I don't see how anything racism-related is related to Scottish independence.
Who said it was? Bigotry was what was being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
On the other hand, it's clear Scotland has never been a priority for London. So even if the Scottish economy takes a hit, the Scots on average might end still end up better off due to more of it's economy actually benefiting the Scottish, and just generally money being used in ways that fits their needs and wants.
Elaborate on that.
What do you mean by "more of it's economy actually benefiting the Scottish"? Are you suggesting that money generated by the Scottish economy is going elsewhere? That they give more to the UK than they receive?
I can't believe how much defense of the Orange Order I just read. The same guys that plan their parade routes through Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast every damn year to try stir up a riot?
What do you mean by "more of it's economy actually benefiting the Scottish"? Are you suggesting that money generated by the Scottish economy is going elsewhere? That they give more to the UK than they receive?
Yes, this is my understanding. But what I've understood, North Sea oil is what creates this situation. Otherwise it's probably vice versa.
Here's a seemingly worthwhile article on the topic.
These couple of quotes pretty much sum up what I think is somewhat obvious:
Quote:
“It’s almost certain that Scotland would survive as one nation and have reasonable performance, but whether it would be well-placed to cope with significant shocks like the major financial crisis we saw is another thing.”
Quote:
“It isn’t necessarily the case that either Scotland or England would be better off by separation. Both could be worse off.”
Quote:
None of the economists FactCheck contacted thought there was a serious risk of an independent Scotland failing to survive.
This is all true, but there isn't much oil left in the territory Scotland controls. What happens then? They can survive, sure. But what exactly is their future going to look like?
You mention that is 100% no businesses would leave. It's not that simple. Many of the big headquarters there aren't in Scotland because that's where they do business, it's because that's where the headquarters are. What are the main things that companies look for in placing their headquarters?
1) Cost
2) Stability
3) Location
Not necessarily in that order. Stability is no longer there. Giant changes in government are a really good reason to leave
This is all true, but there isn't much oil left in the territory Scotland controls. What happens then? They can survive, sure. But what exactly is their future going to look like?
It's discussed in that article. As said, pretty much every economist agrees that they should be OK.
Quote:
You mention that is 100% no businesses would leave. It's not that simple. Many of the big headquarters there aren't in Scotland because that's where they do business, it's because that's where the headquarters are. What are the main things that companies look for in placing their headquarters?
1) Cost
2) Stability
3) Location
Not necessarily in that order. Stability is no longer there. Giant changes in government are a really good reason to leave
It's not like Scotland is voting on starting a civil war. Most things will be as they are now until they are changed, which will take time. It's going be at least a decade before things start to look significantly different. And since stability is in the interest of all business, I don't see the UK government creating that much trouble either. After all, both sides will have CEO's to answer to, and all the CEO's will want everything to go as smoothly and uneventfully as possible, because business.
Every company that trades in Scotland also trades in the rest of the UK, every company in Scotland will have to decide whether they want to pin themselves to a market of 5 million, with no currency in place, no central bank and no economic plan as not even the yes side thought it was worth bothering with. Or move their operation to the larger more established market that is in the EU.
Scotland will lose almost all it's financial sector, as they would lose access to the UK market if they arnt set up in London, much as Quebec lost its financial sector when it looked like they were leaving.
The worst thing about the yes campaign is it's attempt to sell independence as pain free, an independant Scotland will take an absolute beating economically for at least 5 years, they lose their membership in the EU as soon as they seperate and it will take years to reapply, and will likely be blocked by Spain.
Unfortunately there's an assumption that all they need is oil and it will pay for everything else.
It's discussed in that article. As said, pretty much every economist agrees that they should be OK.
It's not like Scotland is voting on starting a civil war. Most things will be as they are now until they are changed, which will take time. It's going be at least a decade before things start to look significantly different. And since stability is in the interest of all business, I don't see the UK government creating that much trouble either. After all, both sides will have CEO's to answer to, and all the CEO's will want everything to go as smoothly and uneventfully as possible, because business.
A decade? Your joking arnt you, within 2 years Scotland's out of the EU, has no currency or central bank, will have lost the right of free movement and will have tariffs imposed on their exports across the UK and Europe.
The cost of establishing its own currency will devastate public spending in the country.
Incidently CEO's could care less about Scotland, it's a tiny market that will have to sell its oil anyway.
It's discussed in that article. As said, pretty much every economist agrees that they should be OK.
They said they would survive, I'd hardly call that the same
Quote:
It's not like Scotland is voting on starting a civil war. Most things will be as they are now until they are changed, which will take time. It's going be at least a decade before things start to look significantly different. And since stability is in the interest of all business, I don't see the UK government creating that much trouble either. After all, both sides will have CEO's to answer to, and all the CEO's will want everything to go as smoothly and uneventfully as possible, because business.
Changing currency, loading all economic trade agreements leads to a lot of uncertainty. This brush you're painting with glosses over an awful lot of things. The US trade rating got decreased because of an inability to pass a budget, this is much bigger. Secondly, it's a small nation and much, much more prone to economic downturns.
An independent Scotland would likely fare Ok in the end, but you're awfully sure about a lot of things you can't possibly be that sure about
In terms of currency they could just continue to use the British Pound until there own currency is established. It would mean they wouldn't be able to set there own monetary policy but there is no reason they couldn't continue to use it.
Also if there is a yes vote I would assume England isn't going to be dicks about it and would still allow the scottish banks to borrow from the Bank of England at the prime rate until the Scottish bank is set up.
I think the transition of independance would take 5 to 10 years. Symbolically it would happen overnight and they would elect a government but England financial and foreign policy would control Scotland for the next decade slowly as powers are transferred over.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
In terms of currency they could just continue to use the British Pound until there own currency is established. It would mean they wouldn't be able to set there own monetary policy but there is no reason they couldn't continue to use it.
So the first act of the new country is to outsource their national monetary policy - that's a great start!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Also if there is a yes vote I would assume England isn't going to be dicks about it and would still allow the scottish banks to borrow from the Bank of England at the prime rate until the Scottish bank is set up.
I'm sure the rest of the UK will be lining up to do the new country favours. Yep.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
So the first act of the new country is to outsource their national monetary policy - that's a great start!
I'm sure the rest of the UK will be lining up to do the new country favours. Yep.
They aren't a new country day 1. This would be a slow negotiation of separation over things like nuclear missles, government assets, government debt, monetary policy, governemnt jobs and contracts ect. On Day 1 all that changes is the Scottish flag goes up the flag pole. Everything else will be a slow transition.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Gotcha, so racism in the UK is the exclusive work of the Orange Order? I have spent a LOT of time all over the UK, and I saw more racism than I would care to admit. They aren't overly welcoming of migrant workers from other nations, and the freedom of movement the EU creates, has made this issue very evident. Racism in general seems to be very prevalent in comparison to Canada.
Racism is apparent in all sections of society in the UK, the problem is bigger than the Orange Order. I would suspect you would find as many racist bigots amongst the IRA and their supporters as well. Racism is not dependent on religion.
A decade? Your joking arnt you, within 2 years Scotland's out of the EU, has no currency or central bank, will have lost the right of free movement and will have tariffs imposed on their exports across the UK and Europe.
"DOOM AND DISASTER." This is extremely unlikely.
A lot would happen in those two years. It's not like everybody is just going to sit on their hands and wait. The path of least resistance is mostly to keep things as they are, and I don't see humans suddenly changing here. New deals will be made.
Quote:
The cost of establishing its own currency will devastate public spending in the country.
Nah. Currencies come and go. It's not free, but it's not exactly the end of the world either.
Quote:
Incidently CEO's could care less about Scotland, it's a tiny market that will have to sell its oil anyway.
Same ballpark as Finland, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Czech, even without the oil. CEO's care about all of those countries.
I can tell by just looking around that international companies are interested in getting into our market, and I only need to read newspapers to know that they want to make sure we sign as many trade agreements as possible. I don't see why it would be different for Scotland.
Big companies have put a lot of effort into making sure trade within western Europe is as easy as possible. The companies that are against the "yes" vote are against change. They're not going to go from not wanting change to not caring about change.
Which means that if the vote is "yes", they will then shift gears from backing the "no" vote to making sure the "yes" vote has as little economical impact as possible, which means they'll want lots of new trade agreements done and quickly.
Which ultimately is in everybody's interest.
As for the oil, most European countries don't have oil, and are perfectly fine without it. Scotland will live without it just like we do.
