Scottish Independence

[Vraith]

Oh...and it is pronounced Howston up there, not Hewston as it is here, despite the identical spelling.

Heh...that kind of stuff cracks me up. [[though I just think it's fun...I'm not one of the grammar/accent/dialect haters...I"m a lover not a parser. Usually.] But in that particular case there's a reason for it, IIRC...the NY one is named after someone else, and it used to be spelled differently.

Hey, do you Texans say "Rodeo" the CA way [roDAYo] or the horsy-way [ROWdeo]?

But on topic...someone up-thread mentioned the bailout of Scottish banks...well, sorry to ruin your future but the latest news is the banks have threatened that if Scotland votes to leave, then the banks are taking their shit and moving to London.

[finn]

I think that's the English banks with offices/branches based in Scotland, the Scottish banks were the ones bailed out.

[I'm Murrin]

The banks have said they'll move their registered headquarters to London, but don't plan to move any jobs or money.

[Vraith]

I think that's the English banks with offices/branches based in Scotland, the Scottish banks were the ones bailed out.

Perhaps...though one is Royal Bank of Scotland. [I think these entities are weird, partly private, partly gov't owned].

Murrin: yes, so they say. But where the headquarters are makes a big difference. [or can, anyway. I'm not familiar with ordinary citizens/loans/savings/etc. of banking in the UK.]

[TheFallen]

But on topic...someone up-thread mentioned the bailout of Scottish banks...well, sorry to ruin your future but the latest news is the banks have threatened that if Scotland votes to leave, then the banks are taking their shit and moving to London.

Well yes, that was kinda my point.

There were two bailed-out Scottish banks - the RBS group who got £20 billion of UK taxpayers' money in exchange for a 50%+ stake and the Lloyds/HBOS group who got £17 billion in exchange for a 43% stake. Both now need to move their HQs south of the border in the case of a yes vote to Scottish independence for a number of reasons:

a) to be able to be underwritten by their national government. The Scots wouldn't be able to afford to underwrite their banks without raising an extra £10 billion from somewhere, according to Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor.

b) with the complete lack of clarity as to the currency that Scotland would use in the event of a Yes vote. No bank is going to want the risk of holding any substantial assets in such, so they're going to move money down south. Into sterling. Fast.

Scotland conceptually has three currency choices, and all of them look ludicrous.

1. Use the UK pound sterling unofficially. This is the one that Alex Salmond is suggesting is a simple fait accompli. Sure, they could do this, much like many of the Caribbean islands use the US dollar - but in exactly the same way, an independent Scotland would have precisely zero control over any of the currency-related economic levers - interest rates, quantitative easing, inflation, etc etc.

2. Apply to join the EU and adopt the Euro. If even desirable - and it seems bizarre to even think that, having voted to extricate itself from union with the UK, Scotland would instantly dive with relish into bed with a far FAR larger federalist super-union. Plus this could hardly happen overnight. It'd take many months.

3. Come up with its own locally issued currency. That's the most unlikely possibility of the lot - God alone knows what sort of systems, administration and reserves the Scots would need to establish in order to do that. It'd cost a fortune and take ages.

The option absolutely NOT on the table is for the Scots to carry on using the UK pound sterling officially - i.e. with the UK government's and UK central bank's blessing. That is categorically NOT going to happen.

This is so farcical that I can't believe that anyone with more than half a braincell north of the border is giving even the slightest consideration to voting for independence. They'll completely screw themselves over - 50%+ of them can't be that moronic, can they???.

[peter]

I have little doubt that Camerons eye is on his place in the history books; if there is a 'yes' vote on the 18th, every other action taken by this parlament [and that's not much] will be immediately and inexorably swept out of the window by this single and overarching event. He will be 'the Prime Minister who lost the Union' and nothing else - and such considerations do carry weight with those who lead us.

[Vraith]

3. Come up with its own locally issued currency. That's the most unlikely possibility of the lot - .

Perhaps the most unlikely...but by far the best option.
It could, and probably would, take ages...but only for political reasons.
It doesn't have to...but likely.
And it might cause people to freak out for a little bit [or a bit longer]
It doesn't have to...but likely.
But it's pretty simple, really, far easier than any of the other options...and least dangerous to Scotland as a whole.
[[I mean that relatively only...I don't think there is ANY non-dangerous option/path for sovereign Scotland. Which doesn't mean such is "doomed," but very likely things will get very messy for at least a decade even if ultimately successful.]]

[TheFallen]

3. Come up with its own locally issued currency. That's the most unlikely possibility of the lot - .

Perhaps the most unlikely...but by far the best option. It could, and probably would, take ages...but only for political reasons. It doesn't have to...but likely. And it might cause people to freak out for a little bit [or a bit longer]. It doesn't have to...but likely.

But it's pretty simple, really, far easier than any of the other options...and least dangerous to Scotland as a whole.

[[I mean that relatively only...I don't think there is ANY non-dangerous option/path for sovereign Scotland. Which doesn't mean such is "doomed," but very likely things will get very messy for at least a decade even if ultimately successful.]]

Fully agreed, vraith. Yes, it's the most unlikely, yes it'd take ages and yes, the intervening period while the mess was beiong sorted out would be nigh on unaffordable... but it would be the only sane option.

Interesting then that Alex Salmond hasn't even mentioned this one as a possibility. All politicians are hypocritical slimeballs, but why this guy is bare-facedly lying to his own people and trying to railroad his supposedly beloved nation into a complete and frankly unimaginable clusterfuck beats the Hell out of me...

It'll still be very wryly amusing if a Yes vote does happen, though. God, but it'd be a mess...

[I'm Murrin]

You think that the "absolutely no way" answer on using UK currency will continue to be absolute once the negotiations start?

Right now they have to keep saying no because to say there's a chance would damage the campaign. Once the vote is done, the whole picture changes, and things that might not seem possible now could seem so in a year or two.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hey, do you Texans say "Rodeo" the CA way [roDAYo] or the horsy-way [ROWdeo]?

But on topic...someone up-thread mentioned the bailout of Scottish banks...well, sorry to ruin your future but the latest news is the banks have threatened that if Scotland votes to leave, then the banks are taking their shit and moving to London.

Strangely, "rodeo" is one of the few Spanish words which we technically mispronounce--the Californian method is correct, ro-day-o, following the Spanish pronunciation. *shrug*

I was going to link an article via AJA about the bank topic but you beat me to it. The banks are already quietly analyzing what they would need to do if they do decide to relocate--they cannot afford to wait and then come up with a plan.

The very fact that this issue is coming up for a vote is problematic. Even if the vote is "we choose to stay in the UK" then the "we want independence" crowd will contest the vote, demand recounts, claim some sort of conspiracy, then petition to have it come for a vote again and again until they eventually get what they want. They will not take "no" for an answer.

[finn]

TF, I think its not down to being moronic but being totally disengaged from the political process; many people especially young people do not feel a part of society that seems determined to disenfranchise them. Youth unemployment is rampant and the identification with a fat cat society is wafer thin and is seen in the number of western accented English being spoken by the "enemy" in Afghanistan and now Syria/Iraq.

The idea that they can have a direct effect that will screw the establishment is one they likely relish. Watch out for Braveheart re-runs everywhere!

Out of interest who gets to vote? What about scots living in England or abroad (tho' those terms may be far more similar soon!), or is it just registered "residents" and if that's the case what about ethnicity, can English or French or Australians vote if they happen to be living in Scotland at the time?

[Avatar]

Right now they have to keep saying no because to say there's a chance would damage the campaign. Once the vote is done, the whole picture changes, and things that might not seem possible now could seem so in a year or two.

Good point Murrin.

--A

[TheFallen]

TF, I think its not down to being moronic but being totally disengaged from the political process; many people especially young people do not feel a part of society that seems determined to disenfranchise them. Youth unemployment is rampant and the identification with a fat cat society is wafer thin and is seen in the number of western accented English being spoken by the "enemy" in Afghanistan and now Syria/Iraq.

The idea that they can have a direct effect that will screw the establishment is one they likely relish. Watch out for Braveheart re-runs everywhere!

Yep, agreed, finn. That's exactly why the Nationalist-dominated Scottish Parliament decided for the first time that this vote should be extended to the 16+ agegroup. Sure they'll mouth honest-sounding platitudes about "it being the right thing to do for the generation that will be most affected by the vote's outcome" - but actually it was all about a flagrant attempt to harness the votes of those who tend through age/experience to a) be less informed and b) more "rebel without a clue" and thus liable to flip the existing status quo the bird for the sheer hell of it.

Out of interest who gets to vote? What about scots living in England or abroad (tho' those terms may be far more similar soon!), or is it just registered "residents" and if that's the case what about ethnicity, can English or French or Australians vote if they happen to be living in Scotland at the time?

Nope, it's only those over 16 and as residents registered to vote in Scotland that can vote - so it's nothing to do with ethnicity.

Alex "bare-faced liar" Salmond is furious with the treasury for "leaking" (and the BBC for broadcasting) the "market sensitive" news that RBS, Scotland's biggest bank would be moving down south in the event of a Yes vote. Last night he was desperately trying to focus on manufactured outrage about this, rather than deal with the questions raised by RBS's stated decision - and the exactly similar stated decisions of other currently Scottish financial institutions.

He's also taking a pasting because most of the UK's biggest retail chains have stated that, were Scotland to be independent, prices in the shops would have to rise to cover those increased delivery costs that are currently subsidised by trade in the rest of the UK. The same will apparently be true of the postal service - again the rest of the country subsidises the currently flat-rate costs of mail delivery to Scotland's several far-fling and remote highlands and islands.

Frankly, the guy hasn't got a clue. I personally expect he'd be shitting himself if there *is* a Yes vote, because he knows in advance that there'd be a massive clusterfuck that he couldn't possibly handle. It's just vitally important for his public image to be seen to campaign so strongly for independence - but God would it be bitterly and ironically funny if it actually happened.

[Vraith]

Strangely, "rodeo" is one of the few Spanish words which we technically mispronounce--the Californian method is correct, ro-day-o, following the Spanish pronunciation. *shrug*

I was just curious cuz y'all got lots of Spanish-speakers, like CA...but are also distinctly drawl and cowboy.


Anyway, on topic:
Yougov poll shows the no's ahead by 52-48
ICM poll shows no's ahead 51-49.
Both show movement in favor of the no side...
But both are well within the margin of error...so toss-up, really.
Especially since ICM is also saying that nearly 90% of eligible folk say they are going to show up and vote [which, they say, is far, far above the normal voting turnout].
If that many do show up...well, all bets off. No one's polls are good when something that unusual happens.

[I'm Murrin]

No one's polls are any good anyway, because an important part of using that data is weighting it with past experience of similar polls, and this has no precedent.

I don't think I'd be surprised by either result on Thursday. I don't know where this is going to go.

[TheFallen]

Me neither. For all that it's taking part in a small island in the north-east Atlantic (okay, so in a small island in the north-east Atlantic that just happened to rule half the known world a century ago, but anyway), this vote could potentially genuinely be one of the most dramatic events to affect any member of the G20 in the last 70 or so years.

[Avatar]

Thursday huh? Damn I'm so torn...on the one hand, independence. On the other...the economy.

Maybe they should form a constitutional monarchy, then enter a more equal sort of union with England. They could be "The United Kingdoms of Great Britain & Scotland."

--A

[finn]

Well we're getting close to the wire now and I must say the mischievous and anarchic part of me quietly hopes that the Scots hike up their kilts and gang awa (or fuck off as its expressed south of the border). The very fact that such a question is being asked breaks a cardinal rule of politics which says you never ask a question you don't have the answer to already. The people allowing this question to be asked are not really fit to govern IMO, and they should be rightly ridiculed and publicly hung out to dry.

The ramifications are rolling around my head, like what will be the nationality status and residency rules; presumably the Scots will have to surrender their citizenship and their passports and as such will be foreign nationals on English soil without visas! Certainly the Scottish MPs should be frog marched to the airport or railway station and shipped out immediately, their contracts terminated and no pay or pensions. It will mean a lot of football managers and a few players may have to go or at least stop working until their visa status is confirmed, which could disrupt Saturday's fixture list.

What do we do about Holy Loch? The sweaties don't want nukes in Scotland so are they saying Holy Loch must close and all the infrastructure for looking after the nuclear sub fleet, as well as the housing of the subs, will need a new home, as will the various "British" regiments in the armed services.

As for a "United" Kingdom (or "Yanited" Kingdom as they say in Manchester), that may have to change too especially if we march Sir Alex Ferguson up to Hadrian's Wall and push him over. Perhaps we can create a sort of frozen conflict area in and around Newcastle and Sunderland a sort of buffer between England proper and Caledonia.... a language and pronunciation air lock?

[SerScot]

Finn,

I'm with you. I'd like to see what happens if Scotland chooses to up and leave.

[Orlion]

And now I'm starting to see my friends notice this and some are panicking, thinking that Scottish Independence would mean nuclear instability, the collapse of NATO, and another economic disaster.