Let 'em go

Post #394,427 by pwhysall 9/11/14 3:29:09 AM Reply	Let 'em go It'll be economic suicide, but hey. I get to go on holiday, to a properly foreign country, by just driving up the road. Why suicide? Here's why: * A currency union (which they want) means they wouldn't be independent, as their budgets would be at the behest of the Bank of England * Lack of a currency union (which they can't have; all three major parties in the UK, and the governor of the Bank of England, have said "Fuck, no!") means that in the short term at least they have to use the pound (like Panama uses the dollar) whilst they set up their own currency (expensive) ... * ...which they have to do in order to join the EU, despite the protestations of Salmond... * ...who is also blind to the fact that at least Spain and Belgium will veto their entry (Catalonia/Basque/Flemish separatist issues) * Without a Lender of Last Resort, many financial institutions will have to move at least part of their operations from Edinburgh to London * There are a very large number of public sector jobs in Scotland which serve the whole UK of 60-odd million people. You don't need as many people to serve 5 million people, and the UK is unlikely to outsource this work to Scotland when there are regions of the UK that are champing at the bit for this sort of work * There are massive shipbuilding contracts on the Clyde. Which are for the Royal Navy, which has to build its complex warships in the UK. Oops * If Salmond delivers on his promise to rid Scotland of Trident, there are 8000 people directly and indirectly employed by the Faslane naval base which will suddenly find themselves at a loose end * But oil! Yes, but oil. Salmond is gambling that oil will be the saviour. The South Sudan example shows that it's not as simple as that and that Scotland could end up, worst case, with just ~8% of the oil revenue they expect, which the SNP has massively overestimated in the first place. In any event, the negotiations will be protracted
Post #394,431 by scoenye 9/11/14 7:46:52 AM Reply	Wouldn't worry too much about a Belgian veto The separatists are now in charge at the national level.
Post #394,445 by a6l6e6x 9/11/14 11:53:39 AM Reply	If it's a YES, RBS has already announced it will move to London. The Royal Bank of Scotland, that is! I predict it will be a NO. The implications are slowly being figured out. Just changing the flags would cost billions! :) Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #394,446 by Another Scott 9/11/14 12:24:05 PM Reply	Joke from a few days ago. Changing the flag would be a big deal. PRI's The World: Symbols on a flag can sometimes seem arbitrary as the modern world becomes an increasingly global place. But Bartran says those symbols still carry huge weight. “People need the anchor of identity and flags are a very important part of that identity,” he says. The other issue that Scottish independence would raise is the very name of the United Kingdom itself. No longer would there be two kingdoms — Scotland and England — united, so the United Kingdom wouldn’t be as fitting a name. And the "Former United Kingdom” has some obvious acronym problems. The moniker of “Great Britain" is also problematic, Bartran says. Great Britain refers to the largest British isle, which is made up in large part by Scotland. Bartran has come up with his own name: Engwalni. That’s the first few letters of the remaining parts of the United Kingdom: England, Wales and Northern Island. Cheers, Scott.
Post #394,448 by boxley 9/11/14 12:43:20 PM Reply	Engwalni, smelly feet in puhktun Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #394,451 by Another Scott 9/11/14 12:51:18 PM Reply	rofl.
Post #394,453 by pwhysall 9/11/14 1:45:28 PM Reply	The UK will remain the UK After all, the name of the country is currently: The United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland It's not hard to figure out.
Post #394,474 by static 9/11/14 11:23:41 PM Reply	Is it? I thought United Kingdom was really "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island". If so, they could just redefine "Great Britain" to be England and Wales. Of course, then there's the quirk that "Great Britain" apparently refers to the landmass (i.e. island) which contains England, Wales and Scotland. Feel free to correct me. Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #394,476 by pwhysall 9/12/14 1:39:09 AM Reply	No, you're right Brain fart. The UK will remain "the UK", though. The UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Post #394,479 by malraux 9/12/14 7:47:28 AM Reply	Thanks I read this out loud to my 10yo as part of current events discussion. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #394,482 by pwhysall 9/12/14 8:17:59 AM Reply	I hope you advised him that "Fuck no!" is not official BoE or UK Government policy language, but merely the technical term for the correct response to anything Alex Salmond says.
Post #394,485 by malraux 9/12/14 9:06:33 AM Reply	Read aloud, edited for newsworthiness. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #394,510 by mmoffitt 9/12/14 1:31:35 PM Reply	How do you feel about s/Scotland/Stateland/? http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/opinion/wheeler-scotland-referendum/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 :0)
Post #394,544 by pwhysall 9/13/14 7:07:23 AM Reply	Re: How do you feel about s/Scotland/Stateland/? The comments section of that article makes me sad for America, land of the humourless.
Post #394,579 by Ashton 9/13/14 8:21:53 PM Reply	Zing.. the bedrock of Puritanism; we're that, writ large. Show me a humourless person and I'll show you a ~~"Conservative"~~ Reactionary mind-set, intransigent unto death. (Worse than sad, this now expanded, rampant affliction may well prove terminal, all things considered.)
Post #394,543 by pwhysall 9/13/14 7:00:25 AM Reply	A thoughtful analysis of the post referendum negotiation process http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/negotiations-after-a-scottish-referendum-yes-vote/
Post #394,547 by Another Scott 9/13/14 8:41:39 AM Reply	Very good. Thanks. He brings up a lot of good points. However, he emphasizes the risks to the rUK in having Scotland continue to use the Pound. Krugman pointed out the risks in using the Pound on the Scots side: But Canada has its own currency, which means that its government can’t run out of money, that it can bail out its own banks if necessary, and more. An independent Scotland wouldn’t. And that makes a huge difference. Could Scotland have its own currency? Maybe, although Scotland’s economy is even more tightly integrated with that of the rest of Britain than Canada’s is with the United States, so that trying to maintain a separate currency would be hard. It’s a moot point, however: The Scottish independence movement has been very clear that it intends to keep the pound as the national currency. And the combination of political independence with a shared currency is a recipe for disaster. Which is where the cautionary tale of Spain comes in. I've got no special insight on what is likely to happen. The press coverage has made the "No!" side seem ham-handed (the banks crying they'll move south, the last-minute "Please don't leave me!" tour by the politicians, the supposedly "moronic" decision not to have "devomax" as a choice on the ballot, etc.). But the Scots I know over here are almost pathologically level-headed on financial matters. I suspect that No will win, but the anger at Whitehall won't go away without substantial changes. FWIW. Thanks again. Cheers, Scott.
Post #394,625 by Ashton 9/15/14 3:08:18 PM Reply	Shetland Islander sings about the schism.. Here & Now npr Singing About Scottish Independence With the Scottish independence vote just days away, the show talks to one Scot who sings his concerns about a vote for independence. (He's right amidst Oil Central, between Scotland and Norway; looks down from his house on a beach.) Thinks it'll go ~ 55/45 against the proposition, believes that some sort of federalism might give Scotland a bit more influence; would also apply in England re more local control, as well. Speaks of wife's pension likely suffering a reduction, medical care ditto. Reports little violence (thrown eggs? a few windows..) but clearly Division has reared its ugly head. It does all sound a bit like cutting off nose to spite one's face, to this iggerant auslander. But then, it's also the Age of Dissidence and intransigent mindsets, not just in the dis-USA. The Ungovernable meet the Unclear about wise-Governing?

Welcome to IWETHEY!