But are those rights in place now between Scotland and the rest of the UK AFTER they 'separate'?
If not, in the immediate, anyone in that situation...living just across the border and working on the other side of it...might have a problem come Monday morning.
You're effectively an illegal worker from a foreign non EU country. Like here, someone crossing the border from Mexico to work in South Texas is an illegal worker.
The plan is to agree this shared space, during the ~18 month negotiation period between a Yes vote and the declaration of independence.
Again, given the entanglement of the "rest of the UK" workers in Scotland and Scottish workers in the "rest of the UK", it would be against the interests of both sides to fail to agree this measure.
The plan is to agree this shared space, during the ~18 month negotiation period between a Yes vote and the declaration of independence.
Again, given the entanglement of the "rest of the UK" workers in Scotland and Scottish workers in the "rest of the UK", it would be against the interests of both sides to fail to agree this measure.
The rest of the UK could refuse, but why?
That's like getting a speccy on Christmas morning, but being told you cant play till after lunch. ;-)
That's like getting a speccy on Christmas morning, but being told you cant play till after lunch. ;-)
So what you're saying is that some time next year Scotland will finish its turkey, become independent, and discover that it's been shipped a defective unit and have to take it back to Dixons? ;-)
The point is that in any democracy, any particular area within that political region must be governed by consent, which must include the ability to leave that political grouping if the people of that area feel that the central authority is not representing them properly. If that is not possible, then it is not a true democracy.
I agree. Democracy is government by consent. If a portion of the population doesn't consent, let them go.
But 50%+1 is not consent. That's a result that can change hour to hour, day to day. The vote for independence is not just a vote to go independent, it is a vote to dissolve a larger union and such a move is not reversible. A vote for independence cannot be something that wavers -- it has to be decisive. If Scotland votes for independence today and negotiations begin for secession, the next vote on the secession agreement needs to show a clear majority. I would hope that would be something figured out by the UK before such a vote occurs.
Governing by consent also works to much smaller constituencies. That is, if Scotland can vote to secede, so can portions of Scotland. I don't get the feeling, watching from afar, that there would be any such movement. In Quebec, it is a different story, where 2/3 of the land mass is owned by natives who overwhelmingly would separate from an independent Quebec. Likewise a vote around Montreal would see Montreal remain a part of Canada.
However, people in ever smaller constituencies would not vote to be independent as sooner or later, the area is too small or too expensive to be viable. It's preferable to give them more control over daily issues and that's why we have municipal governments.
Incidentally, we have one group of observers here predicting a YES win. They say the YES side has been picking up the undecided voters.
I don't know where you live, but here the campaign has been about so much more than oil and money. Oil is a good percentage of the economy but by no means all of it.
It's emotional. You can see it here. I privately think WTF when I see people talking about a movie and William Wallace as their inspiration for independence :)
When all the YES side has is emotion, the NO side should have been doing the same. The vote is not just about independence, it is about breaking a union. I highly successful one, with lots of shared history and accomplishment. Scotland was a full participant in the UK's success; how can that be forgotten for a Hollywood production?
The SNP negotiating plan is to accept a share of that national debt in exchange for a formal currency union. A literal quid pro quo!
If not, they can refuse to accept a share of that debt. Would it damage Scotland's credit rating? Yes.
If I were governing the UK, I would introduce tariffs to pay for Scotland's share of the UK debt. That would damage an independent Scotland's economy more than the cost of uncertainty it would be paying for years to come. But that road is about revenge and it shouldn't be that. A separation should be amicable, with all parties dividing all responsibilities fairly.
There is nothing the UK can do to stop Scotland from using the pound, nor do I think they should try to stop that from happening. But no way should an independent country have a say in monetary policy. That's what it means to have your own currency -- you get to choose monetary policy for the benefit of your population. If Scotland wants a say, it should get its own currency.
So what you're saying is that some time next year Scotland will finish its turkey, become independent, and discover that it's been shipped a defective unit and have to take it back to Dixons? ;-)
I'm not really sure what that analogy means :)
No, they are getting something they should have received a long time ago. ;-)
it is a vote to dissolve a larger union and such a move is not reversible.
I wish people would stop stating that as an absolute. It's highly unlikely that the two countries would ever form a union again. However it really is only a stroke of a pen. Scotland isn't being dismantled and shipped to Mars.
If in 50 years both nations are completely bankrupt and the best option for everyone is to throw our respective lots in together again then it'll all have been a terrible mistake...
Chopping off Charles' bonce was supposed to be permanent at the time too. (well obviously that part was... ;-))
If in 50 years both nations are completely bankrupt and the best option for everyone is to throw our respective lots in together again then it'll all have been a terrible mistake...
You'll be about the only WoSser left around to see it...
I wish people would stop stating that as an absolute. It's highly unlikely that the two countries would ever form a union again. However it really is only a stroke of a pen. Scotland isn't being dismantled and shipped to Mars.
It's not just a stroke of a pen. When you dissolve, it's separation of institutions and formation of new ones. It's an expensive process. When you unite, you dissolve some institutions and merge others. This involves laying off people, hiring people, rationalizing services, and so on. Going back and forth between union and separation is not practical and neither is it desirable because people and businesses will have no certainty about the future. That's why such a decision is not something you can undo with another vote next week.
I won't disagree that future union can happen but you wouldn't want it to happen for a long time.
But 50%+1 is not consent. That's a result that can change hour to hour, day to day. The vote for independence is not just a vote to go independent, it is a vote to dissolve a larger union and such a move is not reversible. A vote for independence cannot be something that wavers -- it has to be decisive. If Scotland votes for independence today and negotiations begin for secession, the next vote on the secession agreement needs to show a clear majority. I would hope that would be something figured out by the UK before such a vote occurs.
I hope that the compromises offered will be good enough to placate the concerns of most people. An attempted currency union, an attempt to keep the borders as open as before, keeping the Queen as head of state, etc. It shouldn't be a sudden shock, but you can't reassure (or please) everyone.
If I were governing the UK, I would introduce tariffs to pay for Scotland's share of the UK debt. That would damage an independent Scotland's economy more than the cost of uncertainty it would be paying for years to come. But that road is about revenge and it shouldn't be that. A separation should be amicable, with all parties dividing all responsibilities fairly.
There is nothing the UK can do to stop Scotland from using the pound, nor do I think they should try to stop that from happening. But no way should an independent country have a say in monetary policy. That's what it means to have your own currency -- you get to choose monetary policy for the benefit of your population. If Scotland wants a say, it should get its own currency.
It does take both sides to make an amicable split. :(
There could be a period of time, in the worst case Kramer vs Kramer scenario, where Scotland is outside the protection of the EU/WTO, etc. where punitive actions could occur. I genuinely hope that doesn't happen and, again, it's not in the interests of any part of the UK.
----
And with that, the polls have closed. I have absolutely no idea how it is going to go.
Around here most houses are not displaying any outward signs. Those who do outwardly show posters and stickers have a big Yes majority. It's all down to the turnout and those undecideds...
In terms of campaign leaflets, doorsteppers and billboards there have been a lot more for the Yes side.
It just annoys me. One lot of people were saying "if you vote no now they'll never give us another chance" and the other lot were saying "if you vote yes and it all goes wrong they'll never let us back"
Neither campaign have access to time travel as far as I'm aware :)
It just annoys me. One lot of people were saying "if you vote no now they'll never give us another chance" and the other lot were saying "if you vote yes and it all goes wrong they'll never let us back"
Neither campaign have access to time travel as far as I'm aware :)
It's beginning to look like it may go the way of the "No"-sters at the moment, which is the result I was personally hoping for, but either way it's clearly going to go down in history as the day the Scots changed British politics forever.
I actually think a NO result will have bigger, more positive, and more far-reaching changes than a YES result ever would.
Comments
The plan is to agree this shared space, during the ~18 month negotiation period between a Yes vote and the declaration of independence.
Again, given the entanglement of the "rest of the UK" workers in Scotland and Scottish workers in the "rest of the UK", it would be against the interests of both sides to fail to agree this measure.
The rest of the UK could refuse, but why?
How do you get Westminster and Holyrood to get together and work out a plan without getting a Yes vote first? :p
Ever heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face? :)
That's like getting a speccy on Christmas morning, but being told you cant play till after lunch. ;-)
So what you're saying is that some time next year Scotland will finish its turkey, become independent, and discover that it's been shipped a defective unit and have to take it back to Dixons? ;-)
I'm not really sure what that analogy means :)
I agree. Democracy is government by consent. If a portion of the population doesn't consent, let them go.
But 50%+1 is not consent. That's a result that can change hour to hour, day to day. The vote for independence is not just a vote to go independent, it is a vote to dissolve a larger union and such a move is not reversible. A vote for independence cannot be something that wavers -- it has to be decisive. If Scotland votes for independence today and negotiations begin for secession, the next vote on the secession agreement needs to show a clear majority. I would hope that would be something figured out by the UK before such a vote occurs.
Governing by consent also works to much smaller constituencies. That is, if Scotland can vote to secede, so can portions of Scotland. I don't get the feeling, watching from afar, that there would be any such movement. In Quebec, it is a different story, where 2/3 of the land mass is owned by natives who overwhelmingly would separate from an independent Quebec. Likewise a vote around Montreal would see Montreal remain a part of Canada.
However, people in ever smaller constituencies would not vote to be independent as sooner or later, the area is too small or too expensive to be viable. It's preferable to give them more control over daily issues and that's why we have municipal governments.
Incidentally, we have one group of observers here predicting a YES win. They say the YES side has been picking up the undecided voters.
It's emotional. You can see it here. I privately think WTF when I see people talking about a movie and William Wallace as their inspiration for independence :)
When all the YES side has is emotion, the NO side should have been doing the same. The vote is not just about independence, it is about breaking a union. I highly successful one, with lots of shared history and accomplishment. Scotland was a full participant in the UK's success; how can that be forgotten for a Hollywood production?
If I were governing the UK, I would introduce tariffs to pay for Scotland's share of the UK debt. That would damage an independent Scotland's economy more than the cost of uncertainty it would be paying for years to come. But that road is about revenge and it shouldn't be that. A separation should be amicable, with all parties dividing all responsibilities fairly.
There is nothing the UK can do to stop Scotland from using the pound, nor do I think they should try to stop that from happening. But no way should an independent country have a say in monetary policy. That's what it means to have your own currency -- you get to choose monetary policy for the benefit of your population. If Scotland wants a say, it should get its own currency.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
No, they are getting something they should have received a long time ago. ;-)
That happened to you didn't it :p
No, I had to wait till Dixon's opened. Think i mentioned it somewhere before. ;-)
I wish people would stop stating that as an absolute. It's highly unlikely that the two countries would ever form a union again. However it really is only a stroke of a pen. Scotland isn't being dismantled and shipped to Mars.
If in 50 years both nations are completely bankrupt and the best option for everyone is to throw our respective lots in together again then it'll all have been a terrible mistake...
Chopping off Charles' bonce was supposed to be permanent at the time too. (well obviously that part was... ;-))
haha nice one :)
It's not just a stroke of a pen. When you dissolve, it's separation of institutions and formation of new ones. It's an expensive process. When you unite, you dissolve some institutions and merge others. This involves laying off people, hiring people, rationalizing services, and so on. Going back and forth between union and separation is not practical and neither is it desirable because people and businesses will have no certainty about the future. That's why such a decision is not something you can undo with another vote next week.
I won't disagree that future union can happen but you wouldn't want it to happen for a long time.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
I hope that the compromises offered will be good enough to placate the concerns of most people. An attempted currency union, an attempt to keep the borders as open as before, keeping the Queen as head of state, etc. It shouldn't be a sudden shock, but you can't reassure (or please) everyone.
It does take both sides to make an amicable split. :(
There could be a period of time, in the worst case Kramer vs Kramer scenario, where Scotland is outside the protection of the EU/WTO, etc. where punitive actions could occur. I genuinely hope that doesn't happen and, again, it's not in the interests of any part of the UK.
----
And with that, the polls have closed. I have absolutely no idea how it is going to go.
Around here most houses are not displaying any outward signs. Those who do outwardly show posters and stickers have a big Yes majority. It's all down to the turnout and those undecideds...
In terms of campaign leaflets, doorsteppers and billboards there have been a lot more for the Yes side.
Neither campaign have access to time travel as far as I'm aware :)
Scottish people often lose days...
That's pretty weak, even by your standards. :p
:-D
billy connolly?
:lol:
I actually think a NO result will have bigger, more positive, and more far-reaching changes than a YES result ever would.
Isn't it a bit early to call it, after a single return from the fourth smallest council? :p
Edit: ok, two results now, the first and fourth smallest :)
The big change now is that we have promised Scotland loads of things that we rightly have to give to Wales and Northern Ireland.
if it goes 'no', i think they will claim it was a great success. :-D
hahahahaha
why, what're we going to do otherwise? threaten to leave? :p