Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. The referendum that was put to the UK electorate was whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU. There was no Scottish etc. referendum so there is no Scottish etc. result.

Well one way of solving the problem I guess is to put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA but I would not recommend it.

But this point has nothing to do with what I posted earlier and you responded to.

The thinking on this (the pound) remains as muddle-headed as ever.

It doesn't matter if it is historically English or not. It doesn't matter if it is shared now or not.

For two independent countries to have a currency union they have to both independently want to. If one does not wish to, the currency union does not and could not exist. No way, no how. To assert otherwise and bleat about history or shared assets is very silly indeed.

Muddle-headed indeed as you go on to show because you remain the only person in this thread, this forum or perhaps even the entire planet who is actually arguing that anyone could be in a currency union that they did not consent to.

If it is nonsense you will be able to point me to this apparent secret Scottish referendum the Scottish had whilst the rest of the UK were having theirs?

Scotland voted in the referendum and the result was calculated. Nobody is saying it has any legal standing -but then neither does the UK one - but it clearly communicated the position of the Scottish people on the matter. The position of the Scottish Government is also quite clear.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Who of course voted No in Indyref1. Most of the Leavers I know are members of Trotskyist groupuscules who believe the EU to be simply a capitalist cabal. Some of these voted No to Indyref, and some voted Yes.

For what it's worth, Tommy Sheridan was strongly Yes to Indy and No to the EU.

Yeah it cuts both ways. I think I had said at the time of the Indyref that Scotland should actually look at the option of not being in the EU as I think there was maybe a stronger argument for Scotland to take on the Norway option than there is for the UK. Some pretty big downsides as well mind you.

 

[Francesca R]

It's interesting that [ . . . ]

It isn't interesting. It isn't relevant. It's a historical anecdote.

I mean by all means be interested but it brings nothing to bear on the issue of a hypothetically independent Scotland being in a currency union with the R-UK, any more than whether or not some bloke called Gemmill scored a goal in a football match.

 

[Francesca R]

you remain the only person in this thread, this forum or perhaps even the entire planet who is actually arguing that anyone could be in a currency union that they did not consent to.

Incorrect, I am not.

That is why you did not quote anything where I ever anytime anyplace argued that they could be.

See what I mean?

 

[Francesca R]

There's only a danger in the mind of the rabid right-wingers who fantasise that the Northern Isles want to break away from Scotland. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ] Its akin to the lefties who are now saying that London should declare itself a separate city state.

"Rabid right wing" is akin to "lefties" and they are saying the same thing (about O&S and Islington)?

Erm . . . .

 

[Planigale]

Yeah it cuts both ways. I think I had said at the time of the Indyref that Scotland should actually look at the option of not being in the EU as I think there was maybe a stronger argument for Scotland to take on the Norway option than there is for the UK. Some pretty big downsides as well mind you.

I would have been more attracted to an independent Scotland out of the EU. I saw no point to an independant Scotland in the EU, as it was not really gaining much (imho). I saw significant gains to an independent Scotland out of the EU given ownership of the oil, fish and being a duty free zone adjacent to England. Oil whisky and fish would have been bought by the EU whatever.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Incorrect, I am not.

Then why do you keep bringing up the same point that is an argument nobody is making?

"Rabid right wing" is akin to "lefties" and they are saying the same thing (about O&S and Islington)?

Erm . . . .

Erm what? Nothing wrong with what I said. It is possible for both lefties and righties to use the same tactics and for their arguments to have parallels.
I wasn't referring to Islington.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I would have been more attracted to an independent Scotland out of the EU. I saw no point to an independant Scotland in the EU, as it was not really gaining much (imho). I saw significant gains to an independent Scotland out of the EU given ownership of the oil, fish and being a duty free zone adjacent to England. Oil whisky and fish would have been bought by the EU whatever.

It would be interesting to do the analysis and work out how much of Scotland's GDP is based on things that are quite difficult or impossible to move. I imagine the percentage would be higher in Scotland than in England anyway thanks to oil and gas, whisky, fish, etc. I believe a higher % of the Scottish economy is also public sector so that isn't going to move.

Of course there would be other issues however so I'm not sure on balance it would be the right move.

The idea that an independent Scotland in the EU would not be gaining much is ludicrous however.

 

[Craig B]

It isn't interesting. It isn't relevant. It's a historical anecdote.

I mean by all means be interested but it brings nothing to bear on the issue of a hypothetically independent Scotland being in a currency union with the R-UK, any more than whether or not some bloke called Gemmill scored a goal in a football match.

I see. Thank you. I'm sorry you're not interested. Personally I find the history of money quite fascinating.

 

[Planigale]

To be clear, the desire for increased decentralisation is not right-wing. The desire to invent strong separatist sentiments where none exist in order to try to scupper Scottish Independence is however. Its akin to the lefties who are now saying that London should declare itself a separate city state.

I have no real view of the Isle of Man. I don't think it's a part of Scotland so I don't really see it as relevant to the discussion. They aren't even a part of the UK and I don't think their status would change unless they really wanted it to.

Obsessing about the Northern Island vote is a bit silly since the No result was just as strong in the Borders. And even East Renfrewshire was as staunchly Unionist as Shetland. There's nothing particularly special about the Northern Isles (other than geography) and it's possibly worth bearing in mind in context that we are talking about 30,000 voters or so.

The issue about the Isle of Man is that it was transferred to Scotland from Norway in the same Treaty as the Northern isles (which fwiw was I think earlier -1266- than the 'Auld Alliance' just as the treaty of York -1237- between England and Scotland was earlier than the 'Auld Alliance'). So on a historical basis the claim for the Isle of Man to be Scottish is as strong as for the Northern Isles. Although subsequently it became subject to the English crown.

The problem with historical arguments is how far you push them back. Should England claim its border as the Antonine wall as the legal successor of the roman empire? This is not an argument I want to seriously propose, but I think all historic arguments are weak.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The issue about the Isle of Man is that it was transferred to Scotland from Norway in the same Treaty as the Northern isles (which fwiw was I think earlier -1266- than the 'Auld Alliance' just as the treaty of York -1237- between England and Scotland was earlier than the 'Auld Alliance'). So on a historical basis the claim for the Isle of Man to be Scottish is as strong as for the Northern Isles. Although subsequently it became subject to the English crown.

The problem with historical arguments is how far you push them back. Should England claim its border as the Antonine wall as the legal successor of the roman empire? This is not an argument I want to seriously propose, but I think all historic arguments are weak.

But the 'issue' is not an issue at all today in 2016. The Northern Isles are a part of Scotland. As such and future constitutional question falls within the remit of the Scottish Government. If they end up with some future special status then the Scottish Government will be the relevant authority to deal with.The Isle of Man is not. So it has nothing to do with anything.

Are you from the Northern Isles or do they have any special significance for you? I ask because I don't think it's the first time you have raised this issue and its one that seems to be raised by a whole host of people except for any sizeable portion of the people of the Northern Isles.

 

[Planigale]

But the 'issue' is not an issue at all today in 2016. The Northern Isles are a part of Scotland. As such and future constitutional question falls within the remit of the Scottish Government. If they end up with some future special status then the Scottish Government will be the relevant authority to deal with.The Isle of Man is not. So it has nothing to do with anything.

Are you from the Northern Isles or do they have any special significance for you? I ask because I don't think it's the first time you have raised this issue and its one that seems to be raised by a whole host of people except for any sizeable portion of the people of the Northern Isles.

Currently in Stromness.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Currently in Stromness.

And that being the case how would you honestly assess the desire amongst the locals to leave Scotland?

 

[Craig B]

The issue about the Isle of Man is that it was transferred to Scotland from Norway in the same Treaty as the Northern isles ...

Man and the Northern isles were annexed by Scotland at different times, and under different procedures. The wiki histories of these places reveal this:

In 1468 Orkney and Shetland were pledged by Christian I, in his capacity as king of Norway, for the payment of the dowry of his daughter Margaret, betrothed to James III of Scotland, and as the money was never paid, their connection with the crown of Scotland has been perpetual.

In 1470 William Sinclair, 1st Earl of Caithness ceded his title to James III and on 20 February 1472, the Northern Isles were directly annexed to the Crown of Scotland.

In 1266 King Magnus VI of Norway ceded the islands, including Mann, to Scotland in the Treaty of Perth in consideration of the sum of 4,000 marks (known as merks in Scotland) and an annuity of 100 marks. But Scotland's rule over Mann did not become firmly established till 1275 ...​

The islands ceded in 1266 were the Western, not the Northern, Islands.

 

[Planigale]

Man and the Northern isles were annexed by Scotland at different times, and under different procedures. The wiki histories of these places reveal this:

In 1468 Orkney and Shetland were pledged by Christian I, in his capacity as king of Norway, for the payment of the dowry of his daughter Margaret, betrothed to James III of Scotland, and as the money was never paid, their connection with the crown of Scotland has been perpetual.

In 1470 William Sinclair, 1st Earl of Caithness ceded his title to James III and on 20 February 1472, the Northern Isles were directly annexed to the Crown of Scotland.

In 1266 King Magnus VI of Norway ceded the islands, including Mann, to Scotland in the Treaty of Perth in consideration of the sum of 4,000 marks (known as merks in Scotland) and an annuity of 100 marks. But Scotland's rule over Mann did not become firmly established till 1275 ...​

The islands ceded in 1266 were the Western, not the Northern, Islands.

I am sure you are right. In 1472 Scotland annexed the Northern Isles in lieu of cash payment for the dowry. A morally dubious claim even if legal but does not mean that the Northern isles are 'Scottish' except in a legal sense. Edinburgh government is more 'remote' from the Northern Isles than for instance London government would be from the central belt. That is not to defend centralisation but to try and draw the analogy that the issue of devolution / independence for Scotland from the UK has analogies with the relationship between the Northern Isles and Scotland. The Northern Isles were 'Scottish' from 1472 then 'British' from 1707. So 235 years Scottish then 309 years British.

Do some people speak of independence for the Northern Isles - yes. How serious it is it is hard to tell. Is there a genuine desire for greater devolution and greater ownership of local resources, definitely Yes. There are significant numbers who look at Guernsey, Jersey, Man, Faroes and see that small Islands can successfully self manage.

What do Orcadians or Shetlanders mean when they refer to 'Mainland'?

As was said in a pub to some tourists telling a fiddle player how good it was he kept up his Scottish heritage "This is f****** Orkney; Scotlands across the water."

What is my personal view? Great Britain with peripheral islands makes a 'natural' geographic region for foreign relationships / defence / migration. Within that geographical area subsidiarity should be maximised and a much clearer federal process of government should be developed. I am in favour of close relationships with Europe (and the rest of the world) minimising bureaucratic burdens for businesses and individuals. The EU had a tendency to be too centralist, in comparison the US is very decentralised (probably too much given every small town and county is very autonomous).

My views are personal, and are not very well informed. I am not very political, so am open to good arguments from informed people. I would regard any historical argument or any Nationalistic argument claiming a unique national character as dubious.

 

[Craig B]

<snip> My views are personal, and are not very well informed. I am not very political, so am open to good arguments from informed people. I would regard any historical argument or any Nationalistic argument claiming a unique national character as dubious.

That is not the point. Your statement I was commenting on was

The issue about the Isle of Man is that it was transferred to Scotland from Norway in the same Treaty as the Northern isles ... So on a historical basis the claim for the Isle of Man to be Scottish is as strong as for the Northern Isles.

But it was not transferred in the same treaty, but more than two hundred years earlier, and was soon thereafter annexed by England, which Orkney and Shetland never were.

Therefore it is completely false to state, as you erroneously do, that

... on a historical basis the claim for the Isle of Man to be Scottish is as strong as for the Northern Isles.

No conclusions that you draw from that incorrect premise require to be examined.

 

[Planigale]

That is not the point. Your statement I was commenting on was But it was not transferred in the same treaty, but more than two hundred years earlier, and was soon thereafter annexed by England, which Orkney and Shetland never were.

Therefore it is completely false to state, as you erroneously do, that No conclusions that you draw from that incorrect premise require to be examined.

As i said i am sure you are right.

(Is that clear enough?)

Actually I have just realised I sort of proved my own argument! I was saying that arguments from history were not strong arguments. My example of arguing from history was erroneous which just helps show that historical arguments are not the best.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do some people speak of independence for the Northern Isles - yes.

And as I said some people also speak of independence for London. 'Some' is not really the measure that we need to use here.

The SNP are quite happy to have the conversation about further decentralisation for the Northern Isles by the way.

 

[Planigale]

And as I said some people also speak of independence for London. 'Some' is not really the measure that we need to use here.

The SNP are quite happy to have the conversation about further decentralisation for the Northern Isles by the way.

Yes i am well aware of the SNP offer. I am not sure I agree with a single unified authority.

I think some form of devolution of London would be a good idea. There is a serious argument for the metropolises going to some form of city state along the lines of Hong Kong or Singapore. Certainly the economy of London distorts the economy of the surrounding regions. I do not know if you have lived in London. It is not the same as England (not that England is as homogenous as Scotland). Forty per cent of the population of London is non UK born. It has a younger population, it votes differently from the surrounding areas.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes i am well aware of the SNP offer. I am not sure I agree with a single unified authority.

I think some form of devolution of London would be a good idea. There is a serious argument for the metropolises going to some form of city state along the lines of Hong Kong or Singapore. Certainly the economy of London distorts the economy of the surrounding regions. I do not know if you have lived in London. It is not the same as England (not that England is as homogenous as Scotland). Forty per cent of the population of London is non UK born. It has a younger population, it votes differently from the surrounding areas.

Yes, I have lived in London. I'd say it's different, but not really that different, from cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, etc culturally. It's more a matter of scale. Economically it is. The distortion of the surrounding regions isn't really going to change regardless of its status though since that's a factor of geography rather than anything else.

It is still England/English though. And regardless of whether there are arguments made about how it might be a good idea to devolve more power etc etc that identity matters.