
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638
Any thoughts? I really don't care. And they're lowering the voting age to 16. Again.I really don't care, do you? Have you ever voted? Do you think your vote actually counts, or think it's all a load of wank?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:04, 160 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

so nobody in power is going to be campaigning to keep the union together.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:11, Reply)

it's win win really
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:12, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:11, Reply)

I'll take it on board for a blue-sky session, with the next adhocracy all hands meet.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:14, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:17, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:21, Reply)

i managed to break 2 profiles the other week,a ll because cr3 and rob are too busy noncing racist teenagers on sickipedia
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

It's traditional.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:14, Reply)

He's traded the one thing he needed to win (option of a two-question referendum) for something that legally isn't going to happen (16 and 17 year olds voting)
I mean, I really don't want independence, so I should probably be happy, but it's fucking depressing just how shit he is at this "running a country" thing.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

If your options are do nothing or full independence and what you really want is more autonomy, but not total independence, then I think a lot of people will be tempted to vote in favour of the break up.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:16, Reply)

I think what'll happen is those that want more autonomy but stop short of independence just won't vote.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:18, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:20, Reply)

Awful turnout. Depends if the referendum specifies a certain turnout to be valid. But, as you say, since a yes vote is in both Cameron and Salmond's interest, why would they risk a failure by actually making it fair?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:29, Reply)

he hasn't even got 50% support in polls for it. Which means in reality he'll have about 30% support at most.
Salmonds preference is for the pound, but of course the rest of the UK will block that unless Westminster retains control of certain areas of the economy. The Euro is far from stable, and there is no guarantee that Scotland would be allowed to join. So, probably some sort of currency linked 1:1 with the pound would be the only solution.
Again, it's a fucking stupid idea.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:33, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:52, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:02, Reply)

They can't block him 1:1 linking a new currency to the pound.
His preference is to retain the pound, but he won't be able to.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:07, Reply)

Bang, he's using sterling. He could, for that matter, do the same with any other currency he chooses, though it would be frankly daft to do so.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:09, Reply)

Your treasury and banking system can't though, I'm fairly sure. HM Government has a say in that.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

Turned out there wasn't anything they could do. Using the currency of a foreign country has its advantages and disadvantages, but unless Westminster wanted to kick off some kind of economic war over the issue it wouldn't have any say. Also, having a foreign country use your currency can't hurt you, and keeps trade with them fairly simple, so it's hard to see why they'd have a problem with it on economic grounds.
EDIT: Yes, I understand that there's a difference between a pegged currency and outright use of sterling, but I can't think of any legal mechanism which could be used by HMG to prevent it.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:18, Reply)

being pegged to sterling isn't the same thing as using sterling, though. That was my whole point at the start of this.
The reason they have a problem with it on economic grounds is that you have no control over interest rates or economic policy. Let's say Scotland continues to use the pound but sets a higher base rate to the Bank of England. Financial transactions between the countries become fucked, because I can move £1,000 from an English to a Scottish bank and make more money, effectively making the currencies worth different amounts even though they are the same.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:25, Reply)

That can cause problems, but at the same time you get the benefit in terms of international trade because your currency is percieved to be stable, which is a serious difficulty for new countries.
The only reason the Irish Free State didn't use sterling outright was because of petty nationalistic concerns, not having the King's Head on the banknotes and so forth.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:30, Reply)

Probably not well articulated. You can't do what we're talking about and hope to be able to completely set your own economic policy. There's a belief within the treasury that even Salmond setting taxation levels too differently from the rest of the UK scuppers his ability to use the pound, although that's not a certainty.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:34, Reply)

Except the bit about the belief within the treasury. Well, that belief maybe there, but it's bullshit. The Free State, and later the Republic, had completely different tax rates to the UK, without it hindering our ability to use the pound. Though we did from time to time suffer from our inability to fully control our monetary policy.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:42, Reply)

The concerns are to do with how the markets and world financial bodies, credit ratings, etc, will respond to, on the one hand, the UK spouting on about fiscal prudence, and on the other, Scotland effectively pissing the same currency up a wall. It's a point of strong concern in some areas of the treasury, it's got the capacity to be an absolute clusterfuck, and is partly why my missus wouldn't work on scottish fiscal policy despite that being what they wanted when she was brought up here from the Treasury.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 16:00, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 16:02, Reply)

I think it's more about how the markets are stablised and destabilised, now, though. Very different from back then.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 16:18, Reply)

it's theoretically possible for Scotand to use the pound as it likes without approval from the UK treasury, but the currency wouldn't be backed by the Bank of England, so it would be utterly worthless and banks and financial bodies would be all but unable to base their trade in Scotland. So you're right in a sense, but it would be madness.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:19, Reply)

New central banks have been created before, and no doubt will be again.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:21, Reply)

and hope for it to be able to back up an economy. I mean, I'm sure you actually could do what you are suggesting, but what for? Scotland would lose its entire finance sector in a second becuase the currecy would be worthless.
And the Scottish Central Bank would still be unable to use the Bank of England as a last resort, so how is that backing a currency up at all?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:28, Reply)

The SCB would be able to act as a lender of last resort in the same way that all other Central Banks do, by issuing government bonds.
Again, and I stress, I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that HMG can't stop it.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:33, Reply)

I'm not at all sure that a country's credit rating can be based on someone else's currency, can it?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:35, Reply)

The credit rating is based on the perception in the markets that the country, via its CB, will be able to repay its debts. In the short to medium term Scotland would be seen as a fairly safe bet. Though after that, fuck knows.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:40, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:17, Reply)

must be possible
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:18, Reply)

The Scottish highlands is the only thing counteracting the weight of ironic hipster cunts in Hoxton. Cut off Scotland and the rest tips up and sinks London-first.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:20, Reply)

if it becomes independent from its bank account. maybe i missed that one.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:25, Reply)

but i doubt England will let them have all of that
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:28, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:31, Reply)

and you look like you've spunked your knickers
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

will you just jump in the pot please?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:30, Reply)

we'll just sell water to England. Seeing as how it a few years you won't have any.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:31, Reply)

half the country will be underneath it if the weather stays like this
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:32, Reply)

You'll still be in drought next year, and the year after, and after that, until people understand that the population density of the south-east of England is unsustainable.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:37, Reply)

you only have to get on a tube/walk down the street/look out of your window to see that.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:38, Reply)

Edit - to clarify, I don't particularly mean you personally.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

that would have helped, but the bastards dodged me
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:44, Reply)

it doesn't involve London, shoes, bags or people shitting on you.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:33, Reply)

that is not how ill-formed internet opinions work.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:35, Reply)

does that help?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:37, Reply)

umm, that's quite strange tbh.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

for a straight man. what did quentin do to you?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

is rather a myth. Financially, it'll be fine, better off in fact, except that a smaller economy is far more at risk. Oh, and it's a stupid idea.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:30, Reply)

but i was reading it upside down over someone's shoulder on the tube, so i could have misread it.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:32, Reply)

And it's massaged figures. But pretty much 70-80% of everyone in the UK takes out more than they put in. It's kind of inevitable. Unless your country turns a profit. It's a meaningless statistic.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:35, Reply)

which would you prefer?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:37, Reply)

and even then, I bet you would be fucking shocked about how close you are to not being one.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:38, Reply)

she gets caught in them when she goes swimming
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:41, Reply)

less beds for hospitals, moar pink paint for the houses of parliament
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

stop pretending you're not a fat lesbian.
none of us believe this act.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

it's borrowing. we instantly have no credit rating therefore won't be able to borrow any money.
this isn't talked about because the vast majority of our population think that means we can't borrow money from the local credit union to buy a large flat screen tv and some trainers.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:36, Reply)

New countries have come into existence before and had access to the financial markets. It may be slightly more expensive than you'd think fair at first, but it's not completely blocked.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:01, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:26, Reply)

I don't have a problem being british and frankly this "we bankroll scotland" rubbish can go fuck itself an all.
when the rest of the world is dying of thirst you'll be thankful you kept hold of our miserable, yet very damp, country.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:31, Reply)

as my mum is a jocko I'll just wait a few years, see which is better and move there, claiming dual nationality if needed.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:37, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:48, Reply)

they press a button on the table and circa 1942 maps of europe appear.
VE HAVE NOT BEEN DEFEATED YET MEIN FUHRER
HEIL MERKEL!
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:55, Reply)

or maybe they're finding out that you can't have monetary union without political union, and also they're no longer prepared to pay higher taxes so certain southern EU nations can laze around in the sun?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:54, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:04, Reply)

because people generally are fucking pricks, tangles.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:44, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

And he couldn't run a fucking bath, never mind a country.
If the population has a complete spaz-attack and actually votes for his nonsense, it'll end up blowing up in his face. Suddenly he won't be able to blame anyone but himself for the mess he finds himself in.
Why do you think it's taken so long to organise the referendum? He's leaving it till 2014 so that he can wrap himself up in the 'anniversary of Bannockburn' bollocks in a last desperate attempt to win the vote.
If he does win, there'll never be another ship built on the Clyde or the Forth. They'll never win another 'English' Navy contract. Faslane will close when he stamps his 'no nuclear' button. There's 20,000 jobs down the lavvie straight off.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:55, Reply)

all those job is shipbuilding eh? cor, I like going in my time machine back to the 30's when the clyde used to build ships.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:57, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

why the fuck would they close their yards because scotland became independent?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 14:59, Reply)

Also, no more Scottish voters in marginal constituencies = no need to build and mothball an expensive aircraft carrier white elephant.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:02, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:04, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

Defence companies are politically controlled. That's why the BAe/EADS merger just fell through, the Germans wanted more control over it and us and the French didn't want that.
BAE only exists as it is cos the Govt allowed it to buy all the old Royal Ordnance etc anyway.
If the political reason to build in Scotland (votes) goes, so will the work. If it was cost reasons they'd be built in Korea or Italy.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:11, Reply)

If Scotland goes independent it's a cert they'll insist on all ships being built in English yards, regardless of what BAE owns.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

or eurofighter.
or our interest in swedish saab interceptors
or our new kit suppliers
or the american built apache fleet
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

it's where they live in their teepees
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:06, Reply)

And the Apaches are not 'American built'. They are built by Westland in Britain under licence.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:09, Reply)

you do know we haven't "built" a full warship here for quite some time.
perhaps you mean assemble.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

But work that can be done in England won't be sent to an independent Scotland.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:12, Reply)

sorry, what's your role in whitehall again?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

and get a share of all the other Navy contracts - like the Type 45 destroyers and the new generation of frigates.
Nowhere near as many jobs as back in the 30s admittedly, but it's still thousands of jobs out the window.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

but why would you need to carry aircraft? they can fly, you idiot
lol
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:02, Reply)

will lose contacts, that it has already won, due to scottish independence. and BAE would revert to an English company, still being the largest arms firm in England.
Umm, why would the English government punish them and risk jobs in portsmouth and plymouth?
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:02, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

BAE can own shipyards wherever the fuck it likes, but if the 'English' MOD is writing the cheques, they can insist on which yards the ships are built in - e.g. Portsmouth, Plymouth, Barrow etc.
The contracts already signed will be honoured, but the MOD have already hinted that they won't be putting any future business in the direction of Scottish yards following independence.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:07, Reply)

the work is done in scottish yards for a reason chumpo.
and, it's cheaper. that might swing things. it's hardly like building them in fucking iran.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:08, Reply)

The English government won't send work north of the border if it means English yards suffer.
You're really not thinking this through at all.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:11, Reply)

( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:12, Reply)

across as many yards as possible to keep them going so in the event of war we could outbuild the Germans. Cost didn't come into it. Defence is dictated by politics, not cost.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:18, Reply)

www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-navy-frigate-contracts-will-be-held-after-uk-split-vote-1-2479063
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 15:19, Reply)

Although I'm not old enough to vote, so I dont reallly care.
( , Mon 15 Oct 2012, 16:59, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »