Scotland referendum

[caminito]

This could put your bills up ,Papa
Scotland would not necessarily inherit the UK's triple A status rating if it went independent, credit rating agencies have warned.
Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch have all hinted that a devolved Scotland should not expect to just be handed the top rating.

One agency told the Financial Times the rate could be a few notches below triple A.

[/color]

[GADZY]

Here's a  question, will England keep its AAA rating IF Scotland leaves?

[xetog]

A good question, but the answer is probably yes if we still have it at that time, because it is based on the Westminster Parliaments determination to apply strict fiscal policies and the concentration of most of the financial muscle in the south.  However, it begs the question; would the markets be happy to see a big chunk of the UK debt transferred to an unknown quantity with the possibility of creating another Ireland, or Iceland? And there will be a fight over which debt is to be transferred. Not that I think of Scotland as anything but fiscally sound, but if I had potentially £billions tied up in the Scottish economy, I am not so sure.  Of course, with bankers bonuses under a squeeze in the remainder of the UK, Scotland might become a haven for bankers, then they will be in trouble!
M.

[Papaumau]

This could put your bills up ,Papa
Scotland would not necessarily inherit the UK's triple A status rating if it went independent, credit rating agencies have warned.
Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch have all hinted that a devolved Scotland should not expect to just be handed the top rating.

One agency told the Financial Times the rate could be a few notches below triple A.

[/color]

Yes Caminito, It might very well "put our bills up" as you say. That is the price I would expect we might have to pay for getting in on the ground floor of such an entity.

The somewhat ethereal bunch called "Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch" who seem to have the strange power of deciding if countries have a triple "A" rating or not, do not worry us up here in Scotland as once we have independence they, and the rest, will find that we are quite able to handle our finances much better than some others do. What will actually happen after we get independence and we DO apply for entry to the European Union is still very open to speculation.

[avalonmpk2]

The Scots should ask themselves this:
1. How much will their NI contributions increase by or do they expect their Doctors and Nurses to take 50% pay cut.
2. Who is going to pay for the pensions for all the Scottish ex-servicemen and women!
3. What age will future generations draw their retirement pension 81?
4. What will be the effect of migration on Scotland.

[Papaumau]

Yes Avalon, these and many other questions will have to be asked and answered if Scotland wins any independence vote in any referendum.

One thing WILL be sure, and that is that once we no longer have to send all of our taxes down to London we may actually spend what is raised here much better than the London treasury spends it at the moment. ( That would not be a very hard thing to do I think ).

If this comes about, I don't think that any sensible Scots are going to think that it is going to be easy but if we are ready, ( and I think we are ), to take on the challenge, I am sure that in the future that the independence that such a successful vote will bring to Scotland will be just as good if not better than any other independent country that are of comparative size. Norway and Sweden and many other countries of our size can do it so I see no reason why we could not do it too.

[avalonmpk2]

I wonder just if people realize just how much it will cost for everybody not just the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English, every section of the civil service duplicated. Could Scotland on its own afford to send all the diplomats around the world. The list is endless. It at least will be a free vote and the choice is for the people of Scotland. I do not want to see the breakup, but if it should mean that we never ever get another socialist government in England, I might just be persuaded to support the Scots independence

[caminito]

That's the problem with the "Union haters" , they haven't thought out the consequences of a split 
Or should I call them little scotlanders 

[Papaumau]

I honestly think that the rabble-rousers that are causing trouble here might find that they would support this kind of devolution if it was to come about.

As I see it the emotive words like "separation" are just inserted in order to cause mischief and if the truly deep-thinkers did think about it they would find that there is no reason for full separation at all. After all, we are and will always be British as well as English Irish, Scots and Europeans even if we will have gained a bit more individual sovereignty in any independence that might come about.

The devil here is in the detail and while I think that these details CAN be worked out I do not think that we should cling to any entity that is made up of four nations that are stuck with a centralist government that is just too far from the needs of all of the people of these British Isles.

[GADZY]

Unanswered questions:  Too many unanswered questions remain about independence.
A recent report, well I say 'report', from Westminster listed a slew of questions which they claim remain unanswered, and demanded that the Scottish Government respond to them.  Amongst the questions were things like what a future Scottish defence policy would be, and which international bodies Scotland would be a member of.  The correct answer to these Westminster questions is "Nane o your damn business."  These are matters for the Scottish people to decide post-independence, and we won't have to answer to Westminster for them.
Other questions are non-questions, like what share of oil and gas deposits would go to Scotland and what would happen about pension arrangements.  These matters are decided by international law and international treaties, which the UK has already signed up to.  The answers to these questions are easily available and have been published already.  Over 90% of the oil and gas deposits would go to Scotland, and pensions would be safe.  So either a) Westminster cannae be airsed to find out.  Or b) Westminster is stirring it for the sake of creating uncertainty.  My money's on b.
All these questions were answered in detail in a White Paper published by the Scottish Government in 2009.
 

[xetog]

There speaks an ardent nationalist.  Let us say that the English had the advantage of their own parliament and decided that they wanted to split from the rest of the UK and take with them all that they see as being geographically theirs, would the Scots see that as fair?  All the UK should have a vote on whether the Scots should be allowed to split the union as the Scots clearly think that they are going to walk off with all the advantages. The issues of oil and pensions are far from clear as there are a number of ways to work out which waters can be claimed by each party and since pensions are paid out of current income, I doubt whether what remains of the UK will be interested in propping up the pension system of what will by then be a foreign nation.  I consider it would be to the advantage of the Scots to see a national referendum on the subject, because they might be surprised to see how many English votes would be for the split as it would almost guarantee an English parliament.  Alex Salmond is a canny politician, admired both sides of the border, but he has his own agenda and is prepared to use all his wiles to convince the Scots that it would be a win,win situation.  A small warning, we English are world renown to be sneaky B*******, so count your fingers when you have shaken on the deal!
M.

[GADZY]

Xextog
Quote. A small warning, we English are world renown to be sneaky B*******, so count your fingers when you have shaken on the deal!
M.
The World is well aware of the sneaky English reputation of Westminster Parliament

[Papaumau]

Well said GADZY ! but lets not get nasty about our differences folks.

As I said somewhere else...."Vive la différence" and while it is great to stand up for our differences it is also great to stand up for our similarities.

It is the "Englishness" of the people from well over the border from Scotland which seems to breed this animosity and I say, "let them also get some decent devolution too if they cannot get independence", as the people in the North of England have long felt that London, and what happens there, is too far away from the needs of these regions.

If some form of independence was offered that would give the Northerners a better say in what goes on in Westminster I am sure that a lot of this inter-racial animosity would melt away.

Yes, as I have already said...."There are lot of details that have to be worked out before Scotland can get a form of independence that the rest of the country could live with", but I think that if we use the time properly that we have before the referendum that is planned for the Autumn of 2014, I can see many if not all of these questions being answered in a way that is acceptable to the people that are both sides of this border.

Whatever happens, I feel that the subject of independence - in Scotland - from the rest of the UK is one for the people of Scotland and for no-one else.

[granny bee]

I think it would be a good idea to give Scotland Northern Ireland to deal with, this would save England a lot of money which could be used to prop up Wales!!

[xetog]

The union of Scotland and England in 1707 was the last of many attempts by the two nations to form a single political entity.  The English wanted a single monarch for the nation and to prevent the Scots making an alliance with France. The Scots wanted English money to pay for the fallout of the disastrous Darien scheme which had effectively bankrupted the Scottish nobility (who represented the state).  This was a political union agreed between two sovereign states and entered into freely by both, although one might say that Scotland got the money and the English accepted a Scottish King!  But at least Scotland did not join with the enemy. However, it was a mutual agreement (although not made by the will of the Scottish or English populace). Looking at the above, one might say that there are many similarities with today's situation. Unfortunately,  the Scots want to repudiate an agreement made between two parties which in law applying to both nations, can only be terminated by mutual agreement and it is only reasonable to say that dissolution of a mutual agreement should be based upon the consent of both parties, so why continue to say that only the Scots may have a vote on the matter?
M.