Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mark Johnson on August 25, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
-
Question for our friends across the pond
Been reading a lot of the upcoming Scotland independence vote. If independence eventually does come, would this have any impact of the R&A, the open championships and assorted golf stuff.
-
A the risk of infuriating a few passionate Scots, they're not going to vote for independence. Seriously, I'm not a gambling man but am genuinely thinking about sticking a sizeable sum on the 'no' campaign winning the fight.
If however some astronomical change were to happen, it wouldn't make any difference to the game. The R&A is a self appointed world body which, with the exception of the USA and Mexico, governs the game globally. Secondly, The Open (noting that it ISN'T The British Open) is not a national championship. Once the R&A run out of excuses and actually take the event to Northern Ireland it'll be heading south of the Irish border before too long.
-
Scotland would have a better chance of getting its golfers into the Olympics. In most other areas of international golf Scotland is considered a separate nation, is it not?
-
Alex Salmand was at North Berwick last Wednesday. He held some type of press conference in the clubhouse and then played 18 holes a couple of groups behind us.
-
A the risk of infuriating a few passionate Scots, they're not going to vote for independence. Seriously, I'm not a gambling man but am genuinely thinking about sticking a sizeable sum on the 'no' campaign winning the fight.
If however some astronomical change were to happen, it wouldn't make any difference to the game. The R&A is a self appointed world body which, with the exception of the USA and Mexico, governs the game globally. Secondly, The Open (noting that it ISN'T The British Open) is not a national championship. Once the R&A run out of excuses and actually take the event to Northern Ireland it'll be heading south of the Irish border before too long.
Paul,
What is the argument against independence? from what i have heard Parliament underinvests in scotland plus there is a ton of untapped oil reserves off the north sea which would make it a boon for an independent scotland. I hear tons of famous people endorse independence but almost noone publicly against it (keep in mind this is through US media), but i am shocked it is 6-8 points behind in the polls
-
Any chance you guys would like an additional State?
F.
-
The R&A vote on admitting women is the same day...
So, open question... Which one are you more interested in...?!
-
If I were the betting type I'd put 10x on two no votes than two yes votes!
-
Mark,
Currency is the big one. The British political parties have made it clear that they will not share sterling. If Scotland wants to use the pound they can't be stopped from doing so but they won't have any control over monetary policy if they do. European politicians have seemingly done the establishment a favour by refusing to confirm that Scotland could and would become a member of the EU, thereby adopting the Euro.
There's maybe fifty years of oil left in the North Sea. Thereafter Scotland has little with which to support itself. Scotland is a big part of Britain but a small part of the World. And Scotland actually gets subsidised by the rest of the UK, albeit that subsidy is effectively cancelled out when you consider the oil revenue Scotland generates.
Ultimately, as an Englishman, I'm really not too concerned either way. Andy Murray won Wimbledon as a Brit so they're now free to do as they please. ;D
-
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a move towards English independence. Tell those uppity haggis noshers where to get off.
F.
-
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a move towards English independence. Tell those uppity haggis noshers where to get off.
F.
I rather like haggis. ;D
-
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a move towards English independence. Tell those uppity haggis noshers where to get off.
F.
I rather like haggis. ;D
Stock up now. The import duty after September will be extortionate...
;)
F.
-
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a move towards English independence. Tell those uppity haggis noshers where to get off.
F.
I rather like haggis. ;D
Stock up now. The import duty after September will be extortionate...
;)
F.
Shit. I'd completely overlooked that. And whisky is pricey enough these days as it is. ;D
-
I think there is a real momentum switch here in Scotland for a Yes vote. Only time will tell but Scotland is a wealthy country with amazing natural resources full of creative minds. I would be in no doubt Scotland would be successful.
As for golf tourism in an independent Scotland, allowing Scotland to attract more international flights to and from Scotland by cutting Air Passenger Duty might make getting here to golf that little but easier. The Scottish Government has backed initiatives like 'club golf' to keep the game an inherent part of our culture while showing support to the Scottish Open. (He was announcing North Berwick as a pre qualifier next year at Gullane)
Happy to discuss further the pro and cons on a matter very important to the Scottish people.
A the risk of infuriating a few passionate Scots, they're not going to vote for independence. Seriously, I'm not a gambling man but am genuinely thinking about sticking a sizeable sum on the 'no' campaign winning the fight.
If however some astronomical change were to happen, it wouldn't make any difference to the game. The R&A is a self appointed world body which, with the exception of the USA and Mexico, governs the game globally. Secondly, The Open (noting that it ISN'T The British Open) is not a national championship. Once the R&A run out of excuses and actually take the event to Northern Ireland it'll be heading south of the Irish border before too long.
-
Thanks Ru.
That is the exact type of commentary I was looking to get, which obviously doesn't make it through the US media.
Based on media reports, Salmond had an awful performance at the final debate last night and significantly hurt independence chances. Is that the consensus in Scotland?
I think there is a real momentum switch here in Scotland for a Yes vote. Only time will tell but Scotland is a wealthy country with amazing natural resources full of creative minds. I would be in no doubt Scotland would be successful.
As for golf tourism in an independent Scotland, allowing Scotland to attract more international flights to and from Scotland by cutting Air Passenger Duty might make getting here to golf that little but easier. The Scottish Government has backed initiatives like 'club golf' to keep the game an inherent part of our culture while showing support to the Scottish Open. (He was announcing North Berwick as a pre qualifier next year at Gullane)
Happy to discuss further the pro and cons on a matter very important to the Scottish people.
A the risk of infuriating a few passionate Scots, they're not going to vote for independence. Seriously, I'm not a gambling man but am genuinely thinking about sticking a sizeable sum on the 'no' campaign winning the fight.
If however some astronomical change were to happen, it wouldn't make any difference to the game. The R&A is a self appointed world body which, with the exception of the USA and Mexico, governs the game globally. Secondly, The Open (noting that it ISN'T The British Open) is not a national championship. Once the R&A run out of excuses and actually take the event to Northern Ireland it'll be heading south of the Irish border before too long.
-
Mark
Any chance you could spell the name of the country right in the title to the thread ?
Don't know what particular media you are paying attention to but they don't really seem too switched on. The general consensus over here seems to be that Salmond performed better than he did in the first debate when it was generally accepted that Alistair Darling got the better of him. Didn't watch it myself so can't give a personal opinion.
Niall
-
Mark
Any chance you could spell the name of the country right in the title to the thread ?
Don't know what particular media you are paying attention to but they don't really seem too switched on. The general consensus over here seems to be that Salmond performed better than he did in the first debate when it was generally accepted that Alistair Darling got the better of him. Didn't watch it myself so can't give a personal opinion.
Niall
Alex Salmond did indeed take the spoils but it's not clear if at all what effect it will have on the outcome. Prolly none.
-
Martin: We over here on this side of the Pond like even numbers of States (makes adding stars on the flag easier outside of the original one of course); so we need a two'fer. Scotland and Puerto Rico.
How does direct domestic flights from Edinburgh to San Juan or Honolulu sound?
-
Martin: We over here on this side of the Pond like even numbers of States (makes adding stars on the flag easier outside of the original one of course); so we need a two'fer. Scotland and Puerto Rico.
How does direct domestic flights from Edinburgh to San Juan or Honolulu sound?
Scotland can just replace the Republic of Texas when they secede.
-
Martin: We over here on this side of the Pond like even numbers of States (makes adding stars on the flag easier outside of the original one of course); so we need a two'fer. Scotland and Puerto Rico.
How does direct domestic flights from Edinburgh to San Juan or Honolulu sound?
Scotland can just replace the Republic of Texas when they secede.
Only if Texas takes California with it.
-
Any chance you guys would like an additional State?
F.
See attached link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/if-the-uk-was-a-u-s-state-it-would-be-the-second-poorest-behind-alabama-and-before-mississippi/?hpid=z5
-
We should note that the R&A is not the governing body, it is the rule making body. That makes it very distinct from the USGA which does both. The individual Golf Unions of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland actually administer the game.
That's probably the reason is it called The Open. The R&A simply has no authority to call its little tournament The British Open any more than the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club has the right to call its show the British Tennis Championships. They are just private clubs.
So nothing will change.
-
Update on this to all concerned.
Latest polls suggest a big swing towards Yes making the vote very close on estimates as the UK Government battle to save the Union.
Momentum is a big thing..
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScThcLraNla9DzV668mAHYRznJxIPX6z5RJtd4swXXZ4cohKfO)
(sic) :)
atb
-
The strongest and best written case yet for Freedom!
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Magazine/article1439921.ece?shareToken=2d55c1ca810342395c736f0ace18123c
-
We should note that the R&A is not the governing body, it is the rule making body. That makes it very distinct from the USGA which does both. The individual Golf Unions of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland actually administer the game.
But it isn't the rule making body that is considering admitting women, it is the private members club. They separated a decade ago.
-
The strongest and best written case yet for Freedom!
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Magazine/article1439921.ece?shareToken=2d55c1ca810342395c736f0ace18123c
Yes I agree. He's always a good read, entertaining and reputedly Britain's highest paid hack who dictates his articles because of a very high level of dyslexia.
One thing I've been disappointed about this campaign is the lack of a single great orator to rise up and seize their chance to speak out for Scotland. Perhaps the modern media relies to much on other things than the power of oration.
But Gill made me think twice. In an earlier debate on here I cautioned about the experience of Eire since independence and how it hasn't all been plain sailing as the nationalists predicted it would be. Gill also looks at this and goes through pretty much the same examples I gave, and then comes up with the opposite conclusion.
Like Gill (born in Scotland) I am an expatriate (born in Ireland) living in London and have no vote and I don't have the same pressure on me as those who do. Suffice to say I now don't know which way I'd vote had I the option. My head and my business sense would want Scotland to stay as I believe I am too old to see any benefits, but my heart says what should the country of your birth mean to you? Don't you want to be a nation once again?
It was always going to come down to feelings as neither side can convincingly predict the future. If Salmond is to sway the day, he needs some new speechwriters.
-
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply, Tony.
I began a reply which was too long and too controversial/OT to put on this website, but I will post it in the next day or so on my soon-to-be-resurrected blog (richmusings.blogspot.co.uk). I think I will post there daily on this topic, as well as on my golfing experiences over the past 2 1/2 years (to keep the pure gca geeks interested). It has been a very good 2 1/2 years, and if Scotland does become a Nation again, the rest of my life will be a great end to my innings...
Rich
-
What a great piece by Gill!
Having crossed the river Tweed myself six times in the past two weeks I have to concur. Scotland and England two very different countries.
One of my last days in Edinburgh was spent at the "Georgian House" on Charlotte Square in the New Town and I learned that the development of New Town in the mid 1700's was rife with deferential symbolic gestures to the Scotland/England merger. George Street (for King George III) forms the Central Avenue between St. Andrews square on one end and Charlotte Square, named after King George's Queen, on the other. George Street is bracketed by Thistle and Rose Streets. Gill mentions this in his piece with the references on every corner to fat, chinless Hanoverians.
-
I wonder if those "huge differences between both countries" are a figment of the collective British imagination :)
It's probably the same thing as Bavarians making a big fuss about how they are worlds apart from what they call Prussians, but to a foreigner it all looks pretty German :)
Ulrich
-
I just returned from a trip to Scotland with four couples and we enjoyed talking about the vote to our caddies, waitstaff and other people we met. One waitress said voting yes because she is from England and paying for her education at St. Andrews while Scots get their education for far less. She feels a yes vote will even things out...
In North Berwick there was a group handing out brochures and pushing independence, so I chatted with them for a while. Their most common claim is that a Scottish government will be far more responsive to the Scottish people than Westminster. The brochures seemed to be trying to "buy votes" by promising better state-provided health care, higher pensions and an earlier retirement age than the current 67 in the UK. They make the claim that Scotland will be one of the richest economies in Europe due to excellent universities, strong tourism, distilling and leadership in green technology industries such as wind and wave power. The brochures seem to assume that all the oil reserves will go to Scotland. But most Scots we talked to seemed to be undecided or said they were voting no; it seemed to us that the pro-independence leaders have not effectively made the case for a yes vote. I think uncertainty about the pound is a huge problem for the pro-independence movement.
-
Bill,
It's true what you say about the "Yes" campaign. We have been receiving mailings at the flat all month and the "Yes" argument centers more around additional "bread and circuses" such as free daycare, better NHS and guaranteed pension COLA adjustments, etc, etc. rather than the more overt call for Scottish Nationalism I read into the Gill piece. He sums it up perfectly when he compares the debate to a couple of misers arguing over pennies.
From what I read in the Scottish papers this past week the last debate was pretty decisive on the currency question where Alastair Darling came off as a "one trick pony" when he kept bringing it up and was dissed by the crowd. Salmond's response that there were plenty off options, including the pound, seems to be growing in acceptance. A retired Schoolteacher managed to hand Darling the most withering question of all, "if we are better together then why aren't we better together now?". Darling had no response.
-
Ulrich,
I think that you might find huge cultural differences between the mostly Catholic laid back regions of Bavaria and the mostly Protestant and rigid "Prussian" regions of central and northern Germany if you spent some significant time in both regions.
Just a guess.
-
With regards to currency - Scotland can use whatever it wants but it won't have any control over its monetary policy if it chooses to continue to use the pound. But, arguably, that is somewhat the case today as Scotland may feel it doesn't have much control over the UK's central bank which is known as the Bank of ENGLAND which may set its policy more based on what is going on in the London area.
They don't know that we Canadians have launched a plot to take over the world and it is working quite well as we now have our own man at the BoE.
-
The talk in Scotland is that they need to totally break free with their own central bank to be totally free.
-
Malcolm
Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.
-
Malcolm
Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.
Rich,
I think you will find that almost anyone with any money in Scotland in 1700 invested in the Darien scheme. It was a sort o collective madness. You are correct that the UK owes very much to its Scottish contributors.
The level of the debate by both campaigns has been very, very disappointing :'( lots of rhetoric and no substance. Both sides seem to think we Scottish voters are impressed by a bit o sabre rattling.
As for the currency, using the pound without a monetary union is the same as using the US dollar though 'Wee Eck' was unwilling to admit it. And though the SNP bang on about a monetary union they have not laid out even the sketchiest outlines of what they would want but at best it would be akin to the Eurozone and at worst mean Westminster deciding economic policy in a not so independent Scotland. Scotland needs its own currency which it backs itself though it could be linked with the Pound Sterling I needed but the problem is that would mean setting up a central bank and there is not the money for that if you want to have anything else.
Jon
-
Time to refer to this previous thread on Scottish independence - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57733.0.html
As to a separate Scottish currency, my thoughts remain as they were a few months ago, namely -
- that the primary currency should be called a "Forbes"
Lesser coinage should be called "Salmond"s and "Trump"s.
1 Forbes = 1,000 Salmond's
1 Salmond = 1,000 Trump's
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_BP6XNxhm57HGzr4TpLp2dkT94mAunbqvwsrpZgNCpve4yD4g)
As an aside, there is a Principality south west of Scotland that some would also like to be an independent nation.
Should such independence occur the currency could be -
- a "leek"
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSThIvuBi1La8g9AMLxZ6A0Fn1ii8KZ3LleIhJqo0HJlGlwr8_g)
It would also be permitted to term it a 'leak', which would be entirely appropriate given that politicians are extremely good at p...... away money.
:) :) :)
atb
-
Malcolm
Ironically, the Bank of England was founded based on the ideas of a a Scotsman, William Paterson, who also was a backer of the infamous Darien scheme which bankrupted Scotland and led to the Union of 1707.
Rich,
I think you will find that almost anyone with any money in Scotland in 1700 invested in the Darien scheme. It was a sort o collective madness. You are correct that the UK owes very much to its Scottish contributors.
The level of the debate by both campaigns has been very, very disappointing :'( lots of rhetoric and no substance. Both sides seem to think we Scottish voters are impressed by a bit o sabre rattling.
As for the currency, using the pound without a monetary union is the same as using the US dollar though 'Wee Eck' was unwilling to admit it. And though the SNP bang on about a monetary union they have not laid out even the sketchiest outlines of what they would want but at best it would be akin to the Eurozone and at worst mean Westminster deciding economic policy in a not so independent Scotland. Scotland needs its own currency which it backs itself though it could be linked with the Pound Sterling I needed but the problem is that would mean setting up a central bank and there is not the money for that if you want to have anything else.
Jon
Jon
Vis a vis currency, Eire did just fine for 50 years after separating from the UK using their pound (the "punt") in conjunction with the UK pound. Given that Scotland has a much stronger economy that Eire ever had (even during the Euro bubble), I see no reason why they couldn't do the same. If the rUK decided to fight this, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, given that an independent Scotland would otherwise "take" from the rUK its positive balance of payments, throwing rUk (and its pound) into a weaker international currency position. Of course, maybe that's what the "No" campaign wants.........
-
Rich,
Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.
How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.
Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.
Jon
-
Seeing as we're talking about independence an' all, maybe everyone should stop referring to the Republic of Ireland as Éire... which pedantic as it seems, has negative and derogatory connotations when used by a non-Irish person...
Not that I mind... or probably most of the Irish population... I know it really riles my wife though.
-
Rich,
Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.
How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.
Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.
Jon
Jon
Ireland became independent of rUK in 1922,continued to use the pound until 1928, created the punt without any central bank until 1943 and shadowed the pound until 1978. Do you not think that Scotland could do the same?
As for rUK's reasons for letting Scotland do the same thing as Ireland did in 1922-1978:
1. rUK has a negative balance of payments of ~£45billion/year, while Scotland has a positive balance of payments of ~£5billion/year. Without Scotland the value of the pound would drop.
2. Scotland is a significant market for rUK goods and services (and vice versa). Why would they want to damage the economy of one of their key trading partners?
Why would rUK not let Scotland use the pound, other than mindless spite?
Rich
-
Rich,
Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.
How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.
Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.
Jon
Jon
Ireland became independent of rUK in 1922,continued to use the pound until 1928, created the punt without any central bank until 1943 and shadowed the pound until 1978. Do you not think that Scotland could do the same?
As for rUK's reasons for letting Scotland do the same thing as Ireland did in 1922-1978:
1. rUK has a negative balance of payments of ~£45billion/year, while Scotland has a positive balance of payments of ~£5billion/year. Without Scotland the value of the pound would drop.
2. Scotland is a significant market for rUK goods and services (and vice versa). Why would they want to damage the economy of one of their key trading partners?
Why would rUK not let Scotland use the pound, other than mindless spite?
Rich
Is it mindless spite to refuse monetary union or to be "lender of last resort" with an independent country? The whole point of independence is that it is self reliant. rUK obviously can't stop Scotland using the pound - just as the US couldn't stop it using the dollar. Why on earth would it effectively be guarantor for an independent country? I find it mind boggling that any sane Scot thinks we would.
Monetary union, at least in the short / medium term, would be of massive benefit to Scotland (70% of Scotland exports are to rUK). However, when you look at it purely from a rUK perspective - as surely every Scot would expect rUk to do in the event of a yes vote - exports to Scotland represent 11% of the total. This is considerably less than to the Eurozone. If we want monetary union for the sake of exports, surely joining the euro makes more sense?
Personally, if I was Scottish I would vote yes. Who knows what will happen in the future and whether they are better off or worse off by £50 each etc.. It all seems a bit pathetic making a decision based on claims and counter claims based on small amounts of money. Much as AA Gill winds me up with his consistent anti-Englishness (despite being raised, educated, and living in England), the point he made about whether Ireland would vote to return to the UK is one of the best points I've heard in the whole debate. I'm sure Scotland will be just fine - as will rUk or England or whatever comes about from any break up.
-
Ulrich,
I think that you might find huge cultural differences between the mostly Catholic laid back regions of Bavaria and the mostly Protestant and rigid "Prussian" regions of central and northern Germany if you spent some significant time in both regions.
Just a guess.
Malcolm,
I have spent significant time in most regions of Germany. Am born in Bavaria. The differences are not as pronounced as to warrant seperate countries. Just my opinion, no hard feelings towards Scots :)
Ulrich
-
Rich,
Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.
How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.
Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.
Jon
Jon
Ireland became independent of rUK in 1922,continued to use the pound until 1928, created the punt without any central bank until 1943 and shadowed the pound until 1978. Do you not think that Scotland could do the same?
As for rUK's reasons for letting Scotland do the same thing as Ireland did in 1922-1978:
1. rUK has a negative balance of payments of ~£45billion/year, while Scotland has a positive balance of payments of ~£5billion/year. Without Scotland the value of the pound would drop.
2. Scotland is a significant market for rUK goods and services (and vice versa). Why would they want to damage the economy of one of their key trading partners?
Why would rUK not let Scotland use the pound, other than mindless spite?
Rich
Is it mindless spite to refuse monetary union or to be "lender of last resort" with an independent country? The whole point of independence is that it is self reliant. rUK obviously can't stop Scotland using the pound - just as the US couldn't stop it using the dollar. Why on earth would it effectively be guarantor for an independent country? I find it mind boggling that any sane Scot thinks we would.
Monetary union, at least in the short / medium term, would be of massive benefit to Scotland (70% of Scotland exports are to rUK). However, when you look at it purely from a rUK perspective - as surely every Scot would expect rUk to do in the event of a yes vote - exports to Scotland represent 11% of the total. This is considerably less than to the Eurozone. If we want monetary union for the sake of exports, surely joining the euro makes more sense?
Personally, if I was Scottish I would vote yes. Who knows what will happen in the future and whether they are better off or worse off by £50 each etc.. It all seems a bit pathetic making a decision based on claims and counter claims based on small amounts of money. Much as AA Gill winds me up with his consistent anti-Englishness (despite being raised, educated, and living in England), the point he made about whether Ireland would vote to return to the UK is one of the best points I've heard in the whole debate. I'm sure Scotland will be just fine - as will rUk or England or whatever comes about from any break up.
Good post, Ed. Nobody (including me) would ever think that Scotland would use the pound without serious discussions and agreement with rUk (and probably the EU and the US too) about how that sharing would work in the real world. Given that (I strongly believe) it is in the interest of both parties to come to an agreement, such and agreement will be reached, despite all the nonsense that the non-economists Darling and Brown et. al. are spouting. And, like you, if I had a vote I would vote yes too.
Rich
-
I have been in favor of independence, just on principle, since I first heard of the referendum.
However, in reading the last ten posts regarding economic union, I fear that the chief result of independence may be creating opportunities for bankers to make out off the arbitrage and the confusion over the split.
I'm curious: have the money people started to see this and retreat from the reflexive "keep well enough alone" attitude?
-
When I was in Scotland in May, I spoke with two older gentleman, both born in Scotland and lived their whole lives here. They were well educated and successful in their professional careers. When I asked them what they thought of the prospects for an independent Scotland, they both used the same word, "disaster."
-
I have been in favor of independence, just on principle, since I first heard of the referendum.
Why? What principle?
-
When I was in Scotland in May, I spoke with two older gentleman, both born in Scotland and lived their whole lives here. They were well educated and successful in their professional careers. When I asked them what they thought of the prospects for an independent Scotland, they both used the same word, "disaster."
David,
this will come down to guts and visceral emotion at least as much as brains and common sense! These are the bloody Scots we're talking about here..!
M.
-
Having spent 10 nights at the same B&B in St. Andrews this summer, I had many conversations with the owner, and some about independence. She said it appeared to be all coming down to the issue of using the pound.
I asked her a question, "Are the issues of England, the same issue confronting Scotland?" Her answer was, "No."
I said, "Then why would you want to keep a government that is more concerned and focused on the issues confronting England than the issues confronting Scotland?" "In my opinion, the smaller the number of people that are governed, the more likely you are to have a government representing the people and a government capable and willing to address the issues of the people."
It is rare, or maybe it has never existed, when a larger government was ever better for the people.
Bigger fairways, not bigger government! ;D
-
But there are also economies of scale and the ability to play a role in the global community. A country of 5.5 million is rather small - can you afford the required infrastructure for a country including national defense, foreign affairs, etc? As part of the UK, Scotland can have some influence in the international sphere but that is pretty much impossible as a smaller country. As a PM of the UK a Scot could be a major player in the global political landscape that isn't really possible for a Scottish PM. But maybe they don't care about that.
With your philosophy then the US should split up into 50 independent countries - or more in the case of states like Cali and Texas.
Those of us here in Canada are VERY familiar with all of these arguments, including the currency issues as we have been through two of these votes in the last few decades.
-
Rich,
Eire had a central bank (formed 1943) prior to the introduction of the Euro and hence a lender of last resort. The Irish Punt was an independent currency backed by the Irish taxpayer. What the SNP is proposing in using the pound without monetary union means no lender o last resort. To suggest that Eire was in a good position economically up until joining the Euro is an interesting take on reality.
How is monetary union with an independent Scotland an advantage for the rUK? Could you explain what terms would be discussed and agreed? What needs to be thought about is who needs who most in the case of no monetary union. 55 million populated rUK with its own currency, 50% of the north gas and EU membership or an independent Scotland with a 10th of the population, a currency it cannot control in any way, only 50% of the gas though 90% of the oil, outside the EU and if we are stupid enough to renege on our share of the debt no way to raise affordable money on the international markets.
Like I said in my last post the level of discussion in the referendum debate has been very disappointing.
Jon
Jon
Ireland became independent of rUK in 1922,continued to use the pound until 1928, created the punt without any central bank until 1943 and shadowed the pound until 1978. Do you not think that Scotland could do the same?
As for rUK's reasons for letting Scotland do the same thing as Ireland did in 1922-1978:
1. rUK has a negative balance of payments of ~£45billion/year, while Scotland has a positive balance of payments of ~£5billion/year. Without Scotland the value of the pound would drop.
2. Scotland is a significant market for rUK goods and services (and vice versa). Why would they want to damage the economy of one of their key trading partners?
Why would rUK not let Scotland use the pound, other than mindless spite?
Rich
Rich,
your position is flawed. If we in Scotland were to do what RoI did then they would have no monetary union for a few years then start our own currency and set up a 'lender of last resort' before eventually. This is not what you claimed happened in the post two back. It is not mindless spite for rUK to refuse to guarantee the debt of a foreign country or would you be willing to guarantee my mortgage?
When the 'Yes' campaign talk about monetary union what sort of deal would that be. Neither you nor I know as it has not been laid out by the yes campaign and why is that. And more to the point the yes a country can chose to use any currency so using the pound without an agreement is no different to using the US Dollar. Do you think people would vote yes with the idea of using the dollar? I very much doubt it which is why the yes campaign is avoiding commenting on this issue.
As I have said before the level of campaign discussion in this referendum has been woeful. Smoke and mirrors, half truths and misleading propaganda from both sides.
Jon
-
Gentlemen,
Six of my siblings have arrived here in Oz, a week ago, for a months holiday. To a man and woman they are all voting against independence as are the other five still stranded in the Scotland. This collection of Scots vary from unemployed to ex-teachers, healthcare workers, tradespeople and private business owners …. what I imagine as a pretty representative cross-section of the population.
What has surprised them the most has been the ire and rancour between the two camps and the disrespect for sensible, constructive debate about the issue. On the street and in the shops The NO camp have been derided by the YES camp as unpatriotic fellas and my family think that a very unhealthy nationalism has developed which is causing a schism which won't necessarily be healed after the vote has come and gone ... a vote which looks to be very close to a 50/50 split.
As a transplanted Scot I feel lucky to be here in Oz and do not envy the Scots in the aftermath of this vote no matter the result. Out of interest a goodly number of these siblings have moved their money and assets out Scottish banks and financial institutions. I suspect the future of golf has not crossed their minds.
Cheers Colin
-
It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing. If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have? Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?
The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.
-
It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing. If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have? Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?
The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.
I am slightly less cynical, but I do think Salmond has known all along that, even if he loses the referendum, additional powers for the Scottish parliament will follow. So there is precious little downside.
-
You can put me in the camp that doesn't trust Salmond or his motives. However, as this debate has kicked on over the summer my views on the matter have softened. No, I still think it is a mistake for Scotland to go it alone, at least with the very sketchy plans outlined thus far and with the voting arrangement being rigged to exclude a ton of Scots from voting. But, when a very large percentage of the population (even if it isn't a majority, but then we will never know what the majority of Scots think because too many are not being asked) wants independence, I am inclined to think its time to cut the cord...in an amiable manner. The remainder of the UK should do what it can to help the process in a way which is least harmful (note I how fail to state most beneficial to each party because I believe that option is to keep the Union in tact) to both parties. There doesn't need to be a mad rush to cut the cord. All sides should take their time in doing the deed right. One thing I am adamant about, Scotland should go independent and in debt. Although, I have watched our government sell of assets ridiculously cheaply so I am not hopeful Scotland will walk away with a proper share of the debt. I don't buy all the number mongoosing about surplus this and oil that. The debt was taken on with Scotland on board so when the leave the deck it should be with their share of the debt. I could go on about how badly that cretin Scots Brown damaged the country...but lets not get too personal :D
Ciao
-
It helps Salmond immensely to blame Scotland's woes on the English and the unpleasant whiff of fundamentalism coming out of parts of the "Yes" campaign is depressing. If he gets his way and the yes campaign is succesful, how long will it be before Salmond has to find another excuse for whatever problems independent Scotland may have? Or will he be able to continue blaming any economic problems on England for the foreseeable future?
The cynic in my wonders if Salmond actually wants to win or whether he secretly thinks he would be better off with a narrow defeat, so he can continue as first minister whilst blaming any failings on the decision to stay in the Union.
I think you underestimate the Scottish capacity to blame the English for everything! I think I'll be long gone before any problems the Scots have cease to be due to the bloody Sassenachs!. :D
-
Wayne, Jon, Colin, Mark, Adam, Sean and Ed et. al.
Divorces are always messy, but they happen and people eventually get over it. The "Better Together" people seem to ignore the fact that there are many examples of successful divorces/independence movements in the modern era, beginning with the American Revolution, continuing through the split of Norway from Sweden, the independence of Australia and Canada, the independence of Eire in 1922, post WWII de-colonialisation movements, the break up of the Soviet Union and COMECON, the splitting of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia into smaller components (and many others that I cannot remember off the top of my head). With the possible recent exception of parts of the Ukraine, none of these new states has shown any inclination to revert to control by their former countries/Empires.
Should Scotland vote Yes, there is no reason to assume that they would be unable of doing what places like Slovakia and Estonia have done in recent times, i.e. becoming an independent and successful nation. Neither is there any evidence that it would be in the interest of either party (Scotland and rUk) to screw the other party (i.e. Scotland immediately telling rUK to take their Trident submarines and their missles to Portsmpout, or wherever; or rUK telling Scotland immediately that they could not use the pound with which they both have vested interests and liabilities). It will take time to resolve these issues, but they are hardly insurmountable, if both sides act with civility.
Rich
PS--Over the next few days I will write and post something elsewhere regarding the issue of currencies and economic and political integration/disintegration, of which I have some expertise, and is far too OT to discuss in any depth on this forum.
PPS--re: the initial (on topic) question regarding the possible impact of Independence on Scottish golf, the answer is probably positive but not significant enough to be of any great interest to most of the members of this site. IMO
-
I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?
rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.
-
Rich, I'm not sure that I would point to the breakup of Yugoslavia as particularly successful. The former member state may be relatively quiet now, but what about that whole ethnic cleansing and Balkan war thing back in the not too distant 90s? There was also Serbia trying to reclaim breakaway territories, not altogether unlike the situation in Ukraine today.
I am an American, and an anti-secessionist, but I have no skin in the Scotland vote. I just don't see how independence benefits Scotland in the long run, aside from national pride. I would vote no, if I had the vote. But it's their nation, let them make the choice. If, as I suspect, the Scottish economy struggles on its own post-independence, due in no small part to the loss of defense and public spending, I wouldn't expect the UK to have much sympathy.
-
The Star-spangled Banner...
-
I don't think it will have a significant effect effect on the Open.
As for independence, Many Scots feel they are very different than the English. So in some sense Scotland is a separate nation. My question is, what country/area that has separated has been significantly worse off after independence?
Some say the Slovakia is not as healthy after splitting from Czech but I don't know that. Some might say Ukraine but it never really left the Russian sphere of influence. The current troubles are largely because Ukraine wants to turn towards Europe and lessen Russian influence. A smart choice economically.
But can anyone name an nation of people who were worse off after gaining independence from a larger nation?
-
I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?
rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.
Thanks, Ed.
The Bank of England has assets and liabilities which are proportionately owned by Scotland and rUK. They will and should be divided (after negotiation) if Independence is achieved. The lands and maritime parts of of Scotland and rUK have assets and liabilities which will likewise be divided and allocated though negotiation, within the context of International law. The peoples and corporations and institutions of Scotland and rUK have assets (e.g. taxpayers, hospitals, schools, national parks, defense etc.) and liabilities (e.g. PFI payments for schools and hospitals, pensions, welfare/disability entitlements, defense etc.) that will likewise be allocated through negotiation. At the end of such negotiations, two wealthy and politically independent entities will arise. Economic and Social relationship will likely continue much as they have over the past 400 years, i.e. mostly amicably.
Rich
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
Completely agree, Mark. Curling is going to be hurting big time.
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
Completely agree, Mark. Curling is going to be hurting big time.
You make a good point, Brian. Maybe it should be official US foreign policy to support all separatist movements.
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
Hi Mark,
We tend to compete separately in sporting terms. For example, it was England who performed so woefully in the recent World Cup, not the UK. This is the same in rugby and cricket. In golf as well, Luke Donald and Justin Rose are always described as English not British. It is only really the Olympics where we compete as team GB - and tennis although if Andy Murray doesn't start winning again soon we'll no doubt start describing him as Scottish rather than British!
-
I have no doubt that Scotland will do just fine. As will England, Wales and N.Ireland. However, I don't understand the argument that rUK would be screwing Scotland by refusing monetary union. The pound and Bank of England are not an asset that can be divided up. They are an institution of the UK - just like parliament for example. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it leaves the institutions of the UK - or perhaps they would still expect representation at Westminster?
rUK is not going to tell Scotland immediately that there will be no monetary union. Firstly independence would not happen for 2 years - so rUK can plan to move Trident and Scotland can plan their currency. Secondly, the 3 main parties have already told Scotland, in advance of the vote, that there will be no monetary union. If people choose to ignore that fact when voting then that is their problem, and rUK will not be screwing Scotland by doing exactly what it said it would do before the vote.
Thanks, Ed.
The Bank of England has assets and liabilities which are proportionately owned by Scotland and rUK. They will and should be divided (after negotiation) if Independence is achieved. The lands and maritime parts of of Scotland and rUK have assets and liabilities which will likewise be divided and allocated though negotiation, within the context of International law. The peoples and corporations and institutions of Scotland and rUK have assets (e.g. taxpayers, hospitals, schools, national parks, defense etc.) and liabilities (e.g. PFI payments for schools and hospitals, pensions, welfare/disability entitlements, defense etc.) that will likewise be allocated through negotiation. At the end of such negotiations, two wealthy and politically independent entities will arise. Economic and Social relationship will likely continue much as they have over the past 400 years, i.e. mostly amicably.
Rich
Hi Rich,
I completely agree that the Bank of England has assets and liabilities that can be assessed and divided in an agreed proportion, as do all the institutions of the UK. The Bank of England itself though (and the currency) is not an asset that can be divided up. In leaving the UK, Scotland leaves those institutions behind. The pound is an asset in that it is a stable and well respected currency. However, this is precisely because it is the currency of the UK with all the financial / legal / political stability that comes with it. That stability is extremely valuable but it comes from being part of the UK - you can't leave the UK but keep that stability.
Anyway - we'll all still be as friendly as ever whatever happens!
Ed
-
Actually Ed,
They can. England can try to negotiate a deal where Scotland cannot but it may not be to their advantage. Their is very little England can do to stop Scotland from using the Pound. There are several examples worldwide.
The Pound is likely to take a drubbing if the independence vote is yes, so don't be in a hurry to lessen the demand. It will only make it worse.
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
Mark
Ask your Canadian and Mexican friends if they would rather run under the Stars and Stripes than their own flag in the Olympics.
Rich
PS--I am long on record that the Olympics should ban all flags and national teams and national jerseys and let all the best athletes in the world compete for themselves and not for some government agency or association. This might lead to having 25 Kenyans in the marathon and 10+ Americans and Australians in some of the swimming heats and multiple Iranians competing in Greco-Roman wrestling, but so what? Maybe the rules could be slightly relaxed so that the Eddie the Eagles and Jamaican Bobsled Teams of the world can compete from time to time, but only as the sideshow attractions that they are.
I grew up thinking that the Olympics were all about we are all one world, but today they are just opportunities for ultra-nationalists and hangers-on around the world to get a free ride to a big jolly every 4 years. It makes my stomach turn.
rfg
-
So does the Independence Vote primarily revolve around the question where Scots can get the best deal? So perhaps if Germany offered a better deal, can we get Scotland as our 17th state? That would solve the currency problem for Scotland and the golf problem for Germany. I may put Angie on to that!
Think about it, Scots, the possibilities are endless: you're not going to suck at Soccer anymore, in fact you'll be reigning world champions instantly and the two Glasgow teams can play in a real league. And just imagine Peter Dawson's face, when it is explained to him that the government mandates the R&A to have a female quota!
Ulrich
-
So does the Independence Vote primarily revolve around the question where Scots can get the best deal? So perhaps if Germany offered a better deal, can we get Scotland as our 17th state? That would solve the currency problem for Scotland and the golf problem for Germany. I may put Angie on to that!
Think about it, Scots, the possibilities are endless: you're not going to suck at Soccer anymore, in fact you'll be reigning world champions instantly and the two Glasgow teams can play in a real league. And just imagine Peter Dawson's face, when it is explained to him that the government mandates the R&A to have a female quota!
Ulrich
Ulrich you are onto something :)
And if Scotland joins you, I'm sure the golfing part of Holland can be convinced....
-
Ulrich
You are not far off of reality, mein fruend. Longer term (1-15 years from now, assuming that the EU gets its act together....) Scotland (and rUk) will join the Euro. It is inevitable. As for football, however, never!
Rich
-
Ed its fair to say England performed badly at the World Cup we did turn up though!
Rich - if the massacre of 8000 men and boys at Srebrenica was part of a successful nation split then theres no hope.
Scotland wishes to get rid of nuclear weapons, Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 as part of an agreement signed by amongst others Russia. Would Russia be attacking the Ukraine today of they still held the ultimate deterrent?
-
Scotland wishes to get rid of nuclear weapons, Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 as part of an agreement signed by amongst others Russia. Would Russia be attacking the Ukraine today of they still held the ultimate deterrent?
Would NATO really want the Ukraine (or other FSU republics) to still have Nukes? The Ukraine hasn't been the most stable country and has had some rather poor and corrupt leaders - I don't know that I would want those guys/girls to have their finger on the button - and I am a descendant of emigrants from the Ukraine.
-
... Longer term (1-15 years from now, assuming that the EU gets its act together....) Scotland (and rUk) will join the Euro. It is inevitable. As for football, however, never!
If Scotland leaves then it is pretty likely that they may join the Euro. But that will not happen for a long time, if ever, for rUK. I used to think it was inevitable but after the last 5 years it has become clear that it is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
-
Here's what I genuinely don't understand as an American looking from afar: why would these peoples (all current constituent "kingdoms" / "nations" in the UK) prefer to split up and lose in international sporting events (excepting those not truly global) rather than combine and, if not win, at least be competitive? Many Americans have a state or two they detest but wouldn't think of shallowing the talent pool.
For the record, I have no opinion on Scottish independence, and of course the sporting issue (decision) predates (presages?) it.
Mark
Ask your Canadian and Mexican friends if they would rather run under the Stars and Stripes than their own flag in the Olympics.
Rich
The shared histories, to the extent there were any, of those three countries lasted a few decades and ended centuries ago. The opposite of the situation it seems in the UK. But never mind facts, if that's how the Scots feel then that's how they feel. (And the English and the Welsh.) Principles are only principles if they cost something. International sporting relevance, for example.
Annexation mit Deutschland however...that would be a tough decision. Global sporting relevance but nailed to a modern economic cross of gold.
-
Ignorance is no way to go through life, Tommy...
Check out The Darien Scheme...
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, ere I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
We're not the same...
F.
-
Ed its fair to say England performed badly at the World Cup we did turn up though!
Rich - if the massacre of 8000 men and boys at Srebrenica was part of a successful nation split then theres no hope.
Scotland wishes to get rid of nuclear weapons, Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 as part of an agreement signed by amongst others Russia. Would Russia be attacking the Ukraine today of they still held the ultimate deterrent?
Mark
The blood of the 8000+ in Srebenica is wholly on the hands of the European Union, including both Scotland and rUK, who dithered and postured whilst all those poor people weer dying in their backyard. You should be ashamed. The number of dead would have been much greater if the USA had not (yet again....) stepped in to stop the Europeans from killing each other. As Bob Dylan said, "When will you ever learn?"
Rich
-
... Longer term (1-15 years from now, assuming that the EU gets its act together....) Scotland (and rUk) will join the Euro. It is inevitable. As for football, however, never!
If Scotland leaves then it is pretty likely that they may join the Euro. But that will not happen for a long time, if ever, for rUK. I used to think it was inevitable but after the last 5 years it has become clear that it is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
Wayne
I respect your opinion, but in the long term the pound is as dead as a dodo, even though it's death is not imminent. It is supported today only by nostalgia and money laundering, rather than intrinsic economic strength. When it goes, we will all be saying good riddance.
Rich
-
Some bizarre commentary throughout this thread...now the 'Pound is dead', being supported only by nostalgia and money-laundering...HELLO??!?? I assume the Swiss, the Swedes, the Danes are knocking down the door to help support their southern European brethren? And the Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks clearly need to find more formidable currencies...can't possibly make do with their silly versions of 'dollars'...
I am indifferent on Scottish independence - I totally get the 'pride of nation' issue but fear the sales pitch is mostly based on expanding government support programs, a losing proposition...someone earlier mentioned Texas, and indeed Texas, Alberta and similar would be very formidable free-market bastions which I'd love to join!
-
The pound sure seems stronger than the Euro where there are lots of countries that are not willing to make the hard decisions necessary to bring spending in line with their revenue. The Germans and Dutch are going to get really tired of working until they are 80 so that the French, Italians and Greeks can retire at 57 years of age, have short work weeks, get paid for 13 months of the year and not make environmental compromises like fracking for gas. The UK did make some hard fiscal decisions and their banks did a realistic reappraisal of the value of the assets. That has still yet to be done in many European countries as they are still kicking the can down the road waiting for a deus ex machina to save the day.
At least the UK, especially London, has created an environment that attracts people from all around the world as a desirable place to live.
Canadians are glad that we have our own country, but that doesn't mean that we support any faction that wants independence as most of us feel that Quebec leaving would be a very bad thing.
-
Wayne, I concur on the Euro and most of your post...as a fellow Canadian (albeit now expat living south of the border), I was staunchly against Quebec independence when it was being seriously pursued...in hindsight I do agree with a previous poster that smaller government is better, and applaud sensible independence propositions...Quebec would be fine as an independent nation, and the rest of Canada would do okay on their own...if Alberta splintered that would really call into question the regional imbalances etc. Sure you'd lose some of the 'efficiencies' of the larger organization, but I far prefer the character of the smaller independent cities, towns and villages in the New York area to 'the GTA', 'Greater Hamilton' etc...'small is beautiful'!!
-
Now we are getting way OT but I disagree that smaller is always better. One of the things that I think works better in Canada is the pooling of resources in areas like education. In Ontario the quality of the schools is pretty similar from town to town, especially since we now have mega cities as you mentioned. Inner city Hamilton is the same school board as wealthy suburban Ancaster.
My understanding of many US states is that the quality of schools can be hugely different between rich suburbs and poor inner cities since education is funded much more locally rather than being pooled over larger areas. I don't think that is a good thing for social mobility, or for society in general. Other things like pensions for govt employees, where I have some expertise, are FAR more efficient being managed provincially rather than city by city or county by county.
-
agreed OT but (a) I never said smaller is always better; (b) having grown up in the Hamilton area and now living in the NYC suburbs, I can tell you that the demographics are dramatically different...'inner-city Hamilton' bears NO resemblance to the distressed inner cities of the US...(b) the fact that the 'school board' is the same doesn't mean the students, teachers and outcomes are the same; (c) I'd hesitate to credit 'scale' for the 'efficiency' of the government pension schemes in Canada...I spend 100 days a year in Toronto and Vancouver on business...Canadians don't even jay-walk!!! The cultural / behavioral differences between the two countries are far greater than most imagine; Canada is dramatically more homogeneous (though that is changing) and Canadians 'follow rules' in ways that make common management attainable up north...could never happen in the US. And finally (d) if there is so much synergy in government, why does it take two weeks for a letter from my mother in Canada to arrive in New Jersey? why does it take 90 minutes sitting in line at the DMV to get my license renewed...
-
I didn't say there is a ton of synergy in govt - I am in favour of smaller govt as well, but scale matters in some instances and perhaps part of the Canadian (and even more so European) point of view is that there are times when individuals should make more sacrifices for the good of aggregate society. In general governments are woefully inefficient but they are required to perform some services - the fewer the better. Arguably one of the reasons that inner cities in Canada are not so bad is the pooling of resources and tax dollars which truncates the tails on either side of the income distribution.
p.s I jaywalk all the time and Toronto isn't that homogeneous. I see lots of burkas every day and cricket is a more popular pickup game than hockey in Scarborough where I live. I also was born in Hamilton but grew up in Ancaster where being of Eastern European descent made you very extic. In Ontario you can renew your license plate or driver's license online unless you need a new photo.
-
This Canada place sounds great! Maybe Scotland ought to join Canada after it splits from rUK? Given the facts that a significant part of [hysical Scotland (everything to the west of the Great Glen/Loch Ness area) was actually part of Canada before the tectonic plates crashed together many, many years ago, and also that a significant proportion of Canada's human population has Scottish roots, largely due to the fact that the English landowners (e.g. The Duke of Sutherland nee Marquis of Stafford) brutally "cleared" the Highlands of its peasantry, sent them on ships across the Atlantic and then replaced them with sheep, this would be a marriage of equals, rather than one of convenience, as the current UK marriage was and still is.
-
Rich,
if the union is broken up the Bank of England with associated assets and debts will also be effectively ended. The rUK would take its share continue to use the pound stirling which is the currency of the UK and we in Scotland would be able to set up our own currency and lender of last resort. Expecting a foreign country to underwrite our economy is ridiculous.
Interesting how RoI is suddenly not worth defending as your chosen model of how an independent Scotland could work ::)
Jon
-
Jon
I think there is some confusion. I hear Rihc saying that Scotland can use Sterling as its currency, not that Scotland will be able to control that currency once and if there is a split. It seems obvious the long term goal is for Scotland to join the Euro (if it survives!) as launching its own currency would be a very risky move...not that joining the Euro doesn't have its own risks. In the short term though, I think it is very wise for Scotland to hang onto the Pound and Westminster should support this (if a split is on the cards) if only to make the separation go smoother. Remember, there are a lot of Scots in England who have family in the frigid north and Scotland is a keen trading partner. It doesn't benefit anybody to play hardball.
Ciao
-
Rich,
if the union is broken up the Bank of England with associated assets and debts will also be effectively ended. The rUK would take its share continue to use the pound stirling which is the currency of the UK and we in Scotland would be able to set up our own currency and lender of last resort. Expecting a foreign country to underwrite our economy is ridiculous.
Interesting how RoI is suddenly not worth defending as your chosen model of how an independent Scotland could work ::)
Jon
Jon
If you have read what I have written carefully, you will know that I have never said that rUK will or should "underwrite" Scotland. All I have said is that if and when separation occurs, it will be in the best interests of both parties to come to an amicable agreement regarding all currently joint assets, including the currency.
As for Ireland, if you can find any credible source that the country has not increased its per capita GDP/GNP greater than the UK since 1922, please inform me of that source. I have spent a lot of time in Ireland over the past 35 years, and find it to be a place with less poverty, equal intelligence and more happiness than the great majority of the many places I have lived in and visited in the UK.
Slainte
Rich
-
Some bizarre commentary throughout this thread...now the 'Pound is dead', being supported only by nostalgia and money-laundering...HELLO??!?? I assume the Swiss, the Swedes, the Danes are knocking down the door to help support their southern European brethren? And the Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks clearly need to find more formidable currencies...can't possibly make do with their silly versions of 'dollars'...
I am indifferent on Scottish independence - I totally get the 'pride of nation' issue but fear the sales pitch is mostly based on expanding government support programs, a losing proposition...someone earlier mentioned Texas, and indeed Texas, Alberta and similar would be very formidable free-market bastions which I'd love to join!
Keith
I said the pound is dead "in the long term." Don't convert your savings into rubles, yet.......
-
Jon
I think there is some confusion. I hear Rihc saying that Scotland can use Sterling as its currency, not that Scotland will be able to control that currency once and if there is a split. It seems obvious the long term goal is for Scotland to join the Euro (if it survives!) as launching its own currency would be a very risky move...not that joining the Euro doesn't have its own risks. In the short term though, I think it is very wise for Scotland to hang onto the Pound and Westminster should support this (if a split is on the cards) if only to make the separation go smoother. Remember, there are a lot of Scots in England who have family in the frigid north and Scotland is a keen trading partner. It doesn't benefit anybody to play hardball.
Ciao
Thanks for listening carefully, Sean. It is refreshing.
Rich
-
The only reason why you would want to have your own currency (i. e. one that you control - although it is questionable how much political control can really be exerted upon a national bank) is that it gives you the ability to make your products cheaper or more expensive in foreign currencies (i. e. foreign countries).
I don't know where the majority of Scottish exports are going to, but if it is the UK, then keeping the pound as the Scottish currency won't change a thing. But I don't know if that is technically even possible. For sure the Bank of England wouldn't print money for Scotland or allow them to print it, that would mean relinquishing control over parts of their currency. So the only way for Scotland to get their hands on pounds would be to buy them on the market like everyone else (lots of countries keep the pound as a reserve currency). The question I, being totally naive in financial matters, have about that plan is: how is Scotland going to pay for the massive amounts of pounds they need to buy? Do they have US Dollars or Euros stashed away?
Ulrich
-
But there are also economies of scale and the ability to play a role in the global community. A country of 5.5 million is rather small - can you afford the required infrastructure for a country including national defense, foreign affairs, etc? As part of the UK, Scotland can have some influence in the international sphere but that is pretty much impossible as a smaller country. As a PM of the UK a Scot could be a major player in the global political landscape that isn't really possible for a Scottish PM. But maybe they don't care about that.
With your philosophy then the US should split up into 50 independent countries - or more in the case of states like Cali and Texas.
Those of us here in Canada are VERY familiar with all of these arguments, including the currency issues as we have been through two of these votes in the last few decades.
Actually, America was structured by our founding fathers 200+ years ago as separate governments (obviously not 50 at the time), with very, very limited powers allocated to the federal government. Our Constitution allocated 20 enumerated powers to the federal government, and everything else (and I mean EVERYTHING) was left to the states. Until the 1920s, approximately 80% of what the US federal government now does, was unconstitutional. What allowed the federal government to expand itself into the powers of the states and to create agencies and its modern bureaucracy is beyond the time or space of this forum on golf architecture. But the original allocation of power was very unique in history, and the tug of war over "state's rights" continues to this day.
Regarding global influence, the proprietor of the B&B and I joked that Scotland could become another Switzerland and stay out of international disputes. With only 5.3M people, they wouldn't have any influence over such matters anyhow, so why pretend that they could. Instead, save some of the money allocated for defense and spend it on education, or better yet, leave it for the people to choose how to spend it or save it. Although, they already have free college educations, so I don't know how much more the government can do on that front.
-
I don't think it will have a significant effect effect on the Open.
As for independence, Many Scots feel they are very different than the English. So in some sense Scotland is a separate nation. My question is, what country/area that has separated has been significantly worse off after independence?
Some say the Slovakia is not as healthy after splitting from Czech but I don't know that. Some might say Ukraine but it never really left the Russian sphere of influence. The current troubles are largely because Ukraine wants to turn towards Europe and lessen Russian influence. A smart choice economically.
But can anyone name an nation of people who were worse off after gaining independence from a larger nation?
Kerry,
Does Zimbabwe ring a bell?
Does Zimabwe ring a bell?
-
Rich, you did say 'long-term', which you then defined as 1-15 years...I'd say the probability of the Brits (or at least the English!) joining the Euro is very close to zero in that time-frame...seems more likely to me that the Euro is de-emphasized...anyway, back to the subject at hand. Perhaps one impact Scottish independence would have on golf is that the English golf community might more aggressively pursue American golfers/tourists? I love golf in Scotland, but the fine English courses now make up my bucket list.
-
Keith
England has made some moves in the golf tourism business in recent years. One can only hope that bus loads found in Scotland and Ireland don't become too popular in England - green fees are high enough as it is.
Ciao
-
My understanding of many US states is that the quality of schools can be hugely different between rich suburbs and poor inner cities since education is funded much more locally rather than being pooled over larger areas. I don't think that is a good thing for social mobility, or for society in general. Other things like pensions for govt employees, where I have some expertise, are FAR more efficient being managed provincially rather than city by city or county by county.
In the US, there is a gap in quality of education across district, however, it is not driven by funding. For the most part, inner-city schools have greater funding per student than suburban schools. The issues tend to be a lack of parental involvement, teachers union in big cities with way too much power and a flight of middle class students to magnet or parochial schools.
-
This weekend's edition of the Financial Times has what is likely the most cogent analysis of the currency situation you will come across:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CWBGoCYe
But the currency situation is by no means the only major problem and independent Scotland will face.
-
Rich, you did say 'long-term', which you then defined as 1-15 years...I'd say the probability of the Brits (or at least the English!) joining the Euro is very close to zero in that time-frame...seems more likely to me that the Euro is de-emphasized...anyway, back to the subject at hand. Perhaps one impact Scottish independence would have on golf is that the English golf community might more aggressively pursue American golfers/tourists? I love golf in Scotland, but the fine English courses now make up my bucket list.
I disagree, Keith. Regardless of its problems, rUK in Europe is "Better Together" than the rump State that it already is and will be more so if a Yes vote occurs. Within the next 15 years, the pound will be kaput, unless rUK decides to completely become an enclave for money laundering a la Switzerland. And, yes, England and Wales and Northern Ireland have fine golf courses, but in terms of the overall experience, none of them are a match for the best of Scotland's links. IMHO, of course....
-
Rich,
if the union is broken up the Bank of England with associated assets and debts will also be effectively ended. The rUK would take its share continue to use the pound stirling which is the currency of the UK and we in Scotland would be able to set up our own currency and lender of last resort. Expecting a foreign country to underwrite our economy is ridiculous.
Interesting how RoI is suddenly not worth defending as your chosen model of how an independent Scotland could work ::)
Jon
So Jon
If the BofE closers down and becomes the BofrUK, and a BofCaledonia is created, the latter will have an international payments surplus of ~£4billion and the former will have an international payments deficit of ~$40billion. So which "pound" will be more stable if this is true (which it is)?
Rich
-
If I understood it correctly, "Sterlingisation" means that Scotland would have its own currency, but that the "Caledonian" would be tied to the pound at a fixed exchange rate. Therefore, by definition, both currencies would substitutable for each other in every way and there could be no difference in stability.
Ulrich
-
There are already pound denomination bank notes issued by the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank. Any other Scottish banks also issue them?
For that matter there are also pound denomination Ulster Bank notes. Arn't there Bank of Ireland pound denomination notes too?
All may be equivalent legal tender throughout the UK but you still get strange looks if you pull one out of your wallet in shops etc in England or Wales.
atb
-
There are already pound denomination bank notes issued by the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank. Any other Scottish banks also issue them?
For that matter there are also pound denomination Ulster Bank notes. Arn't there Bank of Ireland pound denomination notes too?
All may be equivalent legal tender throughout the UK but you still get strange looks if you pull one out of your wallet in shops etc in England or Wales.
atb
This is all true, Thomas, but the Bank of Scotland is owned by an rUK bank (Lloyds) which is in itself owned largely by the UK Government; the Royal Bank of Scotland is also largely owned by the UK Government, and has ~ 90% of its assets and liabilities and staff in rUK; and Clydesdale bank (my bank!) is owned by the Aussies (NAB).
It is all more complex than outside observers might think........
-
Rich,
if the union is broken up the Bank of England with associated assets and debts will also be effectively ended. The rUK would take its share continue to use the pound stirling which is the currency of the UK and we in Scotland would be able to set up our own currency and lender of last resort. Expecting a foreign country to underwrite our economy is ridiculous.
Interesting how RoI is suddenly not worth defending as your chosen model of how an independent Scotland could work ::)
Jon
So Jon
If the BofE closers down and becomes the BofrUK, and a BofCaledonia is created, the latter will have an international payments surplus of ~£4billion and the former will have an international payments deficit of ~$40billion. So which "pound" will be more stable if this is true (which it is)?
Rich
Strange how earlier your figures were surplus of £5 billion and deficit of £45 billion. Not very reliable really and of course they include 100% of north sea gas I suspect so even rockier. As for RoI increases compared to UK it depends on the starting point. Do you seriously believe the RoI is financially better off now than the UK?
If you think about it logically and what you say is correct why would a smaller country with multi billion pound surplus want to tie itself down to a bigger country with a considerably larger deficit?
Jon
-
Jon
I think there is some confusion. I hear Rihc saying that Scotland can use Sterling as its currency, not that Scotland will be able to control that currency once and if there is a split. It seems obvious the long term goal is for Scotland to join the Euro (if it survives!) as launching its own currency would be a very risky move...not that joining the Euro doesn't have its own risks. In the short term though, I think it is very wise for Scotland to hang onto the Pound and Westminster should support this (if a split is on the cards) if only to make the separation go smoother. Remember, there are a lot of Scots in England who have family in the frigid north and Scotland is a keen trading partner. It doesn't benefit anybody to play hardball.
Ciao
Sean,
Rich has quite clearly said he thinks there should be a 'currency union' and the only reason not to have one from the Westminster side would be spite. 'currency union' would clearly mean rUK underwriting an independent Scottish economy.
Jon
-
With an independent Scotland being a land of milk and honey lets hope Milliband's new border will contain a "Sangatte" of asylum seekers waiting to enter the promised land.
-
Did they peak too early? New poll just out has the independents ahead 51-49. They were down 22 a month ago.
-
The organisation Germans For Scottish Independence......sums it up really Scots living in London have no vote yet Germans and 80,000 other Europeans living in Scotland do.
I think the poll is excellent for the No vote campaign as it will show people they can sleep their way to independence if they don't vote. Wee Ek would no doubt have prefered to arrive at 51% on the day of the vote.
-
Rich,
if the union is broken up the Bank of England with associated assets and debts will also be effectively ended. The rUK would take its share continue to use the pound stirling which is the currency of the UK and we in Scotland would be able to set up our own currency and lender of last resort. Expecting a foreign country to underwrite our economy is ridiculous.
Interesting how RoI is suddenly not worth defending as your chosen model of how an independent Scotland could work ::)
Jon
So Jon
If the BofE closers down and becomes the BofrUK, and a BofCaledonia is created, the latter will have an international payments surplus of ~£4billion and the former will have an international payments deficit of ~$40billion. So which "pound" will be more stable if this is true (which it is)?
Rich
Strange how earlier your figures were surplus of £5 billion and deficit of £45 billion. Not very reliable really and of course they include 100% of north sea gas I suspect so even rockier. As for RoI increases compared to UK it depends on the starting point. Do you seriously believe the RoI is financially better off now than the UK?
If you think about it logically and what you say is correct why would a smaller country with multi billion pound surplus want to tie itself down to a bigger country with a considerably larger deficit?
Jon
Jon
Presumably you know the meaning of the "~" you copied above? If you have forgotten, it means "approximately." As far as I am concerned, the relevant facts are that Scotland currently runs a significant positive balance of payments and rUK runs a significant deficit. Given this fact, it is more likely (all other things being equal) that an independent Scotland would have a stronger "Poond" than the rUK "rPound." That's all.
Rich
-
Rich,
how is 'currency union' approximate? If you meant to say the £1billion and £5 billion discrepancy in your two posts that is a big 'approximate. You say they are facts but will not or probably cannot say what basis they have. Like most touting your line of thought very general sweeping statements but no real facts behind it. You might reach £5 billion surplus with 100% of gas and oil revenue in the figures but what is it once the rUK's share (50% and 10%) is taken out. Is it with the defence, national infrastructure and foreign spending is added to the deficit ?
Jon
-
Rich,
how is 'currency union' approximate?
Jon
No comprende, Compadre. All I was trying to point out is that vis a vis the ROW Scotland has a positive balance of payments and the rUK has a negative one.
Slainte
Rich
PS--51% Yes and rising, 49% No and falling.
rfg
-
Rich,
you are basing your ideas on facts you do not know and are avoiding answering straight forward questions asking you to clarify your bold but apparently shaky view point. Very disappointing really.
Rich,
how is 'currency union' approximate?
Jon
No comprende, Compadre. All I was trying to point out is that vis a vis the ROW Scotland has a positive balance of payments and the rUK has a negative one.
rfg
Rich, does it really? you do not appear to know!!!
-
How much am I loving seeing a Septic and a Sassenach
arguing about discussing Scottish independence! Thanks guys!
Cheers,
F.
-
Rich,
how is 'currency union' approximate?
Jon
No comprende, Compadre. All I was trying to point out is that vis a vis the ROW Scotland has a positive balance of payments and the rUK has a negative one.
Slainte
A month ago it was failing 61-39. Human nature says many of he current yes votes are vanity positions -( I voted for independence, but we got outvoted). Now that is is a virtual tie those people will re-assess their stance. Its probably down by 4 points.
Rich
PS--51% Yes and rising, 49% No and falling.
rfg
-
Martin: We over here on this side of the Pond like even numbers of States (makes adding stars on the flag easier outside of the original one of course); so we need a two'fer. Scotland and Puerto Rico.
How does direct domestic flights from Edinburgh to San Juan or Honolulu sound?
I am a firm supporter of Puerto Rican independence. PR is in a bad way because they are tied to the dollar, like Greece.
-
The Scots deny being a burden on the English taxpayer, but Scottish government figures for 2012-13 estimated that £65.2 billion was spent that year in Scotland against £47.6 billion raised in revenues.
-
The Scots deny being a burden on the English taxpayer, but Scottish government figures for 2012-13 estimated that £65.2 billion was spent that year in Scotland against £47.6 billion raised in revenues.
I don't doubt your figures, Mark, but rUK had a budget deficit of ~£60 billion in 2012-3. Both the Scottish and English (and Welsh and Northern Irish) taxpayers were spending more than they earned (largely on pensioners like you and me), putting the burden on our children and grandchildren.
Rich
-
What will happen after a Yes vote is incredibly difficult to predict. There will undoubtedly be short term pain and turmoil in both Scotland and rUK. In the medium to long term, you would expect that there will be no adverse effects to the rUK - at the very least, Scotland takes out as much in public expenditure per capita as it puts back in relative to the rUK (and that's with oil revenues which are declining). Once everything is settled I just can't see there being any major shift for the UK.
What will happen in Scotland is anyone's guess - obviously not the mythical nirvana that Alex Salmond talks about - taxes down, spending up, free deep-fried Mars bars for all! Will Scotland be allowed to join the EU - Will Spain veto? Will rUk veto if Scotland defaults on its share of debt? Will the "progressive" SNP / Labour dominance bankrupt the country - or will a new centre / centre-right party emerge as an effective counter weight. It's a massive step into the unknown for Scotland. I feel that people don't quite appreciate how much. That said, if I were Scottish I would still vote yes.
Now where is that ballot paper for S-E England independence? :)
-
What will happen after a Yes vote is incredibly difficult to predict. There will undoubtedly be short term pain and turmoil in both Scotland and rUK. In the medium to long term, you would expect that there will be no adverse effects to the rUK - at the very least, Scotland takes out as much in public expenditure per capita as it puts back in relative to the rUK (and that's with oil revenues which are declining). Once everything is settled I just can't see there being any major shift for the UK.
What will happen in Scotland is anyone's guess - obviously not the mythical nirvana that Alex Salmond talks about - taxes down, spending up, free deep-fried Mars bars for all! Will Scotland be allowed to join the EU - Will Spain veto? Will rUk veto if Scotland defaults on its share of debt? Will the "progressive" SNP / Labour dominance bankrupt the country - or will a new centre / centre-right party emerge as an effective counter weight. It's a massive step into the unknown for Scotland. I feel that people don't quite appreciate how much. That said, if I were Scottish I would still vote yes.
Now where is that ballot paper for S-E England independence? :)
Excellent post, Ed. I love uncertainty, and as my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Capt. John Parker (leader of the Minutemen of Lexington Green in 1775) said:
"Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
-
How much am I loving seeing a Septic and a Sassenach arguing about discussing Scottish independence! Thanks guys!
Cheers,
F.
and being commented on by a 'Sassenach' ;)
Cheers,
S
-
This weekend's edition of the Financial Times has what is likely the most cogent analysis of the currency situation you will come across:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CWBGoCYe
But the currency situation is by no means the only major problem and independent Scotland will face.
Thanks for that, David, even though I had seen it before. I think the reference below is more measured and less postured:
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/the-scottish-independence-vote-and-your-money
Rich
-
How much am I loving seeing a Septic and a Sassenach arguing about discussing Scottish independence! Thanks guys!
Cheers,
F.
Marty
Both Jon and I are taxpayers up here in Scotchland, and we fund your extravagant lifestyle. Thank us rather than slag us, please!
Rhicard
-
A couple of other matters to ponder -
A 'yes' vote would remove Westminster's 'West Lothian Question', named after the former WL-MP Tam Dalyell, although it may then turn the matter into a 'West Cardiff' or 'West Belfast' Question. Considerable implications here as well.
A 'yes' vote would remove all 59 Scottish constituency MP's and, apart from 1 Conservative, they are either Labour (40), Lib/Dem (11), SNP (6) or Independent (1). This would have a significant effect on the relative positions of Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in Westminster for Mr Cameron would no longer need Mr Clegg's coalition support to form a Government.
The referendum vote is on 18th Sept, but before that there is another important date............tickets for the 2015 Rugby World Cup go on sale/ballot from 12th Sept! :)
atb
-
A couple of other matters to ponder -
A 'yes' vote would remove Westminster's 'West Lothian Question', named after the former WL-MP Tam Dalyell, although it may then turn the matter into a 'West Cardiff' or 'West Belfast' Question. Considerable implications here as well.
A 'yes' vote would remove all 59 Scottish constituency MP's and, apart from 1 Conservative, they are either Labour (40), Lib/Dem (11), SNP (6) or Independent (1). This would have a significant effect on the relative positions of Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in Westminster for Mr Cameron would no longer need Mr Clegg's coalition support to form a Government.
The referendum vote is on 18th Sept, but before that there is another important date............tickets for the 2015 Rugby World Cup go on sale/ballot from 12th Sept! :)
atb
Very good point, Thomas re: the E Lothian question (which, for those who don't know, asks, why can the Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) vote in Westmenister (UK Parliament) on issues which are local to the Englsih (e.g, English NHS, Police, Roads, etc.). Also a good and very obvious point regarding the rUK if and when Scotland flits. I we do, hell will freeze over before Labour gets back into power in rUK, and the Lib Dems will survive only as rGreens.
Vis a vis the Rugby World Cup I have been invited to play in a few Old Boy matches for my alma mater vs. London Irish OBs, etc., but have declined due to the fact that it is too early for me to die.
Slainte
Roich
-
The threat of a Yes vote is already having an effect on the financial markets - the pound is down this month from 1.66 to 1.616. And shares in Scottish related entities, including RBS, have been selling off.
This may be a good thing for those of us in the ROW who are planning visits in the near term.
-
The only reason why you would want to have your own currency (i. e. one that you control - although it is questionable how much political control can really be exerted upon a national bank) is that it gives you the ability to make your products cheaper or more expensive in foreign currencies (i. e. foreign countries).
You need to have your own currency in order to have sovereignty over your monetary policy which is a combination of things but especially interest rates and exchange rate. A weakening currency has a similar stimulus to lower interest rates - if I remember correctly the Bank of Canada assumes that a 1% reduction in the currency is equivalent to an interest rate reduction of 0.25% but that will depend on the size of exports and imports to your economy.
Even having your currency linked to another currency means that you are giving up some control over interest rates. If there is a Caledonian that is linked to the GBP then any interest rate differential would lead to speculators getting into the carry trade - Borrowing GBP and Buying Caledonians (assuming that Scotland has higher interest rates). That would then put pressure on your currency to strengthen. Having lower interest rates than the UK would have the opposite effect. This is similar to what happened in 1991-2 with the ERM which was broken by (arguably) George Soros' Quantum Fund.
-
This column, by the former chairmen of the Labour Party in Scotland, is well worth reading:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2f041834-351a-11e4-aa47-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3CjpKQ25m
-
Is it me or is it outrageous that a serving Scottish soldier in the Black Watch or Scots Guards posted to London or overseas for a couple of years DOESN'T get a vote in the future of their country, yet a Polish raspberry picker who is registered to vote does. The SNP who set the rules of the election should hang their heads in shame.
-
I read today in the German press that "several 10000" Germans get to vote(*), because they currently live in Scotland. They interviewed some of them and most were in the "Yes" camp. One guy said that the English are a bunch of creepy nationalists, whereas the Scots were more open to foreigners and so he is going for independence. Don't ever say again the Germans have no sense of humour, they are lauging their ass off at the English :)
On a more serious note, the German press seems to overwhelmingly support the voting rules as "a shining example for modern Europe".
Ulrich
(*) maybe a misprint? Several 1000 would seem more realistic, no?
-
13,000 Germans are eligible to vote and 120,000 other EU nationals are eligible to vote. 800,000 Scots living in the rest of the UK have no voice in the matter.
The Germans maybe laughing at the English but we are less likely to come unstuck as a result of a Yes vote than the Scots.
-
In hindsight our former chancellor Helmut Kohl probably knew something, when he blew off all attempts at suggesting that something or other concerning German reunification should be voted on by the people. He said he knew exactly what Adenauer had in mind for a reunited Germany and who would doubt the old chap.
Anyhow, if the vote comes out as "No", then there will be another vote in ten years or so. If you let people vote on stuff, they will eventually try out all options available.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
if there is a 'No' vote I suspect it will be 25 years at least before another would be contemplated.
-
We were in Australia for the 1999 Republic vote, no sign of another and it's been 15 years. I guess it has gone quiet until the Queen passes.
-
Strange but true. At my North Carolina Ross course/club in North Carolina, USA . . . today, when I arrived at the course, someone had hoisted the Scot's blue and white cross flag in place of our N.C. State flag. But, this was not based on a vote of our members, or anything like that. It was a random, rogue event, and should not be taken to reflect our members' intrusion into the affairs of Great Britain.
-
Mark,
I find it hard to fathom the lack of interest from a majority of my countrymen for a change in either our head of state or our flag. The monarchists did a fine job of splitting the republican vote when they framed the last referendum. There will be no new referendum at least until the passing of the current queen. Our only hope of changing the flag is if Scotland vote yes and what's left of the UK changes theirs, not a likely outcome.
Poor fellow my country...
-
Carl,
The Scottish flag is called the Saltire or Saint Andrews Cross. Do you belong to a McConnell golf property?
The English have the red and white Saint George's Cross in addition to the Union Jack.
I love this picture I took this August from a fishing village near downtown Edinburgh , New Haven, where the Saltire is ripping with the wind!! In the background across the Fourth River is Fife!
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5558/15198346456_bcd1cd7ac7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pa2uU9)DSCN0373 (https://flic.kr/p/pa2uU9) by macmalc21 (https://www.flickr.com/people/117604799@N03/), on Flickr
-
Malcolm,
the English have only the one flag. The Union Jack (or Flag) is the flag of the UK.
Jon
-
If Scotland withdraws from the UK, will the blue bit of the Union Jack disappear?
If so, I would consider it an ideal opportunity to include the Welsh on the Union Jack. Maybe a small red dragon in the centre of the St George's cross???
Or maybe there's been one lurking there all along... ;D
-
Is it me or is it outrageous that a serving Scottish soldier in the Black Watch or Scots Guards posted to London or overseas for a couple of years DOESN'T get a vote in the future of their country, yet a Polish raspberry picker who is registered to vote does. The SNP who set the rules of the election should hang their heads in shame.
Not true about the overseas soldiers, Mark:
http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-can-vote-referendum-scottish-independence
Also, I pretty sure that all the rules were agreed to by the UK government.
-
No matter how the vote goes, it will be close - I think we can agree on that. So if roughly half of the country will be dissatisfied with the result, it is very hard to believe that there won't be a politician looking to make a career out of getting in front of the disappointed half.
Ulrich
-
"much cost, little benefit"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/72f3c5a4-2e07-11e4-b330-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3DBbxf5ka
-
David
The Scottish Research Society (from which you get your quote) is a shill for the pro-Union cabal, even agreed to by the strongly pro-Union BBC. See below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28660833
As to the FT article itself, it is just a piece of journalistic puff, with absolutely no substance of relevance that I can see, just sound bites.
As for the recent decline in the $/£ relationship, as JP Morgan wisely said in regard to future values in financial markets: "They will fluctuate." To elaborate:
I have lived in Scotland for the great majority of the past 25 years, with most of my sources of income residing in the USA, and have never worried about exchnage rates, becase I have had bank accounts in the UK since 1981, 10 year before I moved here and over that whole 35 year period I have experienced flucutations in the exchange rate from nearly $1.00/£ to over £2.00/£, and it hasn't bothered me a whit, because I know from my expereince that there is an equilibrium and it is ~1.60/£. Before the financial crisis of 2007+, the rate was <2.00/$, and shortly after (2009) it dropped to ~1.40/pound. Was that Scotland's fault? Since then it was very stable in the 2010-2013 ( between 1.55-1.60/£) and then had a "spike" early this year to between 1.551.70/£. Tha fact it has recenlty gone into the 1.60-1.65/£ range is just "noise" even though the "No!" campaign keeps using the phrase "catastrophic." They are too clueless for any of us to believe their words, as the attack dogs of NO are people such as Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling each of whom defines the word "clueless" given their culpabilty in the financial crash of 2008.
OK, I do know that the currency effects of separation rather than union are different, but one telling example in the real world that we have is Eire, which separated from the UK not by democratic means but through armed struggle, winning their freedom ifrom "Great Britain and Ireland" in 1922. They adopted and shadowed the pound for the next 50 years, without any catastophe. Scotland will neither need nor desire 50 years to sort out it's currency options, and the sonner the better applies to both an Independent Scotland and an Independent RUK.
Are you going to sell your condo if the vote is "NO"? Hope not, as if so, Dornoch will have to find a new member.
Rich
-
"Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland."
Rich if you are living in the UK you have to be registered to vote where you live. Soldiers based in England are on the local voters register. An Argyle and Sutherland Highlander based at Canterbury, would be registered to vote there. If they went overseas Canterbury would be where they are registered to vote not Scotland.
-
"Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland."
Rich if you are living in the UK you have to be registered to vote where you live. Soldiers based in England are on the local voters register. An Argyle and Sutherland Highlander based at Canterbury, would be registered to vote there. If they went overseas Canterbury would be where they are registered to vote not Scotland.
Mark
Yes, but I am certain that a significant majority of Scottish soldiers, particularly those that are deployed overseas, will have retained their residence in Scotland and are eligible to vote. As for the Jock solder that moved from Scotland 10-20 years ago and has been voting from there since then, no, he has no vote, any more than the Jock Hedge Fund Manager with similar residence/voting patterns. And, agbain, this was agreed to by the UK government. Take your beef to them, please.
Rich
-
Been thinking about this for a while. And then, when I put out of my mind all the pros and cons (for both "yes" and "no") and the talking heads and the so-called expert analysis and news, I concluded that, either way after the 18th:
All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
-
Been thinking about this for a while. And then, when I put out of my mind all the pros and cons (for both "yes" and "no") and the talking heads and the so-called expert analysis and news, I concluded that, either way after the 18th:
All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
I fully agree, Peter.
Rich
-
Westminster expecting a firm No rolled over and let the SNP dictate their terms, now it will be a weak No.
-
I would take the concerns noted in the link below very seriously. In short, if what is happening with the Euro worries you, what will happen to an independent Scotland should worry you even more.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/even-more-on-scotland/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
Bob
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
-
Carl,
The Scottish flag is called the Saltire or Saint Andrews Cross. Do you belong to a McConnell golf property?
The English have the red and white Saint George's Cross in addition to the Union Jack.
I love this picture I took this August from a fishing village near downtown Edinburgh , New Haven, where the Saltire is ripping with the wind!! In the background across the Fourth River is Fife!
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5558/15198346456_bcd1cd7ac7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pa2uU9)DSCN0373 (https://flic.kr/p/pa2uU9) by macmalc21 (https://www.flickr.com/people/117604799@N03/), on Flickr
Malcolm, yes it was the Saint Andrews Cross flag. No, we are a private member-owned club, not a McConnell property. A couple of guys "accused" me of running the Saltire up, because I have a history with our club's flag poles, but in fact it was not I this time. I know not who the prankster was.
-
I would take the concerns noted in the link below very seriously. In short, if what is happening with the Euro worries you, what will happen to an independent Scotland should worry you even more.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/even-more-on-scotland/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
Bob
Bob
The EU (and even Greece) are doing quite nicely now. I wouldn't put any great faith in Krugman these days, since he's been gently shown the door at Princeton. You can look it up....
Rich
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
Jon
Eire was without a lender of last resort (except England) until 20+ years after independence. Look it up.
Rich
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
Jon
Eire was without a lender of last resort (except England) until 20+ years after independence. Look it up.
Rich
Yes Rich this is true and I do not dispute it is possible to do this but you have pushed it as a good example to follow. If this were so then why did they change?
It is all good and well to produce examples to prove a narrow point and try to sell them as a rounded view point but it also important to be able to show that such examples stand up to examination. Your examples unfortunately do not. Ignore answering questions where you know full well the answer will undermine your claims does not legitimise them but rather shows even you know them to be folly.
As I have said before it is also interesting to note the questions you do not answer and what this says.
Jon
-
Rich I trust "Greece doing quite well" isn't a model for Scottish success?
Greece;
GDP growth -0.3%
Inflation -0.3%
Population below poverty line 36.4%
Unemployment 27%
The UK;
GDP growth 0.8%
Inflation 1.6%
Population below poverty line 5.6%
Unemployment 6.4%
-
Rich I trust "Greece doing quite well" isn't a model for Scottish success?
Greece;
GDP growth -0.3%
Inflation -0.3%
Population below poverty line 36.4%
Unemployment 27%
The UK;
GDP growth 0.8%
Inflation 1.6%
Population below poverty line 5.6%
Unemployment 6.4%
I recently heard that the UK without London is at par with parts of the Czech Republic. That would gel with what I see driving around the UK.
-
Rich I trust "Greece doing quite well" isn't a model for Scottish success?
Greece;
GDP growth -0.3%
Inflation -0.3%
Population below poverty line 36.4%
Unemployment 27%
The UK;
GDP growth 0.8%
Inflation 1.6%
Population below poverty line 5.6%
Unemployment 6.4%
What's the time frame, Mark? Without context, numbers are irrelevant.
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
Jon
Eire was without a lender of last resort (except England) until 20+ years after independence. Look it up.
Rich
Yes Rich this is true and I do not dispute it is possible to do this but you have pushed it as a good example to follow. If this were so then why did they change?
It is all good and well to produce examples to prove a narrow point and try to sell them as a rounded view point but it also important to be able to show that such examples stand up to examination. Your examples unfortunately do not. Ignore answering questions where you know full well the answer will undermine your claims does not legitimise them but rather shows even you know them to be folly.
As I have said before it is also interesting to note the questions you do not answer and what this says.
Jon
Jon
I am only pointing out that there is a Home Countries example of living within a shared currency.
Please remind me of any questions I have not answered to your satisfaction.
Slainte
Rich
-
Rich -
The EU is doing quite badly. Essentially no growth over last five years after the crash with an ever increasing threat of deflation. Even Germany has slowed to a crawl. A performance worse than Europe coming out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. This depression wasn't as deep, but the recovery has been much slower.
The problem EU faces is their use of a common currency whose value is not determined by a common fiscal policy. The EU experience says that doesn't work. But that is exactly what Scotland wants to replicate by staying on the pound.
You been reading too much National Review these days re Princeton? As to the actual merits of his commentary, Krugman has been remarkably prescient about the Great Recession. Test: if you took bond and/or currency positions against him over the last several years, you lost a bundle. Given his priors, I see no reason to think he (and many others) are wrong about Scotland.
Bob
-
Rich -
The EU is doing quite badly. Essentially no growth over last five years after the crash with an ever increasing threat of deflation. Even Germany has slowed to a crawl. A performance worse than Europe coming out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. This depression wasn't as deep, but the recovery has been much slower.
The problem EU faces is their use of a common currency whose value is not determined by a common fiscal policy. The EU experience says that doesn't work. But that is exactly what Scotland wants to replicate by staying on the pound.
You been reading too much National Review these days re Princeton? As to the actual merits of his commentary, Krugman has been remarkably prescient about the Great Recession. Test: if you took bond and/or currency positions against him over the last several years, you lost a bundle. Giveanbd don't assumken his priors, I see no reason to think he (and many others) are wrong about Scotland.
Bob
Bob
I rarely read the National Review, but I do more occasionally read the Guardian along with other publications of note. Check this out, and don't be so foolish as to assume that the main stream media in the USA have a clue as what is really happening over her in the real world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/03/greece-tourism-template-economic-recovery
Alll the best
Rich
PS--as to Kriugman/Princeton my source is Ferguson/Harvard. You choose as which one to believe.
PPS--speculating in bonds and/or currencies at our age? You must be kidding?
-
More from Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/maastricht-in-a-kilt/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Look, you might not like Krugman because he is a liberal. That's fine. But this is not a matter of the usual left/right political thing.
Scotland's independence folks are trying to chart a path that flies in the face of Econ 101. This experiment has been tried. It doesn't work for well-understood reasons. With all we now know about such things, it's nuts to try to run the experiment one more time.
Bob
-
"PS--as to Kriugman/Princeton my source is Ferguson/Harvard. You choose as which one to believe."
Rich -
Given that Krugman has been very much right and Ferguson has been very much wrong over the past 3-5, I know who I put greater faith in at this point. But, then again, almost all economists are right until they are wrong. ;)
By the way, has Ferguson offered an opinion on "the Vote?"
DT
P.S. If anyone is looking for an appreciation of just how dismal a science economics really is, I highly recommend reading Money, Blood and Revolution by George Cooper.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21598650-does-economics-need-rethink-revolutionary-fervour
-
More from Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/maastricht-in-a-kilt/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Look, you might not like Krugman because he is a liberal. That's fine. But this is not a matter of the usual left/right political thing.
Scotland's independence folks are trying to chart a path that flies in the face of Econ 101. This experiment has been tried. It doesn't work for well-understood reasons. With all we now know about such things, it's nuts to try to run the experiment one more time.
Bob
Bob
I'm a lifelong Democrat who only criticizes the party when they are too right wing (which includes both Clinton and Obama),
As for Econ 101, it is relatively useless in these days, 40-50years since we last read it. However, just in case I am wrong, please advise me as to how many of these "experiments" there have been, failed and why. I can think of at least one counter example, USA 1776. WE haven't used the pound for a long time, no?
rfg
-
David (and Bob) have you read Ferguson's evisceration of Krugman on Huffington Post? If not, please do.
Rich
-
Rich -
I missed your Ferguson/Krugman footnote. Is that a serious choice? Isn't Ferguson the guy that predicted (a) runaway inflation and currency devaluation in 2009 and (b) that Keynes and his theories should be dismissed because he was gay? (JMK died, btw, a happily married man.)
Ferguson has long since forfeited his right to be taken seriously as an economist. His history is not terribly impressive either, but less baldly wrong than his notions about macroeconomics.
If a man offers advice about economics, surely his track record should have a bearing, no?
Bob
-
Speaking of Niall Ferguson, he is totally opposed to Scottish independence!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/harvard-professor-predicts-independence-would-trigger-recession-and-exodus.1410464869
Mr Ferguson said the move would be necessary because his country, Scotland within the United Kingdom, would be "dead".
Mr Ferguson made his comments during a lecture tonight at a speech at Glasgow University, entitled "Kicking the life back into a dying mutual friend: A letter from America".
He told an assembled audience of more than 200: "(If Scotland votes for independence) my first act will be to apply for a US passport.
"Because my country, Scotland in Great Britain, will have been condemned to death."
He said that independence would lead to a "self-inflicted recession" which would trigger spending cuts and see immigration and Scotland's overall population both fall.
"Independence without monetary independence is no independence at all," he said, "as the eurozone crisis has shown us".
"I see Alex Salmond's economic plans as rather reminiscent of the plans that David Murray had for Rangers when he was at that great club".
Finally, something on which Krugman & Ferguson agree. ;)
-
Rich -
I did read his 'eviseration' and Krugman responded. I can't find the PK response, but he shreds Ferguson. Ferguson has no business talking about economics with real economists. He is out of his league. He should stick to his counter-factual histories of World War I.
Bob
-
Rich -
I did read his 'eviseration' and Krugman responded. I can't find the PK response, but he shreds Ferguson. Ferguson has no business talking about economics with real economists. He is out of his league. He should stick to his counter-factual histories of World War I.
Bob
Bpb
Please forward a reference to these responses, as I haven't seen them. I've always thought that Krugman was out of his league when it comes to writing complete sentences, but his responses to Ferguson may prove me wrong!
David
-
Speaking of Niall Ferguson, he is totally opposed to Scottish independence!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/harvard-professor-predicts-independence-would-trigger-recession-and-exodus.1410464869
Mr Ferguson said the move would be necessary because his country, Scotland within the United Kingdom, would be "dead".
Mr Ferguson made his comments during a lecture tonight at a speech at Glasgow University, entitled "Kicking the life back into a dying mutual friend: A letter from America".
He told an assembled audience of more than 200: "(If Scotland votes for independence) my first act will be to apply for a US passport.
"Because my country, Scotland in Great Britain, will have been condemned to death."
He said that independence would lead to a "self-inflicted recession" which would trigger spending cuts and see immigration and Scotland's overall population both fall.
"Independence without monetary independence is no independence at all," he said, "as the eurozone crisis has shown us".
"I see Alex Salmond's economic plans as rather reminiscent of the plans that David Murray had for Rangers when he was at that great club".
Finally, something on which Krugman & Ferguson agree. ;)
Weak argument from Ferguson too. Where is Adam Smith when we need him!
-
Rich -
Three posts ago, Ferguson was your authoritative source. Now he isn't? I hope your trust in Mr. Salmond's judgement is not that shallow.
It appears that everyone who disagrees with you offers weak arguments, opinions, is part of a cabal(?) or is out of touch. My advice to you is be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. ;)
DT
-
Well, this is entertaining. Okay, Rich, how bout knocking down Martin Wolf and Neil Irwin?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scottish-independence-could-mean-the-unraveling-of-spain--martin-wolf-203224982.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/upshot/why-does-scotland-want-independence-its-culture-vs-economics.html?abt=0002&abg=0
(Full disclosure: previously undecided, I am now siding with Krugman, Ferguson, Wolf, and Irwin. Where do I vote?)
As for Southern Europe, here are unemployment rates in July:
Greece 27 percent
Spain 24.47 percent
UK 6.4 percent (June data)
Youth unemployment
Greece 53.1 percent (May data)
Spain 53.5 percent
UK 17.9 percent
-
Rich 2014 figures
Frank where is the Czech Republic without Prague? Or indeed Scotland without Edinburgh?
-
With all due respect, but these figures are misleading. You can't compare Greece and the UK, these are totally different countries economically, culturally and in laws and taxation and living circumstances. I don't mean to say that Greece is doing well, they're not. But not at the rate that these figures suggest. And nothing has a bearing on Scotland, independent or not.
How about comparing the UK to Germany? Is that sensible? I think not. Germany has a very strong industrial background, whereas the UK is very strong in the finance sector. You will get different numbers for differently structured economies. You can argue that the UK has outsourced all industrial production to the Far East, putting themselves at their mercy. A financial empire can much more easily crumble than one based on brick and mortar. But you can also argue that Germany has been left behind, they're still basking in yesterday's success. In the age of globalisation you just cannot produce at reasonable cost in a country like Germany anymore, what with its high wages and high standards of social security. Germany should have invested in brains, not machines.
Coming back to what Scotland should do: you need to consider a whole range of issues, not just a few isolated numbers. This task is more complex than the average voter and probably the average politician can handle. People are going to vote with their hearts, because that is all they're qualified to do. No one really knows how Scottish independence will turn out in the long run and better yet: no one will know in hindsight how the downvoted alternative would have worked out.
One thing is for sure: it's a 50% bet, so half the economists are going to be right and boast that they knew it all along. Best to ignore the lot of them, vote to the best of your ability and be open to reverting the result of the vote down the road, if need be.
The worst idea would be to deprive yourself of future options by casting the result of the vote in stone. That would be completely undemocratic. Yes, democracy isn't always very efficient, but it is very good at correcting glaring mistakes.
Ulrich
-
I must say that I have heard some very good arguments from both sides of the debate, but what surprises me is that Pat Mucci has not called for a return to the discussion golf architecture.
Bob
Bob
-
This will no doubt say more about me than it will about most of you:
You're treating the 'financial markets' and 'economists' and 'political think tanks' as if (respectively) they abided by fundamental universal laws instead of simply being ever-changing tools for ever-changing clients with ever-changing wants; they were rigorous and dis-interested scientists and mathematicians instead of the doctrine-bound theologians and self-serving magicians that actually are; they stood outside and above the financial markets and economic theories like angelic and omniscient titans, when in fact they are not only influenced by but are often at the service of the very forces they pretend to understand.
What will happen after a yes vote (or a no vote)? Let me tell you: for the vast majority of folks -- not including of course the economists, journalists, think tankers, and financiers -- life will go on exactly as it always has, with some doing better (financially) than others, with some healthier and/or happier and some much less so, marrying, meeting friends for a pint, retiring, shopping, divorcing, starting a family, gardening, complaining about the euro, making fun of the French, visiting the doctor, trudging off to work, travelling, playing golf (or not), window-shopping, day dreaming, taking their children to school, making dinner, glued to their i-phones, taking weekends in Paris, drinking coffee and visiting the Louvre, donating to charity, getting hammered/plastered/legless, watching the Premier League, praying, buying a house, flirting with a co-worker, moving to the country, watching porn, worrying about death or about life, designing golf courses (or not), renting a flat in London, loving and being loved, crying, laughing, comforting those who mourn, and making ends meet.
Peter
-
This will no doubt say more about me than it will about most of you:
You're treating the 'financial markets' and 'economists' and 'political think tanks' as if (respectively) they abided by fundamental universal laws instead of simply being ever-changing tools for ever-changing clients with ever-changing wants; they were rigorous and dis-interested scientists and mathematicians instead of the doctrine-bound theologians and self-serving magicians that actually are; they stood outside and above the financial markets and economic theories like angelic and omniscient titans, when in fact they are not only influenced by but are often at the service of the very forces they pretend to understand.
What will happen after a yes vote (or a no vote)? Let me tell you: for the vast majority of folks -- not including of course the economists, journalists, think tankers, and financiers -- life will go on exactly as it always has, with some doing better (financially) than others, with some healthier and/or happier and some much less so, marrying, meeting friends for a pint, retiring, shopping, divorcing, starting a family, gardening, complaining about the euro, making fun of the French, visiting the doctor, trudging off to work, travelling, playing golf (or not), window-shopping, day dreaming, taking their children to school, making dinner, glued to their i-phones, taking weekends in Paris, drinking coffee and visiting the Louvre, donating to charity, getting hammered/plastered/legless, watching the Premier League, praying, buying a house, flirting with a co-worker, moving to the country, watching porn, worrying about death or about life, designing golf courses (or not), renting a flat in London, loving and being loved, crying, laughing, comforting those who mourn, and making ends meet.
Peter
-
This will no doubt say more about me than it will about most of you:
You're treating the 'financial markets' and 'economists' and 'political think tanks' as if (respectively) they abided by fundamental universal laws instead of simply being ever-changing tools for ever-changing clients with ever-changing wants; they were rigorous and dis-interested scientists and mathematicians instead of the doctrine-bound theologians and self-serving magicians that actually are; they stood outside and above the financial markets and economic theories like angelic and omniscient titans, when in fact they are not only influenced by but are often at the service of the very forces they pretend to understand.
What will happen after a yes vote (or a no vote)? Let me tell you: for the vast majority of folks -- not including of course the economists, journalists, think tankers, and financiers -- life will go on exactly as it always has, with some doing better (financially) than others, with some healthier and/or happier and some much less so, marrying, meeting friends for a pint, retiring, shopping, divorcing, starting a family, gardening, complaining about the euro, making fun of the French, visiting the doctor, trudging off to work, travelling, playing golf (or not), window-shopping, day dreaming, taking their children to school, making dinner, glued to their i-phones, taking weekends in Paris, drinking coffee and visiting the Louvre, donating to charity, getting hammered/plastered/legless, watching the Premier League, praying, buying a house, flirting with a co-worker, moving to the country, watching porn, worrying about death or about life, designing golf courses (or not), renting a flat in London, loving and being loved, crying, laughing, comforting those who mourn, and making ends meet.
Peter
+ A dozen
My goodness, how right you are
Bob
-
Rich I trust "Greece doing quite well" isn't a model for Scottish success?
Greece;
GDP growth -0.3%
Inflation -0.3%
Population below poverty line 36.4%
Unemployment 27%
The UK;
GDP growth 0.8%
Inflation 1.6%
Population below poverty line 5.6%
Unemployment 6.4%
What's the time frame, Mark? Without context, numbers are irrelevant.
Late 2008/early 2009, Greek GDP was $341 billion. Now it's around $241 billion. i.e. in under six years GDP has dropped 29.3%. That's almost exactly the same amount GDP fell in the U.S. during the Great Depression. See http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp
Also since 2009, the Greek unemployment rate went from around 9% to over 27%. Youth unemployment, for adults under 25, went from the low 20s to 60%. It's now hovering in the low to mid 50s.
All these numbers are full-blown disasters, whether viewed over time or as a snapshot. And Greece is not alone. Spain faces similar unemployment numbers, as Bob said deflation threatens the entire continent, and even Germany, Europe's economic leader, is pulling back.
The various bailouts have not succeeded: that's why the ECB was forced to start its own Quantitative Easing program, buying a trillion dollars (or is it euros?) of mostly worthless debt European banks can't afford to show on their books.
The euro has fallen from over $1.60 to under $1.30. The ECB recently introduced negative interest rates: you have to pay them to loan your money to them. Much of the continent depends on Russian gas & oil, which the kind and gentle hands of Vladimir Putin could pull out from under them without a moment's notice.
IMO the EU as a whole faces the biggest crisis in its young lifetime.
-
PPallotta -
Yes, life, for most, does go on. But the choices made by the powerful, based on the advice they receive from their economists and financiers, can profoundly impact how lives are lived and if they get lived at all.
Whether it is the potato famine in Ireland, the Highland Clearances in Scotland, World War 1 or the Great Depression, the decisions of a very few can profoundly effect, for better or worse, the lives of many.
As someone fortunate enough to get to spend almost 2 months a year in Scotland and own a 2nd home here, I wish nothing but the best for the people of Scotland. I hope they make the right choice this week.
DT
-
Late 2008/early 2009, Greek GDP was $341 billion. Now it's around $241 billion. i.e. in under six years GDP has dropped 29.3%. That's almost exactly the same amount GDP fell in the U.S. during the Great Depression. See http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp
Also since 2009, the Greek unemployment rate went from around 9% to over 27%. Youth unemployment, for adults under 25, went from the low 20s to 60%. It's now hovering in the low to mid 50s.
All these numbers are full-blown disasters, whether viewed over time or as a snapshot. And Greece is not alone. Spain faces similar unemployment numbers, as Bob said deflation threatens the entire continent, and even Germany, Europe's economic leader, is pulling back.
The various bailouts have not succeeded: that's why the ECB was forced to start its own Quantitative Easing program, buying a trillion dollars (or is it euros?) of mostly worthless debt European banks can't afford to show on their books.
The euro has fallen from over $1.60 to under $1.30. The ECB recently introduced negative interest rates: you have to pay them to loan your money to them. Much of the continent depends on Russian gas & oil, which the kind and gentle hands of Vladimir Putin could pull out from under them without a moment's notice.
IMO the EU as a whole faces the biggest crisis in its young lifetime.
Which is why I, as a life-long socialist, am having serious thoughts about voting for a right-wing bunch of nutters called UKIP...
-
Well, this is entertaining. Okay, Rich, how bout knocking down Martin Wolf and Neil Irwin?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scottish-independence-could-mean-the-unraveling-of-spain--martin-wolf-203224982.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/upshot/why-does-scotland-want-independence-its-culture-vs-economics.html?abt=0002&abg=0
(Full disclosure: previously undecided, I am now siding with Krugman, Ferguson, Wolf, and Irwin. Where do I vote?)
As for Southern Europe, here are unemployment rates in July:
Greece 27 percent
Spain 24.47 percent
UK 6.4 percent (June data)
Youth unemployment
Greece 53.1 percent (May data)
Spain 53.5 percent
UK 17.9 percent
Thanks for those references, Mark. Both focus on the minutiae of possible future uncertainties and both have a concept of "nationhood" which is firmly based on the status quo. What exactly is wrong about Spain splitting into 2 or maybe more "states" within the larger "state" that is the EIU? Maine used to be a part of Massachusetts, but broke away and both are doing nicely these days, or so I hear. To use a more recent example, the Baltic states have moved from one mega-state (the USSR) to another (the EU) over the past 20+ years. Do you think that they want to move back? What used to be Czechoslovakia is now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. That seems to be working out OK, no? A bit further back, but again in my lifetime, states such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria and Vietnam gained independence from larger states which were controlling them. Was that a bad thing?
Let's cut to the chase. The only reason all the pundits and many of us are at all concerned about Scottish Independence is that it yet another nail in the coffin of what used to be the British Empire. My blood is mostly English and I grew up in a family of unabashed anglophiles, but that was yesterday. Today, the current "United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland" is a mongrel state, of geometrically decreasing influence in an interdependent, increasingly transparent world, and it doesn't like to admit this fact. We anglophiles don't like this and so we fulminate. If it were Catalonia voting on independence next Thursday, nobody on this board would give a hoot, except maybe me....
-
With all due respect, but these figures are misleading. You can't compare Greece and the UK, these are totally different countries economically, culturally and in laws and taxation and living circumstances. I don't mean to say that Greece is doing well, they're not. But not at the rate that these figures suggest. And nothing has a bearing on Scotland, independent or not.
How about comparing the UK to Germany? Is that sensible? I think not. Germany has a very strong industrial background, whereas the UK is very strong in the finance sector. You will get different numbers for differently structured economies. You can argue that the UK has outsourced all industrial production to the Far East, putting themselves at their mercy. A financial empire can much more easily crumble than one based on brick and mortar. But you can also argue that Germany has been left behind, they're still basking in yesterday's success. In the age of globalisation you just cannot produce at reasonable cost in a country like Germany anymore, what with its high wages and high standards of social security. Germany should have invested in brains, not machines.
Coming back to what Scotland should do: you need to consider a whole range of issues, not just a few isolated numbers. This task is more complex than the average voter and probably the average politician can handle. People are going to vote with their hearts, because that is all they're qualified to do. No one really knows how Scottish independence will turn out in the long run and better yet: no one will know in hindsight how the downvoted alternative would have worked out.
One thing is for sure: it's a 50% bet, so half the economists are going to be right and boast that they knew it all along. Best to ignore the lot of them, vote to the best of your ability and be open to reverting the result of the vote down the road, if need be.
The worst idea would be to deprive yourself of future options by casting the result of the vote in stone. That would be completely undemocratic. Yes, democracy isn't always very efficient, but it is very good at correcting glaring mistakes.
Ulrich
Extremely well said, Ulrich. Thanks.
Rich
-
This will no doubt say more about me than it will about most of you:
You're treating the 'financial markets' and 'economists' and 'political think tanks' as if (respectively) they abided by fundamental universal laws instead of simply being ever-changing tools for ever-changing clients with ever-changing wants; they were rigorous and dis-interested scientists and mathematicians instead of the doctrine-bound theologians and self-serving magicians that actually are; they stood outside and above the financial markets and economic theories like angelic and omniscient titans, when in fact they are not only influenced by but are often at the service of the very forces they pretend to understand.
What will happen after a yes vote (or a no vote)? Let me tell you: for the vast majority of folks -- not including of course the economists, journalists, think tankers, and financiers -- life will go on exactly as it always has, with some doing better (financially) than others, with some healthier and/or happier and some much less so, marrying, meeting friends for a pint, retiring, shopping, divorcing, starting a family, gardening, complaining about the euro, making fun of the French, visiting the doctor, trudging off to work, travelling, playing golf (or not), window-shopping, day dreaming, taking their children to school, making dinner, glued to their i-phones, taking weekends in Paris, drinking coffee and visiting the Louvre, donating to charity, getting hammered/plastered/legless, watching the Premier League, praying, buying a house, flirting with a co-worker, moving to the country, watching porn, worrying about death or about life, designing golf courses (or not), renting a flat in London, loving and being loved, crying, laughing, comforting those who mourn, and making ends meet.
Peter
Yet another excellent post. Thank you, Peter.
Rich
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
Jon
Eire was without a lender of last resort (except England) until 20+ years after independence. Look it up.
Rich
Yes Rich this is true and I do not dispute it is possible to do this but you have pushed it as a good example to follow. If this were so then why did they change?
It is all good and well to produce examples to prove a narrow point and try to sell them as a rounded view point but it also important to be able to show that such examples stand up to examination. Your examples unfortunately do not. Ignore answering questions where you know full well the answer will undermine your claims does not legitimise them but rather shows even you know them to be folly.
As I have said before it is also interesting to note the questions you do not answer and what this says.
Jon
Jon
I am only pointing out that there is a Home Countries example of living within a shared currency.
Please remind me of any questions I have not answered to your satisfaction.
Slainte
Rich
Rich,
Eire's used the 'Punt' which shadowed the Sterling. This is not a shared currency. The continuous dressing up of mutton a lamb only weakens your stance. As to unanswered questions for starters you obviously do not read the posts you answer!
Jon
-
If the Scots do vote Yes I expect the economic outcome will depend on the attitude of the two independent governments. To some extent it will be like your average divorce.
If the parties decide on lawyers at 5 paces and are belligerent towards each other it will probably be to the financial detriment of both. They will each continue to live on past glories and continue the long slide to obsolescence that probably commenced after WW1.
If both parties decide to accept the partition with a positive attitude each will re-assess their strengths and where they are heading as a country with likely improvements to innovation and better use of strategic advantages. To do this each will have to concede on some points and ask for allowances on others.
The worst case scenario is a Yes vote followed by the bitter divorce scenario. This last week of scaremongering that seemingly emanates from the proximity of Downing Street probably makes both a Yes vote and a bitter divorce more likely.
-
Rich,
are you still pushing Eire as an example for Scotland? Just like earlier in the thread when it did what you are claiming is simply not true. Eire had the Punt which it backed with its own lender of last resort. I like Mark am curious as to why yu have not got the vote having lived here so long.
Jon
Jon
Eire was without a lender of last resort (except England) until 20+ years after independence. Look it up.
Rich
Yes Rich this is true and I do not dispute it is possible to do this but you have pushed it as a good example to follow. If this were so then why did they change?
It is all good and well to produce examples to prove a narrow point and try to sell them as a rounded view point but it also important to be able to show that such examples stand up to examination. Your examples unfortunately do not. Ignore answering questions where you know full well the answer will undermine your claims does not legitimise them but rather shows even you know them to be folly.
As I have said before it is also interesting to note the questions you do not answer and what this says.
Jon
Jon
I am only pointing out that there is a Home Countries example of living within a shared currency.
Please remind me of any questions I have not answered to your satisfaction.
Slainte
Rich
Rich,
Eire's used the 'Punt' which shadowed the Sterling. This is not a shared currency. The continuous dressing up of mutton a lamb only weakens your stance. As to unanswered questions for starters you obviously do not read the posts you answer!
Jon
Jon, you are incorrect. As per Wikipedia:
"From continuing to use sterling after independence (1922), the new Irish Free State brought in its own currency from 1928..." They also did not have a central bank until 1943, 21 years after Independence. I suspect that Scotland will settle its currency issues much more quickly than did Eire.
Rich
-
If the Scots do vote Yes I expect the economic outcome will depend on the attitude of the two independent governments. To some extent it will be like your average divorce.
If the parties decide on lawyers at 5 paces and are belligerent towards each other it will probably be to the financial detriment of both. They will each continue to live on past glories and continue the long slide to obsolescence that probably commenced after WW1.
If both parties decide to accept the partition with a positive attitude each will re-assess their strengths and where they are heading as a country with likely improvements to innovation and better use of strategic advantages. To do this each will have to concede on some points and ask for allowances on others.
The worst case scenario is a Yes vote followed by the bitter divorce scenario. This last week of scaremongering that seemingly emanates from the proximity of Downing Street probably makes both a Yes vote and a bitter divorce more likely.
Well said, Sean. I personally think that rUK (after a few months of serious hissy fits) will enter into amicable negotiations with an independent Scotland. Both sides will strongly defend their own interests, but I think they will reach a workable consensus sooner rather than later. Both sides are too intelligent and too small in the global world we live in to act irrationally. Of course, I could be wrong...
BTW, if the No supporters believe in "better together," why do so many of them support leaving the European Union?
Rich
-
BTW, if the No supporters believe in "better together," why do so many of them support leaving the European Union?
Because they hate the Germans and French :o ?
From my perspective, the EU doesn't allow a sovereign country to protect its borders by controlling immigration nor does it allow financial independence if one goes whole hog into the Union. Throw in that it is long perceived that Germany and France dominate the EU and that many consider Brussels an expensive bureauratic nightmare (on top of the already existing British bureaucratic nightmare), is it any wonder serious numbers of Brits have their doubts?
Ciao
-
Negotiations could be perfectly amicable. The UK government will have 2, eminently reasonable, lines in the sand:
- no formal currency union with an independent country
- Scotland pays its share of the national debt
After that, everything will fall into place.
Obviously what will likely happen is that Scotland will say this is very unfair and blame the English for everything. The tone of your mail is very much of this ilk - any breakdown in negotiations will be down to a UK hissy fit. The fundamental point is the first one. There is nothing intelligent and workable about monetary union without fiscal union. It simply will not happen, no matter how much Scotland stamp their feet and scream. We didn't go into the Euro for this precise reason (among others) despite.massive pressure. How did that decision turn out?
Whichever way the vote goes, I think the union's days are numbered. There is turmoil ahead. Much as this might annoy our friends north of the border, the default feeling of the English to the Scots is complete indifference. This has changed recently and not for the better. Rightly or wrongly - and there's no point quoting statistics - English people feel they have subsidised the Scots for 300 years and all they get is resentment and Gordon bloody Brown. The current situation where Scottish MPs vote on purely English matters will not be allowed to continue. Once this happens the union is on a very slippy slope. Pandora's box is opened!
-
Maine used to be a part of Massachusetts, but broke away and both are doing nicely these days, or so I hear.
West Virginia used to be part of Virginia and economically is worse off today because of it. As for nostalgia of the British Empire, over here we've just passed the bicentennial of their burning of our Capitol and White House, so...no.
What we are talking about is today's United Kingdom, whose history and economy the Scots built in partnership primarily with the English. The UK is as much the Scots' as the English's. (For that reason it is odd the Scots get to decide its fate but not the English. Ed Tilley has a point about the damage to the relationship already done.) I would like to see the UK in its current form continue.
Peter P, of course life goes on. We are talking about the risk that people will have fewer opportunities to engage in and less money to spend on the activities you list, not on the potential for them to be bombed.
-
If you are truly independent you have your own currency....It does not appear that Scotland will do that...they will keep their economy tied to the Pound and whoever controls the Pound will control Scotland's economic future...Not a good idea in my opinion. When the USA won its independence it created its own currency....the benefits are obvious.
-
If you are truly independent you have your own currency....It does not appear that Scotland will do that...they will keep their economy tied to the Pound and whoever controls the Pound will control Scotland's economic future...Not a good idea in my opinion. When the USA won its independence it created its own currency....the benefits are obvious.
I agree with this completely. I'm sure that many of the European nations wish they had their own currencies again after years under Germany's thumb.
-
Adding to the states formed by splitting from other states are Alabama and Mississippi which were once part of Georgia. And they are no worse for the wear for having split off, so what's the problem with Scotland doing the same?
Answer: Asymmetric shocks. When the EU was formed, everyone (except economists) were happy. In 2009 many southern European countries faced debt and balance of trade crises. The normal response is to devalue your currency, juice exports, get the economy going, pay down debts, etc. But Spain, Greece et al. couldn't do that because they were locked into a common currency.
If the economic futures of Scotland and England fail to track each other (something that is likely), Scotland will be vulnerable to the same consequences of an asymmetric shock. Scotland will be unable to adjust its currency to deal with the problem. Like Greece and Spain they will have voluntarily given up an important economic tool. There is nothing very controversial about any of that. The importance of being able to adjust your currency is received macroeconomics wisdom.
Note that in the US all states use a common currency, but the heavy fiscal lifting is done by a common government - the feds. Thus asymmetric shocks that hit, say, Georgia, but that don't hit other states, are remedied any number of ways by the federal government.
Scotland would not have that escape hatch. It would be the worst of both worlds for Scotland. First, English taxpayers are not going to pay to bail out an independent state and second, Scotland will have given up an effective (arguably the most effective) economic tool to deal with its problems. Note what Germany is saying about Greece these days. It is a dress rehearsal for what England will be saying about Scotland if it ever gets in trouble.
Bob
-
Late 2008/early 2009, Greek GDP was $341 billion. Now it's around $241 billion. i.e. in under six years GDP has dropped 29.3%. That's almost exactly the same amount GDP fell in the U.S. during the Great Depression. See http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp
Also since 2009, the Greek unemployment rate went from around 9% to over 27%. Youth unemployment, for adults under 25, went from the low 20s to 60%. It's now hovering in the low to mid 50s.
All these numbers are full-blown disasters, whether viewed over time or as a snapshot. And Greece is not alone. Spain faces similar unemployment numbers, as Bob said deflation threatens the entire continent, and even Germany, Europe's economic leader, is pulling back.
The various bailouts have not succeeded: that's why the ECB was forced to start its own Quantitative Easing program, buying a trillion dollars (or is it euros?) of mostly worthless debt European banks can't afford to show on their books.
The euro has fallen from over $1.60 to under $1.30. The ECB recently introduced negative interest rates: you have to pay them to loan your money to them. Much of the continent depends on Russian gas & oil, which the kind and gentle hands of Vladimir Putin could pull out from under them without a moment's notice.
IMO the EU as a whole faces the biggest crisis in its young lifetime.
Which is why I, as a life-long socialist, am having serious thoughts about voting for a right-wing bunch of nutters called UKIP...
Duncan, another question is, how much can we rely on the data government releases? They have every incentive to cover up bad news: they consider it their duty not to panic the public. e.g. it's real hard for me to take Spain's GDP figures seriously, given the country's sky-high unemployment.
-
I agree with this completely. I'm sure that many of the European nations wish they had their own currencies again after years under Germany's thumb.
Anyone is free to leave the Euro (as opposed to the EU - you can't just leave that).
Ulrich
-
Rich,
using and sharing are not quite the same, however I will allow you to enjoy your faux correctness. Shame about your refusal to answer those questions that apparently do not suit. Still I guess I did not expect anything else at this point anyway despite you saying you would.
Jon
-
Anyone is free to leave the Euro (as opposed to the EU - you can't just leave that).
Ulrich
In theory, yes. As a practical matter it would be a horrendous mess. It may still happen, nonetheless.
Bob
-
Rich,
using and sharing are not quite the same, however I will allow you to enjoy your faux correctness. Shame about your refusal to answer those questions that apparently do not suit. Still I guess I did not expect anything else at this point anyway despite you saying you would.
Jon
I'll try one more time Jon.... Scotland and the rUK currently share a common currency, the Pound Sterling, and use it for all internal transactions. If there is a Yes vote on Thursday, negotiations will commence as to how to divide up the assets and liabilities relating to the pound once independence is achieved, which will be 18 months from now. In the interim, Scotland will continue to use the currency and continue to have a shared interest in that currency. During that 18 month period, Scotland will also continue to be a member of the UK and governed by the Westminster Parliament. During that 18 month period, Scotland will also enter into negotiations with the EU for its potential entry. In those negotiations, I would be very surprised if they did not discuss the possibility of using the Euro which, to me, would be the preferred long term option. Others might disagree. I did write my Masters thesis on the impacts of a common currency on the peripheral regions of the EU, and my first degree was in English, so I am not completely ignorant of the issues (or the semantics) we are talking about.
Please remind me of any question you have asked that I have not responded to and I will answer them as best I can and as soon as I can. After that, I'll wait until Friday morning to make any further contributions to this thread.
Slainte
Rich
-
I agree with this completely. I'm sure that many of the European nations wish they had their own currencies again after years under Germany's thumb.
Anyone is free to leave the Euro (as opposed to the EU - you can't just leave that).
Ulrich
You are right, as usual, on this Ulrich. Many reliable commentators thought that the way for Greece to get out of the hole they got into was to reject the Euro and go back to the Drachma. This would have almost immediately devalued their debts to external lenders, particularly Germany as it was they who sold the shovels to the Greeks (on credit) to allow them to dig their hole. My guess is that Germany has been working very intensely over the past few years behind the scenes to assure that this would not happen. I have heard that the Greek economy has stabilised and is currently improving. Am I right in these assumptions?
Slainte
Rich
-
Anyone is free to leave the Euro (as opposed to the EU - you can't just leave that).
Ulrich
I would have thought that it would be easier for a country to leave the EU than leave the Euro.
-
Nah, to join the EU you sign a treaty with all existing EU countries. If you want to leave they'll give you terms for leaving you have to agree to. If you don't agree to those terms, it'll drag on for a couple of years and eventually you're thrown out unceremoniously and no one ever talks to you again :)
If you get out of the EU, you automatically get out of the Euro, btw. But you can leave the Euro de facto anytime by issuing a new currency and passing a law that all government spending and taxation will be in the new currency. Greece has an emergency plan that does just that and can be activated at any time.
I believe the UK and Denmark have an opt-out clause for the Euro as well. Generally, they agreed to adopt the Euro as soon as they fulfill the convergence criteria.
Ulrich
-
Late 2008/early 2009, Greek GDP was $341 billion. Now it's around $241 billion. i.e. in under six years GDP has dropped 29.3%. That's almost exactly the same amount GDP fell in the U.S. during the Great Depression. See http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp
Also since 2009, the Greek unemployment rate went from around 9% to over 27%. Youth unemployment, for adults under 25, went from the low 20s to 60%. It's now hovering in the low to mid 50s.
All these numbers are full-blown disasters, whether viewed over time or as a snapshot. And Greece is not alone. Spain faces similar unemployment numbers, as Bob said deflation threatens the entire continent, and even Germany, Europe's economic leader, is pulling back.
The various bailouts have not succeeded: that's why the ECB was forced to start its own Quantitative Easing program, buying a trillion dollars (or is it euros?) of mostly worthless debt European banks can't afford to show on their books.
The euro has fallen from over $1.60 to under $1.30. The ECB recently introduced negative interest rates: you have to pay them to loan your money to them. Much of the continent depends on Russian gas & oil, which the kind and gentle hands of Vladimir Putin could pull out from under them without a moment's notice.
IMO the EU as a whole faces the biggest crisis in its young lifetime.
Which is why I, as a life-long socialist, am having serious thoughts about voting for a right-wing bunch of nutters called UKIP...
Duncan,
I feel your pain. As a pro-European I was always, and still am, strongly opposed to the Euro. It was always economically unworkable and remains so today. But please don't ever vote for those lunatics.
-
Rich,
using and sharing are not quite the same, however I will allow you to enjoy your faux correctness. Shame about your refusal to answer those questions that apparently do not suit. Still I guess I did not expect anything else at this point anyway despite you saying you would.
Jon
I'll try one more time Jon.... Scotland and the rUK currently share a common currency, the Pound Sterling, and use it for all internal transactions. If there is a Yes vote on Thursday, negotiations will commence as to how to divide up the assets and liabilities relating to the pound once independence is achieved, which will be 18 months from now. In the interim, Scotland will continue to use the currency and continue to have a shared interest in that currency. During that 18 month period, Scotland will also continue to be a member of the UK and governed by the Westminster Parliament. During that 18 month period, Scotland will also enter into negotiations with the EU for its potential entry. In those negotiations, I would be very surprised if they did not discuss the possibility of using the Euro which, to me, would be the preferred long term option. Others might disagree. I did write my Masters thesis on the impacts of a common currency on the peripheral regions of the EU, and my first degree was in English, so I am not completely ignorant of the issues (or the semantics) we are talking about.
Please remind me of any question you have asked that I have not responded to and I will answer them as best I can and as soon as I can. After that, I'll wait until Friday morning to make any further contributions to this thread.
Slainte
Rich
Rich,
you started off by promoting Eire as an example of how an independent Scotland could continue to use the pound sterling after independence but now are claiming you were only talking about Scotland using the pound until independence but then you would be surprised if it did not consider using the euro.
Just for your information Scotland has no other choice than to use the pound until a possible independence and Salmond has already ruled out using the euro. I am very impressed with your masters degree though quite clearly you have not used the nounce when thinking through your shifting argument.
'I like Mark am curious as to why you have not got the vote having lived here so long.'
Jon
-
Rich,
Speaking as pro-European Euro (currency) sceptic I'd be genuinely interested in what you concluded in your thesis.
Paul Gray
Bsc Economics
-
"To use a more recent example, the Baltic states have moved from one mega-state (the USSR) to another (the EU) over the past 20+ years. Do you think that they want to move back?"
Rich on this we agree although you may forget the reason the Baltic States were part of the USSR was war, invasion and occupation followed by the iron curtain. This is probably the reason the average Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian doesn't want to go back to being part of Russia, deportation to a gulag isn't that popular I'm told in the Baltic States. "The total number deported in 1944–55 has been estimated at over half a million: 124,000 in Estonia, 136,000 in Latvia and 245,000 in Lithuania."
-
The reason many Brits have a beef with the European Union is we joined the EEC otherwise known as the Eurpoean ECONOMIC Community, this is what we voted to join the the 1970s. What we didn't vote for or expect was political union and ridiculous laws from Brussels. Currently the most serious issue in Europe requiring law is the electrical consumption of vacuum cleaners, clearly far more worthy of legislation than trying to fight ISIS, reduce unemployment or tackle debt.
-
Jon, Rich doesn't get a vote because the electoral roll is limited to citizens of the UK, EU and Commonwealth countries. It produces the bizarre outcome where an Australian, Canadian or South African can vote within weeks of moving to Scotland, while he can't.
I still don't understand why they allow any non-UK citizens on their electoral roll.
-
Jon, Rich doesn't get a vote because the electoral roll is limited to citizens of the UK, EU and Commonwealth countries. It produces the bizarre outcome where an Australian, Canadian or South African can vote within weeks of moving to Scotland, while he can't.
I still don't understand why they allow any non-UK citizens on their electoral roll.
One reason could be that without Australian, Canadian and South African volunteers their wars might not have succeeded.
Bob
-
Jon
I don't see a question in your most recent post, but if it is regarding why I don't have a vote, Chris Kane answered it above (I'm pretty sure I answered it earlier in a reply to Mark, but I could be wrong). As to the Euro, Salmond never said he would never consider the Euro, he just said that keeping the pound was his preferred option. As a very shrewd politician, he knew that expressing any love for the Euro given its recent crisis was toxic, but I'll bet you a pint that he (or whoever is running an independent Scotland 2-3 years from know) will eventually hook up with Brussels rather than rUK. I'll also bet you another pint that Salmond will not be the first PM of an independent Scotland. Even if he wins the "war" he'll either retire early or be tossed out, just like Churchill in 1945. In fact I'll bet you a further pint that in the case of independence, the SNP will not exist 5 years from now. They will have lost their raison d'etre, and the country will be run by shifting coalitions of the other 4 parties.
Paul
I am not an economist but a lowly MBA, but my paper was based on work I did with Harvard economists whilst I was getting my MBA. Essentially I stole/built upon Gunnar Myrdahl's thesis that currency unions inevitably lead towards a concentration of wealth towards the geographic center of the states of the union, draining resources from the peripheries. In the case of Europe, this center was (and still largely is) the area connecting London, Paris, Milan, Frankfurt and Amsterdam). I went on to describe the negative effects of this concentration on places like the north of Britain, the Iberian peninsul, the south of Italy and even the eastern and northern parts of what was then West Germany. I predicted that the more that the EU (in those days the EEC) concentrated political power in the center the more they would have to find ways to transfer capital to the peripheral regions. Given that this was an MBA thesis, I then speculated on the opportunities for investment banks in facilitating these capital transfers. Since I did this in 1972, that's about all I remember!
Mark
I know well the history of the Baltic States, and lived through the darkest periods of the cold "war" at an age when I was both impressionable and knowledgeable. I was in my last years of High School when the Cuban Missle Crisis occurred and I was at University and the US Army during the height of the Vietnam War. How old were you in the 1944-55 period that you cite? And how well do you know the history of Scotland and England in the years leading up to and following the 1707 Act of Union? From what I have read, it was not dissimilar to the histories of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union from 1917-1989. Have you heard of the Highland Clearances, which happened many decades after the 1707 Union? If you do, you will know just one of the many reasons that these days many Scots still feel very aggrieved and are willing to take that leap of faith that will be independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
Chris
I beleive that Scotland (and rUK) is required by EU law to give the vote to citizens of any EU state who are resident in the country. Commonwealth citizens residing in Scotland also get the vote, just because (as Bob says below). So do the Irish, again just because. Americans, such as me, do not count, probably due to spite over that 1776 thingy.
Bob
If your thesis is true, than the Russians and the Yanks should get to step to the front of the queue, as without them, the UK would now be speaking German :).
Signing off until Friday, as promised. If anybody wants to continue this debate, e-mail or IM me.
Rich
-
I believe the UK and Denmark have an opt-out clause for the Euro as well. Generally, they agreed to adopt the Euro as soon as they fulfill the convergence criteria.
Ulrich
Unlike virtually every other country in Europe, who adopted the Euro despite failing woefully to fulfil the convergence criteria!
-
Duncan,
I feel your pain. As a pro-European I was always, and still am, strongly opposed to the Euro. It was always economically unworkable and remains so today. But please don't ever vote for those lunatics.
I'm sure that I won't. I would however, like to see the other parties get their noses bloodied over Europe and have to review their policies.
As Mark says, the UK joined an economic free trade area or 'Common Market' in the 1970s, not an embryonic United States of Europe. In this at least UKIP undoubtedly has its finger on the pulse of UK public opinion.
Personally, I can see much mileage in a 'North Sea Alliance' of the UK, Scandinavia, the Benelux countries, Poland and Germany. Possibly Ireland... ;)
-
Do you think this will sway the vote?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/john-oliver-scotland-last-week-tonight_n_5821950.html
-
This editorial was published over the weekend by The Globe and Mail ("Canada's National Newspaper")
Dear Scotland: An open letter from your Canadian cousins (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/an-open-letter-to-scotland/article20579017/)
The punchline:
There is an alternative to independence: federalism. It’s something we’ve been practising and perfecting for a century and a half. You’ve been at it for a decade and a half. Give it time. We’re not sure if the “Devo Max” plans to devolve nearly complete responsibility for taxation to the Scottish Parliament, plans being floated by the British government in the final days of a referendum, are necessarily the way to go. But some devolution of taxing authority can take place. The Scottish Parliament has little power to raise its own revenues – whereas Canadian provinces have a full range of taxation and spending powers. That’s federalism. That’s how strong subnational and national governments can coexist.
Once upon a time in Quebec, the independence option was the choice of the young, as it is in Scotland. That time has passed; most young Quebeckers today do not imagine that their very real economic and social challenges will be addressed by drawing a new border. But it took us a half-century to get to this point. The same can happen for you, too.
So, dear cousins from beyond the seas, here is our advice and our plea: Stay in the United Kingdom. Let time pass and passions subside. Make changes happen, but within the U.K. And meet us back here in, say, 2040. You can take the U.K. apart then, if you still want to. We think you will not. And we know this: If you take it apart now, you can never, ever put it back together again.
-
Rich,
the Euro was originally the favoured option of the SNP for an independent Scotland until the recent white paper when it was omitted hence ruled out. You are correct in the reason why but this shows the short termism being used in this debate by both sides. This is also the reason the option of using the pound is being pushed though it is akin to saying the currency would be the US dollar.
Your original stance of saying it Eire was a good example of how an independent Scotland could use the pound as its formal currency long term with no currency union as it (and this is clearly what you were saying) that has now morphed into using it until it left the UK is typical of the low level of debate. Lots of big statements that collapse when examined closely.
I do agree that the popularity of the SNP has probably reached its peak and suspect Scotland will have a hung parliament from the next election onward however I would wager that Salmond has another decade in him as SNP leader in the case of a no vote but possibly shorter if its yes and a Scottish land of milk and honey does not emerge.
The 1707 union came about as a result of the collapse of the Darien Project which was almost exclusively Scottish and the overwhelming majority of the landlords involved in the Highland clearances were Scottish.
Jon
-
If the vote is Yes then the UK election of next May will be interesting since Scotland, with one foot out the door, will still be sending representatives to Westminster and may hold the balance of power to elect a Labour govt. Presumably this govt would collapse as soon as Scotland does leave as they would no longer have the plurality in parliament.
-
If the vote is Yes then the UK election of next May will be interesting since Scotland, with one foot out the door, will still be sending representatives to Westminster and may hold the balance of power to elect a Labour govt. Presumably this govt would collapse as soon as Scotland does leave as they would no longer have the plurality in parliament.
Apparently the government have forbidden the Civil Service to look at any ramifications of a Yes vote or do any contingency planning whatsoever. So we have no date for when independence would start. "18 months" is the most frequently stated opinion. In truth both parliaments will be tied up for years to come sorting it all out and for both parts of the Union it would be a confused next decade. Not good for either. Possibly good for both longer term?
Papers are saying the markets are weighted 81% in favour of a no vote. Expect a financial bloodbath if it's a Yes.
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
That is the answer we've all been waiting for.
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
Hmm, that is pretty obvious then
-
really dumb American question about the referendum.
How does the ballot counting process work? Are ballots counted electronically or by hand? In other words, Thursday night will you know the winner of the election or could tabulation take a few days?
-
Chris
I beleive that Scotland (and rUK) is required by EU law to give the vote to citizens of any EU state who are resident in the country. Commonwealth citizens residing in Scotland also get the vote, just because (as Bob says below). So do the Irish, again just because. Americans, such as me, do not count, probably due to spite over that 1776 thingy.
Thanks Rich. It doesn't sit comfortably with me at all but I understand the logic behind the rule.
Are you eligible for British citizenship?
-
Wow! Niall Ferguson is either a moron or a total shill for the new world order Fabians.
I don't believe he is a moron. Harvard would be ashamed that this guy actually teaches history there in light that he, despite being a Scot by birth, is a complete ignoramus regarding Scottish History. Could Niall truly be unaware of the Darien Scheme and ,yet, lecture us on Scottish history and also the students at Harvard?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/opinion/scots-must-vote-nae.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
I would guess he is a shill for the "New World Order" Fabian agenda. The NY Times Editorial Page has been banging the "No" drum all week. They, along with the Council on Foreign Relations" must be terrified by the up and coming non-world government votes taking place in Scotland and Catalonia. No historian from Harvard could lie so outrageously right on the NY Times editorial page and get away with it in a just and normal world. Sad how the western media has fallen.
What an embarrassment that they would lie to us so blatantly with such credentials. They must think that we are idiots.
As far As I am concerned the NY Times and the rest of the mainstream media have absolutely zero credibility.
Malcolm
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
Hmm, that is pretty obvious then
The odds have been skewed because of the large bets placed on no earlier in the campaign.
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
Hmm, that is pretty obvious then
The odds have been skewed because of the large bets placed on no earlier in the campaign.
So you're saying that, being exposed to a big loss in the event of a NO vote the bookies are doubling their exposure by risking a big loss in the event of a Yes vote? I'm not sure they're that genertous.
-
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
[/quote]
I think the bookies had Germany/Brazil just about even up on the eve of their WC semifinal.
-
It is interesting that the vote is too close to call at this point. Never expected that.....
Though the bookmakers have a No vote 4/1 on.
Hmm, that is pretty obvious then
The odds have been skewed because of the large bets placed on no earlier in the campaign.
So you're saying that, being exposed to a big loss in the event of a NO vote the bookies are doubling their exposure by risking a big loss in the event of a Yes vote? I'm not sure they're that genertous.
Yeah, they play the sides off against each other to minimise loss, no?? If a big bet comes in for no, they raise the odds on yes so that - in the event of a no vote - they're minimising their loss.
-
Wow! Niall Ferguson is either a moron or a total Shill. for the New world order Fabians.
I don't believe he is a moron. Harvard would be ashamed that this guy actually teaches history there in light that he, despite being a Scot by birth, is a complete ignoramus regarding Scottish History. Could Niall truly be unaware of the Darien Scheme and ,yet, lecture us on Scottish history and also the students at Harvard?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/opinion/scots-must-vote-nae.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
I would guess he is a shill for the "New World Order" Fabian agenda. The NY Times Editorial Page has been banging the "No" drum all week. They , along with the Council on Foreign Relations" must be terrified by the non- world government votes taking place in Scotland and Catalonia. No historian from Harvard could lie so outrageously right on the NY Times editorial page and get away with it in a just and normal world. Sad how the western media has fallen.
What an embarrassment that they would lie to us so blatantly with such credentials. They must think that we are idiots.
As far As I am concerned the NY Times and the rest of the mainstream media have absolutely zero credibility.
Malcolm
This is a bit of a "British history for dummies" article. It is a much edited version of an article that was in last week's Sunday Times and leaves a lot out - including obviously reference to the Darien scheme which was the catalyst for union.
Interestingly, I think the Sunday Times article does not have the quote about the union between England and Scotland being a merger between equals. This is clearly not so - a union between countries with vastly different populations is not one between equals, just like California and Connecticut are not "equals", nor are Germany and Sweden. This was probably edited out of the Sunday Times article as it was predominately for an English audience.
-
Here is a question to ponder, if Labor had won the last UK election and Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister, would any of this be happening?
-
Here is a question to ponder, if Labor had won the last UK election and Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister, would any of this be happening?
Gordon Brown still PM - I've just broken out in a cold sweat!
This is happening because the SNP won an outright majority in the Scottish elections (after the last UK general election). This was a stunning result under the proportional representation system which was pretty much designed to prevent this. As a result, they had an undeniable democratic mandate for a referendum. Whether the SNP would have won a majority if Labour was in power is another question but we will never know. Just as we will never know whether the polls would be different if Labour were still in power.
-
We'd be bankrupt!
-
Jon,
Sorry to respond so late to your comment regarding the English flag, "Union Jack" being the only English flag.
You are are dead wrong! St. George's Cross was the original English Flag.
The " Union Jack" is an amalgamation of the Saltire aka St. Andrews Cross from Scotland, St. George's Cross from England and St. Patrick's Cross from Ireland.
Sorry to correct you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack)
All the Best,
Malcolm
-
Jon,
Sorry to respond so late to your comment regarding the English flag, "Union Jack" being the only English flag.
You are are dead wrong! St. George's Cross was the original English Flag.
The " Union Jack" is an amalgamation of the Saltire aka St. Andrews Cross from Scotland, St. George's Cross from England and St. Patrick's Cross from Ireland.
Sorry to correct you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack)
All the Best,
Malcolm
Carl,
The Scottish flag is called the Saltire or Saint Andrews Cross. Do you belong to a McConnell golf property?
The English have the red and white Saint George's Cross in addition to the Union Jack.
Malcolm,
the English have only the one flag. The Union Jack (or Flag) is the flag of the UK.
Jon
Malcolm,
I wouldn't worry as much about the lateness as the content if I were you. I think you need to read before saying who said what. The English only have one flag the Cross of St. George. The Union Jack (Flag) is the UK flag not the second English flag which you were claiming.
Jon
-
Anyone expecting the North Sea oil fields to fund sustained prosperity for Scotland should read these rather sobering comments from Ian Wood, founder of the Wood Group, one of Scotland's largest energy companies.
“Young people voting this week must be aware that by the time they’re in their 40s, Scotland will have little offshore oil and gas production, and this will severely hit our economy, jobs and public services,” Mr. Wood wrote on Energy Voice, an industry website. “I have been shocked by the amount of misinformation and spin.”
The whole of the article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/business/international/scottish-independence-movements-wager-on-energy-could-prove-risky.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
-
Gentlemen,
24 hours to go before voting day so here is my prediction from far off Oz!
55% NO - 45%YES. The nays have it. Undecided and silent lads and lassies will go with the status quo.
I also think that this issue has rendered Scotland a disservice no matter what the result. Nationalism seems to have crept out from under the carpet and SNP history over the last fifty years is a dark history to my way of thinking with their national socialist tendencies.
My siblings here are in fear and trepidation!!
Cheers Colin
-
For those in the U.S., live BBC News coverage is on C-Span 3 beginning 5:35 p.m. ET Thursday.
-
Colin there appears to have been a nasty, spiteful, threatening and intimidating element appear from the SNP camp in the last few days.
-
Looks like NO wins with a fair margin.
-
True, Malcolm, but the turnout was huge and givein the commitment of the No's to radical and massive transfers of powers to Scotland, the mandate for change is clear. A great day for democracy.
-
Rich,
I have been glued to SKY News since 5:00 PM USA time.
A non win for "O Scotia! My dear, My Native Soil!" twas no matter.
Best!
Malcolm
-
Well sanity prevailed and its a no :) by a bigger margin than most people thought.
Looks like we should know quite soon when the scope of the new powers promised for a while now will come into effect. What is possibly the biggest impact of this vote is the possible restructuring of the English political system.
Jon
-
Finally, after 2 years of acrimony, the English can soon get back to normal and ignore the Scots again. :)
-
Finally, after 2 years of acrimony, the English can soon get back to normal and ignore the Scots again. :)
I think this vote will have repercussions in England in a major way. Either there will be a an English parliament with all the difficulties this will present and the Westminster becoming more a house where the four national parliaments send representatives or England will become a group of regions with devolved powers similar to Scotland, Wales and NI.
Jon
-
The last thing we in the North East want is an English parliament, which would be even more London-centric than Westminster. An upside of the No vote is that the Tories can't, as I'm sure they'd love to, ignore the North East.
-
Gentlemen,
24 hours to go before voting day so here is my prediction from far off Oz!
55% NO - 45%YES. The nays have it. Undecided and silent lads and lassies will go with the status quo.
I also think that this issue has rendered Scotland a disservice no matter what the result. Nationalism seems to have crept out from under the carpet and SNP history over the last fifty years is a dark history to my way of thinking with their national socialist tendencies.
My siblings here are in fear and trepidation!!
Cheers Colin
On the money, Colin. You should go to the track and pick some more winners.
-
There are 65.1m people in the Union Kingdom of England, Wales, N.Ireland and Scotland.
If only 2.2m had voted 'yes' yesterday then that would have broken up a Union Kingdom of 65.1m people.
Democracy, or what appertains to be democracy, can be a strange beast.
atb
-
Does this mean Scotland can't put Castle Stuart in the division of assets going to England?
-
What's the rationale for Edinburgh voting No so strongly and Glasgow voting yes? I would have thought that Edinburgh would have a lot to gain as it would be the capital of a sovereign nation and would gain lots of government jobs and prestige. Whereas from Glasgow's perspective they will be ruled by toffs from Edinburgh rather than toffs from London - from my visits to Scotland it seems like Edinburghers look down on Glaswegians and there is no love lost between the two cities.
Or is it that Glaswegians identify themselves much more as Scots and Edinburgh is more commercially focussed and risk averse?
-
For starters, Edinburgh's economy is more closely tied to England's than is Glasgow's. Financial services and tourism are two examples.
-
Edinburgh is a much more middle class, Anglo city than Glasgow. The message we've been getting of late is that the Yes message had been hitting home in traditional working class, Labour leaning households. So that would make Glasgow more fertile ground in that sense. But who really knows?
-
The last thing we in the North East want is an English parliament, which would be even more London-centric than Westminster. An upside of the No vote is that the Tories can't, as I'm sure they'd love to, ignore the North East.
An English parliament should be somewhere such as Stoke or Sheffield so as to be more central and reduce the importance of Westminster. Of course had the North East had the courage to vote for devolution when offered it the whole situation of the last 2 years might have been different.
Wayne,
the yes/no vote was nothing to do with being a patriotic Scot or as Adam would suggest being more or less Anglo but rather as he also mentioned a question of economics and whether you thought Mr Salmond was telling the entire story.
Jon
-
What's the rationale for Edinburgh voting No so strongly and Glasgow voting yes? I would have thought that Edinburgh would have a lot to gain as it would be the capital of a sovereign nation and would gain lots of government jobs and prestige. Whereas from Glasgow's perspective they will be ruled by toffs from Edinburgh rather than toffs from London - from my visits to Scotland it seems like Edinburghers look down on Glaswegians and there is no love lost between the two cities.
Or is it that Glaswegians identify themselves much more as Scots and Edinburgh is more commercially focussed and risk averse?
Wayne,
The Irish emigrated in their thousands to Glasgow between 1840s-1970s, so that's probably one reason for the Yes vote. If the English were for a Yes vote, the Irish would have voted No ;D ;)
-
And now Alex Salmond has quit as Scotland's First Minister and SNP Leader.
Some key questions (sic) arise such as will he still attend the Ryder Cup? When will his book hit the shelves and/or when will his speaking tour of the US etc begin?
Once upon a time it would have been "Arise Sir Alex" followed by an air ticket to become something like High Commissioner or Ambassador to a Commonwealth country. Theses days maybe that home for ex-politicians the EEC will come a calling.
Atb
-
Adam,
Just look to the Dundee results for confirmation of your thesis.
Scots wha ha'e!
Colin
-
Thomas,
he will not step down until a new party leader is chosen at the party conference in November so I expect he will be very visible at the Ryder Cup. Although I did not agree with some of what he was peddling and I did not like the manner in which he lead the yes campaign he was one of the few characters in modern politics. He has certainly done a lot for Scotland and will go down as a great Scot.
Jon
-
Of course had the North East had the courage to vote for devolution when offered it the whole situation of the last 2 years might have been different.
Indeed it would. We'd have one extra layer of useless, cynical politicians screwing things up. The North East's rejection of a regional parliament was a proud moment for democracy when the people told the idiots that would have formed that regional assembly that we weren't going to pay for them to be crap career poloticians.
-
"he was one of the few characters in modern politics."
Jon -
It will be interesting to see how the SNP fares post-Salmond. It is hard to imagine his successor will have a similar impact on the party and the country. The fortunes & influence of the SNP may have just peaked.
DT
-
Mark,
At least we can continue to drive back and forth between Northumbria and the Lothians unencumbered by a layer of border police.
Unfortunately the politicians and their councils tend to multiply despite all efforts. Congrat's on keeping them at bay!
Malcolm
-
David
Nicola Sturgeon will be the next First Minister of the the Scottish Parliament before the end of this year, and the SNP will continue to be the dominant force, at least until the next elections, which will take place May 2016. Sturgeon wiped the floor with her opponents in the third debate and is a force not to be disregarded by the traditional parties.
As for Salmond, he won't be going away, just lurking on the back benches of the Scottish Parliament and still the go-to guy when it comes to the media (even more effective, now that he is an eminence grise). Given the fact that the Westminster establishment shot themselves in the foot in order to ensure the No victory, by panicking and offering DevoMax in the last days of the campaign, thus opening the Pandora's Box of the "West Lothian Question" (try Wikipedia) for all of the UK, you are going to see a an amazing unravelling of the "United" Kingdom over the next year or so. Think of the iconic (for the UK) WWII movie "Dambusters" when the first bomb hits the target but doesn't seem to have had any effect, but as it happens, the dam has already been fatally damaged below the water line and the inexorable forces of nature (in this case the water held in by the dam) eventually but inevitably leads to a triumphant breach. That is what happened yesterday. It is only a matter of time that the UK becomes a federal state rather than the grotesquely centralised one that it is today.
You heard it first here!
Rich
-
Rich, are you envisioning four nations which are for most purposes independent, but share defence and a foreign service? Is there anything else (besides currency and therefore monetary policy) that would be centralised?
FWIW I think you are probably right.
-
I agree with Rihc...in part. The UK as we know it is on its last legs. Although, I am not sure N Ireland or Wales will want to be independent except in name perhaps. It will be quite messy, but if England insists on more independence (sounds wild) then necessarily Wales and N Ireland must be partially severed from the mothering cord. I am not at all convinced Wales would go for this and if NI is to be partially severed it will raise the question of Irish unification...very, very messy stuff.
Ciao
-
Wow
Let's take a hard look at ourselves. We've known for years thsi was coming and we've criticised the level of debate, but who thought this through and predicted this situation? Any significant Yes vote was going to put pressure on things to change. It's not just the politicians who've sleepwalked here.
The move to a written constitution with more of a federal basis is a welcome ideal, but rushing down this path is not likely to fix things. The politicians are back taking sides and it does seem that Cameron had more idea of what this means than Miliband did, so the prospects of agreement there are limited. How ironic that the US Constitution was largely written by Scotsmen.
There's one other thing that I've not seen mentioned. At the moment GB&I are a lone voice in Europe providing a wellcome realiity check on some of the slide to an expansion of powers. We already exist in a kind of Federation of Europe. However the dissenting voices come mainly from England and not the other parts of the Union. At the moment the threat that GB&I might pull out means Britain punches above their wieght in this debate. Could England alone threaten to pull out? Has the vote delivered us into the hands of the Eurocrats? If so what looks like a democratic vote could lead to less liberty and individual control for all.
May you live in interesting times.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTgfzTUE-IZ_Ibgm2NmoNCOjKv8MW9-oJvdxQyLfsaR9_00SJm)
England v Scotland
5:00pm Saturday 14 March 2015
Alas, it's at Twickers/'HQ' rather than at Murrayfield :)
atb
-
Rich -
I am well aware of Ms.Sturgeon's role. There are many capable Deputies, VP's', COO's, etc. who never quite make the transition successfully to the first chair. It remains to be seen if she has the flair and charisma Mr. Salmond has for convincing folks to ignore the facts and realities of the situation and just believe.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Salmond's role evolves over time. Generally speaking, once you give up power in politics, you are done. In a world of ambitious people, how many "elder statesman" have any real influence?
As for "devo-max," once again be careful what you wish for. Once the SNP has the power to manage Scotland as they see fit (and can no longer demonize the Westminster establishment), they may wish things had turned out differently. Faced with an aging population, hard-core urban (and rural) poverty, a depleted manufacturing base, declining North Sea Oil revenue, etc., the SNP will actually have to deliver on the promises of their rhetoric. I wish them good luck on that.
DT
-
There is a large bit of irony in all this.
The conservatives know that an independent England will be dominated by them hence the enthusiasm of David Cameron to link 'English votes for English matters' Labour know it would be the death knell for them probably ending an era where they could be considered as a substantive political party hence Ed Milliband's trying to kick this into the rough even if it means reneging on 'The Vow'. So for us in Scotland, the best way to ensure rapid progress on powers to Scotland is to vote in as many Tory MPs at Westminster as possible ::)
Jon
-
This is the best analysis of the current (& future) situation that I have seen so far:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/70acc06a-3fdd-11e4-936b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3DtTor3MA
-
Jon,
You analysis is mostly right but your conclusion entirely wrong! More Scottish Tory MPs would mean Cameron actually cared about Scottish votes. He doesn't at the moment because he can't imagine winning seats North of the Border. The disturbing thing for English voters in any Devon max is the increasing influence in England that UKIP will have.
-
Jon,
You analysis is mostly right but your conclusion entirely wrong! More Scottish Tory MPs would mean Cameron actually cared about Scottish votes. He doesn't at the moment because he can't imagine winning seats North of the Border. The disturbing thing for English voters in any Devon max is the increasing influence in England that UKIP will have.
Devon max? Where will this end? :)
-
There's a wonderful amount of partisan driven contradiction throughout all of this. We now have a Tory government promoting the same federal system which causes them to vomit when mentioned in relation to Europe. Merely utter 'United States of Europe' and that lot break out in cold sweats, simultaneously praising the democracy offered by the same set up in the USA. Of course, my lot, the Liberal Party, were proposing all of this a century ago, but sense rarely prevails at the first time of asking.
-
Paul,
I suspect if the Tories thought they would be the dominant force in a 'United States of Europe' they would be all for it and hence why they want to move towards an English parliament. If Labour carry on the way they have in the last 24 hours I suspect they will get a real kicking in England at the next election. Ed Miliband seems hell bent on making them unelectable. For the Liberals it reneging on tuition fees and getting into government with the Tories that has hurt them
Jon
-
Jon,
You analysis is mostly right but your conclusion entirely wrong! More Scottish Tory MPs would mean Cameron actually cared about Scottish votes. He doesn't at the moment because he can't imagine winning seats North of the Border. The disturbing thing for English voters in any Devon max is the increasing influence in England that UKIP will have.
Devon max? Where will this end? :)
Possibly Cornwall Max?
-
Jon,
You analysis is mostly right but your conclusion entirely wrong! More Scottish Tory MPs would mean Cameron actually cared about Scottish votes. He doesn't at the moment because he can't imagine winning seats North of the Border. The disturbing thing for English voters in any Devon max is the increasing influence in England that UKIP will have.
Devon max? Where will this end? :)
Some times you have to love the autocorrect and how it deals with new words.
But to get back to the main issue - what is wrong with a federalist state where many of the powers are devolved to the state/province? Those of us in Canada, the US, Australia, etc have always had such a system and it has worked well. The system here in Canada was designed by our colonial masters in the UK through the British North America act of 1867. Why not apply a similar constitutional act in the UK itself?
I guess the one major difference is that England is substantially bigger than any state or province as it has 84% of the population of the UK, but that can likely be dealt with or, as has been suggested, you break England up into a few pieces.
Possibly Cornwall Max?
-
But to get back to the main issue - what is wrong with a federalist state where many of the powers are devolved to the state/province? Those of us in Canada, the US, Australia, etc have always had such a system and it has worked well. The system here in Canada was designed by our colonial masters in the UK through the British North America act of 1867. Why not apply a similar constitutional act in the UK itself?
I guess the one major difference is that England is substantially bigger than any state or province as it has 84% of the population of the UK, but that can likely be dealt with or, as has been suggested, you break England up into a few pieces.
Wayne you've hit the nail on the head. As an Irishman living in England I do sense that there is an inteterst in Engand getting more recogniton and power, but I don't see a way of dividing it into smaller pieces. Meanwhile Cameron has promissed a referendum on European membership if re elected. Will be interesting....
-
But to get back to the main issue - what is wrong with a federalist state where many of the powers are devolved to the state/province? Those of us in Canada, the US, Australia, etc have always had such a system and it has worked well. The system here in Canada was designed by our colonial masters in the UK through the British North America act of 1867. Why not apply a similar constitutional act in the UK itself?
I guess the one major difference is that England is substantially bigger than any state or province as it has 84% of the population of the UK, but that can likely be dealt with or, as has been suggested, you break England up into a few pieces.
Wayne you've hit the nail on the head. As an Irishman living in England I do sense that there is an inteterst in Engand getting more recogniton and power, but I don't see a way of dividing it into smaller pieces. Meanwhile Cameron has promissed a referendum on European membership if re elected. Will be interesting....
Tony,
if Westminster is so busy handling the Scotland and England issue then I suspect the government will have to kick the EU can further down the road. Although this might be hard to imagine now once Joe (English) public gets stoked up about the England issue the EU will be most definitely a secondary issue. If Labour do not quickly change their tune and look as though they are interested in the best thing for the country rather than what is best for the Labour party it could end up being a landslide for the Tories.
Maybe Cameron has just played a master stroke. Tory majority, no real opposition and no EU headache.
Jon
-
'Crystal ball' time - what would be the result if David Cameron called a snap General Election right now?
What's the line about "The brave shall inherit the earth" - courageous move or folly?
:)
atb
-
'Crystal ball' time - what would be the result if David Cameron called a snap General Election right now?
What's the line about "The brave shall inherit the earth" - courageous move or folly?
:)
atb
Irrelevant - he can't.
-
'Crystal ball' time - what would be the result if David Cameron called a snap General Election right now?
What's the line about "The brave shall inherit the earth" - courageous move or folly?
:)
atb
Irrelevant - he can't.
Quite right. Once upon a time, calling a UK G-E could be done by the PM seeing the Monarch and dissolving Parliament and about three weeks later it was 'vote time'. No longer. A couple of years ago the law was changed and now it's either wait for the current 5-year term to lapse (May 2015), hold and win/lose a vote of no-confidence in the Govt (or form a new Govt) or if 2/3rd's of MP's vote for a G-E. Calling a short notice G-E was used a few times in the past, for example, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher both used it to enhance their political positions.
It's worth noting that in the Scottish Referendum 16 yr olds were given the opportunity to vote. In a G-E the voting age throughout the UK is 18. I believe the age that you have to be to vote in a Scottish Assembly election is also 18.
Democracy is a strange creature.
atb
-
'Crystal ball' time - what would be the result if David Cameron called a snap General Election right now?
What's the line about "The brave shall inherit the earth" - courageous move or folly?
:)
atb
Irrelevant - he can't.
Quite right. Once upon a time, calling a UK G-E could be done by the PM seeing the Monarch and dissolving Parliament and about three weeks later it was 'vote time'. No longer. A couple of years ago the law was changed and now it's either wait for the current 5-year term to lapse (May 2015), hold and win/lose a vote of no-confidence in the Govt (or form a new Govt) or if 2/3rd's of MP's vote for a G-E. Calling a short notice G-E was used a few times in the past, for example, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher both used it to enhance their political positions.
It's worth noting that in the Scottish Referendum 16 yr olds were given the opportunity to vote. In a G-E the voting age throughout the UK is 18. I believe the age that you have to be to vote in a Scottish Assembly election is also 18.
Democracy is a strange creature.
atb
Thomas,
I'm glad they changed that rule. I always thought it was a terrible abuse of democracy. You wrote that even if you win a no-confidence vote, you can still call an election. Still a bit of a loop hole, althought a risky one at that.
-
'Crystal ball' time - what would be the result if David Cameron called a snap General Election right now?
What's the line about "The brave shall inherit the earth" - courageous move or folly?
:)
atb
Irrelevant - he can't.
Quite right. Once upon a time, calling a UK G-E could be done by the PM seeing the Monarch and dissolving Parliament and about three weeks later it was 'vote time'. No longer. A couple of years ago the law was changed and now it's either wait for the current 5-year term to lapse (May 2015), hold and win/lose a vote of no-confidence in the Govt (or form a new Govt) or if 2/3rd's of MP's vote for a G-E. Calling a short notice G-E was used a few times in the past, for example, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher both used it to enhance their political positions.
It's worth noting that in the Scottish Referendum 16 yr olds were given the opportunity to vote. In a G-E the voting age throughout the UK is 18. I believe the age that you have to be to vote in a Scottish Assembly election is also 18.
Democracy is a strange creature.
atb
Thomas,
I'm glad they changed that rule. I always thought it was a terrible abuse of democracy. You wrote that even if you win a no-confidence vote, you can still call an election. Still a bit of a loop hole, althought a risky one at that.
Donal,
My phrasing could have been improved. When I wrote 'win/lose' I meant a 'win' for one side (opposition), a 'lose' for the other (govt). The law says something like "you have a G-E if a no confidence vote is passed in the Govt by a majority in the HoC and no motion is passed providing confidence in a new Govt" Complex subject, easy to mis-write about it - hey that reminds me of a politician! She "mis-spoke", I 'mis-wrote' (sic!) :)
What started out as, please forgive my wording, on the face of it 'just' a Scottish referendum has opened quite a few tins of worms, and with probably other currently unforeseen tins to come.
A while back in this thread I wrote that "Democracy, or what appertains to be democracy, can be a strange beast." Interesting times ahead, and no doubt expensive times too in terms of taxpayers money, although as is sometimes said "a week is a long time in politics"!
atb
-
Thomas,
I would imagine that even if he could call a GE Cameron would not right now. Why would you when you opposite number is so eager to dig a hole for himself and his party. Even some of his own party were on radio today saying that it is better to put the best interests of the public a head of the interests of his party.
Although I could be wrong and Miliband is a genius.
Jon
-
Rich, are you envisioning four nations which are for most purposes independent, but share defence and a foreign service? Is there anything else (besides currency and therefore monetary policy) that would be centralised?
FWIW I think you are probably right.
Chris
Short-Medium term, that is a reasonable result, but as Sean and I have said, it's going to be a very messy affair, and if the three major parties don't give England the same sort of powers that Scotland, Wales and NI will be given, the Union could fall apart very quickly. Then again there is the UKIP factor and the possibility of a referendum on splitting from the EU, which the Conservatives seem to have vowed to hold if they win a majority in the May 2015 elections. Westminster has put itself in a complete fankle, and given the weakness of the leadership for each of the 3 parties, I fear that nothing significant will be done, and the natives will become more and more reckless.
David T
I think you seriously underestimate Salmond and Sturgeon's (and Scotland's) capabilities and even more seriously overestimate the ability of rUK to deal with the Pandora's box they have opened up.
Rich
PS--interesting poll
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/7-fascinating-insights-into-why-scotland-voted-against-indep?utm_term=4j1ad8#2vwnouy
-
Rich,
it is going to be very interesting seeing how this pans out. It would be very ironic if the 'Vow' made by the three unionist parties in an attempt to keep the union together were to be the cause of it being dismantled by the same three parties. I do not think there is any appetite in England for regional devolution amongst the English population but a big appetite for an English parliament but probably not in Westminster or even the SE.
Very interesting poll
Jon
-
This is what I would really be worrying about. ;)
http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/09/scotch-suffers-11-drop-in-exports/
-
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1461750.ece
Rich how did you get round the Paywall? This was interesting yesterday.
Ferdinand Mount has been in a Tory think tank on more power for England. His suggestion follow a conservative approach, but this is what the PM will be listening to right now.
One fact I had completely missed. When Jim Callaghan lost the minority support of a party of 3, he called an election and Mrs Thatcher was elected. The name of the party? Why the SNP of course! They have been causing trouble for some time now ;)
This is starting to resemble the history of Irish Politics where many time actions end up benefitting your opponents and unlikely bedfellows are created. The Ironies have not ended just now.
-
What paywall, Tony?
I did see Mount's piece as I'm a Times subscriber (even though they were shamelessly biased in their coverage of the referendum campaign....).
The most interesting twist and turn of today is the fact that the SNP is seeing a massive increase in party membership and polls show them almost at a majority of the Scottish electorate in the aftermath of DevoMaxGate. Unless Labour get's its finger out of its a**e, it is possible (even though unlikely) that they could become the largest Scottish bloc in the May 2105 UK Parliament, and if so possibly able to demand Independence ipso facto. In such a case, I would suspect that Cameron would make faint protestations, but let them go, given that it would insure him and his party rule of England for most of the rest of our lifetime.
David
I'm not at all concerned about whisky exports. As all excise taxes currently go to Westminster and not to Scotland, Independence would be a boon for us fiscally in the amount of ~£1billion. Market-wise, I don't think that the Scottish Whisky industry fears competition from Glenbasildon or Black Country single malts........
Rich
-
Rich,
it would not surprise me at all if the SNP make large gains in the UK elections. I just cannot see Labour being able to turn their fortunes around as the top table come across as bunch of bumbling idiots who are clearly putting the interests of the party ahead of that of the electorate. The Tories (no shining stars themselves) will have very little problem in promoting Labour as being against public opinion.
It is also not really surprising that the SNP and to a certain extent the greens have seen an increase in membership as I know from first hand experience that whilst there representatives were pushing the 'YES' campaign they were also pushing their respective parties and getting peoples details as well as signing up new members. The increase in membership possibly reflects these new members acquired over the last few months being processed now.
As for 'ipso facto' do you really think that is going to happen ;D ;D ;D Salmond has withdrawn to the side lines as a defeated almost man who came so close but could not quite pull off the deal when he had it in reach. No full independence is a done deal for another generation unless Westminster renege on their promise which is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Jon
-
The most interesting twist and turn of today is the fact that the SNP is seeing a massive increase in party membership and polls show them almost at a majority of the Scottish electorate in the aftermath of DevoMaxGate. Unless Labour get's its finger out of its a**e, it is possible (even though unlikely) that they could become the largest Scottish bloc in the May 2105 UK Parliament, and if so possibly able to demand Independence ipso facto. In such a case, I would suspect that Cameron would make faint protestations, but let them go, given that it would insure him and his party rule of England for most of the rest of our lifetime.
Rich
I believe that there have been only 4 occasions in history when the result of the UK election was different to the result if only English MPs were elected. The last was obviously the most recent - the Tories have a (small) majority in England but not in the UK. Labour won substantial majorities in the previous 3 elections in England. The idea that England has overwhelming Conservative support is just not factually correct - don't confuse S.E. England with England overall. The Tories are about as popular in Blackburn, Lancashire as Blackburn, West Lothian.