Scotland Independence referendum

[RandBlade]

Scotland will have a referendum on whether or not to become independent, this has now been provisionally set by SNP leader Alex Salmond as being in 2014. One predicted date is the 700th anniversary of Robert the Bruce's famous Battle of Bannockburn of 1314.

How the referendum is going to be held is currently being argued back and forth between the SNP (which has a majority government in Scotland) and the British government (of which the Tories only have 1 MP in Scotland, but the Lib Dems do have quite a few). The British government wants this issue settled ASAP (saying 2013) and a straight Yes or No to independence. Salmond wants it in 2014 and wants a three-fold question with Independence, "Devomax" and the status quo as options.

Devomax is that devolution is expanded to cover virtually everything apart from defence and foreign policy, that is virtually independence in all but name. Especially given independence the Scots won't have true independence as they're likely to keep the pound sterling as there's no chance now they'll want to join the euro (which was mooted that they would do years ago) and are unlikely to introduce their own currency either. Like Ireland, Scotland is also predicted not to join the EU's Schengen area but instead keep open borders with the UK.

The European Union is a weird issue, would the Scots have automatic joining rights to the EU, if not would they be compelled like new members to join the euro - or would they keep the British opt-out, and even if they are would they like Sweden have an opt-out in all but name. The EU is good at fudging never-before issues though, like the reunification of Germany. Spain won't be happy about the precedent of the Scots becoming independent if it happens, but I don't think anyone would disrespect a democratic referendum result.

Current polling shows it to be up in the air. Previous polling has shown a large majority against independence, but today a poll by ICM has it 40% in favour, 43% against. I always think that in referendums people undecided generally break for the status quo so I don't think they'll actually get it - but I do think they'll probably get Devomax if its an option, why the British government is trying to avoid that being an option.

Personally I have long been in favour of Scottish independence. Primarily because I'm in favour of English independence from people like Gordon Brown. Democratically the Scots and English for the last few decades have been very distinct and I don't think the status quo is healthy. Whether or not the Scots go for independence, I would like to see the West Lothian Question resolved. This is named after the former MP for West Lothian who before devolution asked how it could be right that he couldn't vote on issues affecting Blackburn in his own WL Scottish constituency, but could could vote on issues affecting Blackburn in England (or England and Wales). This is not just theoretical, the previous Labour government passed England-only laws which were rejected by a majority of English MPs but used their Scottish MPs to force them through. Ironically and disgustingly the Labour government in Scotland voted to have no tuition fees for Scotland, while the Labour Scottish MPs voted to force on England "Top-Up" tuition fees that were rejected by a majority in England. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of tuition feed, democratically that situation is wrong.

Currently if Scottish MPs were excluded, then the Tory's would have a majority in Parliament while if only English MPs voted on English-only issues (Welsh and NI excluded too) then it would have been a landslide victory for the Tories.

Last General Election:
Scotland (59 seats): 41 Labour, 11 Lib-Dem, 6 SNP (though a majority in Scottish Parliament), 1 Tory
England (533 seats): 297 Tory, 191 Labour, 43 Lib-Dem, 1 Green, 1 Speaker (indepentent, but a Tory constituency).

[earthJoker]

Devomax sounds like the current situation of Liechtenstein to me. They have no own currency and army either. They do have their own foreign politics though. And they have the same issues about Schengen and other EU treaties.

[Hazir]

EU would not be such a complicated issue; the Scots in principle have the right to apply for membership. Then the 'negotiations' would consist of a fairly simple conclusion that Scotland already has implemented the entire Acquis after which the membership could be accepted and probably fasttracked to avoid problems of Scotland first leaving then re-entering the EU. Opt-outs would not be automatically valid for Scotland, but I would not be overly surprised that if Scotland wanted it could get the opt-outs the UK has today.

I doubt however that the Scots would really want them, as they merely mean being excluded from major decisions.

[Being]

Devomax sounds like the current situation of Liechtenstein to me. They have no own currency and army either. They do have their own foreign politics though. And they have the same issues about Schengen and other EU treaties.

Just want to clear up some of my own ignorance but I thought each bank issued it's own currency??? I had several different notes of the same denomination while I was there.

[earthJoker]

Just want to clear up some of my own ignorance but I thought each bank issued it's own currency??? I had several different notes of the same denomination while I was there.

I have absolutely no Idea what you talk about. Liechtenstein uses the Swiss franc.

[RandBlade]

Just want to clear up some of my own ignorance but I thought each bank issued it's own currency??? I had several different notes of the same denomination while I was there.

Scotland? They use pound sterling but each bank prints their own notes of it. They hold an equivalent amount of English notes. All British banks used to do that, but only Scottish and Northern Irish are allowed to now.

Its almost like Disneylands Mickey Dollars but on a national scale recognised by law.

[Wraith]

Scotland? They use pound sterling but each bank prints their own notes of it.

Doesn't that lead to a lot of counterfeiting problems?

[RandBlade]

No quite the opposite. People are naturally suspicious about Scottish notes here as they're so rare and stand out. I've never seen a fake Scottish note. Most common note to counterfeit is the £20 English note IMO as they're common enough you don't look twice, valuable enough that it's worth doing.

[Wraith]

What about in Scotland?

[RandBlade]

I've never heard of any higher counterfeitery rates. I think it's easier to fake that which is taken for granted.

[Hazir]

By the way, I find it really funny to hear the same arguments that the readership of the Daily Telegraph use to prove that a union of nations can't work when we're looking at the EU being turned upside down to warn the Scots for the perills of sovereign statehood

[RandBlade]

Such as?

Main same one I've heard is about the currency situation which there's no good answer to.

[Hazir]

Such as?

Main same one I've heard is about the currency situation which there's no good answer to.

Really? No answer to the currency situation? Ever heard of a situation where a country establishes a Central Bank and starts issuing it's own money? I think the Slovaks will be very surprised to hear it can't be done. As it was exactly what they did when they set up shop for themselves. There is no EU regulation that prevents Scotland from having their own currency and as is blatantly clear; the EU is not enforcing the obligation of nations to join the euro at all.

[RandBlade]

There's no good answer because all answers have problems.

1: Keep Sterling. Currently the proposed solution of the SNP. But then rates etc would still be set in London but now without Scottish input.
2: Join euro. Still supposedly the long term aim of the SNP but not talked about and kicked into the long, long grass.
3: Create Scottish pound. Genuine independence but currently Scotland is so integrated with the UK this'd be costly and a vote loser in a referendum. Not proposed at all.

There is no clean solution. The SNP are currently suggesting to keep the pound until the time is right to join the euro.

The SNP is probably the only British party now regretting the fact the UK isn't in the euro now. If we were none of this'd matter.

[Hazir]

Life is problematic, yet we still do it.

1. Keep Sterling, as the BoE sets rates basically as London needs them already nothing will change.
2. Join Euro, the BCE will set rates as the core of the eurozone needs them and pay cursory notice to Scotland needs, tiny improvement but not necessarily to happen soon because of questionable popularity.
3. Create a Scottish Dollar, which would make most sense for a new, smallish, state with the clear advantage that monetary policies can be tailored to Scotlands needs and has only the disadvantage that trades within the main British island will be in two currencies. But I am certain one currency more isn't going to upset trade with England. Given that England is such a champion of free trade

[Lebanese Dragon]

It seems to me that the technology needs to catch up before a single government, single currency for the world can be properly established. We need to first solve the problem of distance.

[RandBlade]

WTF!?

Single government, single currency? Sounds like hell, I would NEVER want that.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Single government, single currency? Sounds like hell, I would NEVER want that.

You really don't think that'd happen? Not to be mean, but sounds laughable to think anything else. If humanity last long enough there will be a world government, with a world language, and a world currency. As transaction costs go to zero, and any profit being created between having different currencies become 0 (due to the response time of filling those voids). Then it'll be the same as a uniform currency.

Edit: I guess as long as there are still irrational operators in the market you then can still profit by having different currencies, but once a certain percentage are operating correctly. Then having differring currencies will stop making sense, because you can always just switch to the profitable currency to switch to at the time. When all major actors are doing this proportionally then everyone will be in the same boat as when they started. Everyone switching and then switching back will not change anything.

[Loki]

People have been saying that for at least 300 years. How has that worked out? There are no real examples of political and economic integration outside of the relatively homogenous Western Europe. To expect the same for the entire world is ridiculous and defies reality.

[Lebanese Dragon]

It just seems the logical conclusion at some point, if humanity is to continue on. Once culture and technology reach a certain point, there becomes no reason not to. If we don't destroy ourselves we should get there.

[Hazir]

People have been saying that for at least 300 years. How has that worked out? There are no real examples of political and economic integration outside of the relatively homogenous Western Europe. To expect the same for the entire world is ridiculous and defies reality.

Like how it defied reality in Europe 60 years ago? I'm not expecting this one-world government any time soon, but it doesn't seem far fetched in a 100 years or so from now.

[Loki]

Like how it defied reality in Europe 60 years ago? I'm not expecting this one-world government any time soon, but it doesn't seem far fetched in a 100 years or so from now.

Europe was relatively homogenous 60 years ago. Just because it has a long history of warfare doesn't change that fact. That can't be compared to the differences between an Indian and a Chinese, let alone a Sudanese and an American. There are also numerous practical issues. First, there would be no way to allocate "votes". Developed states wouldn't agree to one man-one vote, and other states wouldn't agree to one state-one vote. It's also incredibly unlikely that the economies of the world would be homogenous enough for one currency to make any sense. It's bad enough that Greece and German both use the euro; can you imagine the mess we'd see if the US and Sudan had the same currency?

[RandBlade]

It just seems the logical conclusion at some point, if humanity is to continue on. Once culture and technology reach a certain point, there becomes no reason not to. If we don't destroy ourselves we should get there.

There are plenty of reasons not to. Self determination is a pretty big one.

The British Empire used to cover more of the world than the European Union or any modern nation does.
The Soviet Union was a lot bigger than Russia is.

The last two decades have been marked by multiple nations splitting.

English is becoming the universal language, but that doesn't mean we all need to be one nation.

[Loki]

To add, while new states continue to declare independence, there are very few historical examples of multiple states voluntarily giving up all their sovereignty to form a new state. Even the Europeans haven't done that.

[NGS]

To all you Britons, what do you think the chances actually are of this referendum passing? I know that current polling shows ambiguous results, but even if it doesn't pass it's certainly demonstrating the relatively ongoing tendency away from the Westminster system. What exactly is the end game here? You've been talking about a theoretical trend toward globalization on all fronts, but the EU is definitely still an experiment, and like Rand said, there's a recent history of nations splitting.

I feel like we lack the perspective to judge centuries-long developments of the future, but it's sure fun to guess. At this point, at least, I'm hesitant to expect a common currency between the US and Sudan, like Loki mentioned, but that isn't to say it can't be accomplished (for better or worse) at some point.

[Hazir]

Why not a referendum for England (Wales/NI) too ?

[RandBlade]

To all you Britons, what do you think the chances actually are of this referendum passing?

I think its actually slim to nil - unfortunately. I do however think the "fallback" option of devomax is probably about 60%+ of going through.

I'm hesitant to expect a common currency between the US and Sudan, like Loki mentioned, but that isn't to say it can't be accomplished (for better or worse) at some point.

Why should it be accomplished?

Lebby has it backwards. As transaction costs go towards zero then the advantages for a universal currency decrease not increase.

Hazir:
Wales has had a referendum for devolution, it only narrowly passed. There is not much of a real Welsh independence movement.
NI has had a referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. There is absolutely no NI-independence movement, there is a movement of course to re-unify NI with the Irish Republic, but the majority want to stay with the UK.
There is no real English independence movement.

[Hazir]

But isn't it wrong that the English have no say whatsoever in the future of the UK? Dev-max for Scotland to me seems like one part of the country excusing itself from its full responsability for the Union.

[RandBlade]

On the notion of independence we respect the right to self-determination. If anyone wants to leave they're welcome to.

On the notion of devomax however they'd still be part of the UK which is currently why the government opposes it. I suspect they'll change their minds though - I would if I was in Number 10.

[NGS]

Why should it be accomplished?

Lebby has it backwards. As transaction costs go towards zero then the advantages for a universal currency decrease not increase.

I was looking at it from a cultural perspective: ie one day the world will be so globalized and everyone will be so connected, politically homogeneous, and open that a common world currency would foster and safeguard unity. Pie in the sky stuff, man.