An Independent Scotland?

Olli Rehn is the former European Commissioner for Enlargement and former European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro. He said:

"As to the question whether 'sterlingisation' were compatible with EU membership, the answer is that this would simply not be possible, since that would obviously imply a situation where the candidate country concerned would not have a monetary authority of its own and thus no necessary instruments of the EMU. "

read the rest here

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/alex-salmonds-currency-chaos-hits-eu-prospects
 
Last edited:
But dod, sterlingisation isn't going to happen! We'll have a currency union and that's without even getting into (once again) the whole in/out/apply thing.
 
Steep said:
There's a 2 hour long Youtube video of Scots veterans and ex forces talking about why they are pro indy, not least of the arguments is the one that they are/were sick of being sent to fight illegal wars while being lied to by their political masters.

We keep coming to that thing about Scotland needing to defend itself, and I ask you (again), from whom? In ten years we'll have a decent sized SDF capable of fulfilling the roles Scotland dictates and contributing to NATO properly, for that ten years while we build up out forces, exactly who is going to try and invade us? 21st century conflicts are not about mass wars (unless you have a load of oil the yanks want...erm...oops!) The real risk to security now comes from terrorism and most of us feel the best way to cut that risk is not to kill shedloads of people who just want to live their lives.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well given the great importance place on Scottish Oil fields. The fact that it is going to generate billions of pounds wealth for
Scotland (according to Salmond). Some may consider it prudent to protect this valuable assist from whoever may want to attack it, destroy or take over it! Even today some Glasgow women has just gone off Syria to marry an ISIS warlord !
 
Steep said:
That's a good point Cobra, how the MoD would react to loads of Scots wanting to leave is an unknown although going back to my point about budget reductions and possible redundancies I can see a work around.
Click to expand...

You should go and read ARRSE sometime, posters there mostly have no intention of leaving the British Army for the SDF, even the one's who are considering voting Yes for the referendum.
 
Dave1 said:
You should go and read ARRSE sometime, posters there mostly have no intention of leaving the British Army for the SDF, even the one's who are considering voting Yes for the referendum.
Click to expand...

I post on there and RR from time-to-time having had a foot in both camps Dave. Very good forum.
 
Steep said:
But dod, sterlingisation isn't going to happen! We'll have a currency union and that's without even getting into (once again) the whole in/out/apply thing.
Click to expand...
You can't get a currency union without agreement. For that you'll have to convince the rest of the UK that it is good for us. At the moment in time I can't see any benefit at all. On the contrary we have control over our own currency and then we are supposed to hand that over to a shared situation? I'd rather join the euro than do that. It would be the same liken my daughter wanting a shared bank account with me and making key decisions yet I would be poorer by doing that.

Fair enough that Scottish independence would want that. I can't blame them, I would want my fried mars bar and eat it as well. However, you would need to make a bloody good case for the other party to agree to that.
 
The real risk to security now comes from terrorism and most of us feel the best way to cut that risk is not to kill shedloads of people who just want to live their lives.
Click to expand...

There's your first problem, thats not what this brand of terrorism is all about, IS/ISIL or whatever they call themselves today are not interested in whether the Scots, or anyone else has killed any of them, they are only interested in world wide imposition of their own brand of Islam.
So, Scotland isn't protecting it's self by your policy, it's leaving itself open to it.

NATO? Like it or not, and attack on any NATO member is an attack on them all, hence Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways, live under the umbrella and do nothing. If you don't have the force levels and the spend on defence that meet NATO's standards, you ain't going to be a member.

As for transfer of force, there's a problem there too. You need the troops to go over. If they stay, in effect that Regimental name stays. From what I understand not many want to go, nor will you have enough of those that were made redundant. Will you have enough seamen to man your 2 frigates? Enough pilots for your aircraft? Even if you do, the SNP didn't do their research into deep maintenance. Oh didn't anyone tell them, thats not done by the RAF anymore, its BAE, how much will they be charging you?

In any case, a Brigade is 3 infantry battalions, one artillery regiment (Lowland or Highland gunners? You decide which), one Engineer and a logistics regiment. So, you only have one, maybe 2 regiments you can rename at best. If the Scots Regiments go over, your knackered as there are at least 10 Scots Regiments no longer in existence, and 5 Scots Regiments currently in existence, plus 2 Scots Artillery Regiments, probably a Scots Engineer regiment, and that leaves the SNP with having to explain why they have mislead everyone, again.

Anyway, for amusement value, answer me this. You make claims on Scotland's policies, is that based on what your mate Alex made up on the spur of the moment? What you decided, or are you going to leave it to the Elected Government after Independence to decide?

Time to put those fingers in your ears again and sing lalalalala
 
Bernie174 said:
If you don't have the force levels and the spend on defence that meet NATO's standards, you ain't going to be a member.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Iceland, the country has no standing army and only a coastguard, no navy and yet is still a member of NATO.
 
Bernie174 said:
In any case, a Brigade is 3 infantry battalions, one artillery regiment (Lowland or Highland gunners? You decide which), one Engineer and a logistics regiment. So, you only have one, maybe 2 regiments you can rename at best. If the Scots Regiments go over, your knackered as there are at least 10 Scots Regiments no longer in existence, and 5 Scots Regiments currently in existence, plus 2 Scots Artillery Regiments, probably a Scots Engineer regiment, and that leaves the SNP with having to explain why they have mislead everyone, again.
Click to expand...


You're assuming that the SDF would be modelled on standard UK forces, there's absolutely no reason why it could not be better designed to fit the roles Scotland wants it for.
 
Hmmm...what Scotland wants - and iScotland policies.

Nations don't have policies - political parties do. Nations don't want things - the electorate chooses from the stated policies of the political parties, which may or may not be implemented.
 
dejongj said:
You can't get a currency union without agreement. For that you'll have to convince the rest of the UK that it is good for us. At the moment in time I can't see any benefit at all. On the contrary we have control over our own currency and then we are supposed to hand that over to a shared situation? I'd rather join the euro than do that. It would be the same liken my daughter wanting a shared bank account with me and making key decisions yet I would be poorer by doing that.
Click to expand...

Yep, at this point in time i'd be very unlikely to vote for any UK party that had agreed to a currency union with another country. I suspect there are many other people in England & Wales with similar views.
 
Bernie174 said:
There's your first problem, thats not what this brand of terrorism is all about, IS/ISIL or whatever they call themselves today are not interested in whether the Scots, or anyone else has killed any of them, they are only interested in world wide imposition of their own brand of Islam.
So, Scotland isn't protecting it's self by your policy, it's leaving itself open to it.

NATO? Like it or not, and attack on any NATO member is an attack on them all, hence Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways, live under the umbrella and do nothing. If you don't have the force levels and the spend on defence that meet NATO's standards, you ain't going to be a member.

As for transfer of force, there's a problem there too. You need the troops to go over. If they stay, in effect that Regimental name stays. From what I understand not many want to go, nor will you have enough of those that were made redundant. Will you have enough seamen to man your 2 frigates? Enough pilots for your aircraft? Even if you do, the SNP didn't do their research into deep maintenance. Oh didn't anyone tell them, thats not done by the RAF anymore, its BAE, how much will they be charging you?

In any case, a Brigade is 3 infantry battalions, one artillery regiment (Lowland or Highland gunners? You decide which), one Engineer and a logistics regiment. So, you only have one, maybe 2 regiments you can rename at best. If the Scots Regiments go over, your knackered as there are at least 10 Scots Regiments no longer in existence, and 5 Scots Regiments currently in existence, plus 2 Scots Artillery Regiments, probably a Scots Engineer regiment, and that leaves the SNP with having to explain why they have mislead everyone, again.

Anyway, for amusement value, answer me this. You make claims on Scotland's policies, is that based on what your mate Alex made up on the spur of the moment? What you decided, or are you going to leave it to the Elected Government after Independence to decide?

Time to put those fingers in your ears again and sing lalalalala
Click to expand...

"The Lowland Gunners "- 40 Fd Regt RA have sadly been disbanded.
 
H2O said:
Yep, at this point in time i'd be very unlikely to vote for any UK party that had agreed to a currency union with another country. I suspect there are many other people in England & Wales with similar views.
Click to expand...

Every other country that 'left' the British Empire has been pressured by UK to stay in a currency union, some African states did in fact keep a CU with UK successfully for years until the mid 70s, Ireland was in a one for one currency union with the UK until 1979. It's a good idea, as I've said repeatedly if only for a time. The thing about such unions is that they don't tend to last anyway but while they work they are a good thing.

'If' rUK government allow a referendum on the subject and 'if' the people of rUk vote against it that I say more power to them! it will be the first sign of the majority of the British population getting off it's collective rear and doing something about their political future. Maybe eventually it will lead to them dumping their corrupt government and starting again just as we are doing now.
 
Steep said:
Maybe eventually it will lead to them dumping their corrupt government and starting again just as we are doing now.
Click to expand...
Who knows, if you get your independence, it may start something of a (Peaceful) revolution,
but we as a nation of "Brits"
Don't have the balls I fear.

Who was it that said
"the only person to ever enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes"
I believe they were correct ;)
 
arclight said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29043878

In the words of Stan Laurel "Here's another mess I've gotten you into". Two weeks from a vote and no one can say for sure what the currency arrangements will be in the event of a Yes. You could not trust these people to sit the right way round in the toilet.
Click to expand...

It's not possible to know for sure. It can only be fully negotiated once the result is known. And just incase you missed it, there is also a plan "B".
 
Well there were a few SNP MPs Cobra ;)
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's not possible to know for sure. It can only be fully negotiated once the result is known. And just incase you missed it, there is also a plan "B".
Click to expand...

Three of them in fact but none will be needed.
 
Steep said:
But dod, sterlingisation isn't going to happen! We'll have a currency union and that's without even getting into (once again) the whole in/out/apply thing.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the central bank - what kind of independence is it when you have another country's sovereign, and another country controls your money....
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's not possible to know for sure. It can only be fully negotiated once the result is known. And just incase you missed it, there is also a plan "B".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there isn't, it's all hot air and can't be analysed, or even substantiated because it's never been published.

The first time Salmond had even heard of plan B was when he was asked by Darling if he had one in the first debate. Ipso facto.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Unfortunately there isn't, it's all hot air and can't be analysed, or even substantiated because it's never been published.

The first time Salmond had even heard of plan B was when he was asked by Darling if he had one in the first debate. Ipso facto.
Click to expand...
Rule one in negotiation - when I have a "Plan B", I will NEVER reveal even the existence of it to the person I'm negotiating with. It's Plan A, Plan A, Plan A, all the way. Until I NEED to make the step to Plan B. That will happen after the referendum, if need be. Think about it - if Salmond talks now about Plan B and Plan C, the papers will be all over him that he doesn't believe in Plan B.

Same for Darling - if the rUK can't get what they want and hold onto union, it's the chance of a lifetime to retain control of another country by managing their interest rates and money supply. Not a chance they will give that up - but it's a great threat to have, so that drum will keep being banged, scare the natives to vote No.
 
Moadib said:
Rule one in negotiation - when I have a "Plan B", I will NEVER reveal even the existence of it to the person I'm negotiating with. It's Plan A, Plan A, Plan A, all the way. Until I NEED to make the step to Plan B. That will happen after the referendum, if need be. Think about it - if Salmond talks now about Plan B and Plan C, the papers will be all over him that he doesn't believe in Plan B.

Same for Darling - if the rUK can't get what they want and hold onto union, it's the chance of a lifetime to retain control of another country by managing their interest rates and money supply. Not a chance they will give that up - but it's a great threat to have, so that drum will keep being banged, scare the natives to vote No.
Click to expand...

That's the problem it's not transparent.

It also works the other way, tell the 'yes' camp we have a plan B and C and they will be cock-a-hoop. It might a plan of disastrous consequences. If the best plan is unworkable do you think the second choice will be any better.

I recall Salmond saying early on in the Campaign "there can only be one solution"
 
Steep said:
Every other country that 'left' the British Empire has been pressured by UK to stay in a currency union, some African states did in fact keep a CU with UK successfully for years until the mid 70s, Ireland was in a one for one currency union with the UK until 1979.
Click to expand...

So? I wouldn't have supported those CU's either if i'd been alive at the time :p


Did any of those countries get a say In BoE policy? Or was it just a case of putting up with whatever was best for the UK?
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Maybe eventually it will lead to them dumping their corrupt government and starting again just as we are doing now.
Click to expand...
Sorry Steep, all we're doing in the event of a Yes vote is relocating the corruption.
 
dod said:
Sorry Steep, all we're doing in the event of a Yes vote is relocating the corruption.
Click to expand...

Surely that's up to us isn't it?
 
Steep said:
Every other country that 'left' the British Empire has been pressured by UK to stay in a currency union, some African states did in fact keep a CU with UK successfully for years until the mid 70s, Ireland was in a one for one currency union with the UK until 1979. It's a good idea, as I've said repeatedly if only for a time. The thing about such unions is that they don't tend to last anyway but while they work they are a good thing.
.
Click to expand...

indeed - look at the state of some of those African state's economies now - as I said earlier the only economies to prosper after leaving the empire were those with massive resources - india, America, south Africa etc.

that said as an Englishman I'm not in favour of maintaining a currency union with an independent Scotland - if they want to go, then go , but independence doesn't mean relying on someone else to prop up your currency.
 
H2O said:
So? I wouldn't have supported those CU's either if i'd been alive at the time :p


Did any of those countries get a say In BoE policy? Or was it just a case of putting up with whatever was best for the UK?
Click to expand...
It is a semi-formal arrangement, with no formal common policy. I've learned something as I wouldn't have an issue with an informal Union. However tote normal person, that isn't a union and has no impact on independence. It is basically fancy words forcontinuing to use sterling without any say in it. Which is fine and would not require buyin at al. However the yes camp should've clear that they would not have monetary controlin such a situation. To me that is not independence for a country. Especially not these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2O
Steep said:
Nato members 'would welcome' Scotland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29045528

Nato would welcome an independent Scotland even if the country removed Trident, the former UK ambassador to the military alliance has said.

There so now you've been told!
Click to expand...

of course they would - the top of Scotland is pivotal to the G, I, UK Sosus line , and nato strategy for winning any future battle of the atlantic - although that said if Scotland declared neutrality and something big kicked off the real estate concerned would be getting invaded by Nato anyway - to stop the other side from taking it - like the allies did to Iceland in big mistake number 2
 
big soft moose said:
indeed - look at the state of some of those African state's economies now - as I said earlier the only economies to prosper after leaving the empire were those with massive resources - india, America, south Africa etc.

that said as an Englishman I'm not in favour of maintaining a currency union with an independent Scotland - if they want to go, then go , but independence doesn't mean relying on someone else to prop up your currency.
Click to expand...

The currency unions with the African states failed because Sterling became too unstable, nothing to do with them.
 
simon ess said:
The former UK ambassador to the military alliance, as quoted by the formerly biased BBC, simply offers her opinion as a yes voter.

Dear me.....
Click to expand...

Qualified opinion.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You've just quoted someone's opinion if you read it all the way through. Again nothing substantial or absolute here.
Click to expand...


I repeat, a qualified opinion, if an ambassador to NATO isn't in a position to know, no one is.
 
Steep said:
The currency unions with the African states failed because Sterling became too unstable, nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

if you say so - because sterling's definitely more unstable than for example the Kenyan shilling (or whatever it is) :runaway: , and Sudan doesn't even have a functioning currency (well it does but its US dollars or cigarettes) , and I've seen what an utter s*** tip Malawi is first hand (although it was in considerably better shape than Mozambique was at the time). The uk economy may not be in great nick but we don't have to depend on foreign charities to provide schools, medical care , and running water.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top