Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

Tankus said:
Rbs is still 81% government share owned...So Ozzy's been on the blower
Click to expand...
Actually Juncker, EU finance has to based in the country where it does most its business. London will still be in EU and bound by EU law, regardless of any ballot north of Carlise. Got quite pissed off when Salmond said at the Book festival that the only thing Scots about LLoyds is a nameplate. As a taxpayer and Lloyds customer its bad enough there's no branches in Scotland but to now find out all the the several thousand people dotted about Edinburgh in various buildings do is take turns to polish a brass plate:mad:
 
gosub said:
Actually Juncker, EU finance has to based in the country where it does most its business. London will still be in EU and bound by EU law, regardless of any ballot north of Carlise. Got quite pissed off when Salmond said at the Book festival that the only thing Scots about LLoyds is a nameplate. As a taxpayer and Lloyds customer its bad enough there's no branches in Scotland but to now find out all the the several thousand people dotted about Edinburgh in various buildings do is take turns to polish a brass plate:mad:
Click to expand...
Salmond neither said nor implied what you say.

But then, you know that.
 
danny la rouge said:
What's your point, LBJ? That currency union isn't the best deal for Scotland? I agree. I've always said that. It's the best deal for the rUK, but not for Scotland. The rUK will not turn down CU after the vote; they'd be daft to.
Click to expand...
My point is really quite a blunt one. Monetary union with the UK could leave Scotland with less input into the monetary policy of the region than it has now.

You are wrong about the UK govt's influence over the Bank of England - it sets the bank's agenda. The banks' governor has said that Scotland will have to agree to shared spending with the UK to have the bank as a lender of last resort. Otherwise it will need to build up reserves of Sterling. Either way, spending will be restricted, and any new 'independent' administration may be able to do less than the current devolved administration can do. Independent like Greece is independent. IE not at all.
 
The royal navy is understaffed the scottish regiments are massively understrength lot of joke about mcfijians making up the number.
Fast jets are very expensive to operate spares updates training for pilots technicians etc etc same with the type 23 frigate big boys toys.
If you look at ireland they have some patrol boats hellicopters and a couple of prop planes and thats it.
 
danny la rouge said:
This is not a new story, it’s just the London media catching up with old scares we’ve heard before. You might be new to this, but we’ve been discussing it for 2 years.

The Big Thread in the Scotland forum has thoroughly discussed all of this already, so forgive me if I treat it perfunctorily.

1. The media is conflating HQs and Registered Offices. What is being talked about is the possibility of moving brass plaques, not losing jobs or significant operations.

2. Before we heard this story the first time, we were told that having the brass plaques in Edinburgh meant the Scottish economy would be financial sector top-heavy, and we’d be responsible for bailing out the banks if they came to that again. Leave aside the fact that that isn’t how it works (c/f big thread for how it does work). You can’t have it both ways. If it’s Bad News that the brass plaques are in Edinburgh, then it’s good news that they’re in London; that means rUK would be responsible for bailing out the banks. (Although, I reiterate, it’s not where the plaques are that really determines where the bailout would be financed from).

3. Many of these companies said they’d move to London if we voted for devolution. They didn’t. I’m not aware of any company that moved because of devolution. (“Wolf!”).

4. The bank I use doesn’t have its brass plaque in Edinburgh or London. My debit card still works in ATMs, at check outs, and on websites.

5. The Bank of England has not said it won’t facilitate a currency union. The exact opposite is the case; it says it will.

6. There is a huge discussion on currency on the Big Thread, but there are some important points to be aware of:


Interest rates are currently set by the Bank of England - the Chancellor has no control over them as things stand.


I think some people get misled by the name of the institution - the “Bank of England”. It is currently the Bank of UK, in fact. It is a UK-wide institution, and is separate from government. Were it to become the central bank for both an independent Scotland and the rUK, then it would be deciding interest rates for both countries. It would not be a case of the rUK government setting Scottish interest rates, but rather both being set by the same institution.


(As it happens, here, too, I disagree with the SNP. I think Scotland should have its own currency, pegged at first to Sterling - as indeed Ireland’s was right up until it began the process to join the Euro. But I can see the logic of currency union, and it certainly isn’t a deal breaker for me).


The rUK has a trade deficit with Scotland (in other words, the net flow of products - whisky, oil, gas, electricity, foodstuffs etc - is largely from Scotland to the rUK, rather than the other way round, and the net flow of payments is the other way). This is one reason that the Westminster government will want currency union after independence.



The market nerves over Sterling were instructive. This wasn’t a market judgement on an independent Scotland, as the media is spinning it. It can’t be - there is no independent Scotland yet. It is a judgement on Sterling currency uncertainty. This is caused by the No camp’s bluff that they won’t join a currency union. In effect, with no currency union, the UK economy would be re-priced as if it had the trade deficit we talked about above. If that deficit is outside of the Sterling Zone, then the economy has to be revalued. This is obvious. That’s one reason why currency union is actually in rUK’s interests more than it is in Scotland’s.


Furthermore, it isn’t logical to have the liabilities that come with Sterling without the assets. If Scotland no longer shares the use of the Bank of England, then it no longer shares the UK debts. This is another reason that a week tomorrow, if we have voted Yes, the currency bluff will be called.


(Please note that the UK Treasury has said it would continue to honour debts amassed by the UK if Scotland becomes independent. It has said as the successor state to the debt, it alone is responsible for the debt. Now, the SNP Scottish government has said it will pay its share of that debt. It has never said it wouldn’t. All it has said is that it doesn’t have to, and that with liabilities come assets).

If you want a fuller discussion, go to the Big Thread. But excuse us for yawning. This is all old hat.


And lastly, if you think that a bunch of Tory-financing CEOs, bankers and Eton-educated toffs telling me that I should vote No in an way persuades me I’m making the wrong decision, then you’re very, very much mistaken.
Click to expand...


If you think everyone tied to the treasury standing up and go, actually we are a bunch of liars who would say anything for domestic politics, we are are changing the terms of our existing debts and are in full reverse ferret on CU would help shore up the pound, YOU ARE BARKING.


Bad squall it would be, but throwing the tiller overboard is the dullest move possible.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
My point is really quite a blunt one. Monetary union with the UK could leave Scotland with less input into the monetary policy of the region than it has now.

You are wrong about the UK govt's influence over the Bank of England - it sets the bank's agenda. The banks' governor has said that Scotland will have to agree to shared spending with the UK to have the bank as a lender of last resort. Otherwise it will need to build up reserves of Sterling. Either way, spending will be restricted, and any new 'independent' administration may be able to do less than the current devolved administration can do. Independent like Greece is independent. IE not at all.
Click to expand...
OK, I think you may be under some sort of misapprehension as to why I'm voting Yes. An independent government with the SNP initially in charge will be an outcome, a product, of a Yes vote, but that's not why I'm voting Yes.

I had hoped the reasons I repeatedly give were understood, but I accept maybe they aren't. So, yes, I really am that cavalier about breaking up the British state. It'll achieve some instrumental objectives, that I repeatedly state (such as getting rid of trident from the Clyde), and it provides space for the working class in Scotland and in rUK to be able to achieve more while the establishment is still on the back foot.

I don't support the SNP, Alex Salmond, or any other parliamentary party or politician, whether in the UK or a possible independent Scotland. I don't believe there is a parliamentary road to socialism. And I don't have any faith in parliamentary democracy. Neither in the UK, in a possible independent Scotland, nor anywhere else. But nor, and this is important, nor do I think that the conditions exist for the social revolution.

I just think this is an historic opportunity to create the conditions to wrest some material benefits for the working class, and should be used. It's tactical, and for instrumental reasons.

I realise that the world of states and parliaments will continue, and I'm happy to discuss what we may see, what may happen. But I remain an anarchist communist.
 
Idris2002 said:
The Irish Times says that is Scotland breaks free, it will effectively destroy the rUK as a military power:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/defence-central-to-changes-if-scots-go-independent-1.1921047

Not that UK is the swaggering superpower it was back in days of yore, but according to the IT story, it won't even be able to 'punch above its weight' on the world stage, as I recall either Tom King or Douglas Hurd saying a few years ago.

And the Torygraph says:

The White Paper spells out Scotland’s precise demands. The RAF would be asked to hand over one squadron of 12 Typhoon fighters for the new Scottish air force. That may not sound much – until you remember that the RAF only has two squadrons of air defence jets. So the rebirth of an independent Scotland would deprive the RAF of 50 per cent of its strength in air-to-air combat.


Scotland would also demand two frigates from the Royal Navy. Again, that may not sound much – until you remember that the Navy only has 13 frigates. Along with six destroyers, that means Britain possesses 19 big warships. So Scotland would demand 10 per cent of the core of the surface fleet.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...d-would-think-weve-taken-leave-of-our-senses/

I can't see any London government blithely handing over that kind of kit without controversy, in fact the very suggestion is one for the "it is to laugh" file. So watch out for some major skin and hair flying over this one, once the saltire is raised over a Free Edinburgh.

I would also imagine that the average Scottish soldier (Sasaferrato to the white courtesy phone, please) is more likely to be fonder of the Union than his compatriots, and London could easily stir the pot by saying, "well, our kilted wonders will be entirely welcome to stay in HM forces should they so wish".
Click to expand...

I already know someone who is in the process of joining the British Army, and will not be coming back to join the Scottish Cadet Force.

All an independent Scotland would need in the way of armed forces would be a platoon of ceremonial soldiers to parade for visiting dignitaries. Scotland would not be able to afford to finance any meaningful troop levels.

Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British. Is there precedence in international law for someone to have their citizenship changed forcibly?
 
Sasaferrato said:
Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British.
Click to expand...
You will only be stripped of your British citizenship if the rUK government chooses to do that. It has declined to answer before the 18th. The Scottish government is quite clear: you can have joint British citizenship if the UK government lets you, but it is obviously not in their (the Scottish government's) gift. You will have the additional Scottish citizenship automatically by living here, but they cannot, nor do they want to, strip you of your British citizenship.

Should you wish to enquire as to the UK government's intentions, I can give you an address to try.
 
futurereal said:
Yes I do - hence why I replied. :rolleyes:

Also my comment mentioned LU not the Greens, so not sure how you got that impression, are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

No. But you seem to be nit-picking for the sake of it.

The Greens lack experience to be honest, but that will come with time. And frankly looking at Labour or at the extreme BNP run councils I don't think they have anything to worry about at the moment.
Click to expand...

There are no BNP run councils. I think the Greens in Brighton have got themselves into an awful mess over service cuts (which they denied were happening) and their attitude to strike action.

Lucas has also been a far more decent person then some of the idiots who proclaim themselves on the Left and have made it into parliament. I think the public has less problem taking Lucas seriously than Galloway for example.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Lucas, she does a good job. She seems to have more of a clue than her local party.

Anyway, so you don't think any organisations on the Left bring some the derision they recieve on themselves? How about the SWP for example?
Click to expand...

What political party, right or left, doesn't bring derision of some degree on itself?
 
danny la rouge said:
You will only be stripped of your British citizenship if the rUK government chooses to do that. It has declined to answer before the 18th. The Scottish government is quite clear: you can have joint British citizenship if the UK government lets you, but it is obviously not in their (the Scottish government's) gift. You will have the additional Scottish citizenship automatically by living here, but they cannot, nor do they want to, strip you of your British citizenship.

Should you wish to enquire as to the UK government's intentions, I can give you an address to try.
Click to expand...

We should have a referendum on the subject :thumbs :
 
Sasaferrato said:
I already know someone who is in the process of joining the British Army, and will not be coming back to join the Scottish Cadet Force.

All an independent Scotland would need in the way of armed forces would be a platoon of ceremonial soldiers to parade for visiting dignitaries. Scotland would not be able to afford to finance any meaningful troop levels.

Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British. Is there precedence in international law for someone to have their citizenship changed forcibly?
Click to expand...

A few years ago, Mugabe told all the British passport holders in Zimbabwe that they had to choose one or the other, a Zim passport or a UK one. All the UK passports were collected and handed over to the Brit High Commission in Harare - who promptly mailed them back to their original holders.
 
I've got a mortgage with the Clydesdale and am now pondering about the consequences if the Clydesdale doesn't move south after a "yes" vote...
 
pogofish said:
South of where..? You do realise Clydesdale has been Australian-owned since 1987?
Click to expand...

This isn't an issue of who the shareholders are, it is to do with the jurisdiction in which the bank is domiciled.

I see the IMF have issued a warning on the "yes" vote now too.
 
Surely one result of independence will be another nation to compete in the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates and so on, shifting the burden on taxation to workers/VAT? Tax competition will shaft people both sides of the border.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bingoman
SNP Government in Scotland on the verge of collapse?
Replies
4
Views
348
geminisnake
geminisnake
RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
496
dessiato
dessiato
Elpenor
My tactical voting dilemma - and yours if you have one
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
L
“Be Lazy. Just Vote”
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
Pickman's model
us presidential election of 2024: implications for the uk
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom