England

[Orraloon]

Oh the banter.

If you have any sense of humour left at all you have to admit that that was actually quite good.

[Orraloon]

People from the rest of the UK have mostly been ignored during this campaign. Whilst Foggy, Compo and Clegg rush to offer Scotland all these last minute deals, little concern is being given to how it would affect the RUK or what we might think about it. You hear the occasional voice from Wales protesting that they should get the same deal, but it's not given any prominence. Gordon Brown keeps talking about how the UK is going to change even if there is a No vote, but has he asked people in the RUK if we want anything to change? Maybe we do, maybe we don't, but what right does he have to tell us what is going to happen?

The problem here is that the Better Together folks were complacent. They thought that they could do nothing and Scotland would vote No. That's why, although they mentioned possible changes, they didn't actually bother to take any serious steps to introduce or even debate them. If the UK needed the changes that are now being hastily promised, why weren't they discussed (and introduced, if suitable) earlier on? Gordon Brown had the best part of 15 years in power to change the UK, and Cameron and Clegg have had four years. Why wasn't anything done?

You are absolutely correct. And this is one of the reasons that a lot of folk up here don't believe their "new powers" pledge. But at least you have Boris fighting your corner.

[Orraloon]

Totally agree, the Yes campaign isn't actually going to win this vote it's BT who will have lost it.

I'm not too fussy how we win it as long as we win it.

[Nobby]

Exactly. This is basically a bribe, and a potentially undeliverable one at that.

Back in February, when they were still absolutely certain they would win, the UK government tried to land a knock-out blow by refusing the CU. In doing so, however, they misjudged the Scottish pscyche - we tend not to like being dictated to. So now that the stick has failed, out comes the carrot.

Even if they were true to their word and tried to get the powers through parliament, there is no guarantee that English backbenchers will vote them through. Why would they? What benefit are their constituents going to get from them?

Fair play to Boris Johnson and Louise Mensch (I never thought I'd type those words) because at least they are being honest in question the logic of offering more powers to people who have just indicated that they are happy with things the way they are.

I know i shouldnt but i cant help myself, Westminster dictated nothing to Scotland. The SNP have dictated to rUK that we will get a currency union because its in our best interest and because of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Well errr no thanks very much. unless it goes to a vote and its what the people of rUK want . Post a yes vote there will be significant changes for both sides and no one has explained them very well.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Nobby

[jock strap]

I am constantly involved in 'banter' with people here in Manchester.

Some praise for having the bottle to try for independence to the "weight off our backs, ungrateful, build a bigger wall " etc etc.

Some locals are genuinely hoping for a YES as they want the NoE to separate from the SoE and hope to follow us

[scotlad]

I know i shouldnt but i cant help myself, Westminster dictated nothing to Scotland. The SNP have dictated to rUK that we will get a currency union because its in our best interest and because of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Well errr no thanks very much. unless it goes to a vote and its what the people of rUK want . Post a yes vote there will be significant changes for both sides and no one has explained them very well.

Well next time, try harder.

The SNP haven't dictated anything yet. They are not in a position to. They have said that a formal CU with rUK is their preferred option and that they will carry this forward, if and when mandated to do so. They may be successful in that aim or they may not.

Osborne, speaking on behalf of the UK government, ruled a CU out. Alexander and Balls both backed him up. Assuming they are telling the truth, this amounts to pre-negotiation - something Cameron had earlier said he wasn't prepared to engage in. If they are bluffing, then it is clearly an attempt to strong-arm Scots voters into voting against independence. In short, they are either bullies or liars, or a combination of the two.

By the way, my original post was an attempt to see things from an English perspective Nobby. I am sorry if that one remark annoyed you.

[redstevie007]

...as they want the NoE to separate from the SoE and hope to follow us

Some may find this far fetched, or at least have a good giggle at it, but it's not completely ridiculous. We're truly watching the final breaths of an empire which has stood for hundreds of years, but which has been slowly crumbling for decades. We've done that, the Scottish people. We've shaken the establishment to its core by refusing to be cowed, to believe the lies and rhetoric coming from Westminster and beyond; we're still here, we're shouting from the rooftops and the world will hear us. When Scotland votes yes, expect Wales and NI to follow in the near future in demanding their independence, and from there why wouldn't Yorkshire, the North East, Cumbria etc all want to follow suit, or at least to have devolved powers. It's all on the field now, and we're leading the charge.

Edited September 16, 2014 by redstevie007

[Nobby]

Well next time, try harder.

The SNP haven't dictated anything yet. They are not in a position to. They have said that a formal CU with rUK is their preferred option and that they will carry this forward, if and when mandated to do so. They may be successful in that aim or they may not.

Osborne, speaking on behalf of the UK government, ruled a CU out. Alexander and Balls both backed him up. Assuming they are telling the truth, this amounts to pre-negotiation - something Cameron had earlier said he wasn't prepared to engage in. If they are bluffing, then it is clearly an attempt to strong-arm Scots voters into voting against independence. In short, they are either bullies or liars, or a combination of the two.

By the way, my original post was an attempt to see things from an English perspective Nobby. I am sorry if that one remark annoyed you.

Not a problem. down here i see it as rUK saying no to a currency union which they are perfectly entilted to do, independent countries should have their own currency (unless a union is agreed) SNP then said if you dont agree to a currency union we wont take any of the debt. Who exactly is threatening who there ? When you get divorced you get seperate bank accounts you could easily start up the "Bank of Alba" and issue the Scottish pound or you could ask to go straight into the Euro which was the SNP's preferred option a few years ago when they wanted to join the Ark of prosperity. Westminster bullied no one they have said no to something that the SNP have borderline (no pun intended) demanded. As i said I think a yes vote will be economically bad for both countries until the dust settles. The negotiation post yes will be interesting as will the relations between the two countries. Its been pointed out before that most divorces try to be amicable but end up having a ding dong at some point.

[Orraloon]

It really is quite simple NO CURRENCY UNION = NO DEBT, If the negotiators on Team Scotland decide that is what they want. That might be hard for you to understand and even harder for you to accept but that's just the way it is.

[ShedTA]

Not a problem. down here i see it as rUK saying no to a currency union which they are perfectly entilted to do, independent countries should have their own currency (unless a union is agreed) SNP then said if you dont agree to a currency union we wont take any of the debt. Who exactly is threatening who there ? When you get divorced you get seperate bank accounts you could easily start up the "Bank of Alba" and issue the Scottish pound or you could ask to go straight into the Euro which was the SNP's preferred option a few years ago when they wanted to join the Ark of prosperity. Westminster bullied no one they have said no to something that the SNP have borderline (no pun intended) demanded. As i said I think a yes vote will be economically bad for both countries until the dust settles. The negotiation post yes will be interesting as will the relations between the two countries. Its been pointed out before that most divorces try to be amicable but end up having a ding dong at some point.

Nobby the debt thing is not a threat, its a direct consequence of rUK not allowing us access to the pound and the asset that is the bank of england. You seem to conveniently forget that while we own a share of the debt up here, we also own a share of the pound and the bank of england. give us a share of that and we take a share of the debt. you cant have it both ways.

[Redz]

on both sides scare stories have been put about. I know you wont accept this.

Possibly, although the volume of rubbish spouted along with the 'impartial' support NO receive compared to YES is off the fukin scale!

Anyway, you're supposed to be in the huff wi me, therefore badger aff!

[jock strap]

Possibly, although the volume of rubbish spouted along with the 'impartial' support NO receive compared to YES is off the fukin scale!

Anyway, you're supposed to be in the huff wi me, therefore badger aff!

[Nobby]

Nobby the debt thing is not a threat, its a direct consequence of rUK not allowing us access to the pound and the asset that is the bank of england. You seem to conveniently forget that while we own a share of the debt up here, we also own a share of the pound and the bank of england. give us a share of that and we take a share of the debt. you cant have it both ways.

You want it all ways, you want out yet still want to be tied financially to rUK why ? As Mickey F would say if you are going Out , Out you should go. And its not a question of having it both ways the BOE should divide up assets and liabilities according to population size as should HMT for any money in the bank at that point and we should split. What you do from then on is down to the Scottish govt have a central bank dont have a central bank, join the Euro dont join the Euro its up to you, one of the joys of being independent.

[Nobby]

It really is quite simple NO CURRENCY UNION = NO DEBT, If the negotiators on Team Scotland decide that is what they want. That might be hard for you to understand and even harder for you to accept but that's just the way it is.

Fair do's like i said if you do that in all likliehood you will upset your new neighbours and it probably wont go down to well with markets who the Scottish govt will have to borrow from. I think that would ultimately be very bad for Scotland, you dont, we shall agree to disagree. It will be interesting to see who was right !!

[runningtings]

You want it all ways, you want out yet still want to be tied financially to rUK why ? As Mickey F would say if you are going Out , Out you should go. And its not a question of having it both ways the BOE should divide up assets and liabilities according to population size as should HMT for any money in the bank at that point and we should split. What you do from then on is down to the Scottish govt have a central bank dont have a central bank, join the Euro dont join the Euro its up to you, one of the joys of being independent.

I agree, we should really be going for our own currency in the longer term, however, initially it makes more sense for all concerned to stay in a currency union.

[smiler82]

People from the rest of the UK have mostly been ignored during this campaign. Whilst Foggy, Compo and Clegg rush to offer Scotland all these last minute deals, little concern is being given to how it would affect the RUK or what we might think about it. You hear the occasional voice from Wales protesting that they should get the same deal, but it's not given any prominence. Gordon Brown keeps talking about how the UK is going to change even if there is a No vote, but has he asked people in the RUK if we want anything to change? Maybe we do, maybe we don't, but what right does he have to tell us what is going to happen?

The problem here is that the Better Together folks were complacent. They thought that they could do nothing and Scotland would vote No. That's why, although they mentioned possible changes, they didn't actually bother to take any serious steps to introduce or even debate them. If the UK needed the changes that are now being hastily promised, why weren't they discussed (and introduced, if suitable) earlier on? Gordon Brown had the best part of 15 years in power to change the UK, and Cameron and Clegg have had four years. Why wasn't anything done?

Good post!

I feel from my experience down here that these last minute 'new powers' are being portrayed as 'more hand-outs to the Scots' by the media and as such being projected on Scotland, whereas it is the sheer incompetence of Westminster which is to blame and they are failing the vast majority of the rUK as well as Scotland. The media have failed to take the main political parties to task on policy failure after policy failure.

[RenfrewBlue]

You want it all ways, you want out yet still want to be tied financially to rUK why ? As Mickey F would say if you are going Out , Out you should go. And its not a question of having it both ways the BOE should divide up assets and liabilities according to population size as should HMT for any money in the bank at that point and we should split. What you do from then on is down to the Scottish govt have a central bank dont have a central bank, join the Euro dont join the Euro its up to you, one of the joys of being independent.

You don't appear to understand a currency union.

France and Germany (amongst others) are in a currency union (the Euro) but are completely independent countries. They have agreed to give up an element of sovereignty for the CU as they feel this makes financial sense.

So a CU is perfectly acceptable alongside independence.

If this is denied as an option then it will damage both Scotland and rUK.

[Nobby]

You don't appear to understand a currency union.

France and Germany (amongst others) are in a currency union (the Euro) but are completely independent countries. They have agreed to give up an element of sovereignty for the CU as they feel this makes financial sense.

So a CU is perfectly acceptable alongside independence.

If this is denied as an option then it will damage both Scotland and rUK.

I understand it perfectly and dont want one thankyou with Scotland, Germany or France. If Germany and France are so keen on it why not ask them if you can join their currency union just like Greece, Cyprus ROI etc did

I think we will both be damaged short tem anyway so think rUK would be best off retaining the shiny new English pound and not sharing it with anyone (in an offical capacity of course)

[smiler82]

I understand it perfectly and dont want one thankyou with Scotland, Germany or France. If Germany and France are so keen on it why not ask them if you can join their currency union just like Greece, Cyprus ROI etc did

I think we will both be damaged short tem anyway so think rUK would be best off retaining the shiny new English pound and not sharing it with anyone (in an offical capacity of course)

I suppose due to the media circus the point being missed by the outright rejection of a currency union by the leaders of the main parties of Westminster is that it would be to the detriment to people of rUK - the people these political parties are supposed to represent. The weakened £ will take a hammering against the USD and EUR

[Orraloon]

Fair do's like i said if you do that in all likliehood you will upset your new neighbours and it probably wont go down to well with markets who the Scottish govt will have to borrow from. I think that would ultimately be very bad for Scotland, you dont, we shall agree to disagree. It will be interesting to see who was right !!

I am almost certain that here will be a currency union. It wouldn't be my choice but I think it is going to happen.

[thorbotnic]

You don't appear to understand a currency union.

France and Germany (amongst others) are in a currency union (the Euro) but are completely independent countries. They have agreed to give up an element of sovereignty for the CU as they feel this makes financial sense.

So a CU is perfectly acceptable alongside independence.

If this is denied as an option then it will damage both Scotland and rUK.

Why should we be strongarmed into losing a part of our sovereignty? Many posters on here are keen to highlight that sovereignty is, in itself, a worthwhile goal - a goal worth enduring short-term economic damage for, certainly - and yet it's supposed to be in England's interest to give up a key portion of ours, in return for some short-term economic or financial gain? What?

Edited September 16, 2014 by thorbotnic

[scotlad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098825/David-Cameron-faces-Tory-bloodbath-over-unfair-cash-for-Scotland.html

[Nobby]

I suppose due to the media circus the point being missed by the outright rejection of a currency union by the leaders of the main parties of Westminster is that it would be to the detriment to people of rUK - the people these political parties are supposed to represent. The weakened £ will take a hammering against the USD and EUR

And will make our exports all the cheaper, every cloud and all that !!

[smiler82]

If only previous Westminster governments had invested in core manufacturing and UK industry then then it would be a pretty big cloud... Oh well !

[Wine bibber]

I understand it perfectly and dont want one thankyou with Scotland, Germany or France. If Germany and France are so keen on it why not ask them if you can join their currency union just like Greece, Cyprus ROI etc did

I think we will both be damaged short tem anyway so think rUK would be best off retaining the shiny new English pound and not sharing it with anyone (in an offical capacity of course)

Quire happy for a currency union with England for the next few years and their are obvious benefits to both parties.We are entangled in a currency union together whether we like it or not.The best way forward is a gentle disentangling over a number of years taking into account the electoral changes in both countries in the near future.

If England votes to leave the European union ( I say England because the population of Wales and NI will make no difference RUK or not),the American banks have stated that they will move to Dublin.Now this could be a bit of scaremongering but it's nice to see a bigger fish giving Westminster a taste of its own medicine.The fact that he American banks bailed out the Uk economy in the banking crisis is extremely important here .Whether they still hold the debt i don't know but the RUK debt is rising at £4,000 pound a second.It is not stabilizing.To begin to pay the debt of you have to sell the finished goods,make huge profits from raw materials or patents and have a very high tax based economy,including drastic cutbacks to public services.But the most important thing is you have to convince your borrowers to keep funding you to service the debt .London has been gambling with air for too long an and has got away with it because of the stability that Scottish resources provides and the funds it manages in financial services(which dont actually exist).If the American banks do leave ,because the E.U. is a bigger market.RUK is Donald Ducked .So Scotland will be watching what happens with England very closely and if England leaves the E.U. Scotland has to be in a position to remove itself from currency union sooner rather than later.

Whether the English voter will accept currency union is another matter.It appears to be dead against immigration and Islamic extremism but the voter has had zero power to change this .So why would they able to prevent currency union.A referendum ?