I don't understand how that can work considering the SNP have been pushing 5th May 2016 as the date of independence for Scotland, negotiations would have to be going really badly for that to happen. Anyway, considering the No side have been pushing the no going back message, I don't think any subsequent Scottish Government would be able to just say let's not bother.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Scottish Independence Referendum |OT| 18 September 2014 [Up: NO wins]
- Thread starter Ape Gone Insane
- Start date
- Status
I don't understand how that can work considering the SNP have been pushing 5th May 2016 as the date of independence for Scotland, negotiations would have to be going really badly for that to happen. Anyway, considering the No side have been pushing the no going back message, I don't think any subsequent Scottish Government would be able to just say let's not bother.
Not concerned, just curious.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Scrap the whole process of independence?
That is not my understanding, any new government voted in the May 2016 will be saddled with the same negotiating position,but independence will happen, a YES vote on Thursday mandates it, and 'scrapping it' would involve some rather embarassing pleading with the UK to be let back in. Not going to happen, even if rUK was to allow it, which I doubt.
MilkyJoe
Member
I'll need a source, members of the UK government have publicly said it's forever. The cost of the separation and the implementation of what needs to be done is not like opening a tin of beans and then deciding you will actually get a pizza instead. Companies that are subject to the UK business Law, FCA companies for example, will have already started the relocation effort, building contracts signed, staff relocation and new hires etc... english public would already have moved their bank accounts from Scottish owned banks. Once this train starts... Choo Choo...
From the FT
The nightmare could begin on Friday. Imagine a narrow vote in favour of independence. Down south, Conservative prime minister David Cameron will be held responsible for allowing the fracturing of a union on which national stability has rested for 307 years. But his party has a better future in England than in the UK. The opposition Labour party, which holds 40 constituencies in Scotland, has no such consolation. Scottish nationalism will also surely awake its English counterpart. That will, alas, be good for Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence party, which wants to take Britain out of the EU and is gaining ground in England. This divorcing couple will remain neighbours. The English, at least, are sure to be sullen ones.
From the moment of a Yes vote, the UK government will have next to no interest in the welfare of the Scots. But, until Scotland has become independent, the UK government will represent it in international negotiations. At the same time, it will be negotiating on behalf of the rest of the UKs interests, against Scotland. Divorces are always difficult. But rarely is the abandoned party asked to represent the interests of the departing.
A Yes vote will launch Scotland, and to a lesser extent the UK, into years of uncertainty. Among the biggest doubts are those hanging over the currency. Financial businesses that must be regulated and supported by the UK will flee. Scottish deposit insurance would be as worthless as the Reykjavik-run scheme that failed to cover Icelandic banks in 2008. Cautious Scots must already recognise that the pounds in their bank accounts may end up as something else. Far safer to move the money south.
Confronted with currency uncertainty, banks will need to balance their books within Scotland. This will surely force them to shrink the supply of credit to the Scottish economy. The UK government could try to prevent money from leaving Scotland, but this would require draconian controls, which it will not impose. Either Westminster or the Scottish government could offer to indemnify lenders against currency risks. The UK government will not do that. It will let the credit squeeze happen, blaming it on the Scottish decision. It will be Scotlands choice, if it can meet the cost.
Scotland can promise that the pound will remain the currency of Scotland. It cannot promise a currency union, however. That takes two parties. Even if the government of the remaining UK is prepared to countenance such a union, there should be a referendum. The only satisfactory terms for the residual UK will be ones that impose very tight limits on the fiscal deficits Scotland can run. It must also insist that financial regulation will be run by the Bank of England, which would nonetheless remain accountable to the UK state alone.
Scotland can adopt the pound without a currency union, and so without the back-up of the Bank of England. But this, too, is highly problematic. Scotland would need to build a reserve of sterling that can serve as its monetary base by attracting capital inflows or exporting more than it sells abroad for many years. And it would need more than that. If the eurozone crisis has taught us anything, it is that countries without central banks cannot, in a crisis, stabilise the markets for their public debt. Scotlands share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product a perilous position for a country whose debt is denominated in a currency it cannot create freely. Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had far lower public debt ratios before the crisis. Scotland will need a substantial reserve cushion . Accumulating it will be costly.
Alex Salmond, Scotlands first minister and head of the Yes campaign, will say that if the rest of the UK will not grant Scotland a currency union, Scotland will not take on its share of the UK debt. Not so fast: the negotiations launched by that Yes vote will cover everything. The oil, for example, is not Scottish until the UK agrees. If Scotland repudiates its share of the debt, who says it will get its oil?
All this ignores the little fact that Scotland wants to be in the EU. If it does enter (which Spain will surely seek to prevent lest it encourage Catalonian separatists), it might be forced to join the exchange rate mechanism from the beginning. It would then need its own currency and central bank. It could not persist with sterling. Any such shift away from sterling raises big questions. In what currency will existing assets and liabilities be denominated? How will any redenomination occur? What will happen to the currency denomination of the pensions and all other state payments due to Scots?
These negotiations will be complex, bitter and prolonged. However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. It is the safest possible bet that when this process is over, the English will resent the people who repudiated them and the Scots will resent the people who did not give them independence on the terms to which they believed they were entitled. A United Kingdom will give way to a deeply divided island.
The Scots will discover the taste of austerity. Scotland cannot sustain higher taxes than the residual UK; that would drive economic activity away. It will pay a higher interest rate on public debt because its government will be unfamiliar and dependent on unstable oil revenues (almost certainly smaller than Mr Salmond imagines). Fiscal fibs will be exposed.
By then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose independence. And then, enjoy!
TLR I am glad I am not Scottish
The reason there are no paragraph breaks is because the writer is breathlessly hysterical. This is literally a summary of fictional worst case scenarios, from literally the most biased organ reporting on the matter.
It's actually embarrassing to read.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
If Scotland doesn't manage to become independent now, be ready to live years and years of constant propaganda similar to what you've been reading and hearing now. The agenda will be to make sure no other referendum ever takes place and if one does take place to make sure it is won again.
Of course, it will have the opposite effect.
Of course, it will have the opposite effect.
MilkyJoe
Member
The reason there are no breaks is because that's how my phone copy and pastes.
The FT is not the Sun. Financial implications are the root of everything in this split. Let's hear your rebuttal rather than your head in the sand refusal.
UK referendums
The government of 2016 can negotiate from what ever position they want, if that involves scrapping the negotiations they can. Scotland wouldn't have to plead to be let back in because we would never have left.
UnrealEck
Member
Not sure if it's been posted yet, but I'm sure some of you will find it interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM
Us that actually live and work in Britain do have it live with it's financial and economic consequences, especially in the difficult short turn. It's easy to brush it off when your an expat.
nelsonroyale
Member
Yeah, if we gain independence then sure, I think the Scottish should give up British citizenship. It isn't a big deal at all in my opinion. How can you be British and not part of Britain as it were.
Of course, we want all good things and none of the bad. That is a complete fantasy however, and is something no one has achieved in history and never will.
As for your first sentence, it is a rather vaccuous accusation. In general I feel national identities are a weak form of identity general used to distinguish yourself from people of other nationalities. For what it is worth though, I do feel that the coarse national distinctions between Scotland and England are as much as say Norway and Sweden or Portugal and Spain. In fact, I have always thought of England and Scotland as different countries. So I don't feel the change would be particularly startling to me. I am more interested in the political shake-up.
MilkyJoe: The FT isn't exactly neutral in this debate. But anyway, the arcticle comes across as worst case scenario fanfic. I mean it is a possible scenario, in fact, I don't doubt negotiations will be rocky and there will be additional uncertainty in the initial years. But that is to be expected. I consider the possible political and social pay offs outweigh the potential rocky road. Nothing risked is nothing gained.
Care to dissect it for us?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I can't agree with you. That is all I will say on the matter.
nelsonroyale
Member
May I ask what is stopping you? I can't seem to see what the central logic and rational is in your assertions. Have you read Dostoyevsky's 'Notes from the Underground ' by any chance?
Coriolanus
Banned
Oh wow, he actually tried to spin the way Iceland dealt with the 2008 crash as a negative. That's...that's actually impressive.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I already freely admitted that rationality has been replaced by (emotional) righteous indignation.
Being an Englishman means that I get told that I'm a piece of shit all the time by nutty Scots and other fucking idiots from around the world. But now here we are in a situation where Scotland wants independence but yet wants to be dependent on the financial system of the country it seems to detest. On top of that each citizen gets to remain British despite not wanting to be a part of it.
I just can't deal with it anymore.
MilkyJoe
Member
It seems to me that people assume that there will be a level of concessions in this split. The pound for instance. You can't willy nilly join a currency union and you sure as shit cannot share a currency and let the other country off their share of the debt. The UK government has a duty to ensure every part for this split to not have any dire effects on the UK tax payers. Any concession means the government has to answer to the voters. Like your man says, you want out you are on your own. And that is the way it should be. Nothing risked nothing gained? Maybe everything lost because a huge percentage of yes voters are nationalist fuckwits.
I'm on my phone too. My rebuttal would be a list of best case scenarios - Spain accepting that Scotland is a unique case, or being overruled on the matter. It's not me dismissing the NO argument, it's me dismissing the approach and assumptive hand-wringing of this particular article.
No voters have perfectly good concerns and a perfectly good case. Neither side should resort to chicken lickenism.
My entire family lives and works in Scotland, and I am familiar with this matter, dismissing my opinion is your right of course, but I will be affected, including matters of my own and child's actual and potential citizenship.
I'm removed but not aloof or unaffected. In fact I have more skin in this game than many of the posters here. I simply can't vote.
nelsonroyale
Member
Why does it get to you? On a coarse level, England is much bigger and more powerful than Scotland, so why would that feel threatening? Those people are fools, and there are just as many (well more because of bigger pop.) in England, Brazil or the Philippines...English hate is confined to a xenophobic and ignorant minority. People who tar entire populations as this or that are fools.
Saying 'Scotland' wants to do that is a bit of blanket statement. The Yes campaign is pretty diverse, definitely more than the SNP.
As to why the rest of the UK might negotiate favourable terms, well why can't there be something which is largely amicable on both sides? Why does the whole thing need to be antagonistic? I am not sure if it would even be in the UK's interests to negotiate antagonistically given a Yes vote.
This is a pretty amusing article by Mark Steel in the Independent. I agree with him that many of the pronouncements that have come out in the last few days (RSPB, Currency Union, etc.) have been threats not mere statements:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...h-the-scots-that-was-a-good-move-9727290.html
Milkyjoe: What does 'everything lost' even mean? You saying we are going to lose our material presence as well? At least you will admit that the BT camp is equally likely to full of British nationalist 'bawbags'? Or do you think the Orange March today are celebrating their love of SunnyD?
Wrestlemania
Banned
Oh, so you're one of the ones that seems to think that the reason people would want independence is because they "detest" England? Good one.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Not really, no.
I think they - like many regions in Britain - want greater control over their political and economic future. But it always happens to be coloured by anti-english sentiment. However, I will never again take any of that in good humour after this mess is done with.
MilkyJoe
Member
A large number of companies, including your biggest banks, have already announced they are leaving if there is a yes vote. The financial uncertainty that Scotland faces affects the banks rating and subsequently their investment potential for current and future business. Check for yourself, share prices rise and fall depending on the where the polls are. These are the cold hard facts.
JonathanEx
Member
If it happens, I'll be fascinated to see what tone the negotiations take and the attitudes are.
Like, it would ideally be a relatively amicable split, but the rUK govt will be looking out for the rUK's best interests, but until March '16 Scotland is still part, so you can't just bluntly screw them over. Like, transferring of assets.
To take a hypothetical (and not meaning to discuss this one in detail), the BBC. SNP/Yes propose splitting off BBC Scotland to become a national broadcaster, but the BBC owns the BBC, why would they just hand over people/assets that have a value that could be actually sold, it wouldn't be in the best interest of fee payers for them not to make money there? But it'd be a waste of resources to just shutter it otherwise. It's not a well thought through example but hopefully you can get the point - where the line will fall in "well you wanted to go alone" and "actually it's our duty to do best for all people, they did still elect us even if they're going" will be fascinating.
ALSO as well as fascinating I guess really boring as something to continually see on the news after a while cos of it non stop for a year and a half, so from a completely selfish point of view I'm wondering if that's a no argument. And fundamentally I'm lazy and not Scottish so I don't want to be taken too seriously on this.
Like, it would ideally be a relatively amicable split, but the rUK govt will be looking out for the rUK's best interests, but until March '16 Scotland is still part, so you can't just bluntly screw them over. Like, transferring of assets.
To take a hypothetical (and not meaning to discuss this one in detail), the BBC. SNP/Yes propose splitting off BBC Scotland to become a national broadcaster, but the BBC owns the BBC, why would they just hand over people/assets that have a value that could be actually sold, it wouldn't be in the best interest of fee payers for them not to make money there? But it'd be a waste of resources to just shutter it otherwise. It's not a well thought through example but hopefully you can get the point - where the line will fall in "well you wanted to go alone" and "actually it's our duty to do best for all people, they did still elect us even if they're going" will be fascinating.
ALSO as well as fascinating I guess really boring as something to continually see on the news after a while cos of it non stop for a year and a half, so from a completely selfish point of view I'm wondering if that's a no argument. And fundamentally I'm lazy and not Scottish so I don't want to be taken too seriously on this.
nelsonroyale
Member
Can you give a list of those institutions and their relationship to the UK government? Show us the cold hard facts with cold hard data.
JonathanEx: I don't think this is going to go away at all if there is a No vote. In fact, at least in Scotland division whatever the result is going to be an issue. Which ever side loses it is going be close to 50%. To be honest this is an issue to be resolved, so I don't mind it being out in the open. I don't want conflict or division, but when there is a problem it has to be addressed. Suppression leads to depression.
JonathanEx
Member
Like revenge, facts are a dish best served cold.
...I have nothing further to add.
freakzilla149
Banned
I've mostly stayed away but since it's a Saturday evening and I'm not doing shit I'll chime in.
To my eyes there is definitely a sort of intangible anti-English sentiment running throughout all of this, of course there are the nutters in kilts who shout about imperialism but there also seems to a quiet 'the English are assholes' attitude which I used to think was just joking rivalry between neighbours.
If Yes does win, I guarantee that Napoleon here won't be alone in their disdain for the anti-English" jokes, people who used to agree with the anti-Westminster sentiment are actually getting a little annoyed now.
At least this is my take on things.
nelsonroyale
Member
Fact: I don't even know what this means, it leaves me cold. I think revenge is best not served at all, and stating things as facts often gets people hot.
Freakzilla: Point me to where anybody who is voting Yes in this thread has made any negative comment about English people. Sure it exists, but it conforms to how low probability events of extreme nature are over represented ithere who handle in peoples perception. I mean if I went by a couple of posters in this thread I might say English people have a persecution complex given that there are far more persecuted groups out there who handle such issues more stoically. But I think that would be to simply the issue...
Milkyjoe: Are these statements binding? They don't state how many jobs would go? RBSC basically stated no jobs would move...As I said, this is perfectly understandable. The government is mobilising business to influence the trajectory of the vote. How these businesses would operate after independence is not a sure thing at all. Otherwise they would release less vague statements.
MilkyJoe
Member
Google is your friend
From the Telegraph
With just six days of campaigning left a slew of firms including Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, TSB, Clydesdale, Tesco Bank and Aegon have dramatically revealed that they have plans to quit for England if Scotland votes Yes in favour of independence on September 18.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Spain might see Scotland as different to Catalonia / Basque, but with respect to the bolded there will be no 'overruling'. New EU countries must be approved unanimously by all member states to be accepted.
Just to respond to this one example - because the BBC belongs as much to the people of Scotland as it does to the people of England. It's not a case of this is now Scotland leaving with nothing and the UK deciding what to give it. There will be legal entitlements. In fact, the budget of BBC Scotland is less than the amount generated from Scottish TV licenses - so it's an absolute minimum to receive that and we'd look to get some of the other assets too, or negotiate for something else to their value.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (a group set up to determine the legalities set out in the British constitution) had a meeting on this, and came to the following conclusion:
‘…in the event of the Scottish independence…the UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between Scotland and the remainder of the UK, subject to negotiations. An exception to the latter point is that Government assets fixed in Scotland would become assets of the new Scottish state.’
By 'being overruled' I'd assume he means will be bullied into accepting it, in the manner the EU usually goes about these things.
JonathanEx
Member
Ta for that Sage, good stuff in general for that point as well as for the example. That last quote is the kicker I guess for all the negotiations - as you say, the stuff also belongs for to the people of Scotland, but I suspect that doesn't mean Westminster will give 'em an easy ride. That's what I'm curious about. Man, if people thought the debate's heated now, imagine how bad it could get.
No problem. An interesting thing about that is that Trident would effectively become Scottish property on the eve of independence.
But for all the bickering here I think both governments will actually be perfectly amicable in this process, since it's in the best interests of both. The Scottish negotiating team would also include some pretty hefty figures - Salmond, Darling, Alexander, Brown, etc - who I'm sure won't accept anything less than a good deal.
From an outsider perspective (Swedish) I'm actually stunned that there is a possibility that "Yes" could win when so many fundamental questions haven't been hashed through. Currency, EU/NATO membership, just what assets iScotland gets, the question of defense - there's just so much on the line and so few certainties.
I can fully respect if Scots want to go it alone, but aren't these questions that should have been answered before the referendum, rather than after? Wouldn't that help the Scots to make an informed decision? It all just seems so... cavalier to me.
I can fully respect if Scots want to go it alone, but aren't these questions that should have been answered before the referendum, rather than after? Wouldn't that help the Scots to make an informed decision? It all just seems so... cavalier to me.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
They probably have to some degree behind the scenes if the yes vote wins. We're just not informed about them.
From 1997 voting yes for a scottish parliament will
cost us more...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/08/0822/scotbank.shtml
harm businesses...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/300897MAJ.shtml
impoverish scotland. a yes vote will be a 'jobs holocaust...'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/same-old-tories-looking-back-3014315
make scotland a 'high-tax ghetto...'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/same-old-tories-looking-back-3014315
wreak 'frightening financial consequences...'
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/4th-september-1997/10/scots-warned-on-devolution
upset big business and the CBI
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/280897CBI.shtml
harm the climate for business in scotland...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/09/0907/devolution.shtml
lead to job losses...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-lang-in-row-over-scottish-job-fears-1269117.html
harm fragile rural communities and undermine agriculture...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/250897.shtml
lead to a weaker scotland, suffering from less inward investment...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/24/past.electionspast1
and yes, even in 1997, big business threatened to leave if democracy prevailed
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-lang-in-row-over-scottish-job-fears-1269117.html
cost us more...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/08/0822/scotbank.shtml
harm businesses...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/300897MAJ.shtml
impoverish scotland. a yes vote will be a 'jobs holocaust...'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/same-old-tories-looking-back-3014315
make scotland a 'high-tax ghetto...'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/same-old-tories-looking-back-3014315
wreak 'frightening financial consequences...'
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/4th-september-1997/10/scots-warned-on-devolution
upset big business and the CBI
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/280897CBI.shtml
harm the climate for business in scotland...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/09/0907/devolution.shtml
lead to job losses...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-lang-in-row-over-scottish-job-fears-1269117.html
harm fragile rural communities and undermine agriculture...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/250897.shtml
lead to a weaker scotland, suffering from less inward investment...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/24/past.electionspast1
and yes, even in 1997, big business threatened to leave if democracy prevailed
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-lang-in-row-over-scottish-job-fears-1269117.html
Wrestlemania
Banned
I think you're projecting something onto the campaign which just isn't there.
Agree.
The post came across as someone getting upset because some nasty man said somethign bad about England on Twitter or some such.
There is no mass feeling of "The English are Assholes"
QuicheFontaine
Member
"bullied into accepting it"? By who?
They have a veto. Whether they'd use it or not can be discussed, but it's disingenuous to suggest they don't have one.
Spain has no qualms about standing up to the other countries of the EU. Just have a look at the legislative history of the unitary patent, which they've opposed for 40 years, which still refuse to join, and of which they are taking legal action against the decision of 25 other member states to form a unitary bloc without them.
The UK government has refused to pre-negotitate, and have therefore played politics with the markets (to the determent you saw this week), so there's nothing we can do about it.
Not surprising really. Murdoch hates Dave and the Westminster parties since they hung him out to dry on NOTW. The Scottish Sun has supported the SNP to get one over on them ever since.
It's really sad to see newspapers declare political 'allegiances', by the way. Glad this old media is dying the death it deserves.
It won't change anything. The type of person who is swayed by a red top rag is already voting YES because of some shite meme they saw on Facebook, and the SUN have been embarassingly YES biased for months anyway (as has SKY News)
Everyone else thinks he is an utterly repulsive **** who is only trying to poke Westminster in the eye because they had the audacity to tell them hacking into dead kids voicemails was wrong.
Not so sure that's true. The people who would listen to the Sun are the same who would be swayed by the Better Together Asda price rise scare stories over the past few days - the old and the vulnerable in society. Whoever takes them will win.
Then they will already be voting YES. The Sun has all but been a nationalist mouthpiece for a long time , the last 3 weeks have been embarrassing in all honesty , they threw any pretence of impartiality out the window ages ago.
They gave Bill Leckie a 2 page spread last week ( like page 4 and 5 ) because he had decided to vote YES , Bill Leckie ! The only way that can be topped is if it's the Krankies on Monday.
Apart from the time he spent at school in Durham where he spent his first 11 years, apart from the 3 he spent in Australia.
QuicheFontaine
Member
What's your point? He's not Scottish enough for you?
He satisfies the proposed criteria for Scottish citizenship on the Yes Scotland website.
This week is goan tae be fandabbiedozie.
- Status