BS: Scotless

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:47 AM

I see that in the current Ukraine issue, the West is arguing that people from outside, I.e. Russia should keep out of the argument as it is for the people of Ukraine to decide their fate. So much for the people outside Scotland wanting a vote on the future Referendum. And the EU is screaming for them to join while Ukraine is almost bankrupt and Barroso says it could be impossible for Scotland to join. What a load of two faced, hypocritical "people".

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:06 AM

[Great= Large] Britain is a geographical term describing the large island containing Wales, England and Scotland & differentiating it from 'Small Britain' aka Brittany

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:09 AM

Come on Jack. I bet you say you are Canadian, rather than American? (Every Canadian I know makes the distinction, yet you have as much right as anyone else On the continent to call yourself American. I know I have said it before, but I saw a wonderful T-shirt in Vancouver a few years ago. Canadian {noun} Unarmed American with healthcare.

There seems to debate as to whether the term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still a valid term of reference if we repair the breeches in Hadrian's Wall?

Well, nobody worries about a country called The United States of America!

It isn't every day I applaud an approach by the government but I do feel it somewhat positive that regardless of whether I like their politics, ministers are pointing out what they are paid to point out. They are entrusted to act in the interest of The United kingdom, so it would be wrong for them not to state an opinion on something that could be to our detriment, and "our" includes the people of Scotland if you hadn't noticed. The stance on monetary union is valid because it could affect the people of The UK.

Storm in a teacup, but amusing debate, with the Wallace wannabes coming out of their closet. We'll have forgot about it by October. Sadly, I have to give a talk in Edinburgh this weekend, (been cancelled twice..) and cannot avoid speaking of professional accreditation recognition. A bit of an issue for many. After all. Even my own responsible adult is a fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, as are many more. The Ireland college needed an inter government agreement after the forming of The Free State.

Give 'em a bloody Parliament, they want a sodding country. (OK, a sodden country.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:12 AM

More negativity and insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

Yeah, and then they want their own country!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:21 AM

Basically the percentages related to the YES (32%) and the NO (57%) camps has remained unchanged.

When those who declared themselves as "undecided" were polled in an Ipsos MORI survey for STV 34% of the undecideds" said they would now vote NO, 16% of them said they would vote YES and 44% said their stance remained unchanged (What the remaining 6% of the "undecideds" said was probably unintelligible).

Come the 19th September the result will be announced as a clear and massive NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:21 AM

Ah Mr T....I remember your Predictions of Doom, before the election of the SNP to lead the Scottish Government"

Guess who won....by a landslide?

I have a better record on seeing into the political future, and I see Freedom!

Will you have a vote Mr T?.....just out of interest, no malice intended :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

I like The SNP as a party in power under the devolution criteria. I am so glad they won because despite his silly notions over a vote he didn't want yet, (lest we forget) Salmond is the type of socialist liberal you can admire. Whether it be gay rights or stamping out persecution of travellers, there are many reasons to admire him.

Isn't that right worm?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

I say I am FROM Canada. I was born a Newfoundlander. Newfoundland bankrupted its self twice supporting England in war and pushed into a union with Canada because Britain would not be able to bleed us dry again if we entered into an economic partnership with the USA.

I cheer for Canada in the winter Olympics but that is largely out of habit. I cheer for Brazil in the world cup of soccer but that doesn't mean you are going to catch me on Copacabana anytime soon wearing a string thong up the crack of my butt.

Akenton, Musket makes a good point. If "yes" wins, get out your blue face paint and your claymores and play the pibrochs whatever they are, loud and clear because you will be in for a battle where England holds more of the cards than when Bonnie Charlie took his stand.

I hope for your sake your national pride win sustain you and replace in your hearts the comfort and relative prosperity you feel today.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

Still more insulting talk. What's the matter with you supporters of the Union? You say the Scots are anti English but you can do is make puerile jibes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:22 PM

A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead.
I haven't personally made puerile jibes, but the Scots certainly are anti-English. And I understand why and sympathise with their viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:30 PM

"A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead."

Thanks for the info. I didn't know what they were. I'd only heard them mentioned in a song sung by Irishmen.

Lets hope there are no pibroch's written for the economy of Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

More puerile jibes. Jack the sailor, check your facts before posting.
And Eliza, SOME Scots may hate the English but please don't generalise. There are many English living in Scotland who would disagree with you,

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

I think that my opinion that Scotland will have a hard time economically IF they separate is not a fact nor something that I can check. It is not meant to be either puerile of a jibe.

But thank you for your opinion as unsubstantiated and anonymous as it may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:22 PM

Of course, they could address their huge public sector, or health inequalities or welfare bill.

The irony is, whilst I don't wish them to follow the petty nationalistic fools, we in England wouldn't have to keep propping up their economy. We'd be better off.

Till we ended up bailing them out as we did Ireland the other year...

All academic really. Salmond takes his population for fools and the vast majority aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:08 PM

Jack, I think guest is alluding to the fact that Scotland contributes more to the UK economy, than it receives back under the Barnet Formula, in funding.

There is much more to this issue than mere economics tho', we have a chance to shake free of European rules and regulations, regarding the construction of a new society.

We will do whatever it takes to gain independence.....then the REAL job will begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

A CURRENCY union would benefit the remainder of the UK more than an independent Scotland, according to a veteran economist.

It would actually be in Scotland's greater self-interest to use the pound unilaterally but a currency union would benefit both sides of the border, Professor David Simpson said.

The Harvard-educated economist, who has worked for the United Nations, World Bank, European Commission and Standard Life, rejects the argument that a currency union requires a political union to work.

The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is "an advantage, not a disadvantage" as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said.

Prof Simpson's written evidence to Holyrood's Economy Committee is backed by Edinburgh University politics professor Charlie Jeffery, who said a currency union is "perfectly feasible".

The committee will also tomorrow hear from Glasgow University professors Jo Armstrong and John McLaren, who have called on the Scottish Government to spell out how it will boost Scotland's productivity, save oil revenues without cuts or taxes and how much borrowing it would require.

Institute of Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson will also outline the institute's latest economic forecast, which offers "good news" for an independent Scotland provided it continues with the UK Chancellor's spending squeeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM

Akenaton:

The only prediction I made with regard to the Scottish Assembly elections related to the Referendum which you corrected and assured me according to promises made by the SNP would take place before 2010, I think I stated that the referendum would take place in the Parliament that followed. In that I have been proved correct.

The SNP won their elections not on their performance but on the total lack of performance by the ruling Labour Government of the day - In general political parties of sitting governments "lose elections" more than opposition parties "win elections" - it is a factor of elector dissatisfaction.

I most certainly have a vote and that vote will be a "NO" to keep things the way they are. I do not want to Governed by a man who lies about and hides petty expenditure - if he is prepared to treat the people he is supposed to represent with such contempt over such small things what on earth will he be like when tempted by the bigger things. I have no desire to led blindfold over a cliff by the incorrect assumptions and false assurances of a political party that could not even be bothered to do the groundwork necessary to convince the electorate to whom they had to appeal. I am sorry but "It'll be alright on the night, we'll just see how it goes" is not the assurance required to launch a nation.

Jack the Sailor:

"A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead."

Thanks for the info. I didn't know what they were. I'd only heard them mentioned in a song sung by Irishmen."

Ah yes the Tommy Makem version linked to - The introduction to the song delivered on stage in Dublin in 1977 was "cringeworthy" in it's complete and utter inaccuracies - all about those poor wee highlanders standing with the sleet in their faces on that April morning ready to repell the English invader? Load of bollocks, the Battle of Culloden was fought between a bunch of opportunists on the make against a Government Army that contained more Scots in it than were fighting for the Jacobite cause - Actually given the choice none of the highlanders would have been there. Chocolate box Scottish history, sentimental emotional crap.


Anonymous Guest:

Number of points about your financial expert.

1: "A CURRENCY union would benefit the remainder of the UK more than an independent Scotland"

Of course it would, independent Scotland would have no say in monetary policy, interest rates, and have no seat on any monetary policy committee. In short the UK would dictate independent Scotland's finances and economic policies.

I bet this veteran economist would say the same thing about a currency union with the rest of the EU - but on that there are a host of very highly regarded economists in the UK who would vehemently disagree with him - certainly the economic performance figures wouldn't support him.

2: "The Harvard-educated economist, who has worked for the United Nations, World Bank, European Commission and Standard Life, rejects the argument that a currency union requires a political union to work."

Rather odd that as the German who came up with the idea of the Euro as the common currency for the EU stated the exact opposite. Not only that but the same man attributes all the woes the Euro has undergone over the past few years to precisely that, his firm conviction being that you have to have political union before a currency union can work.

3: "The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is "an advantage, not a disadvantage" as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said."

Ah you mean same as happened in Iceland? The crash of 2008, had the collapse of RBS and RBOS hit an independent Scotland without there being a "lender of last resort" then the effects on the country would have been disastrous. Cause of the 2008 financial collapse world wide was the US sub-prime fiasco caused by Bill Clinton and the democrats in his second term - And nobody should ever be allowed to forget that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:44 AM

If Scotland had been independent in 2008 it would have had a massive oil fund like Norway and could easily have coped. Comparing Scotland at that time to Iceland is disingenuous, mischievous and incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:58 AM

This what guest should have told you.

Bank bailout

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:07 AM

Anonymous Guest:

Norway has the Sovereign wealth fund that it has because it does not use its revenues from its offshore oil & gas industry (Taxes yes, revenues no). Norway with its ~5 million people do not need the oil and gas they produce it already had the cheapest generated electricity on the planet.

Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund derives from two sources oil revenues which are invested internationally and excess national insurance revenues the money from which is invested domestically inside Norway in Norwegian companies and technology.

Salmond and the SNP keep dangling the prospect of Scotland being like Norway yet he signally fails to tell the electorate of Scotland what they would have to sign up to for Scotland to be like Norway:

38% Basic rate of tax
Medicine paid for at point of supply
End of free prescriptions
Dental care paid for at point of supply
End of tuition fee free education
Student loans that do actually have to be paid off
Compulsory formal identification and ID
Compulsory universal conscription

Norwegians basically have a work ethic not a benefits culture. If they want something then they pay for it today, they do not borrow in the hope and expectation that their children or grandchildren will pay their debts off for them.

Any time Salmond and SNP are asked how something will be paid for the answer always comes back - revenue from Scotland's Oil - well pal if you are relying on that to fund your freebies you cannot at the same time be saving it to create a sovereign wealth fund - True??

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

Terminus, you obviously didn't check the link I posted, as it rubbished your gloomy outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

My instinct is that if there's a YES vote, all the stuff about England not playing ball in setting up a shared currency deal, or about problems in Scotland being in the EU will mysteriously melt away.

So far as the latter matter is concerned I'm still puzzled why it is that there is said to be a problem with Scotland staying in the EU after independence, but not for the other part of the former UNited Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), whatever it may choose to call itself. Two new countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

If you are indeed a banker, Guest, how do you feel about todays news that RBS and Lloyds would have to relocate their HQs in England?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

The article banker posted seems to be arguing that if Scotland separates and there was another banking crisis the US and Arabs could be counted on the bail out Scotland's banks as they did Barclays in the last one. Would they? Did they bail out banks in Iceland and Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:30 PM

Yes Mr McGrath, most of the negativity can be put down to simple fear mongering.

If Scotland does strike out on her own, the rest of the UK will have their own problems to address and will have no time to dwell on ours.
In all probability we shall co-habit quite happily.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:53 PM

McGoH

So far as the latter matter is concerned I'm still puzzled why it is that there is said to be a problem with Scotland staying in the EU after independence, but not for the other part of the former UNited Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), whatever it may choose to call itself. Two new countries.

If Scottish independence affects all constituent parts of the Union equally, then all of the of the UK should be allowed its say in the referendum. Why should it be left to 8.4% of the population to make decisions which, if you are correct, could have dramatic effects on us all?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:54 PM

So you agree that Russia should interfere in Ukraine?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:22 AM

"Terminus"?? Really is a mistake that Guest wanker - it tells me who you are. I thought that multiple identities had been banned on this forum.

I read your link obviously you didn't. Strange that the author of the article didn't mention the bail out cash given to RBS from the same source $480bn, HBOS, etc, etc. Strange he didn't explain the reason for the very high loan given to Barclay's was down to Barclay's coming to the rescue of Lehman Brothers (Greatest US casualty of the crash with over 9,000 employees and loads of people's savings and pensions that required saving) nor that all those loans were subsequently repaid by Barclay's. Strange he didn't mention that the loans paid to British Banks by the US Federal Reserve bank were to cover the recipient banks operations in the USA? Can you suggest any reasons for those omissions wanker?

Fact still remains Barclay's did not receive one penny in the form of any bail out from the British Government.

Now let us go back to the RBS and HBOS (RBOS) as Scottish banks in an independent scotland. They have to start out with a currency over which they can exercise no control, or alternatively a completely new currency that no-one has ever heard of or traded in. In either case they are backed up by nothing - OK takers required to buy this currency? Would you? What rate of return would you require?

MGOH:

"My instinct is that if there's a YES vote, all the stuff about England not playing ball in setting up a shared currency deal, or about problems in Scotland being in the EU will mysteriously melt away."

Then your instinct would be wrong. If there is a YES vote and Scotland becomes independent then whoever is in charge of the economy of the United Kingdom and whoever is in charge of the Bank of England will do what they see as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the £Sterling - What is good or what is beneficial from independent Scotland's perspective will not even feature - that is what being independent is all about.

On the latter matter the United Kingdom is currently an EU member state. It will remain so in the event of Scotland voting for independence. Scotland as far as the EU is concerned will be regarded as a new state and as such will have to go through the full application process, comply with all rules, conditions and criteria for membership. Alex Salmond has been told this by both the President of the EU and by the President of the EU Commission (The unelected body who actually run the EU). The UK will not find itself in the same position for quite a number of reasons most important of which is the amount of money the UK puts into the EU coffers (If 28 people walk into a restaurant and order a meal, those sat round the table enjoying that meal being of sound mind and body do not then proceed to kick out one of the six people present who is actually paying the bill)

Now even should an independent Scotland meet and satisfy all the rules, conditions and criteria laid down by the EU for membership their application must be voted on by all existing member states and the vote has to be unanimous - at present excluding the UK I can think of at least six existing member states who would block Scotland's entry to the EU for reasons associated with their own individual national interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:03 AM

How can there be two new countries? You need a referendum to abolish The UK?

Is there a referendum I don't know about? Have I still time to register to vote in it?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What's difficult about that? We have The United States of America, and I don't see all the other American countries moaning? (Apart from when The CIA interfere, or contra rebels are funded, or Bay of a pigs excursions, but I digress.)

The United Kingdom is a member of The EU. I don't see what alters? If it did, it would be challenged legally as nobody has asked the population a question regarding the status of The UK.

Regarding currency union, the chancellor has a duty to advise and act in the interest of the fiscal state of The UK. Rather than accuse him of interfering, Salmond is (jumping ahead of himself) interfering in the treasury status of what he hopes will be a foreign country by telling the Scottish electorate everybody will be as he says if he gets his Wallace moment.

Fascinating talk over Norway. I have family there, (moved from Scotland ironically) and when I was staying with them last year, (they are popular, living next to a ski resort...) their take on matters, with no axe to grind, doesn't exactly favour the Norwegian model. After having to go to a state owned shop to get overpriced wine, reminiscent of less developed totalitarian countries, I started to agree.

Mind you, the high taxes that dissuade foreign investment do give you a beast of a pension in Norway.. Snag is, Scotland depends on enterprise, something the small population of Norway makes a point of ignoring. Their poverty gap is remarkable, but there again, you don't get prizes for initiative and career advancement either. Real socialist principles, you see. Adam Smith was a Scot after all..... If Norway had the answers, it would be to tell us all to use our energy reserves in a less cooperative way and sell the excess to neighbouring countries at prices just, but only just cheaper than them extracting the gas themselves. Most European countries, The UK included, don't have the reserves to support their population in the lo term, and before you say it, Scotland would have to sell their 30 year supply, not live on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:31 AM

Terminus, you have come to the end of the line. You are beginning to rant, so calm down, dearie.
You seem to have all the answers that no one else has:

"There are no immediate issues that will affect Lloyds Banking Group customers either in Scotland or the rest of the UK, particularly as any change in constitutional arrangements are unlikely to come into effect until 2016."

Separately, Barclays said in its own annual report, which was also published on Wednesday, that the referenda on Scottish independence and on UK membership of the European Union, expected before 2017, may affect the group's risk profile.

Note all the "maybes and coulds and possibles" that pundits have been using whereas you are so certain. Your negative wishes are so apparent.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:50 AM

OK.

Shell have quite rightly spoken aboout risks to their interests now. Lloyds and Barcalys have upgraded the risk on their risk registers according to annual reports.

Add them to BP and Standard Life?

Salmond said the CEOs of these companies are entitled to their opinion but most CEOs think otherwise.

Perhaps as an ex oil industry economist, he might ask a management trainee how much of Scotland's economy those five CEOs represent?

I suppose the proprieter of that fish & chip shop in Linlithgow still supports the Yes campaign, so business leaders remain divided eh?

But it's nothing to do with them apparently, just those who rely on them for jobs and a public sector and social security bill that relies on them for money.

Fascinating. The brass necked ballsy confidence of the ultra nationalists. Roll on October. Itll be nice to see them quiet for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:21 AM

Yep that's right Guest Banker - if Scotland votes YES in September this year there will be two whole years for various companies and industries to organise the southerly flight of jobs and capital. The thing for "Jowly Eck & Co" is who or what replaces them?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:35 AM

Speaking of monetary union, I am in Edinburgh this weekend.

I must remember not to collect any Scottish bank notes. They are buggers to move on down here. Nobody wants to accept them. I have to go into a bank and ask them.

I still have a photo somewhere of a Bureau de Change in Baku, Azerbaijan I walked past a few years ago. Because of the BP interest in the Caspian oilfield, there were many people popping over from their Aberdeen office. The exchange for Scottish banknotes was slightly less than for English banknotes.

Why? Buggered if I know, but I'd love to buy that man (possibly Georgian, they seemed to run the mafia side of things there) a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:05 AM

More insults from Terminus: and Musket, there has always been a problem in getting Scottish notes accepted in England. Try cashing a Northern Ireland note, even more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:38 AM

Quite true, Banker. I was 'up there' in the sixties, and when I visited my parents 'down here' my Scottish banknotes were never acceptable, and seen as completely suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:36 PM

Strictly speaking of course there will be only one new country. Scotland has a long history as an independent country. The "country" consisting of England, Wales and part of Ulster, whatever it chooses to call itself, has never previously existed at any time.

On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:09 AM

1: "Strictly speaking of course there will be only one new country."

Yes Scotland

2: "Scotland has a long history as an independent country."

Yes that is right it's last spell as an independent country lasted from about 1357 to 1707, after which it retained its religion, law and right to print bank notes as part of Great Britain.

3: "The "country" consisting of England, Wales and part of Ulster, whatever it chooses to call itself, has never previously existed at any time.

The country which has contained all three has existed since 1801 and it was called the United Kingdom, it will remain being known as such.

4: "On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

Well Kevin just niggling little things like membership of the EU, NATO, a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations and various other international agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

If anybody asks me in a referendum if I wish to live in a new country, I will weigh up the pros and cons, but as nobody is asking me, I shall continue to live in The UK, and expect my government to act in our interest.

It would appear I might at some stage be asked for my view on remaining in The EU. If and when that happens, (at present, we have a back bencher sop made with Cameron's fingers crossed) I shall vote to remain a member.

Easy.

Now, if you"ll excuse me, I have a train to catch to Scotland later, and a pint awaits tonight at The Malt Shovel, followed by a meal at Castle Terrace. A good British night out eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

Terebus, "The country which has contained all three has existed since 1801 and it was called the United Kingdom, it will remain being known as such."

You should have said "The PART of the country ....."
When the existing UK and NI breaks up, both parts will have all the memberships you mention or they will have none. Are you seriously saying that all the benefits given to the UK by the EU will continue when the land mass and population will be diminished?

Two new states as McGrath of Harlow very clearly, concisely and logically spells out.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 05:24 AM

On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

On the grounds of practicality.

The precedent is set by what happened in 1922 when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In practice, a new state was formed south of the Irish border and the UK went on as before, albeit with a new name and a bit less territory. It kept its empire, international prestige, financial systems etc.

Repeating what I said above, if Scottish independence affects the status of the rest of the UK then we should all be included in the referendum. As it has been decided that the referendum is only of concern to those living in Scotland, it is safe to say that the international position of the rest of the UK will remain unchanged. Arguing otherwise may be of interest but is just so much hot air.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:12 AM

The difference is, Doug, that Ireland JOINED the UK whereas Scotland FORMED the UK with England.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

Watch this space. Danny Alexander is about to speak to the pensions industry in Edinbiurgh where he will say the currency union refusal is final, and agreed between him, Osborn and Balls. Or in other words, anybody who will be at No.11 in the aftermath of the exceedingly slim chance of a yes vote.

Without publishing a plan B, how can the referendum even go ahead? If you vote yes, what are you voting for?

I reckon it is a huge insult to the voters of Scotland to ask them to vote for something that cannot be delivered and would have to go through the expense of a second referendum after Labour are returned in the Scottish election that would follow the vote of no confidence in the government in, I'd say October.

That's assuming The UK agreed to it, and under what conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:48 AM

The country that was formed with the Acts of Union (England) and the Acts of Union (Scotland) was the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The Act of Union (Ireland) in 1801 formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:57 AM

"Are you seriously saying that all the benefits given to the UK by the EU will continue when the land mass and population will be diminished?"

If you are referring to the "diminished land" caused by Scotland voting for independence, then by and large the "benefits" as you call them for a country of 58 million would roughly be the same as those for a country of 63 million taking into account of course that the payments and the UK is the second biggest net contributor will also pretty much remain the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:22 AM

"pretty much the same" so there will be a change? Negotiated with the EU or what?
And the name thing has been debated ad nauseum but the fact remains per Article 1 that the new country would be "United as one Kingdom called Great Britain" and article 2 refers to " .. the United Kingdom of Great Britain".
The fact remains that two Kingdoms were united into one. Without Scotland or England being United there would have been no United Kingdom of Great Britain for Ireland to join.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 11:32 AM

What are people talking about? Who has said The UK is going to alter?

You need a referendum.

Perhaps Salmond is relying on ignorance. Wise move on his part judging by some of the la la land comments here.

Edinburgh is warm today for the time of year. A rather nice bit of The UK. Friendly as ever too.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:01 PM

Irrespective of what the outcome of the independence vote, surely politicians of both sides should say that, come the day, they will respect the decision made by the people of Scotland to be independent or not. There's some major dummy spitting going on from both sides.

On a personal note, Danny Alexander and his cronies are really getting on my thrupnies.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:27 PM

True enough Teribus. The Act of Union with Scotland established a country called the Kingdom of Britain.

That existed for less than a hundred years, to be succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Scotland secedes it will cease to exist, and be succeeded by a country which as yet has not been given a name.

None of those previous changes involved any kind of referendum. The Scottish referendum in a constitutional innovation, not a standard requirement for a change of national status.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

To answer the original question how about EWNI, Change the letters around to suit and maybe EWIN would suit McColl fans?