I think Scotland will be more socialist than it already is (they get a lot of freebies from the state that the rest of the UK don't already). I hope they get independence.

I don't understand why Scotland would want to leave the UK and then want to join the EU straight away. You're not going to be a truly independent country inside the EU so all this talk about Scotland governing its own future will be made obsolete. As when you join the EU, EU law takes precedence over your own laws.

Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

They are not going anywhere, They will vote No and stay. Nearly All polls veer towards no by a small margin.

I hope the vote is "Yes" just for the ensuing shitstorm.

(09-18-2014 04:43 AM)LemonDrink Wrote:  They are not going anywhere, They will vote No and stay. Nearly All polls veer towards no by a small margin.

Polls are very inaccurate for one-off referendums like this because it is hard to get a representative sample (it being a one-off event ensures this). The turnout could end up being in the 90-percentile range, which is amazing.

Also, Salmond was a genius to allow 16 & 17 year olds to vote for this since it is the young who are especially in favor of a Yes. The key will be was he able to get enough young people to the polls to balance out the older voters who are more likely to vote No.

That is the real question.

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

I worked with a tonne of people from the UK. The Brits would normally say that they are British or refer to going home as going back to the UK. While the Scots would say that they are Scottish or going back to Scotland to visit and never us the term the UK. same goes for the Irish. (Northern Ireland).

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

(09-17-2014 10:48 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 08:46 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 07:08 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The prospect of Labour never governing the UK again is a major relief also.

Unlikely. Like I said earlier Blair won enough seats in all of his elections to win without Scotland, even with two reduced majorities by 2005. Labour only needs an extra 1% swing to make up for losing all of Scotland's seats. At most they will shift a little to the centre on economic policy to better chase votes in England and make up that 1%.

Even aside from that, I think it's preposterous that a left wing party would never gain power again. The reverse could be true in many countries eventually simply because of demographics (immigrants and locals on welfare), but there's never not going to be a left wing party. With the entire apparatus of the bureaucracy, the media, academia, the primary and secondary education systems, there is always going to be a certain amount of left wing cultural capital. That's the whole point of the Gramscian march through the institutions. For the right wing to hold power for a long time, they'd have to declare an open and total war upon those institutions and the culture at large, and that's not going to happen. The right doesn't have the inclination or the ability.

Also, people are really opposed to the idea of a one party state in the West in general, but the Anglosphere in particular. There is always going to be a seesawing between two main parties or coalitions. The real political action happens, of course, in shifting the Overton Window leftwards. The departure of Scotland might provide a very minor shift to the right in anything but appearances (policy won't change much) for one or two elections, and then the ship's course will be corrected back to destroying Western civilisation.

Let's hope there is not another Blair! That man was terrible for the U.K. in all the wrong ways. He was responsible for, amongst other things, flooding the nation with third world scumbags.

There are a few examples of democracies with near permanent majorities for one side or the other e.g Sweden with the left, Japan with the right. That is the exception to the norm though. Most of the time though there is no such thing as a permanent majority and there's no chance that would happen in the rest of the U.K.

(09-18-2014 05:43 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

Things are definitely not going to be as easy as Salmond has claimed, but it is a bit much to say that Scotland is fucked financially. The savings from not having to spend on the military to the extent the UK spends can be funneled into social programs and lowering the corporate tax rate for Scotland to encourage businesses to relocate there.

For example, the replacement for Trident is going to cost ~100 Billion USD over 40 years ($2.5 billion per year). Scotland is on the hook for about 9% of that cost (8% of population but Scotland is actually 9% of UK tax receipts), so it saves $225 million a year by ditching Trident. That ain't chump change. Add in all the other savings by not supporting an expensive military budget, and the savings is easily in the hundreds of millions per year.

Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a ~20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

Edit regarding reserves:

As for reserves, Scotland is entitled to about 8%-9% of all the UK's reserves (gold, foreign exchange reserves, etc.) Now, maybe the deal for the currency union with rUK would be that the Bank of England keeps the reserves that would be allocated to Scotland in exchange for the currency union, but that still isn't a big deal since then Scotland would no longer need currency reserves since it would be in a currency union with the rUK.

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

How do you type that out and not realise its one of the worst things a country can do.

So they get to spend more money on even bigger social programs for all the slackers and feckless which in-turn feed an even bigger entitlement complex.

The USA has this problem on a major scale, look where that got it and the US is the #1 economy in the world and has god knows how many billions to spend left and right.

Scotland neither owns the oil nor does it have a monopoly on it. It is owned by the oil corporations. Now unless the SNP will do a kremlin and become dictators on the matter, they can spirit away the profits from Scotland very easily.

I hope they vote yes, I really do. For if they vote no then they get more powers and get to become an even bigger parasite on the rest of the UK.

(09-18-2014 06:02 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:43 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

Things are definitely not going to be as easy as Salmond has claimed, but it is a bit much to say that Scotland is fucked financially. The savings from not having to spend on the military to the extent the UK spends can be funneled into social programs and lowering the corporate tax rate for Scotland to encourage businesses to relocate there.

For example, the replacement for Trident is going to cost ~100 Billion USD over 40 years ($2.5 billion per year). Scotland is on the hook for about 9% of that cost (8% of population but Scotland is actually 9% of UK tax receipts), so it saves $225 million a year by ditching Trident. That ain't chump change. Add in all the other savings by not supporting an expensive military budget, and the savings is easily in the hundreds of millions per year.

Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a 20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

The problem is though that without its own currency, Scotland cannot apply to join the Eurozone. The EU is not going to make this easy for Scotland and change these rules…there are too many big players afraid of the same thing happening to their countries.

Why would they want to be tied to the pound anyway…having the BOE dictate pretty much all the important financial terms to them isn't really independence…?

I just don't think BOE becoming lender of last resort to Scotland is ever going to happen…why would we underwrite the debts of these loons? Sure, use our currency all they like but not a proper CU.

There is no way on earth that Scotland will become a low tax, business friendly country. No way on earth. It's more likely to start nationalising stuff in my opinion.

(09-18-2014 06:02 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a ~20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

Forgot to reply to this bit.

Salmond can say all he wants but ultimately it's not down to him what terms are agreed. It is up to UK Parliament. He can say what the hell he likes but until the bills are passed Scotland is part of the UK.

His negotiating position is not as strong as he purports.

(09-18-2014 06:11 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:02 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:43 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:40 AM)Haig Wrote:  Hey Bojangles,

You are spot on there with Scotland being Socialist. All I need to do is look out my window and see the amount of people who are completely out their face on methadone and buckfast(its a popular tonic wine that has a high %) screaming yes.

It's the people who think they can get stuff for free at the end of this that worries the most.

The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

Things are definitely not going to be as easy as Salmond has claimed, but it is a bit much to say that Scotland is fucked financially. The savings from not having to spend on the military to the extent the UK spends can be funneled into social programs and lowering the corporate tax rate for Scotland to encourage businesses to relocate there.

For example, the replacement for Trident is going to cost ~100 Billion USD over 40 years ($2.5 billion per year). Scotland is on the hook for about 9% of that cost (8% of population but Scotland is actually 9% of UK tax receipts), so it saves $225 million a year by ditching Trident. That ain't chump change. Add in all the other savings by not supporting an expensive military budget, and the savings is easily in the hundreds of millions per year.

Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a 20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

The problem is though that without its own currency, Scotland cannot apply to join the Eurozone. The EU is not going to make this easy for Scotland and change these rules…there are too many big players afraid of the same thing happening to their countries.

Why would they want to be tied to the pound anyway…having the BOE dictate pretty much all the important financial terms to them isn't really independence…?

I just don't think BOE becoming lender of last resort to Scotland is ever going to happen…why would we underwrite the debts of these loons? Sure, use our currency all they like but not a proper CU.

There is no way on earth that Scotland will become a low tax, business friendly country. No way on earth. It's more likely to start nationalising stuff in my opinion.

See my edit above regarding the splitting of reserves. Scotland's share of the reserves could be kept at the BofE as collateral for a possible backstop in exchange for a currency union.

(09-18-2014 06:22 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:11 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:02 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:43 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  The Scots should be entitled to 90% the oil revenue from the North Sea. If that is "free money," then so be it. I don't hear the Saudis complaining about the "free money" they pump out of the ground.

Plus, not having to spend money supporting Trident or aircraftcarriers or the F-35 or all the other shit that the UK spends to pretend that it is still a world power is going to save Scotland hundreds of millions of dollars a year in savings that could be funneled into social programs.

Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

Things are definitely not going to be as easy as Salmond has claimed, but it is a bit much to say that Scotland is fucked financially. The savings from not having to spend on the military to the extent the UK spends can be funneled into social programs and lowering the corporate tax rate for Scotland to encourage businesses to relocate there.

For example, the replacement for Trident is going to cost ~100 Billion USD over 40 years ($2.5 billion per year). Scotland is on the hook for about 9% of that cost (8% of population but Scotland is actually 9% of UK tax receipts), so it saves $225 million a year by ditching Trident. That ain't chump change. Add in all the other savings by not supporting an expensive military budget, and the savings is easily in the hundreds of millions per year.

Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a 20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

The problem is though that without its own currency, Scotland cannot apply to join the Eurozone. The EU is not going to make this easy for Scotland and change these rules…there are too many big players afraid of the same thing happening to their countries.

Why would they want to be tied to the pound anyway…having the BOE dictate pretty much all the important financial terms to them isn't really independence…?

I just don't think BOE becoming lender of last resort to Scotland is ever going to happen…why would we underwrite the debts of these loons? Sure, use our currency all they like but not a proper CU.

There is no way on earth that Scotland will become a low tax, business friendly country. No way on earth. It's more likely to start nationalising stuff in my opinion.

See my edit above regarding the splitting of reserves. Scotland's share of the reserves could be kept at the BofE as collateral for a possible backstop in exchange for a currency union.

That's a really bad deal for the UK though. Why would we accept it? Because Saint Alec says so? It's ludicrous.

Better to suck up the pain now and leave them to their financial misery than be forced to guarantee their spending forever. I just don't think the English population will stand for this idea. Even if out of pure spite.

Again, I ask…why would Scotland want to be tied to BOE fiscal decisions when it wants independence so badly?

For about the millionth time…without its OWN currency, a country can not enter the Eurozone. This is European law. These rules will not be thrown out for Scotland…

It's all nonsense.

@Foolsgo1d you make zero sense, the oil revenues will come from taxing the oil companies just like the U.K already does now.

Scottish Nationalists want to make Scotland a Nordic style social democracy, and fund that using oil revenues like Norway does. They also want to start a sovereign wealth fund and stash their oil revenues away for future generations like Norway does instead of the government spending it all today like the U.K government, though in practice Scotland would not be able to afford both a sovereign wealth fund and the Nordic model. They have a population of very similar size to Norway and both their oil reserves are in the North Sea, from their POV their long-term plan does indeed look like an attraction proposition, after all Norway does have the highest HDI in the world and the highest GDP per capita in the Western world, shitting all over the U.K in both aspects. That said, for a variety of reasons I highly doubt Scotland would be able to pull that off. On the other hand, the financial armageddon due to socialism thing seems overly pessimistic and reeks of butthurt. The long-term trajectory would be similar to continental Western Europe, for better or worse.

(09-18-2014 06:28 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:22 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:11 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:02 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 05:43 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Scotland is fucked financially if they separate.

Relatively tiny contributions towards trident etc are drops in the ocean.

Don't forget, oil revenue is simply tax on oil companies, they don't just get what comes out of the sea.

What currency will they use?

How will they build up the reserves to enter the Eurozone?

Who's gonna pay for all their mouth breathers? Especially given that so many companies and smart people will head south asap to avoid the Socialist Utopia.

How will they pay their share of the UK national debt? If they walk away from that their new currency will be in more trouble than it will be anyway…from day one.

They're still going to need some form of armed forces…or are they thinking "fuck it, the UK will bail us out if we have any problems"?.

Just the startup costs alone are mind-blowing…embassies, treaties etc etc etc.

P.S. We don't pretend to be a world power…we are still a world power right now. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, certainly.

Things are definitely not going to be as easy as Salmond has claimed, but it is a bit much to say that Scotland is fucked financially. The savings from not having to spend on the military to the extent the UK spends can be funneled into social programs and lowering the corporate tax rate for Scotland to encourage businesses to relocate there.

For example, the replacement for Trident is going to cost ~100 Billion USD over 40 years ($2.5 billion per year). Scotland is on the hook for about 9% of that cost (8% of population but Scotland is actually 9% of UK tax receipts), so it saves $225 million a year by ditching Trident. That ain't chump change. Add in all the other savings by not supporting an expensive military budget, and the savings is easily in the hundreds of millions per year.

Next, the currency union is going to happen or else Salmond has said that Scotland won't take on the pro-rata share of the liabilities of the UK. Its a hardball tactic, but in the end it is going to work because the pound could not take the devaluation of losing ~9% of tax receipts while having an increase in 9% of the debt burden. That would mean at least a 20% devaluation, if not more once you factor in the risk of a rUK having its finances fucked because Scotland refuses to share in the liabilities.

The problem is though that without its own currency, Scotland cannot apply to join the Eurozone. The EU is not going to make this easy for Scotland and change these rules…there are too many big players afraid of the same thing happening to their countries.

Why would they want to be tied to the pound anyway…having the BOE dictate pretty much all the important financial terms to them isn't really independence…?

I just don't think BOE becoming lender of last resort to Scotland is ever going to happen…why would we underwrite the debts of these loons? Sure, use our currency all they like but not a proper CU.

There is no way on earth that Scotland will become a low tax, business friendly country. No way on earth. It's more likely to start nationalising stuff in my opinion.

See my edit above regarding the splitting of reserves. Scotland's share of the reserves could be kept at the BofE as collateral for a possible backstop in exchange for a currency union.

That's a really bad deal for the UK though. Why would we accept it? Because Saint Alec says so? It's ludicrous.

Better to suck up the pain now and leave them to their financial misery than be forced to guarantee their spending forever. I just don't think the English population will stand for this idea. Even if out of pure spite.

Again, I ask…why would Scotland want to be tied to BOE fiscal decisions when it wants independence so badly?

For about the millionth time…without its OWN currency, a country can not enter the Eurozone. This is European law. These rules will not be thrown out for Scotland…

It's all nonsense.

The EU has indicated otherwise, but I guess we will see.

Worst case scenario, Scotland could use its share of UK's reserves to do Sterlingization for a few years while they transition to the Euro. Again, hardly the end of the world.

Nevertheless, we are getting way ahead of ourselves. The results aren't even in yet. Better to wait and see what happens before talking about what happens next.

P.S. Did anyone bet on this? Supposedly the betting book on this referendum is going to be huge. Regardless of what happens, there are going to be some really happy people celebrating their winnings.

One bookmaker has already paid out on No bets.

Nearly a thousand years since William of Normandy and it's come to this.

The once-great U.K., the empire on which the sun never set, wasting away from societal cancer. Pakistani rapists pimping out England's daughters, child molestation rings going all the way up to Buckingham Palace, and now a whole third of their core territory about to be lost without a single shot fired.

And really, the Scottish independence movement is a complete farce. This flab-faced clown Alex Salmond is a joke and everyone knows it. His racial mythology of the Scots, down to his noise about joining the Nordic Council, has less historical veracity to it then Nazi mysticism. But since Westminster has been bending over backwards to suck Salmond's dick, what does this say about them?

At least the Irish had to actually fight a war to gain their independence. At least the IRA had to go to the effort of planting bombs in the boats of England's inbred monarchy. All the Scots had to do was whine and whine and elect a diabetic loudmouth and the government rushes to kiss their asses. "The armies of this age are weak."

And man, I don't believe in karma, but if anybody deserves a beatdown from the gods, it's the U.K.

For centuries, the English have plundered, raped and looted their way across the world without a speck of remorse. Concentration camps to wipe out Boer women and children in the Boer War (where do you think Hitler got the idea from?); conducting a genocide in Sri Lanka; slaughtering Tibetans in a war out of pure boredom; deliberately refusing to aid the Irish during the potato famine (notwithstanding the Cromwellian conquest and a million other crimes committed against that land): the collective crimes of the British Empire make the Nazis look like a teenage pipe bomb operation in comparison.

And nobody knows about this. The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world that he didn't exist, and the English's greatest trick was convincing the world that they're a bunch of harmless character actors with spiffy accents and that their brand of imperialism was just swell. The English left is quick to condemn the French for Algeria, the Belgians for the Congo, the U.S. for our treatment of Indians, but they never, ever apply that same standard on their own country. They've been aided by the idiotic Anglophile lobby in the U.S., the provincial rubes who think speaking a common language makes us natural allies (and get rewarded for it by being spat on by the English chattering classes they admire).

I'm not even getting to the legal clusterfuck that is the City of London, the world financial capital, the single biggest reason why the banksters are continuing to suck everyone on the planet dry. Kosko's post on the City of London is a must-read, but it's basically this: the City is an offshore tax haven backed up with the military of a world power. And trying to rein in the City is impossible, since their so-called privileges extend back to the Magna Carta. Oh look, the Lord Mayor of the City is running cover for child molesters, too! Shocked?

And now the U.K. is falling apart, not because of an invasion from Huns... er, I mean Germans, not because of Russia or the U.S., but because of its own stupidity, cowardice and degeneracy. A nation that allows its daughters to be groomed and pimped out by foreigners out of fear of being "racist"; a nation that gives comfort and protection to child rapists like Jimmy Savile; a nation that allows financial rentier parasites to run around unchecked is a nation that doesn't deserve to survive.

I don't care about Scotland. Never been there, probably never will go there. They can go full-on communist for all it matters. But tearing apart the U.K. is a necessary step for a better world, not only because it will weaken the degeneracy that the British enforce on the rest of us, but because it will be a major blow to American imperialism. Ever since World War II, the U.K. has been the primary trojan horse for American influence, because they're the only ally of ours that is both compliant and relatively powerful (something that Charles de Gaulle recognized, which is why he refused to allow the U.K. to join the EEC fifty years ago).

America is the new Evil Empire, and the U.K. is their bottom bitch. It's time to clean up the brothel.

(09-18-2014 08:15 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  Nearly a thousand years since William of Normandy and it's come to this.

The once-great U.K., the empire on which the sun never set, wasting away from societal cancer. Pakistani rapists pimping out England's daughters, child molestation rings going all the way up to Buckingham Palace, and now a whole third of their core territory about to be lost without a single shot fired.

And really, the Scottish independence movement is a complete farce. This flab-faced clown Alex Salmond is a joke and everyone knows it. His racial mythology of the Scots, down to his noise about joining the Nordic Council, has less historical veracity to it then Nazi mysticism. But since Westminster has been bending over backwards to suck Salmond's dick, what does this say about them?

At least the Irish had to actually fight a war to gain their independence. At least the IRA had to go to the effort of planting bombs in the boats of England's inbred monarchy. All the Scots had to do was whine and whine and elect a diabetic loudmouth and the government rushes to kiss their asses. "The armies of this age are weak."

And man, I don't believe in karma, but if anybody deserves a beatdown from the gods, it's the U.K.

For centuries, the English have plundered, raped and looted their way across the world without a speck of remorse. Concentration camps to wipe out Boer women and children in the Boer War (where do you think Hitler got the idea from?); conducting a genocide in Sri Lanka; slaughtering Tibetans in a war out of pure boredom; deliberately refusing to aid the Irish during the potato famine (notwithstanding the Cromwellian conquest and a million other crimes committed against that land): the collective crimes of the British Empire make the Nazis look like a teenage pipe bomb operation in comparison.

And nobody knows about this. The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world that he didn't exist, and the English's greatest trick was convincing the world that they're a bunch of harmless character actors with spiffy accents and that their brand of imperialism was just swell. The English left is quick to condemn the French for Algeria, the Belgians for the Congo, the U.S. for our treatment of Indians, but they never, ever apply that same standard on their own country. They've been aided by the idiotic Anglophile lobby in the U.S., the provincial rubes who think speaking a common language makes us natural allies (and get rewarded for it by being spat on by the English chattering classes they admire).

I'm not even getting to the legal clusterfuck that is the City of London, the world financial capital, the single biggest reason why the banksters are continuing to suck everyone on the planet dry. Kosko's post on the City of London is a must-read, but it's basically this: the City is an offshore tax haven backed up with the military of a world power. And trying to rein in the City is impossible, since their so-called privileges extend back to the Magna Carta. Oh look, the Lord Mayor of the City is running cover for child molesters, too! Shocked?

And now the U.K. is falling apart, not because of an invasion from Huns... er, I mean Germans, not because of Russia or the U.S., but because of its own stupidity, cowardice and degeneracy. A nation that allows its daughters to be groomed and pimped out by foreigners out of fear of being "racist"; a nation that gives comfort and protection to child rapists like Jimmy Savile; a nation that allows financial rentier parasites to run around unchecked is a nation that doesn't deserve to survive.

I don't care about Scotland. Never been there, probably never will go there. They can go full-on communist for all it matters. But tearing apart the U.K. is a necessary step for a better world, not only because it will weaken the degeneracy that the British enforce on the rest of us, but because it will be a major blow to American imperialism. Ever since World War II, the U.K. has been the primary trojan horse for American influence, because they're the only ally of ours that is both compliant and relatively powerful (something that Charles de Gaulle recognized, which is why he refused to allow the U.K. to join the EEC fifty years ago).

America is the new Evil Empire, and the U.K. is their bottom bitch. It's time to clean up the brothel.

I think your points have some merit all though you make them too strongly and are no way unique to the British. Would you not agree that the whole world would spend its time flagellating itself if we had to answer for what our ancestors have done (including Americans such as yourself which you alluded to in your post). I enjoy reading your blog and your opinions for the most part, what would be your suggestions for the issues you list.

Actionable suggestions and I'm asking in all seriousness (not sarcastically), because I think these discussions always spend too much time on problems and not solutions.

The Scotts play with fire today.

You don't get away from the Queen unless your draw blood, ask India Ireland how even the notion of civil diplomacy works with the UK. Canada is still a British bitch as we never fought the war for true freedom. If you peel back the layers the UK via 'De Facto' means still runs the show and its stated clearly in our legal scribe which nobody cares to read.

I never viewed this as a weakness play so interesting perspectives from @MattForney. This weakness play from the UK wasn't my first guess and saw it more a play on petty identity politics taking roots in Scotland with short term "feel goods" that will turn Scotland into a new EU sweatshop and debt dumpster, all while still having England control its money. At least with the UK you knew your enemy as the suits in Brussels are very much invaders and have no historical base they are forced to work off.

If it goes through all the Scotts get is valid flag waving nationalism with no control over the very instruments that grant control in progressing and protecting that national and ethnocultural identity.

Regardless of how this plays out, Salmond comes out on top.

If the indyref is successful, he is the new "King of Scotland"...

...and if the indyref is unsuccessful, well, the idiots in Westminster have already offered Devo-Max to the Scots should they vote no. The Tories are definitely going try to back out of this agreement, but the Labour and Lib-Dems will be unable to without seriously pissing off the Scots, setting up another indyref at some point later down the road.

In the end, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I've read that there are no exit polls for this referendum. How come? Are they prohibited so not to influence anything? You'd think the public interest in this would be enormous.

(09-18-2014 06:37 AM)Deluge Wrote:  @Foolsgo1d you make zero sense, the oil revenues will come from taxing the oil companies just like the U.K already does now.

Scottish Nationalists want to make Scotland a Nordic style social democracy, and fund that using oil revenues like Norway does. They also want to start a sovereign wealth fund and stash their oil revenues away for future generations like Norway does instead of the government spending it all today like the U.K government, though in practice Scotland would not be able to afford both a sovereign wealth fund and the Nordic model. They have a population of very similar size to Norway and both their oil reserves are in the North Sea, from their POV their long-term plan does indeed look like an attraction proposition, after all Norway does have the highest HDI in the world and the highest GDP per capita in the Western world, shitting all over the U.K in both aspects. That said, for a variety of reasons I highly doubt Scotland would be able to pull that off. On the other hand, the financial armageddon due to socialism thing seems overly pessimistic and reeks of butthurt. The long-term trajectory would be similar to continental Western Europe, for better or worse.

I make every sense.

BP has contracts through the City of London.Not Scotland. They merely have permission from the british government which will no longer exist.

Do you really think Scotland will be able to challenge the might of the oil companies? They would spend millions just getting it to court. And if they did win where is the financial infrastructure to sell the oil?

Where will the market demand it? Through the City.

This argument about how Norway does it. Norway is not Scotland. Scotland has neither the financial clout, independent infrastructure (physical and financial) nor the population intellect to carry it out.

Not to mention the oil reserves there are nowehere near the size of what Norway has.

If I was in Norway I would feel insulted to even compare scotland to Norway. Its like comparing the US to the UK.