Scottish Independence - classic or dud

Classic. If only because of never having to endure another Tory government that another country chose for us.

If only because of never having to endure another Tory government Maggie Thatcher that another country chose for inflicted upon us.

fixed

strikes me that the whole thing hangs on the currency. There are three choices, obv: 1. Keep Sterling, 2 A Scottish currency, 3. the Euro.

1. would be bad news because a) monetary policy would be set for England, and Scotland's economy has already suffered more than once from that and b) there'd be no lender of last resort for its dodgy banks

2. A lot of this would depend on how much UK debt an independent Scotland inherits, but either way it's really not clear how attractive a Scottish currency would be to the markets, and unless they tried to peg it to some stable currency (which comes with a shitload of its own problems) there's a fair chance it would just collapse.

3. Isn't a given, would be worse than 1 in terms of monetary policy, and also lol Euro.

Trying to go it alone from scratch is pretty plucky, but especially so when all the markets are bigger than you. What does it mean to be "independent" if your fiscal policy is going to be dictated by one of the Bank of England, the ECB or the international money markets?

It's too late to settle the scores of the 1970s, let alone the 1700s. Unless it's going to adopt some seriously isolationist policies Scotland would very much more likely be better off with devo max.

Full fiscal autonomy, sometimes referred to as devolution max[1], devo-max,[2] fiscal federalism,[3] independence lite,[4] or independence-minus,[5]

rather like yr currency choicee, u have a choice of bad terms

re the "keep sterling" choice, there's no suggestion that the rest of the UK would accept that. under a conservative govt. it's extremely unlikely beyond an initial grace period.

the UK wouldn't really have any choice -- Sterling's freely traded. It just wouldn't have to support the banks/act as a lender of last resort.

What does it mean to be "independent" if your fiscal policy is going to be dictated by one of the Bank of England, the ECB or the international money markets?

isn't this a question generally applicable to vast swathes of countries now, including eg. every Eurozone state not called France or Germany?

i say this because in some ways i think that exactly what makes Scottish "independence" viable is the death of the nation state as a serious thing

Yeah, it really does. I suppose at least in the ECB case you theoretically get some sort of a say in policy, which is better than the other alternatives. (Setting aside the horrible systemic problems of the Euro.)

But the voice Scotland has in the UK is much larger than the voice it would have in the EU.

That was an xp

ok i see, stet, i can't get my head around that (which is not so surprising considering that salmond isn't actually telling us anything).

Well, all it needs to do to adopt the pound is say "the currency of Scotland shall be the pound Sterling", accept the pound for payment of taxes, and pay its own debts in the pound. If it needs to raise money, it can sell Scottish government bonds at whatever rate the market sets, and it can buy Sterling on the money markets if required.

What it can't do is basic central bank stuff, like set an interest rate to control inflation or provide stimulus. It can't print (or do QE) either, so it can't inflate. It also can't be a lender of last resort, so if the RBS goes bankrupt again, the Scottish government wouldn't be able to save it, unless it happened to have enough cash (or could borrow enough) to do so.

Salmond's an economist, so he has to know all this. I can't decide if his pronouncements are disingenuous because he hopes few enough people will care, or if he wants this so badly he's pretending it's not true.

thanks for the explanation. basically it forgoes most things that form the basis of the thrust for independence in the first place then?

exactly, yeah.

i say go for it, it worked fucking wonders for us

Devo Max seems like a pretty obvious winner if it's a three way vote. What I don't get - and I'm probably being thick/missing the point - is, surely if it's included as an option then this will split the 'yes' vote and make independence even less likely? Does wee Eck know this, and is he just using full independence as a sort of red herring to gain more power for holyrood? I guess this is pretty unlikely given his zeal, but I can't really work it out otherwise..

Even if I know bugger all about all this, I find it quite exciting.

cameron's said he'll only countenance a yes/no all-or-nothing vote iirc

Devo max splits the no vote more than the yes vote. Polling suggests majority of Scots against independence, but would vote for Devo max. Having both questions rules out the status quo having a chance of winning.

Interesting what happens if 60% vote for independence and 80%vote for Devo max. So much depends on the wording.

Ah, that makes sense!

...and probably sums me up. But hey I've lived in England for a while now so maybe self-interest plays a part in that.

cameron's said he'll only countenance a yes/no all-or-nothing vote iirc

Is he trying to break up the Union or he just a pig-ignorant Toryboy cunt? I don't know why the Labour Party would support restricting the referendum to yes/no (obv. the Lib Dems have no choice/ principles), other than the fact that Salmond makes them shit their pants.

he's trying to force through a BINDING yes/no vote that he knows will result in "no"

what about non-Scots living in Scotland?

― little blue souvenir (Noodle Vague), Monday, 16 January 2012 17:58 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they live here they should have their say

― Jimmy Riddle Orchestra (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Monday, 16 January 2012 18:01 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Thanks for that :-)

Having lived in Scotland for nearly six years now, my impression is that, understandably, Scots don't like posh Toryboy Englsih cnuts meddling in Scottish affairs, so Cameron's current bullying tactics will only push some undecided voters towards full independence. I'm sure Cameron is aware of this, but I can't quite work out why he's doing it (secretly wants to break up the Union? Hates Salmond beyond all reason or common sense?) I'm not a huge fan of Salmond myself - he seems like a zealot, and a xenophobe - but I wld never underestimate his political savvy (nor wld I underestimate the total fucking uselessness of the Labour Party in Scotland, and England.)

he's trying to force through a BINDING yes/no vote that he knows will result in "no"

He knows it? I think, for once in his life, Cameron might consider being a little less cocky.

Kellner had a good post on the voting permutations yesterday: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-kellner/four-ways-to-cook-scotlands-referendum

I like how Condorcet seems to be like the Rock Paper Scissors of voting systems.

tom d. apparently it's pretty open and shut that any vote on full independence will lose i.e. polls have hovered around 35% in favour for years

Think you'll find they've crept up since Cameron stuck his oar punt in

ive actually heard people talking about needing passports to get into england and i know there's gonna be no end to the shite peddled

given that you don't need passports to go from Ireland to the UK, the needing a passport to cross the inner British border would be unlikely.

Unless Scotland joined Schengen, of course. But Scotland would be unlikely to join Schengen, for the same reasons Ireland didn't (viz not wanting to make travelling to and from the UK a hassle and not wanting to have to fortify border with UK).

sure Cameron is aware of this, but I can't quite work out why he's doing it

no more Scottish MPs = Tory majority in Westminster forever?

... that's not actually true, living in England it just seems that way

the UK wouldn't really have any choice -- Sterling's freely traded. It just wouldn't have to support the banks/act as a lender of last resort.

I'm not sure of this - when Ireland had parity with sterling the Bank of England did not operate as our lender of last resort, at least I don't think so.

From the Irish experience, sticking with sterling raises the mildly inconvenient prospect of Scottish notes not being accepted in the UK even though UK notes will still be accepted in Scotland. But don't Londoners sniff at Scottish banknotes already?

I don't know, possibly Cameron is convinced he can walk on water. He's so used to slapping round Little Ed in front of a bunch of braying yahoos in the Commons, and getting Clegg to debase himself and his party has proven to be a cakewalk so maybe he just thinks Salmond is more of the same.

when Ireland had parity with sterling the Bank of England did not operate as our lender of last resort, at least I don't think so.

Yes, that's what I'm saying -- the UK wouldn't have to operate as Scotland's lender of last resort, whatever they decide to do.

That said, Ireland didn't stick with Sterling -- the punt was a separate currency that was just pegged to Sterling until the 1970s. What Scotland is talking about doing is just continuing to use actual Sterling.

the mildly inconvenient prospect of Scottish notes not being accepted in the UK even though UK notes will still be accepted in Scotland. But don't Londoners sniff at Scottish banknotes already?

... they do more than sniff, they sometimes don't accept them and I imagine trying to pass a Scottish banknote in Little Ottlesby-by-the-Marsh or wherever wouldn't get you far. I think we had a discussion about this before on ILX, Scottish banknotes are not legal tender in England but then neither are English banknotes, only coins are legal tender and have to be accepted

Out of interest, what would the UK be called if Scotland weren't part of it?

xp

only a limited amount of coins and only in payment of certain kinds of debt. a shop, of course, has no obligation to trade with a customer at all.

xp

AngloMax

The Queen would still be our sovereign, so the Kingdom would still be United, I assume

I was wrong..

Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales and are issued in the denominations of £5, £10, £20 and £50. English banknotes can always be redeemed at the Bank of England even if discontinued. Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes are not legal tender in any part of the United Kingdom.

Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes are not legal tender in any part of the United Kingdom.

LOL, yeah, thanks for that guys

Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes aren't backed by anything tho? They're the equivalent of Disneyland fun money or something.

maybe Scottish bank notes cd be backed by the RBS oh wait

They say Sterling on them... maybe as a tribute to Sterling Morrison, Glasgow having more Velvet Underground albums per household than any other city in Europe

Out of interest, what would the UK be called if Scotland weren't part of it?

at the moment it is the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland (I think). I suspect rump UK would be called the United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, UK for short.

I don't know why the Labour Party would support restricting the referendum to yes/no

because the Scottish Labour party pathologically hate the SNP and see them as the 'enemy' and not the Tories. Any defeat for Salmond would please them. Despite cutting their noses off etc.

In a Scottish context, the SNP are the Labour party's main enemy.

If Scotland did become independent, its politics would be a bit strange. Three left or centre left parties taking up almost all the votes, and a tiny right wing party waving its "we're here too" flag. This is a bit odd for somewhere that has an economy heavily based on financial services (and shortbread).

Cue blah blah blah posts about how the Liberals and/or Labour are not really left or centre left.

Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes aren't backed by anything tho?

I hate to break it to you, but the Bank of England went off the gold standard in the 1920s, so English bank notes are not backed by anything either.

Cue blah blah blah posts about how the Liberals and/or Labour are not really left or centre left.

You missed out the SNP. Have you seen where there parliamentary constituencies are? You think Moray, Perth and North Perthshire, Banff and Buchan are hotbeds of socialism?

Tories are the second placed party in 4 out of the 6 SNP Westminster seats

"polls have hovered around 35% in favour for years"

i'm guessing pro independence people are probably significantly more likely to get out and vote. i'd say we're perilously close to saying yes to this madness.

Well, I didn't think it was controversial. What's important to the SNP is Scotland's will, and that Scotland's will is being overruled. The content of that will isn't important.

It's hard to see how a left wing SNP would function in a right wing Scotland.

the fact that every single area north of that line voted to remain belies your claim that the border is an arbitrary line.

I don't follow that - borders have an effect, they don't just exist. the drawing and redrawing of every one of them is arbitrary but having been drawn of course they can seem to make some sort of sense and become self-reinforcing.

If the SNP were committed to a resolve against nuclear weaponry then they could do more than say "not on our doorstep." They can reap the benefits of the populist move but it doesn't translate into their pro-NATO membership stance which has been in place since 2012. Similarly, if the SNP were serious about raising people out of poverty then they would be offering free school meals to the most disadvantaged. Free school meals to everyone is a vote-winner, but it doesn't actually redress the imbalance caused by the root issue.

the times where scots can make a prioity of solidarity with friends in england are long gone in the face of where we are now and where we will end up, which will be much worse

I don't believe this is a one way direction, or at least I don't believe it has to be. We may have a limited voice in Westminster but we can do more by being there and speaking out as a voice for 60 million than we do speaking out for 6 million. I can understand and appreciate that self-interest is a good reason to support independence but I don't feel comfortable with the moral stance that we do more by turning our backs on our neighbours rather than helping them. The response to that is obvious - they voted for it so they can deal with the consequence - but it's not like the people who need the support (eg the disabled people being told they aren't too sick to work) are actively voting for the policies that ruin their lives and I'd rather be able to work towards helping those people than insulating our own culture.

We managed to elect a UKIP representative despite the complete lack of party presence here. I wouldn't be confident saying we're as different as we seem.

(my own political awakening was embarassingly late so if someone could explain how the SNP managed to shake off the Tartan Tories label in the Salmond era that would be interesting)

it's been a while I think tartan tories was before thatcher the poll tax tory toxicity in scotland thus the imperative of rhetorical distance then devolution new labour providing them with a ready-made space to fill and their taking the opportunity

Nobody under 50 says tartan tories

I don't follow that - borders have an effect, they don't just exist. the drawing and redrawing of every one of them is arbitrary but having been drawn of course they can seem to make some sort of sense and become self-reinforcing.

― conrad, Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:10 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

An excellent point which I take it on board but I'm not sure we're saying different things merely that I expressed myself inadequately. I do contest that these drawn lines are arbitrary- they very rarely are - but yes, you are right that borders can reinforce and exacerbate divisions but this hostility is less sharp in the borders and in fact the hostility between unionists and independents, while still mild on the whole, is probably sharper in areas far from the border in for e.g. Aberdeenshire or even Shetland. Or even in Glasgow with the idiotic and depressing Catholic and Protestant hostilities.

I was actually a potential no voter until two months or so prior to the referendum and my switch to Yes was quite extreme (and remains so) which may say more about my mental state and less about political logistics.

Re: My friend, boxedjoy's stance that it needn't be a one way street, that the situation may change, that we can do more as 50 voting voices for 55 million than we can for 6 million is something that, at this point, I simply do not and cannot accept. I think this is breaking point. We all exist in these social media fuelled bubbles and obviously I feel more solidarity politically with NV or Matt DC, among others, than with many of my neighbours but Westminster feels fucking toxic rn and I don't think that is a two-way street that will change or become better for scots at any time in the future. Scotland really does feel like another country now. It's done.

Or even in Glasgow with the idiotic and depressing Catholic and Protestant hostilities.

Yeah, let's pin that one on Glasgow.

Sturgy is a big beast on Twitter.

yes for me too it doesn't feel like a "two-way street" in any productive or meaningful way and it's frustration with that and my feeling about the general direction of the uk (I feel like it isn't good, that it's bad) that makes me a scexiteer

(SNIFFING AND INDISTINCT SOBBING) do you imagine that anyone thinks glasgow invented catholic and protestant hostilities? or do you think that catholic and protestant hostilities don't exist or aren't significant in glasgow?

... and elsewhere.

Anyway I don't think of it in terms of "Catholic and Protestant hostilities" so much as anti-Catholic bigotry. Which is about as Scottish as you can get.

at this point in time i wouldn't ask anybody in Scotland to remain shackled to the hateful dying mammoth that is Englishness tbh

i really just feel a great sadness about a divorce that can probably no longer be stopped: irreconcileable differences etc

i live in hackney, pockets of gentrification and hipsters notwithstanding, a still-poor london borough that has voted reliably left since time immemorial*, is one of the most multicultural urban areas in europe and was one of the biggest remain voters blah blah yay hackney

losing the scottish left bloc leaves the poor and the non-white in london even more exposed, and the reliable inner city left vulnerable to the ethic and social cleansing that is already happening -- i don't blame scotland for looking to itself! but i would resent any hint of "fuck hackney" that i heard (i can't really imagine it here obviously, but, well, there are definitely twitter cybernats capable of this kind of yell…)

my observations re the snp are
a) there is a definitely political divide between its support (esp.recently) and its institutions
b) nicola sturgeon is probably the most gifted UK politican active today, not least because so far this divide has not really manifested in any kind of public tension, and much of this is down to her leadership
c) is the divide as great as that between labour party members and the PLP? hard to say, because of said non-manifestation
d) wee banker eck is the very picture of a neoliberal (embarrassingly close to both RBS and murdoch) -- of course he is no longer in charge (and this is significant) but it is the party he built and at some level still partially reflects that
e) in a decade's government at holyrood the snp was by no means as obviously left as (i) its rhetoric then and now and (ii) its supporters consider themselves (probably correctly: my closest non-ilx friend who is a convert to independence after a liftetime's scorn is a enthusiastic castroite communist
f) so the divide -- currently masked by the situation, which sturgeon is playing well and others not so well -- probably IS nearly as big as labour's, tho not of course exacerbated by decades of mutual proximity and hostility
g) the snp is a small party in parliamentary terms, with impressively tight discipline -- this will probably take them in and through the indie vote very effectively; afterwards is quite another matter… but by then hackney will no longer be able to help out, really :(

*ie since a time when calling the snp tartan tories was just the truth -- the snp is where the scottish tory vote went in the 60s and 70s

i think i used to see religious conflict (and yes, generally in the form of anti-catholic bigotry) in the west of scotland as some kind of self-explanatory toxic given, but now when i return and encounter it i feel completely at a loss when it comes to having any understanding of it. the obvious element of people with no particular religious commitment and no particular political commitment suddenly having vast reserves of both when it comes to e.g. the question of unionism is absurd but explicable in the typical prejudicial othering manner, but when in most aspects of everyday life catholics and protestants are seamlessly integrated it seems to come down to some baffling inchoate bigotry towards friends, family members, husbands and wives, which i just cannot get my head around.