[iain]

If it happens (polls can change suddenly close to the time) then I dont think there will be financial armageddon that some seem to predict. I think it will be in the interest of both sides of the former union to maintain stability and have some sort of transition...

This ^^, whatever is said as part of the scaremongering or thin air promises ultimately a least painful solution would have to be found.

I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the simple desire to separate from Westminster whatever the cost. There is no political choice, barely even ideological shades, any more. Election turnout is generally dropping, unless they're promised libdem style 'new' politics that evaporate, and the way the AV vote was so thoroughly sunk showed that there is no way meaningful change could happen within the current system.

As a scot 'abroad' I don't want to see Scotland go, but I do desperately want change. More than anything I want to stop ANY party with only 1/3 of the country behind them being able to dictate where the other 2/3rds go without some moderating influence. I want to want to go to a polling station next election and have my vote actually mean something outside of the relatively small number of marginal seats.
A lot of people I know are voting yes for this reason.

[Pantontino]

If it goes ‘Yes’ I’m sure that there will be some rocky times ahead for Scotland but I have no doubt that they will ride it out and all the doom mongering will be proven to be just that. I say, good luck to them.

The Westminster elite/main stream media lap dogs/’the establishment’ are being shaken to the core (did you hear John Major on Radio 4 this morning evoking the First World War ffs!). I can’t help but take great delight in the spectacle of all these corporate shills and liars wetting themselves in full panic mode.

Whatever the result, there is genuine democratic engagement here which is sending ripples throughout the rest of the UK (aka; the "irrelevant hinterlands" beyond London, as Habrich so ‘eloquently’ put it the other day). This is another reason why Westminster doesn't like it.

Wales next? If it’s just an ‘irrelevant hinterland’ it won’t matter to anybody will it? 

[davej]

McCulloch http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGA3A68Icw

[Jaspersharpe]

Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html etc.

Right, onto the proper points:

Countries with their own currency shouldn’t logically ever run into fiscal difficulty. In a downturn, when spending rises and tax revenue falls, they can always print money to cover the shortfall.

Is this really the best approach in a downturn? If this is even true why have we just had a massive recession? Even if it is, Scotland and England's economies are so closely liked that if one has a downturn, then the other is going to feel the pain. If the shit really hits the fan in Scotland but, somehow, England is unaffected, we could always just do an Iceland style "Fuck You" to the banks and let them go to the wall. They seem to be recovering quite well right now, thanks very much: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20936685 Still, I don;t think it would come to that. It's not like Scotland and England are anywhere near as different as Germany and Spain.

Without massive amounts of QE and the other interventions of the BoE it would have been a lot worse (see Europe). I really wish people wouldn't quote Iceland as it has a population just over half that of Glasgow and a GPD roughly 6% of that of Scotland so isn't relevant.

Denied the flexibility to borrow and print at will, Scotland would have to fund its spending through higher taxes

I don't have a copy of the white paper to hand - but I don't think "borrowing at will" was part of the plan on how to achieve the wishlist. Going to read up more on that in the next few days.

That's all for now - I'm still wrecked from a month offshore straight into a non-stop wedding party weekend zzzzzz 

More tomorrow.

"Borrow and print at will" in this context doesn't mean borrow and print as much as possible. It means that to achieve the policies Salmond proposes Scotland would need autonomy in it's monetary policy and oh God I can't be bothered..... The question I asked was has anyone read anything that refutes the points in the article and it seems they haven't.

Best of luck whichever way you choose. After the dust has settled I don't think that much will actually change anyway. #patronisingandbelittling 

[SA Chris]

Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html etc.

I can never forgive him for that entire fiasco.

I'm still temped to go on a massive curry and beer bender, then go for a shit in each hole on the course.

[Sloper]

I can't believe I'm about to do this....

Sloper, I have a question:

How do countries that don't have a second chamber deal with the issues that are normally dealt with by the House of Lords?  ( my dislike of the HoL is probably a bit outdated - it's not so much the function, just the way they are appointed (or in the past  born into  their positions)

Since we would probably have coalitions for ever more, will this not provide the requisite modulating influence on any poorly thought out / dangerous proposals?

In respect of Q1, I would suggest usually very badly.  Of course the very fact that there's a  second chamber doesn't in and of itself make things go well, particularly where the second (upper) chamber is elected (see the USA).

Most mature democracies have a two chamber system, the exceptions from memory are Denmark and New Zealand; which is I would suggest good grounds to suggest it is a better system than a single chamber.

One of the benefits of the HoL is that its members are not elected and therefore free to exercise their judgment without the fear of the electorate disliking their stance on contentious issues such as abortion, homosexuality being weak on 'terror / drugs insert Daily Mail esque fear du jour'. Further the appoitnment of members means you can appoint people witha  particular level of skill and expertise that is often lacking in an elected house.

The removal of the hereditry peers in my view was a mistake as there is no guarantee of anyone's political views based on the history of who George III was shagging, the nomination by political parties (and the ahem connection between donations / loans and a peerage) is in my view of greater risk. (there's also in some parties a very strong 'tradition' of the children of party big wigs findingthemselves in safe seats which does little to bolster public ocnfidence in politics)

Historically I think the Lords have been more 'activist' under Tory governments than Labour (esp during Thatcher's terms) so the idea that they're Tory dead weight against more liberal policies is I think not an accurate statement.

[jwi]

None of the nordic countries have an upper chamber. 3.5 have their own currency, 1.5 have the euro. All of them are richer than UK, but Finland and Iceland will be just barely richer than an independent Scotland. Scotland has approximately the same population as Denmark, Finland and Norway, but half of Sweden's and 17 times that of Iceland.

[Oldmanmatt]

Am I right in think that the HoL cannot veto a bill, but only return it to the HoC for revision (and then only three times)?
And that ultimately, once all their "returns" have been exhausted, the bill becomes law regardless of the HoL's collective opinion?

I like the idea of the second chamber, the current system of political appointment, frankly, sucks.

I cannot see any justification for inherited peers. Sloper is spot on about the political leanings of the  hereditary peers not being obvious, however, neither is their competence...

A House of Experience would serve better. Drawn from all aspects of society, industry and Academia; with a minimum age and elected to a life or long period place.

And the abolishment of the title Lord.

Geezer will do...

[SA Chris]

A House of Experience would serve better. Drawn from all aspects of society, industry and Academia; with a minimum age and elected to a life or long period place.

Just a bunch of HoEs? Probably cheaper than the Lords. Unless they charge by the hour.

[Sloper]

None of the nordic countries have an upper chamber. 3.5 have their own currency, 1.5 have the euro. All of them are richer than UK, but Finland and Iceland will be just barely richer than an independent Scotland. Scotland has approximately the same population as Denmark, Finland and Norway, but half of Sweden's and 17 times that of Iceland.

Thanks I didn't know the Scandanavian model was unicameral, but I can see a unicameral system being more effective in smaller states than larger ones.

[Fultonius]

Argh!  The only person who has said it won't be possible is fuckbaws Osborne.  The rest know that if they don't enter a union they will be saddled with all of Scotland's national debt and 10% less GDP to pay for it. The last recession was only a ~2% reduction in GDP. We're talking about 10% reduction, for ever. Yes, spending will also be reduced but not by as much as we give back in taxes.

If it's a yes vote, it will definitely be in the rUKs best interest to keep a monetary union. How could it not be?  What is the rUKs other option?

[Sloper]

It's true that it might not be beneficial for what's left of the UK - possibly one of the reasons why there's such a strong 'NO' campaign from down south.

I was just trying to dispel the widely held myth that there was something fundamental stopping a union. There is not - just recommendations that it might not be best of the rUK.

That is pretty fundamental, no? The Treasury judge that it is not in the UK's best interests to enter into a currency union. So it won't happen. There's not much an independent Scotland can do about that - it's not their choice.

I disagree,

If the Govt of Scotland say they have pegged the Scottish £ to the British £ then there's very little that Boy George or Carney can do about it.

A pegged Scottish £ is, I would suggest a defacto currency union (provided the markets and the counter parties trust and accept the peg.

Canyou imagine the buffet car on the train having two tills and changing currency or operating on a variable exchange rate?

It will be messy but if Scotland do vote yes then they will in some way also keep the pound: the alternative of (at least) 5 years of uncertainty is just too damaging for all concerned.

As Fultonious says, really what other option does the remaining parts of the UK have?

[Fultonius]

In the spirit of trying to become more enlightened rather than more entrenched, and since a lot of you have economic insight worth listening too can someone offer some ideas to the following question:

"What are the options for rUK with regard to a currency union if there is a YES vote?" 

I.e. if it is "not in the best interest for the rUK" what is their best plan of attack?

I don't see one, but it might be out there.

[Duma]

How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.

[rodma]

How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.

because it's too difficult to convert a negative value in sterling into irn-bru chews 

[iain]

Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html etc.

He's an embarrassment and I don't much like him, but saying the vote is a vanity project is fantastically disrespectful of Scotland and it's people and chimes with the Westminster attitude that might push the yes vote over the line. I also don't think the last minute scrambling to provide more devolved powers is helpful and completely misses the point of why people are disaffected with Westminster.

"Borrow and print at will" in this context doesn't mean borrow and print as much as possible. It means that to achieve the policies Salmond proposes Scotland would need autonomy in it's monetary policy and oh God I can't be bothered..... The question I asked was has anyone read anything that refutes the points in the article and it seems they haven't.

Best of luck whichever way you choose. After the dust has settled I don't think that much will actually change anyway. #patronisingandbelittling 

I don't have the knowledge to answer your question, but there's a part of me that can't help think that when both sides are so vehemently right and the other wrong that there's probably a reasonably palatable truth somewhere in the middle.
You're probably right about the change, but at least Scotland already has working PR so the parliament does better represent the will of it's people.

How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.

I chews to second the ignorant question, especially given that the biggest failure has it's headquarters in Scotland.

[Sloper]

Not an igorant question, a difficult one to answer but that's entirely different.

The 'national debt' is in effect bonds issued by the Bank of England; the relationship between the this private company and the 'nation' is rather complex. (and not something that's capable of succint expression if you fully understand it I don't prfess so to do) 'Money and Unauthorised Biography', The Riches of Man by Peter Jay and Niall Ferusson's 'the asecnt of money' are however all well worth reading in this regard.

In short, I'm not sure that the debt can be crystalzyed and apportioned so that £x is Scotland's share and £y everyone elses, I would suggest that the proper starting point is partnership/union and the rules of joint and several liability as a consequence: so if Scotland goes we all pick up the tab so to speak.

Scotland could 'walk away' have the Socttish£, peg it to £Sterling and still say we're not paying: it was the Bank of England remember? (of course if HMG owns a large slice of RBS, HBOS & etc it might say well we're having the whole lot then and relocating the operation to Newcastle upon Tyne, Cornwall etc)

Sorry I don't think there's a clear answer and would suspect anyone who says there is (unless they're a central banker with a degree of independence (which rules out Danny Blanchflower)) is talking bollocks.

[SA Chris]

Of all that I've read of late, and I've read a lot, I thought this was one of the clearest articles.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21606840-our-advice-david-cameron-and-alex-salmond-tricky-disputes-and-dilemmas-involved

[tomtom]

5. Mobilise Team Westminster (fuck yeah!)

I see Alex Salmonoid reads UKB and pinched my line!

[Sloper]

Apparently Murdoch may come out in favour of Yes, hmm note sure if there's time for that to make a difference but who knows, uncharted territory.

[webbo]

In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.

[Oldmanmatt]

Slightly different take on that last poll from the Mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/scotland-dont-panic-yet---4181718

Slackers, how dose that analysis sound?

[Jaspersharpe]

In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.

This. Except it's gut feeling plus stuff like in the links I posted earlier in the thread. I can't stand him and I don't believe for one second that underneath all the socialist bluster he's got anyone's interests but his own at heart. And saying "oh but the referendum isn't just about him" is plainly bollocks as it will be him who negotiates the framework of the future of the country (and indeed the rest of the UK) given a Yes win.

Apparently it's extremely disrespectful to Scottish people to think this though (despite the fact that lots of them feel exactly the same way). 

Whatever happens short or long term the one guaranteed winner in this has been Salmond's ego.

[tomtom]

Whilst Salmon has driven the referendem agenda - if it is a yes vote - then a new Scottish parliament would have to be elected - so a yes votes doesnt mean he'll get in power...


He'd have to be one of the favourites - but a Scottish labour, without Westminster to drag them down - might become resurgent...

[tomtom]

Anyway - this is all getting serious. Has no-one commented that Bono's hat has released a new albumn?