Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

Francesca R said:
Since Spain indicated it would veto any fast track entry for Scotland last time it's quite likely they will still be bothering about precedents. (And the reason it did that was little to do with not wanting Scotland in the EU, but opposing Scotland independence for purely domestic reasons)

Of course that was Mariano Rajoy who isn't PM any more and we don't know who will be.
Click to expand...


Rajoy said a number of things specifically trying to assist Better Together at the time. Then the opposite, later. It's a war of words and they play the game with the allies they've chosen. I don't think England is an ally any more.
 
Francesca R said:
Sure, I agreed with that already post 9. I think its own currency and central bank is better.

Whatever neither of those were ever countenanced by Scotland during the first campaign it was always the insistence that they could compel the R-UK to have a formal union. I would be quite surprised to see that silliness tried again.
Click to expand...


It wasn't a question of compel, it was a matter of knowing that such a union was so overwhelmingly in England's interests that after the deed was done it would happen no matter what was said beforehand. And indeed after the No vote it was revealed that the Bank of England had been preparing to put just such an arrangement in place.

I think it could have been handled a lot better but the underlying logic was sound.

We may well not want to repeat the offer this time though.

And do you think you could make a supreme effort to be less patronising and sneery? "Silliness", "laziness" and so on. It wasn't silly, and Scotland isn't lazy, and insults like that only serve to get in the way of sensible discussion.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Brexiters (I was not one) have had project fear heaped on them just like you had.
Click to expand...


Yes, we noticed. Although of course the Leave camp had several influential newspapers rooting for it. Scotland had none rooting for independence, and the BBC turned its pro-union position up to 11. The final fortnight of the campaign has been described as "psychological waterboarding" by someone else, and I have to say that exactly describes my experience of it. I said at the time that what was coming out of my TV screen made me feel like a victim of domestic abuse.

Add to that the undoubted fact that Scots have been conditioned into a feeling of inferiority for generations, producing what is termed the "Scottish cringe", and you had a toxic mess. There is no English cringe, and that made a lot of difference.
 
Aepervius said:
Yes but if such a referendum happen and they do declare independence.... Short of putting the British army in Scotland what choice would they have rather than have to accept it ?

Also what happen to those oil fields by the way ? Aren't they shared ?
Click to expand...


There is a legal boundary between Scotland and England. There is some dispute over exactly where this should be as Westminster unilaterally moved it north about a week before the Scottish parliament was reconvened. Nevertheless using either boundary very little oil is in English waters.
 
Francesca R said:
Sure, I agreed with that already post 9. I think its own currency and central bank is better.

Whatever neither of those were ever countenanced by Scotland during the first campaign it was always the insistence that they could compel the R-UK to have a formal union. I would be quite surprised to see that silliness tried again.
Click to expand...

I think 'compel' is the wrong word. The idea was that England would want to be part of a Union as it would benefit both. Nobody from the SNP said they would compel anything. Of course, when Little Englanders started sniping it was pointed out to them that like every other asset the pound wasn't theirs to share and then they got upset. Because when it comes down to it they can't accept that the UK is not England and England is not the UK and the idea that Scotland has any claim on anything British is too much for their tiny minds to cope with.

Darat said:
It's the other way I. E. around how would Scotland force such a split.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.

Darat said:
Sturgeon seeks urgent Brussels talks to protect Scotland's EU membership

http://gu.com/p/4myc3?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard


Would Scotland have any standing to have formal discussions?
Click to expand...

Formal, no.

Rolfe said:
Big of you.
Click to expand...

But true. Scotland isn't an official entity that the EU can have official discussions with.


Of course no voters were warned that their vote was tying Scotland to an increasingly right wing and insular England and that an EU exit was imminent. It was dismissed as anti-English bigotry by some. And now it has happened.
 
Rolfe said:
Big of you.
Click to expand...
:confused: I merely stated that, at present, Scotland is not a sovereign state and therefore there are preclusions on negotiations between it and the EU (that whole foreign relations retained by Westminster thing).
However I do see talks happening between representatives of the EU and Scottish government under the circumstances.
 
Francesca R said:
Sure, I agreed with that already post 9. I think its own currency and central bank is better.

Whatever neither of those were ever countenanced by Scotland during the first campaign it was always the insistence that they could compel the R-UK to have a formal union. I would be quite surprised to see that silliness tried again.
Click to expand...
It would indeed be better, but I was commenting on this
Francesca R said:
... its currency which will not be the pound and probably can not be the euro on day one either.
Click to expand...
Clearly on day one its currency will be the pound, contrary to that assertion. Whether it keeps the pound, as Ireland did on day one (in fact up to year six); retains it in a different guise, as Ireland did later; replaces it by the €, as Ireland did later still, or creates a new currency altogether, is a matter that will be decided by the government of an independent Scotland, if such ever comes into being.
 
Rolfe said:
It wasn't a question of compel, it was a matter of knowing that such a union was so overwhelmingly in England's interests that after the deed was done it would happen no matter what was said beforehand.
Click to expand...
I suspect you know better than most how the idea of a remote administration knowing what's good for you better than you do works as far as influence is concerned
 
Craig B said:
Clearly on day one its currency will be the pound
Click to expand...
Incorrect. This has been gone over enough times before, clarity is not difficult.

Scotland "using the pound" but not in a formal currency union with the R-UK: Not Scotland's currency. Scotland will not have a currency.

Scotland in a formal currency union with the R-UK: Yes, Scotland's currency.

There is a world of difference and absolutely no need to obfuscate this.
 
Francesca R said:
Incorrect. This has been gone over enough times before, clarity is not difficult.

Scotland "using the pound" but not in a formal currency union with the R-UK: Not Scotland's currency. Scotland will not have a currency.

Scotland in a formal currency union with the R-UK: Yes, Scotland's currency.

There is a world of difference and absolutely no need to obfuscate this.
Click to expand...
On day one people will be paid in pounds and they will be spending pounds. If you have some other definition of own currency than that, fine. As long as we're clear what we mean; and your first posts gave the impression that Scots would have no money at their disposal on the first day of independence - may its advent not be further delayed!
 
Craig B said:
On day one people will be paid in pounds and they will be spending pounds. If you have some other definition of own currency than that, fine.
Click to expand...
Well there seems no point in using the same term ("own currency") interchangeably for two quite different arrangements--when the matter at hand is specifically the importance of the differences between those arrangements.

As long as we're clear what we mean; and your first posts gave the impression that Scots would have no money at their disposal on the first day of independence
Click to expand...
No I've never said anything so daft as that I hope!
 
I don't see much value in Scotland developing its own currency if the plan is to join the Euro in short order. Seems like an unnecessary step.

Not sure if there would be some way to use the Euro even though not a formal member or some kind of Euro member lite status that could be achieved as a way to smooth the transition.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I don't see much value in Scotland developing its own currency if the plan is to join the Euro in short order. Seems like an unnecessary step.
Click to expand...
Yes thoroughly unnecessary if the euro zone group just admitted Scotland into that currency straight away. But it is possible that they are no more well disposed to do that than they would admit the London Borough of Islington where I live and where we voted remain by 75%. (Boris lives here too but will maybe sell up and move to City of Westminster).

The euro zone might require a few years of track record with a sovereign Scottish currency and the "Maastricht" convergence criteria and so on instead.

Or they might not but anyone who "knows" already what the agreement would or would not be is spinning.

Not sure if there would be some way to use the Euro even though not a formal member or some kind of Euro member lite status that could be achieved as a way to smooth the transition.
Click to expand...
Certainly to use the euro (some countries outside it already do). Whether that makes any difference to joining it properly dunno.
 
Although I am ideologically in favour of an independent Scotland I do worry about the practicalities of it especially in current circumstances. I only think its sad in some ways that if independence did come about that it would be driven not by some great positive push from the Scottish people but from a reluctant concession that we can't follow England down the same dark path it seems determined to explore.

I do sympathise with people who feel stuck between two options they don't want. The majority of Scotland seems to want to stay in the EU as part of the UK but that's not on the table. Sad situation in many ways.
 
Francesca R said:
Yes thoroughly unnecessary if the euro zone group just admitted Scotland into that currency straight away. But it is possible that they are no more well disposed to do that than they would admit the London Borough of Islington where I live and where we voted remain by 75%. (Boris lives here too but will maybe sell up and move to City of Westminster).

The euro zone might require a few years of track record with a sovereign Scottish currency and the "Maastricht" convergence criteria and so on instead.

Or they might not but anyone who "knows" already what the agreement would or would not be is spinning.

Certainly to use the euro (some countries outside it already do). Whether that makes any difference to joining it properly dunno.
Click to expand...

I'm not up to speed with what the Euro criteria are and what Scotland does or doesn't meet. I wonder if our relative small size would mean that certain exemptions could be made on a 'can't do too much damage' basis and as with all things if the political will is there then the rules can always be bent.

Presumably if a country already in the Euro decided to split then both halves would continue to be in regardless of whether they met the criteria or not? If not I think I have just stumbled on a cunning plan for Greece...
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
First opinion polls appearing show something close to 60/40 in favour of independence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/re...rge-support-independence-Scotland--paper.html

Though personally I would take these numbers with a pinch of salt until the Brexit reaction has mellowed slightly.
Click to expand...
When I start believing in things the Daily Mail quotes from the Sunday Post I'll take a pinch of cyanide. All the papers are trying to cash in on the interest this has generated. The Sunday Herald is having a ridiculous readers' poll on Indyref. The result.

If a second independence referendum was called today, how would you vote?
Leave the UK 79%
Stay in the UK 17%
Don't know 3%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom