Everyone Vote in Scotland Independance

[Kalimna]

And the divisions will only remain, perhaps more indignantly, whatever the outcome.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[Yorkshire Sam]

So if Scotland vote yes will this mean a change of name for the rest of Britain too... United Kingdom? Come to think of it hardly appropriate now anyway .. who's next? Independence for Wales and Northern Ireland, shortly followed by Cornwall?

 

[themackay]

Whatever happens for the good of the whole country we need to stop running it for the benefit of the bankers etc and the south east.

 

[deema]

I believe that Scotland would potentially have too small a population to sustain itself as an independent state. It's economic mass is too small to have its own currency that would have a stable exchange rate that would allow business to flourish. The only option would therefore be for Scotland to try and join the EU and accept full monetary union and adopt the Euro. At this point it's integration into the EU would be inexorably sealed. Full political union and the harmonizing of tax laws, and in fact of all fiscal policy is inevitable when you have the same currency to avoid the issues created in countries such as Italy and Spain. Far from becoming independent I believe they will have less autonomy than they enjoy today.

Whilst the concern over currency continues which will last for a long time after the vote business will rush south of the border, shareholders will demand their investment is protected, creating a decline in the economy creating a situation where launching their own currency becomes almost impossible,

With economic decline will come economic migration, these who can flee south will. The brain drain will further reduce industries desire to invest in Scotland.

Mr Salomns only possible solution will be to try and attract more people to live in Scotland to stabilise the economy. Opening the gates for migration will not only upset the Scots but also alarm England. This will be seen as an easy port of entry to England and Scotland will only used as a transit zone. Mr Salomn will exert political pressure on England for the use of sterling in exchange for closing the immigration door.

Why can't Scotland use sterling? Well it's like giving your bank account details to a stranger, they can run up a bill (national debt) with impunity knowing you will have to pay it off. The population of England are unlikely to stand for that and UKIP's popularity will grow if they jump on the band wagon, something none if the three main parties can allow. Further the fiscal joining will destabilise the currency on world markets as the policies necessary for a government to contain debt, economic growth, reserves etc will be spilt between two countries, the likelihood of agreement and alignment will be slim and seen as decisive by the world currency markets.

A scenario which you may or may not agree with, but I'm sure there are elements you can see that nay arise and are best avoided.

 

[RogerS]

Deema, your post makes an awful lot of sense. Sadly you are spot on.

Meanwhile ..

Whatever happens for the good of the whole country we need to stop running it for the benefit of the bankers etc and the south east.

Yawn..............

 

[wizard]

So if Scotland vote yes will this mean a change of name for the rest of Britain too... United Kingdom? Come to think of it hardly appropriate now anyway .. who's next? Independence for Wales and Northern Ireland, shortly followed by Cornwall?

Yes bring it on

 

[Cheshirechappie]

During the various debates and discussions about Scottish independence, I've heard a great deal from the 'Yes' campaign about how an independent Scotland would distribute it's wealth more fairly. What I haven't heard is how that wealth will be earned, except through oil. Oil is a finite and diminishing resource. Independence is for ever, not just for the next few years. So - how will Scotland earn it's living in the future?

Part of the duty of government is to encourage economic activity to ensure wealth generation. That's a damned sight harder than spending it, but unless you have a vibrant private sector, tax revenues will not be sufficient to sustain the public sector - we should know, the whole UK has just been in that boat.

Railing against the 'bankers in the South East' is a false argument. The financial services industry generates a lot of wealth, and can consequently contribute a lot in tax revenue. There is plenty to argue about in the details, but the basic fact remains unalterable and unarguable. The tax money is spent all over the UK - not all the public services are paid for out of Council Tax. Defence, the NHS, the Welfare State and more are centrally funded. Consequently, Scotland gets as much benefit from the financial services industry as any other part of the UK. The whole UK benefits from the bonanza of oil revenues and the taxation on that. Given the choice of keeping one or the other - well, we know oil will run out, so financial services does look the better long-term bet as things stand. Currently, the whole UK benefits from both, which does seem the best and fairest of all solutions.

 

[RogerS]

.....
Part of the duty of government is to encourage economic activity to ensure wealth generation. That's a damned sight harder than spending it, but unless you have a vibrant private sector, tax revenues will not be sufficient to sustain the public sector - we should know, the whole UK has just been in that boat.

...

You have only to look at the corollary of the Council Tax to see the accuracy of your statement. Here in Herefordshire we pay more per band (in fact, well over double for Band D, for example) in Council Tax than they do in the City of Westminster. Even though the population and hence demand on council resources is considerable greater in Westminster. Herefordshire simply does not have the businesses to generate the revenue needed.

 

[deema]

Turnout in the 2011 Scotish parliament elections was 51%, so just over half of the over 18's voted for their own parliament. It's difficult to predict turnout for the vote in a few days, since the age limit has been reduced to 16, but needless to say that this was only done by Mr Salmon on the presumption that the younger voters will have a higher turnout and vote yes.

However, the point of the statistic is to pick up on a post earlier, it won't potentially be 50.1% of the Scots who voted yes and 49.9 voting no, it could be 25.6% voting yes, 25.4 voting no, or invalidating their paper and 49% who did not wish to vote.

So, the union could be broken by just 25.6% of the Scots voting yes. What an appalling prospect. That's another good reason to use your economic, vote.

 

[deema]

If you want to encourage others to cast an economic vote to keep the union, may I ask that you push the idea through your Twitter, Facebook etc it will only work if enough people care about the union and take action. At the moment Mr Salmon is swatting away the No campaign. A real economic hiccup would definitely shift the debate away from personalities, freeby give always he is promising and give a real stop and think moment.

By the way, I don't belong to any political party, I'm just an individual who would like to keep the union together, and I believe that like me, there are lots of people who think the same.

 

[themackay]

If you want to encourage others to cast an economic vote to keep the union, may I ask that you push the idea through your Twitter, Facebook etc

Be carefull what you wish for if people in Scotland were to retaliate it would hurt you more.

 

[deema]

That's a really interesting perspective, and one that I think would actually work against the YES vote, I'm all for retaliation, the economic stall would be far greater and faster acting and crystallise minds faster.

To put a little meat on the bones on my perspective, any retaliation would affect the profitability of Companies that have invested in Scotland, the downturn would magnify their boards perspective of the risk of the union split. The number of companies coming out against the YES vote would increase with further statements of how they pull out of Scotland. This will further damage Mr Salmons view that an Independant Scotland will thrive and offer its people a higher level of prosperity.

 

[themackay]

Im not saying we should retaliate I find it dissapointing that you should be encouraging people to discriminate against Scottish goods, mind you that ties in with the totally negative better together campaign

 

[deema]

Your absolutely right TheMackay, it's a very sad day when the only way you can have a voice is to positively discriminate against the excellent goods, services and products produced by Scotland. There appears to be little in the way of other options for all of us south of the border to have our voices heard.

 

[Mungo]

Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.

 

[themackay]

Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.

Any BBC programes worth watching can be bought for a reasonable fee

 

[RogerS]

Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.

Any BBC programes worth watching can be bought for a reasonable fee

How so? Are you privy to the contractual terms of the programme makers?

 

[RogerS]

Im not saying we should retaliate I find it dissapointing that you should be encouraging people to discriminate against Scottish goods, mind you that ties in with the totally negative better together campaign

It seems to me quite clear that you are for independence. I would be interested to understand why you say the better together campaign is totally negative. Examples please.

 

[Jacob]

Who is for the No vote? - Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, banks, supermarkets, estate agents and so on. All those who have most failed Britain over the last 30 years or so. Thatcher would be a no.
Pretty convincing argument for voting Yes IMHO.
I hope they take over the land and reverse the highland clearances.
It could be an interesting place to live (except for the midges) - there’ll be huge queues - maybe time to move there before they close the borders!

 

[Silverbirch]

Who is for the No vote? - Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, banks, supermarkets, estate agents and so on.

Not forgetting at least half of the Scottish electorate.

I hope they take over the land and reverse the highland clearances.

Or better still, divide the country in half (it`s already been divided idealogically). Let the Yes side have the Northern half, with all the midges and oil and let the No`s have the southern half. They say St Kilda is very nice at this time of year.

Ian