the scottish independence referendum

basic question: given the concern about how advisible currency union would be (assuming it were possible), why haven't yes campaigns ever proposed scotland would have its own currency?

I think people are fine with formal currency union with the rest of the UK in principle. What's not advisable is continuing for more than a temporary period with unofficially sharing the pound (with no monetary control).

The problem is, Westminster would have to agree to that currency union. The Yes campaign insists that Westminister is bluffing about not allowing it, and that it would be in everyone's interests to agree a currency union post-independence.

The Yes campaign could of course say we'll try to join the euro instead, or have an independent Scottish currency, but the former is politically unpopular and the latter probably a bad idea full stop.

Most likely scenario seems to be that Scotland will continue to use the pound, but without a currency union. I think rUK would probably be prepared to trade a currency union for continuing use of Faslane as a submarine base and guaranteed unimpeded access to it - it could be permanently sequestered territory like Guantanamo Bay is for America.

The bigger question would be then if Scotland entered the EU as a new country - would they be able to avoid joining the Euro? The examples that are normally used for not using the single currency are countries who have been members since the 70s/early 80s with long standing currencies, not new petitioners who have a newly adopted currency (as Scotland would be in anything other than a formal currency union).

The Yes campaign could of course say we'll try to join the euro instead, or have an independent Scottish currency, but the former is politically unpopular and the latter probably a bad idea full stop.

yeah this is what i'm asking about. i get the pros and cons of currency union with the UK. i'm just not clear why a scottish currency is such a political (or is it practical?) impossibility?

Oh, sorry. Well I guess there are advantages, but in the short term, the markets aren't likely to have much faith in a brand new currency so it would be pretty weak, leading to much higher import prices for Scots.

Plus I don't even know what would happen to Scots' sterling-denominated debt, mortgages etc - if that fell to the mercy of foreign exchange rates it could get pretty hairy.

if "holyrood and westminster hashing it out as amicably as poss" is a preposterous assumption with yes then why should we assume different for no

You don't have to, but I'd argue the stakes are higher.

The stakes are probably the same, only the timescales are different.

If Westminster treats as No as an excuse to descend into English Tory grandstanding about free Barnett sweeties and nothing comes of The Vow, when the next referendum comes the No side will have two rounds of broken promises behind and virtually nothing to stand on.

No would be their second chance to do this right; I think they'd use it to try to return to business as usual ASAP.

westminster will view the stakes with no as much lower I agree

xpost

xpost On avoiding Euro membership.
Scotland joining the EU as a new country would have to agree to join the Euro. However to actually join the Euro you have to qualify by meeting several convergence criteria. You can delay entry to the Euro by failing to meet the convergence criteria - for example by failing to participate in ERM II. There is no mechanism currently in place that forces members to participate (though it is possible that this could change).
Sweden is required to join the Euro as part of it's membership of the EU but has failed to meet convergence criteria since 2000.
See this article from the European Commission on who can join. and this one on who has met the convergence criteria

Convergence criteria have been notoriously fudged in the past, though.

The question I find myself asking myself most in recent days has been: if there's a No vote, will more harm or good have come from having held the referendum?

we are already members of the EU - there isn't a mechanism in place for expelling a group of people who vote for independence because it hasn't happened before. I believe we will be accommodated fairly easily.

hey what about you guys just have our place when we leave in the ukip future?

What about this: Scotland votes No on Thursday. The EU referendum happens. Majority in UK, but not in Scotland, vote to leave EU. Is it plausible that Scotland could remain within, and the rUK leave, without break up of the UK? The situation with the Faeroe Islands and Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark might be a sort of precendent, but they're both a very different scene (altho share characteristics of being cold and wet).

xpost
The UK is part of the EU, Scotland is not. As elaborated by the Spanish PM earlier today:

He said it was clear under EU treaties and from statements from European leaders that "if a part of a state becomes separate, it becomes a third party in relation to the European Union".

For "separate territories within a member state" to join the EU would take years and depend on the ratification of all 28 member states, he added.

It's easy to believe this isn't true, but it's only a belief and doesn't seem to be supported by anybody in power anywhere. The President of the European Commission has unequivocally stated the same thing as the Spanish PM.

Spanish PM not a disinterested party tbf

belief counts for a lot in unprecedented situations and I believe that the eu would not exclude 5m+ of its citizens at a stoke never mind the complications it would creat vis-a-vis fish ect and of course the spanish pm says that

xpost

Well no, the spanish PM may be an interested party, but it doesn't make it less valid.

Kosovo is a good comparison, as a country which voted for independence from an existing member state. Because 5 countries object (Spain being one) the realistic estimate they are proposing for entry is 2024, and that's for a country already on the Euro. They also have to adopt Schengen.

I wonder what will happen

Whoops, sorry, I thought Serbia was already in but they are just candidates also.

http://i.imgur.com/sYjimNe.png

xp Scottish citizens won't cease overnight to become EU citizens as a result of a "yes" vote IMO, regardless of what the Spanish PM says to send signals to Catalonia.

IMO doing a lot of work there

well yes of course but the fact remains that 5m people can't be ejected from the EU as a result of a referendum. It might be the case that Scotland has to negotiate entry, but it should be on the basis that Scotland is already part of the EU in terms of its legal and regulatory framework and the citizenship of (most of) its residents. It's not comparable to e.g. Serbia's negotiated entry.

IMO the answer to the killer punch questions i.e. eu and currency is no one knows and there is no way to know and we can only find out afterwards and it's stupid and disingenuous of people e.g. jim murphy alistair darling to say "tell us the answer" over and over and over again

also disingenuous of A Salmond to say "hey guys vote yes everything will be cool" when exactly these kind of questions remain unanswered

but also speaks to the incompetence of the "no" campaign that they aren't able to make these points stick (by and large) and the fact that Cameron botched making the terms of the referendum clear to begin with, allowing SNP & friends to monopolise the "message of hope" type stuff. Salmond is the canniest political operator in the (lol) UK in the last 30yrs, with the possible exception of Gerry Adams.

LOL @ 'Britain' and 'Britishness' though, fundamentally

also disingenuous of A Salmond to say "hey guys vote yes everything will be cool" when exactly these kind of questions remain unanswered

What's the honest answer, though? "vote Yes for the unknown because the people who can answer these questions will just keep refusing to do so until they have to"?

Accepting that there are unknowns may be uncomfortable but I think it's fair to make a decision taking those unknowns into consideration.

Alex Salmond may not be in any position of power next year so his answers may not mean anything anyway. The "white paper" isn't really a White Paper - it's an SNP manifesto for an indy Scotland election.

Also unknown: what, if any, new powers will be devolved to Scotland post-no and post-2015 GE.

also unknown: will there be a referendum on uk membership of eu and if so what would be the outcome and many other things

English MP's will make feelings known on that after the result
xp

I assume if there's a No vote there's a good chance of the Labour Party getting murdered at the General Election - in Scotland - thus making a Tory victory more likely?

I don't get how UK elections work when you have two or three parties that everyone seems to hate

That's democracy for you!

lol how is that different from the U.S.

We tend to hate all of them except the ones who could never win.

They're politicians. It makes sense.

There's at least one more party to hate (xp)

lol how is that different from the U.S.

― pplains, Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:33 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk I guess the well-attested problems of the US two-party system make their inevitability seem more explicable; in like the Israeli Knesset you at least have a dozen or so parties that everyone hates.

If we really do hate these parties whether in Israel, the U.S or Britain, we're not doing much to show it.

Uh, hello, Scottish independence?

the last few weeks have highlighted how decrepit and risible the current constitutional settlement is

would truly be music to my ears if there were more general cognizance of this (with accompanying disquiet) as a result of the referendum

xpBeing the exception

sorry if this has been answered but can't see that it has

One more question: after partition, were people in Northern Ireland entitled to have an Irish passport instead of / as well as a British one (e.g. a nationalist born in Derry before Ireland was split in two and who considered himself Irish, not British)?

And if they were, is that still true today?

And if it is still true today, does that mean a footballer from Belfast could choose if they want to play for Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?

Yeah, but I wouldn't use football as the model given yr Townsends, Cascarinos and so forth.

Polls now saying 51/49 in favour of No.

and now shetland might go it alone post-yes vote?

^ at least in the event of there being a lot of shetland poll naes

how come Cameron isn't threatening to invade if Scotland votes for independence