you have to cross a border in order to go take a trip to London. And, maybe we can negotiate something so our kids can go to English colleges too.

The Yes side was doing their best to claim that they can have the best things about being independent without all those pesky issues you run into when your countries have been merged after 300 years of a single economy and government. And, their whole campaign was based upon the barest promises:

[ul]
[li] Continue using the English Pound. The Bank of England said a pretty firm no. An independent Scotland could use it, but they could also use the U.S. dollar or the Icelandic Kroner too. Nothing England could do to stop it. However, England could refuse to work with the banks in transferring enough of the currency to use. Or, allowing massive amounts of credit needed to using that currency. Or, have any concerns about the Scottish economy if there is an issue. If you think the whole Greece and Euro thing was bad, imagine what would have happened to Greece if they weren’t officially part of the Euro zone.[/li][li] Continued membership in the EU? I doubt it, and I doubt that an independent Scotland would ever be allowed to be a member. Many countries are having issues with internal independence groups. Spain, Italy, and even France. Allowing Scotland to break off from England and still retain its EU membership isn’t a precedent that other countries in the EU want to even consider.[/li][li] The North Sea Oil: The pro-independence side made it sound like a non-issue. Of course we’ll get that North Sea oil! However, this would be a matter of negotiation between England – the successor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the newly independent Scotland. The UK owns that oil, and doesn’t have to give it to Scotland. Scotland could claim their 200 miles of sovereignty, but only where it doesn’t already conflict with current UK claims.[/li][/ul]

I’ve noticed this quite a bit with many pro-independence parties. In Quebec, the 1980 referendum on independence was an Independent and completely sovereign Quebec in economic association with the rest of Canada. In 1995, the question was even more wishy-washy:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

If you want independence, then you get both the benefits and risks of independence. The only independence split that went well was between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and that’s only if you ignore the stuff that happened during WWII. I think at that point that the spit had actually occurred, the Czechs were so sick of things that they were going to toss Slovakia out if the Slovaks decided they didn’t want independence after all.

You look at India, Israel, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Ireland, and many others, you find that splitting off from your mother country can lead to war and even civil war. That disputes between the two now independent entities are frosty and hostile for years. There are years of hardship, external and internal strife, and a large loss of economic power. If you really want independence you should be willing to risk civil war, economic recession, and years of stagnation and cold relationships with your former country in order to achieve it. Maybe becoming independent might be a good future for the newly formed nation, but they must go in knowing the risks.

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

The Vow was not a distortion. Stop lying. New powers were promised, the report detailing those new powers was delivered last week, and those new powers look set to be implemented. Gordon Brown’s speeches have nothing to do with The Vow. Stop trying to tie them together.

Further, as I said earlier, No had been in the lead for two years prior to the referendum date. The idea that The Vow is what swung the vote to No is completely incorrect.

You may wish to withdraw the accusation of ‘lying’. Check the rules of debate here.

[Pjen]

@qazwart

The thing that got me about the referendum is how it was so non-committal. Yes! Scotland will be an independent nation once more. Down with those English swine! We’ll show them! – Except we want to use that English pound. And, oh yeah, that Queen of the Realm thing is okay too. And, we’ll still be part of the EU too, so it’s not like you have to cross a border in order to go take a trip to London. And, maybe we can negotiate something so our kids can go to English colleges too.

The Yes side was doing their best to claim that they can have the best things about being independent without all those pesky issues you run into when your countries have been merged after 300 years of a single economy and government. And, their whole campaign was based upon the barest promises:

[ul]
[li] Continue using the English Pound. The Bank of England said a pretty firm no. An independent Scotland could use it, but they could also use the U.S. dollar or the Icelandic Kroner too. Nothing England could do to stop it. However, England could refuse to work with the banks in transferring enough of the currency to use. Or, allowing massive amounts of credit needed to using that currency. Or, have any concerns about the Scottish economy if there is an issue. If you think the whole Greece and Euro thing was bad, imagine what would have happened to Greece if they weren’t officially part of the Euro zone.[/li][li] Continued membership in the EU? I doubt it, and I doubt that an independent Scotland would ever be allowed to be a member. Many countries are having issues with internal independence groups. Spain, Italy, and even France. Allowing Scotland to break off from England and still retain its EU membership isn’t a precedent that other countries in the EU want to even consider.[/li][li] The North Sea Oil: The pro-independence side made it sound like a non-issue. Of course we’ll get that North Sea oil! However, this would be a matter of negotiation between England – the successor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the newly independent Scotland. The UK owns that oil, and doesn’t have to give it to Scotland. Scotland could claim their 200 miles of sovereignty, but only where it doesn’t already conflict with current UK claims.[/li][/ul]

You are obviously new to this debate.

The pound is not English but British.

Membership of the EU could be delayed, but associate membership via association with other semi detached ex EFTA countries would be automatic.

Ownership of the oil is well settled by the Law of the Sea.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The SNP had pledged to peg the Scottish pound to the Rest-of-British pound.

[Pjen]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The SNP had pledged to peg the Scottish pound to the Rest-of-British pound.

Agreed. But currently the Pound Sterling is jointly owned by all the people of Britain. It may say Bank of England on some of the notes, but it is not an English pound.

[Pjen]

@qazwart

If you want independence, then you get both the benefits and risks of independence. The only independence split that went well was between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and that’s only if you ignore the stuff that happened during WWII. I think at that point that the spit had actually occurred, the Czechs were so sick of things that they were going to toss Slovakia out if the Slovaks decided they didn’t want independence after all.

You look at India, Israel, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Ireland, and many others, you find that splitting off from your mother country can lead to war and even civil war. That disputes between the two now independent entities are frosty and hostile for years. There are years of hardship, external and internal strife, and a large loss of economic power. If you really want independence you should be willing to risk civil war, economic recession, and years of stagnation and cold relationships with your former country in order to achieve it. Maybe becoming independent might be a good future for the newly formed nation, but they must go in knowing the risks.

What do you think happened between the two parts of Czechoslovakia in WWII?

The entire British Empire from AUS,NZ, Canada, etc to Africa, India the Caribbean and the Far East split with minimal problems after the split. The Commonwealth of nations is quite a pleasant organisation.

You are basically scaremongering.

[Malden_Capell]

@Pjen

Agreed. But currently the Pound Sterling is jointly owned by all the people of Britain. It may say Bank of England on some of the notes, but it is not an English pound.

That’s not the issue, though. If Scotland withdraws, then they withdraw from the whole thing; it ceases to be a British pound, and becomes a rest-of-Britain pound. It’s administered via the Bank of England, is backed by the London Government and the City, and is recognised by the rest of the world as such.

The Scots can protest all they like about it being ‘their pound too’. But as the pound is largely supported on the back of London’s wealth and fame, what’s in it for London to do as the SNP asks?

What do you think happened between the two parts of Czechoslovakia in WWII?

The entire British Empire from AUS,NZ, Canada, etc to Africa, India the Caribbean and the Far East split with minimal problems after the split. The Commonwealth of nations is quite a pleasant organisation.

You are basically scaremongering.

None of them were anywhere near is integrated with Britain as Scotland is with the rest of Britain. And you can find successful examples of anything. The important point here, of course, is that these countries, by and large, set up their own currencies, economies and the like.

Can’t we accuse you of being…I don’t know what the opposite of scaremongering is, but assuming that the best will always happen?

[Pjen]

@Malden_Capell

That’s not the issue, though. If Scotland withdraws, then they withdraw from the whole thing; it ceases to be a British pound, and becomes a rest-of-Britain pound. It’s administered via the Bank of England, is backed by the London Government and the City, and is recognised by the rest of the world as such.

The Scots can protest all they like about it being ‘their pound too’. But as the pound is largely supported on the back of London’s wealth and fame, what’s in it for London to do as the SNP asks?

The pound is supported by the economic environment of the whole UK. This includes oil in Scottish waters plus the Scottish GDP. Having contributed to the stability of the pound the Scots surely have some claim over that financial security that would need to be compensated for if independence were to be chosen. This is up for negotiation and might be weighed against Scotland’s responsibility for the National debt, or a longer lease on nuclear bases.

What is certain is that the pound does not belong to England alone.

[Pjen]

@Malden_Capell

None of them were anywhere near is integrated with Britain as Scotland is with the rest of Britain. And you can find successful examples of anything. The important point here, of course, is that these countries, by and large, set up their own currencies, economies and the like.

Can’t we accuse you of being…I don’t know what the opposite of scaremongering is, but assuming that the best will always happen?

Before the second world war all old commonwealth countries shared nationality and residence with the UK; their supreme legislative body was Westminster and their judiciary was delegated from the House of Lords and English courts. In most ways they were fully integrated into the UK, financially and socially. Despite that they separated amicably; just as Scotland could.

[Stanislaus]

@Pjen

The pound is supported by the economic environment of the whole UK. This includes oil in Scottish waters plus the Scottish GDP.

What percentage of UK economic environment do you think is oil production? It might surprise you.

[Malden_Capell]

@Pjen

The pound is supported by the economic environment of the whole UK. This includes oil in Scottish waters plus the Scottish GDP. Having contributed to the stability of the pound the Scots surely have some claim over that financial security that would need to be compensated for if independence were to be chosen. This is up for negotiation and might be weighed against Scotland’s responsibility for the National debt, or a longer lease on nuclear bases.

What is certain is that the pound does not belong to England alone.

No, it doesn’t. It’s the currency-by-fiat of the United Kingdom. If Scotland left the United Kingdom, then it would have to leave the pound too. Currencies rely on governments to act as guarantors of their fiat value. London does that, and the SNP proposes to tack itself on to London’s guarantee. This requires London’s consent.

Scotland remains entirely free to still use the pound, but it can have no input into its operation without the consent of the UK-remnant. That’s why countries go independent, after all, isn’t it, to separate themselves from their former country?

@Pjen

Before the second world war all old commonwealth countries shared nationality and residence with the UK; their supreme legislative body was Westminster and their judiciary was delegated from the House of Lords and English courts. In most ways they were fully integrated into the UK, financially and socially. Despite that they separated amicably; just as Scotland could.

Yes, but what I’m saying is that it’s nearly impossible to disprove your claim; it’s an unfalsifiable one. If a country goes independent, by and large they tend not to collapse in a heap, as the force of governments nowadays is pretty strong and we have developed a healthy habit for law and order.

But by what criteria to we determine a country’s independence is ‘successful’? I suspect the SNP thinks ‘successful’ means ‘Scotland doesn’t become an anarchy’, which is a pretty low bar. And we don’t have working crystal balls, so we can’t see what will happen.

So this whole ‘other countries have managed it, why can’t we?’ is a red herring. It’s like the old ‘right-wing ideas tends to be historically abandoned, so doesn’t this mean progressive ideas are always right?’ concept.

Hope that makes sense anyway…Friday morning…

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Pjen

Agreed. But currently the Pound Sterling is jointly owned by all the people of Britain. It may say Bank of England on some of the notes, but it is not an English pound.

No, as a matter of law, it is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland wishes to withdraw from the United Kingdom, then by default it withdraws from all of the United Kingdom’s institutions, including its currency. Further, as a matter of politics, the people of the rest of the UK are not going to tolerate Scotland hanging on to our coat-tails for an indeterminate length of time, using our currency, whilst Scotland sorts its shit out. If independence were to come, it means independence for both parties.

I’m surprised that this is still something that confuses you Pjen, given how extensively this topic was covered by economists and lawyers in the run up to the referendum.

@Pjen

You may wish to withdraw the accusation of ‘lying’. Check the rules of debate here.

I believe being intentionally misleading is also against the rules of debate here. I’ll withdraw the accusation that you are a liar when you withdraw your claim that Gordon Brown’s words had anything to do with the “Vow”.

[Malden_Capell]

How about the Churchillian terminological inexactitude!

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Indeed. Some posters in this thread seem to have developed the skill of misleading circumlocution to an art form.

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

No, as a matter of law, it is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland wishes to withdraw from the United Kingdom, then by default it withdraws from all of the United Kingdom’s institutions, including its currency. Further, as a matter of politics, the people of the rest of the UK are not going to tolerate Scotland hanging on to our coat-tails for an indeterminate length of time, using our currency, whilst Scotland sorts its shit out. If independence were to come, it means independence for both parties.

I’m surprised that this is still something that confuses you Pjen, given how extensively this topic was covered by economists and lawyers in the run up to the referendum.

I believe being intentionally misleading is also against the rules of debate here. I’ll withdraw the accusation that you are a liar when you withdraw your claim that Gordon Brown’s words had anything to do with the “Vow”.

Having given you the chance to withdraw honourably, and you having refused, I now need to report your original comment for moderation. Sorry…

[Pjen]

An interesting take on the balance between National debt and the support of sterling by oil revenues:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

The unionist myth that the UK subsidises Scotland is one of the greatest confidence tricks in political history.
In his article yesterday “Yes, intelligent analysis is lacking”, Peter Jones furthers the kidology. In so doing, he is guilty of ignoring the facts.

Business for Scotland’s analysis of Scotland’s financial position is based on official government data and has been verified by one of the country’s leading independent economic brains.

It proves two key things. First, that every year for the past 32 years – the period covered by the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report – has included a deduction from Scotland’s block grant equivalent to our population percentage share of UK debt. Over that period, that amounted to £64.1 billion.

Second, during that time, had Scotland been an independent country with its geographic share of oil revenues established under international law (as would be the case under independence) Scotland’s borrowing would have been zero.

Ipso facto, Scotland has paid £64.1bn servicing debts it did not need. Bang goes the great unionist myth. Peter Jones claims that my analysis does not consider the interest on debt prior to 1980, but in the footnote of the study he was critiquing it plainly states that this was factored in.

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

I believe being intentionally misleading is also against the rules of debate here. I’ll withdraw the accusation that you are a liar when you withdraw your claim that Gordon Brown’s words had anything to do with the “Vow”.

The rules:

Liars, lying, and lies in Great Debates

---

The misunderstood, (and perhaps, misapplied) rule that the phrase “You are a liar” may be treated as the equivalent of “Your statement is a lie” is hereby suspended.

“You are a Liar” will be treated, henceforth, as a personal insult subject to the normal sanctions of insult in Great Debates.

I suggest you withdraw before the East Coast wakes up.