Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[aeolium]

just as will EU (membership of which you'd not wish on your worst enemy)

I think you've misread my post - it was membership of the Eurozone that I would not wish on my worst enemy, not of the EU. It's quite possible for small countries which are members of the EU but not of the Eurozone to do very well, like Denmark which you mentioned earlier on in your reply. On the other hand, small Eurozone countries like Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, to mention a few, have had a pretty bad time of it. So to be absolutely clear, I am not currently in favour of withdrawal from the EU but I am against joining the Eurozone and I see no possible benefit to an independent Scotland in doing so.

[ahinton]

I think you've misread my post - it was membership of the Eurozone that I would not wish on my worst enemy, not of the EU. It's quite possible for small countries which are members of the EU but not of the Eurozone to do very well, like Denmark which you mentioned earlier on in your reply. On the other hand, small Eurozone countries like Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, to mention a few, have had a pretty bad time of it. So to be absolutely clear, I am not currently in favour of withdrawal from the EU but I am against joining the Eurozone and I see no possible benefit to an independent Scotland in doing so.

No, I didn't actually misread it but I did make a mistake for which due apologies; I've now corrected it!

[visualnickmos]

I haven't been following the debate in huge and finer-point detail, but based on what I glean, I feel that if Scotland was to become an independent nation, with it's own economy, revenue collecting and banking system etc, etc, then it should surely have its own currency. You can't have halfway house independence. it can only be all or nothing

[MrGongGong]

I haven't been following the debate in huge and finer-point detail, but based on what I glean, I feel that if Scotland was to become an independent nation, with it's own economy, revenue collecting and banking system etc, etc, then it should surely have its own currency. You can't have halfway house independence. it can only be all or nothing

That's not what is on offer though

[P. G. Tipps]

That's not what is on offer though

What's on earth do you mean 'not on offer'?

An independent country can make it own decisions regarding its preferred currency for good or ill!

However, Visualnickmos has hit the nail on the head as to the realities of true independence, and the notion of the Bank of England having the levers of control of the Scottish economy in such a situation is clearly not true independence!. The only way to achieve that would be for Scotland to have its own separate currency.

[Flosshilde]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/indepdent-scotland-not-join-eu-without-central-bank

[MrGongGong]

What's on earth do you mean 'not on offer'?

An independent country can make it own decisions regarding its preferred currency for good or ill!

However, Visualnickmos has hit the nail on the head as to the realities of true independence, and the notion of the Bank of England having the levers of control of the Scottish economy in such a situation is clearly not true independence!. The only way to achieve that would be for Scotland to have its own separate currency.

The Yes folks aren't offering an independent currency
Under the proposed "independence" Scotland wont be an "independent country" at all

[visualnickmos]

The Yes folks aren't offering an independent currency
Under the proposed "independence" Scotland wont be an "independent country" at all

I agree, but then I ask this question; what exactly is the referendum all about? The whole debate gives the impression of having very ragged edges and ill-thought out arguments.

Is it that the pro-independence lobby want to cherry-pick the bits of independence that they see as being beneficial, and stay in union over the bits that benefit Scotland in the current set-up? It is becoming very muddled...

Cake and eating it, comes to mind.

[MrGongGong]

Cake and eating it, comes to mind.

get divorced
turn up on a friday with a bag of washing
and for the sex ?

[P. G. Tipps]

My very humble opinion is that to the extent that people south of the border have been particularly interested in the subject there is as much nonsense spoken there than in the Yes camp in Scotland.

The feeling up until now seems to be that if Scotland goes its own way the UK will go on very much like before. Some of the comments from politicians are mind-numbingly stupid not least Nigel Farage's comment that many people in England are unhappy with Scots, one reason apparently being cited is their 'failure to support the football team' ... I can only assume he means the England football team? Even he has to be joking, surely ...!

If Scotland does indeed separate it could well be as big or an even bigger negative for the rest of the UK. Only now are some beginning to realise this.

Just think. Much less oil, no huge whisky receipts, considerably diminished armed forces, reduction in size and influence, an almost certain run on the pound etc etc etc. These things have been obvious from the beginning but apparently many (not just south of the border) have been hitherto blind to all or some of them.

When he agreed to this referendum Cameron obviously thought a No result would be virtually guaranteed. Numerous opinion polls over decades have always made clear that what the Scots really wanted (by a very large majority) is maximum devolution with the status quo and independence trailing a poor second and third. The late Labour leader John Smith correctly saw it as 'the settled will of the Scottish people'. So when it has now come to a straight choice between the last two that was always going to be a huge risk by forcing many to choose what is clearly a second choice or by simply abstaining instead. A major and potentially dangerous blunder by Cameron.

At last the true significance and vital importance of this vote may be dawning on some Westminster politicians judging by PMQT yesterday. Cameron said that Scotland is better off within the UK and the UK is better off with Scotland. It was high time he stressed that last point. That was the whole idea of the Union in the first place and it is hardly any different now.

Better Together indeed.

[agingjb]

I suspect that the most obvious effect of independence will be delays at the border crossings.

[ahinton]

My very humble opinion is that to the extent that people south of the border have been particularly interested in the subject there is as much nonsense spoken there than in the Yes camp in Scotland.

Well, what would you expect, especially given the vagueness, uncertainties and ill-thought-out premises for Scottish independence?

The feeling up until now seems to be that if Scotland goes its own way the UK will go on very much like before. Some of the comments from politicians are mind-numbingly stupid not least Nigel Farage's comment that many people in England are unhappy with Scots, one reason apparently being cited is their 'failure to support the football team' ... I can only assume he means the England football team? Even he has to be joking, surely ...!

Leaving aside the facts that Mr Farage doesn't joke and that soccer will continue to be played both north and south of the border whaever the referndum result, it is of course true that the rest of UK will not "go on very much like before"; how indeed could it do so?

If Scotland does indeed separate it could well be as big or an even bigger negative for the rest of the UK. Only now are some beginning to realise this.

Just think. Much less oil, no huge whisky receipts, considerably diminished armed forces, reduction in size and influence, an almost certain run on the pound etc etc etc. These things have been obvious from the beginning but apparently many (not just south of the border) have been hitherto blind to all or some of them.

The pound's already beginning to take abit of a hit even before the referendum outcome is known.

You didn't mention that the rest of the UK will have to blow their own raspberries if Scotland leaves.

When he agreed to this referendum Cameron obviously thought a No result would be virtually guaranteed.

Cameron "thought"? Now there's novel!

Numerous opinion polls over decades have always made clear that what the Scots really wanted (by a very large majority) is maximum devolution with the status quo and independence trailing a poor second and third. The late Labour leader John Smith correctly saw it as 'the settled will of the Scottish people'. So when it has now come to a straight choice between the last two that was always going to be a huge risk by forcing many to choose what is clearly a second choice or by simply abstaining instead. A major and potentially dangerous blunder by Cameron.

It might end up seeming that way with the greatest part of the egg on his face rather than anyone else's but, to be fair, as he's had to face the fact that his party has practically no representation in Scotland, to deny that country the referendum could well have been equally unfavourable to his credibility.

At last the true significance and vital importance of this vote may be dawning on some Westminster politicians judging by PMQT yesterday. Cameron said that Scotland is better off within the UK and the UK is better off with Scotland. It was high time he stressed that last point. That was the whole idea of the Union in the first place and it is hardly any different now.

Better Together indeed.

I'm not about to get drawn into whether the fragmented and in many ways uncertain "independence" for or against which the "people of Scotland" will vote in a fortnight's time will ultiamtely prove to be a good or a bad thing either for Scotland or the rest of UK, not least because of those very fragmentations and uncertainties.

That said, in addition to the unanswered questions about currency, monarchy and much else besides (in the absence of the proper addressing of which this referendum strikes me as grossly premature), there's the additional one of the "people of Scotland" who, we are told, must decide their fate. According to Wiki, some 4% of the Scottish population are non-white (and therefore evidently not Scots) and the remaining 96% include Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as well as people from other parts of Europe (some of them even from England); from this, it is clear that by no means all of those entitled to vote in the referendum are Scots. Not only that, but there are also more Scots living outside Scotland than living in it and, since one qualification for entitlement to vote is Scottish residency, it is evident that, just as non-Scots resident in Scotland will be able to vote, many Scots not resident there will not. So the Scots decide their fate, do they? Really? Add to that the fact that, as you point out, there will be ramifications for other nations (especially the other three members of UK) should Scotland opt for the pick-and-mix, piecemeal "independence" for which opportunity is offered to it by the referendum and the final cap on the sheer disorganised mess that is the referendum as currently constituted should become so glaringly apparent as to discredit it altogether.

All of this, to me at least, seems to be more worrying than whether "Scotland" says "Yes" or "No" in two weeks' time.

[ahinton]

I suspect that the most obvious effect of independence will be delays at the border crossings.

...and increased airport security. And what if, for whatever reason, Scotland either decides against becoming - or is not allowed to become - and EU member in its own right? Will visa requirement have to be introduced for those travelling to Scotland from elsewhere in Europe? Will Scotland also have to spend fortunes that its taxpaers won't be able to afford on protecting its oil rigs? Islamic State's lately been eyeing up Afghanistan; it won't get the daft idea that Scotland's fair game as well, surely?...

[aeolium]

Well, what would you expect, especially given the vagueness, uncertainties and ill-thought-out premises for Scottish independence?

Whereas the original Act of Union in 1707 was perfectly well thought out and avoided any vagueness or uncertainties? Not to mention other more recent separations or unifications such as the splitting of Czechoslovakia and the unification of Germany? And of course there were plenty of unforeseen developments arising from this country's accession to the then EEC, not least the later move towards economic and political union. The most important question in the referendum is that of political sovereignty, whether people in Scotland are able to have sovereign control over their own affairs rather than as at present the limited powers of devolved government.

it is evident that, just as non-Scots resident in Scotland will be able to vote, many Scots not resident there will not.

What's wrong with that? It's exactly the same as the electorate for the Scottish parliament, except that for this referendum 16- and 17-year-olds are additionally able to vote. Isn't allowing people who are non-resident to vote on a par with, for instance, rich media barons who live in Australia having the right to exert disproportionate influence on the media here?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Isn't allowing people who are non-resident to vote on a par with, for instance, rich media barons who live in Australia having the right to exert disproportionate influence on the media here?

Very well put.