THE BRITISH THREAD II

Yes, it's a given. As for the rest, we'll see.
Britain's nuclear submarine base will have to be moved, and that is a major problem, but not the biggest problem I fear.

Will Hutton wrote a good piece in The Observer today:

Absurdly, there will be two countries on the same small island that have so much in common. If Britain can't find a way of sticking together, it is the death of the liberal enlightenment before the atavistic forces of nationalism and ethnicity – a dark omen for the 21st century. Britain will cease as an idea. We will all be diminished.

Yet there is no doubting the energy and optimism of Scotland's yes campaigners. What is happening goes well beyond a grab for oil or arguments about whether independence will make Scots a thousand pounds better or worse off.

The big argument is that Scotland does not need to be permanently yoked to English Toryism's infatuation with a libertarianism that denies obligations to society and each other, has abandoned justice and equity in its public policy positions and is the author of the great "cashing out" of the past 30 years. All our utilities, five million council houses, many of our great companies and swaths of real estate in our cities have been cashed out in the name of market forces, of liberalisation, of being open for business and wealth generation. What has been created is predator capitalism, massive inequality and a society organised to benefit the top 1%. The country needs to build, innovate and reinvent social partnership. Independent Scotland can strike out in this direction.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/will-hutton-10-days-to-save-the-union-scottish-independence

bump

bump2

bump3

That may be shortsighted. Were the formerly publicly owned companies and utilities really net creators of wealth or merely a (perhaps hidden) drain on the public treasury? These are difficult tradeoffs most nations face, and my strong impression is that overall private sector commercial operations work more efficiently and deliver better service & goods than government ones. Even Venezuela and Argentina have their 1%. Will the remaining North Sea oil pay enough to buy it all back?

Is there a group within Scotland or elsewhere that has a claim on oil and other resources?

In Canada, one significant factor in the failure to get a yes vote in the referendum was the reality that the natural resources (hydro being the biggest money-maker) were on indigenous land, and the Innu in Quebec made it clear they'd be sticking with Canada - leaving Quebec with no $.

I, guardian reader from the u.s., hadn't read that yet, McTag. I see the quandary.

I don't have a vote, but if I did, I conjecture that I would be a no at this date, but demand change or else. I get it that many have said that already, thus the situation in the first place. Sort of a circle.

The Scots are the indigenous species, there's not some lost tribe of Picts roaming around somewhere. Mineral resources belong to the country, not individuals or organisations.

I probably have scots in me, being irish american. Far as we knew I was 15/16ths irish, both sides county mayo, and the other, welsh. I'm not a genealogy tracer; a friend got interested, a lot of work, and I learned some things. (If I put stuff together, I might find both of my grandfathers to be cads.)

I'm more interested in my mother's and father's voices which are many years now just in my mind, hers bostonian, his californian, both born in the first decade of the 1900's.

On the vote, I'm interested, naturally.

The article McTag quoted suggests a deeper political divide than I had imagined. I hope things work out, whatever the outcome. I also hope the separation doesn't occur.

Personally, I feel deeply aggrieved that the English haven't been allowed to have a referendum as to whether we should break away from the Scots.
Scotland has long been staunch socialist and currently supply around 40 Labour MP's to Parliament.
In the last Government they topped up Blair and Brown's numbers considerably, and it was mainly Scots in positions of real power during that time that greatly contributed to the bankrupting of Britain.
Tories have all but been wiped out as a political force in Scotland, primarily because of Thatcher and the breaking of the Unions.
What Thatcher did to Scotland (and the rest of Britain) was in my opinion nothing compared to what the imbecile Brown and the liar Blair did to us all.
One can argue that Thatcher at least had a reason to break the might of the Unions, as they had basically held this country to ransom for decades.
Brown and Blair were just plain sinister. The cabinet was stuffed with Scots and they were all given blank cheque books by the imbecile Brown..
Alongside this, liar Blair deliberately set about opening the door to uncontrolled immigration, guessing that most of these poor immigrants would vote labour. Nobody knows how many people came in during his long term in office. Blair was the archetypal seedy car salesman, telling the customer exactly what he wants to hear and schmoozing his way through office with various lies and sweeteners to those who would keep him and his cronies in power.
Personally, I never thought that the British public would get fooled again like this for a long time, and then along came Salmond.
In a relatively short space of time, he and his SNP have used divisiveness to stir up the braveheart element of the Scots, and turned things quite nasty up there. There is no factual, rational debate going on now. After his surprise trouncing by Alistair Darling in the first debate, Salmond and his spin machine cranked things up and came out with bullet headline responses to questions they couldn't answer (and still can't) first time around.
Anyone questioning the wisdom of separation is immediately put down as negative, and has been from day one, even though there are serious negative consequences for both sides should we split......but oh no, Salmond can't have anyone putting doubts in the minds of his punters, so he has created spin which immediately ridicules or castigates for being negative. The people who had an orgasm when first watching the ridiculous Braveheart lap it up, and almost call their fellow countrymen traitors for daring to not want the split.
Respected Scottish politicians who try to go and talk to the people get egged in the street. One had a thug grab him and threaten to knock him out. Debate is being stifled in what I wouod call a pretty sinister way, and time is ticking down. Less than a fortnight now, and Scotland could split from us FOR EVER. A Scot would no longer be British. Being British is something of which I am immensely proud, as are many, many Scottish people.
People can bang on about facts and figures as to who gets what and is it fair, and no one in the ordinary pleb part of society (those of us who are not privy to the stats.......about 99% of the population) can prove one way or t'other as to who, if anybody, is getting a raw deal. The Barnett formula gives Scots a much, much bigger per capita allowance than the people of England. This means that of the taxes raised in Britain, Scots get a much bigger per capita slice of the cake each than the rest of us.
On the other side of the coin, the oil fields are mainly up there in what would be Scottish waters, and the Scots consider it theirs. Alistair Darling was trying to point out that it was in fact the Oil Conglomerates who owned the oil, having invested billions to get it out of the seabed, and that it is only the tax that it raises that is due to the government, and I believe that it was about 17% that he quoted. Still a lot of money, but suddenly the $100 a barrel is now down to $17.
So, they get a bigger slice of tax cake, but the oil tax goes to the British government (which still includes Scotland at this moment).
Who is telling the true story in all of this ? Who knows, but Salmond telling his Bravehearts that this oil money will basically overnight give them the life of Riley is a lie and a very dangerous one at that.
Let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?

1. If Scotland want to be part of the EU, they will have to join as a new member. Barosso (EU bigwig) has already said they're not considering this, and it is reckoned that the reason is because of Catalonia, and others. If Scotland can do it, Catalonia will opt for independence from Spain. Therefore, even if the EU changes its stance and allows Scotland to apply, Spain will almost certainly veto it.
Scotland will therefore very likely end up being a small country on its own.

2. If it gets over the major hurdle explained in 1, and somehow manages to join the EU, it will HAVE to adopt the Euro as its currency. No ifs or buts, them are the rules. Any new member HAS to adopt the Euro.

Good luck with that, Scotland.

3. IF they join and adopt the Euro, they will also have to abide with the Schengen agreement, which basically allows people to move around freely across borders within those EU countries who are signed up to it.
Example......someone manages to get themselves inside an EU country, can technically stroll across all internal borders without any checks.
Britain never signed up to Schengen, for mainly security reasons. To have people moving freely without checks from one end to the other, it would be deemed as reasonable to expect that all those countries who have borders with non EU neighbours to have watertight border security.
As this is virtually impossible, Britain opposed Schengen and did not sign up to it.
At this very moment in time, thousands of non EU immigrants are csmping rough in Calais (just across the twenty mile strip of sea from Dover) desperately trying to get to Britain.
These people come from mainly African countries, and had therefore travelled the entire South to North length of the EU to get there, probably passing through two or three major countries en route.
Look at the news tonight and you will see that Calais is employing riot police to try and sort their problem.
Schengen contributed towards this whole situation.

If Scotland joined they would have to abide by the Schengen agreement, which would mean that England (because that's where they all want to go) would suddenly have a potential border problem in the north.
Border controls would HAVE to be put in place, if we suddenly had a Schengen land border adjoining us.

3. If Scotland went it alone and tagged along with Sterling, as Salmond has suggested, nobody could stop them doing it but all of a sudden Scotland would not have a State bank backing it up. The Bank of England and its support and guarantees would no longer cover Scotland, effectively a foreign country.
If this happens, the wise money is on Scotland's massive financial services sector immediately moving south to London.

4. Salmond states that the British government are bluffing when they say that they would not agree to Scotland carrying on with the pound, and if they don't, then Salmond will not take ANY debt with them when they split.
This is economic suicide, as the world would treat any new Scottish currency with contempt because they could not be trusted to pay debts in the future. A total lack of confidence in their currency would soon result in freefall.

In my opinion, Salmond is nothing more than a smart mouthed car salesman, who is knowingly selling his fellow countrymen a dud but doesn't care because he will be the man who would be regarded in their warped romantic history as the modern day William Wallace.
The price that we have all had to pay for this is seeing a large portion of Britain becoming quite nasty towards their fellow Brits.
Personally, and I think I speak for many, many English at this moment in time, I have just about had my fill of the gloating conman that is Salmond, and despise him for turning us all against one another.
If the Scots are that dumb as to fall for his glib drum beating then I wish them well and hope they make a good go of it.
If they go, then it will be totally of their choosing and have no one to blame but themselves if it all goes wrong.
Of course, they will probably spin a good yarn to place the blame on the English again if they can, but who cares, as they will be lying on a bed purely of their own making.

They should do well, as they are quite capable and above all, they are optimists.
After all, they regularly buy garden furniture. (this joke was nicked from a scottish programme on TV last night)

Interesting points above.. Britain and the Scots are not alone in being attracted by redistributionist arguments. That the various pied pipers of government largesse can, so soon after the collapse of the worlds largest and most aggressively pursued experiment, find political success in selling the same illusions, both in Europe and America, is something that I find a bit depressing.

The Schengen agreement has nothing to do with the Euro - Switzerland still has the Franken as have the other (EFTA) member states (and Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican).

Joining the EU as a new member - there are different opinions, and Baruso isn't to only one to decide here (actually, he will decide nothing at all).

Can I be part of the British thread? Let's talk about Queef Elizabarf the Wanketh.

I never mentioned EFTA.

And who on earth said that the Schengen agreement had anything to do with the Euro? I certainly didn't.

I pointed them out as two separate horrors, not one.
Is it not true that a new full member of the EU, as one condition of entry, has to adopt the Euro as their currency as soon as possible?

Is it not also the case that this new member also has to abide by Schengen?


As far as Barosso is concerned, he was saying that the EU were not considering any further new members at this time, and I pointed out that even if they were, then Spain, as sure as eggs are eggs, will veto Scotland's application.

So, if Scotland somehow get over both these hurdles, then they will have to adopt the Euro AND Schengen if they want to be a fully fledged new EU member, no?

And all for what? To all paint their faces blue and triumphantly shout a misguided FREEDOM for a short while?

Then what?

Sorry. I misunderstood what you wrote

No.
No.

It's easier for (new) EU-members to meet the conditions for the Euro and to sign the Schengen agreement as well, that's correct.

I only mentioned these countries because they and the three micro states are Schengen countries .... and some have the Euro as well.

And whatever someone said about the possibility of Scotland becoming a member - in any cse, I think, it will have to go to the court: such isn't in the statutes ...

".....And whatever someone said about the possibility of Scotland becoming a member - in any cse, I think, it will have to go to the court: such isn't in the statutes ..."

I don't quite understand the possible point you are making there, Walt.

My mentioning all of the pitfalls earlier was because slippery Salmond has been trying to gloss over these inconvenient facts from day one of his campaign.
He seems to be saying that if Scotland votes for independence, then everyone outside Scotland will be queuing up to grovel in his direction, granting him every wish he desired. Don't fret about the Bank of England, they're only bluffing.....and Europe will welcome us with open arms....and the oil revenues will not only last forever, but production will increase and there will eventually be a Rolls Royce on every driveway. The four to six thousand jobs lost because of the submarines going down to England will be replaced by a big shortbread factory that we will build nearby.....the Scottish financial sector will see sense, take on the immense monetary risks and go into direct competition with the sassenachs in London, because we know we will win.....we will eventually be able to abolish personal taxes altogether because we are so astute and canny, and start investing in new technology to bring Mediterranean weather to Glasgow by 2025.......etc, etc.

The worrying thing is that he is already preaching to the converted, and those who quite happily accept any old crap that he spouts as long as it's anti English and they can pretend they are causing us heartache.

The truth of the matter is that if the yes vote won and the weather was set fine, there would probably be numerous street parties up and down the various regions of England, and the whooping and a-cheering would probably be heard as far away as John O'Groats.

Let's see what a relatively new member has to say about the reality of all this, shall we?

"......Speaking on a visit to the Scottish Parliament, Ivan Grdesic, the Croatian ambassador to the UK, said nations wanting to join the EU are forced to “take pretty much what is offered”.

He told the Daily Telegraph new accession countries to the EU have to sign up to terms that are decided in Brussels without any meaningful “negotiating process”.

The EU authorities take a dim view of applicants asking for opt-outs from the various European treaties, he suggested, as this indicates they “don’t want to take the responsibility of membership”.
His intervention undermines Mr Salmond’s claim that a separate Scotland could join the EU in only 18 months while obtaining opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen free movement area....."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10418890/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-accept-the-EU-template.html