The Scottish Independence referendum

They generate 9.4% of the tax take with 8.4% of the population, for starters.

well, when pressed on if rUK would reject a currency union.

Salmond said it will never be rejected by the rUK

 

the English electorate would be happy with a currency union, apparently

A currency union simply isn't going to happen. Salmond claims that Westminster treat the Scots as idiots but he is doing the same thing if he expects the Scots to believe that.

A currency union simply isn't going to happen. Salmond claims that Westminster treat the Scots as idiots but he is doing the same thing if he expects the Scots to believe that.

3 polls out tonight

all 3 put No at 52 and YES at 48 (one of those poll had yes 8 clear the other day)

YOUGOV poll out in 24 hours.

Interesting to see that tonight's 'Scotland Decides' debate on the BBC is between Alex Salmond and Gordon Brown - not Alistair Darling you will note. As I asked for Gordon Brown to (de facto) take over the 'Better Together' leadership I wholeheartedly approve of course, but this is a sure sign of just how important it is that Labour voters are won round to the cause of the union in these last few days of the campaign.

 

Indeed it may not be too strong to say that the future of the union may depend upon this.

Thought Dimbleby made Brown look very foolish. He spouted a huge amount of crap. If I was a wavering voter, he wouldn't have persuaded me to vote No.

Where as you, my fine Scousehampton friend, come across like a condescending arse.

 

As if anyone in their right mind would want Gordon Brown back in any form of public office...

 

I subscribe to the opinion that the UK has changed forever as a result of this event, irrespective of whether Thursday yields a "YES" or a "NO". For one thing, if there is a "NO", once the details of the kowtowing bribe come out, the English will despise the Scots more than they do now. A lot more.

That's good coming from you alps . You don't even live in the UK

How do I know that's not a conspiracy to make me think there's a conspiracy?

Very droll. The point is that this is in our recent operational locker. If we're going to the trouble of infiltrating relatively small-time climate action groups, I can't see why we wouldn't indulge in a few black arts when it came to Scotland issue.

Even if we're completely innocent of any skulduggery, No supporters have also been reported for intimidation and violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/02/scottish-independence-attacked_n_5750732.html

It's not a Yes campaign only thing. Batman's just worried about the potential loss of his Camden batcave. There isn't enough crime in Plym, once the MPs have done their thing.

Very droll. The point is that this is in our recent operational locker. If we're going to the trouble of infiltrating relatively small-time climate action groups, I can't see why we wouldn't indulge in a few black arts when it came to Scotland issue.

 

Even if we're completely innocent of any skulduggery, No supporters have also been reported for intimidation and violence.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/02/scottish-independence-attacked_n_5750732.html

 

It's not a Yes campaign only thing. Batman's just worried about the potential loss of his Camden batcave. There isn't enough crime in Plym, once the MPs have done their thing.

where have you got that from?

Yes campaigners have been destroy no posters up here . Meanwhile the yes campaigners have been to the police saying their shop window has been criminally vandalised . I walked past the shop lunch time .expecting to see it boarded up . It's been a hideous act of violence . Someone had used lipstick and written the word no with a kiss at the end of it . Sinister and worrying times in Orkney

Yet more lies and bullying from the English Tories in London:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098624/SNP-Government-planning-half-a-billion-pounds-of-NHS-cutbacks-leaked-dossier-reveals.html

Yet more lies and bullying from the English Tories in London:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098624/SNP-Government-planning-half-a-billion-pounds-of-NHS-cutbacks-leaked-dossier-reveals.html

Yet more posters thinking the SNP are going to set up a Politburo and permanent dictatorship

Separate the referendum from the party. The Scots will still be able to vote post-independence, and if a sniff of this SNP cuts plan is true, then Scots will be able to vote them out.

I sense pap is hoping for a YES vote.

his fingers are primed ready to go to town on the Tory party

I suspect he has got a few potential posts saved on a word document, ready to be cut and pasted if he gets his YES

Yet more lies and bullying from the English Tories in London:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098624/SNP-Government-planning-half-a-billion-pounds-of-NHS-cutbacks-leaked-dossier-reveals.html

Your wrong here re more lies etc Torres

This will happen whether it's a yes or no vote . There is a 400 million pound deficit .

Our NHS chairman has been quite open about It. the NHS are having to reshape itself over the next two years is something He has been predicting since last summer. That will happen regardless of a Yes or No vote!

I sense pap is hoping for a YES vote.

 

his fingers are primed ready to go to town on the Tory party

I suspect he has got a few potential posts saved on a word document, ready to be cut and pasted if he gets his YES

 

I'm ambivalent, but as you pointed out earlier, it provokes a lot of political discussion. Cuts right to the heart of it really. Who is the authority? Has the authority that's served you done a good enough job, or could you make a better stab of it on your own?

It'll be a huge gamble for the Scots, just as it was for Cameron. I wonder if he's done regardless. Even if the Scots vote no, no-one will now regard him as saviour of the Union. They'll see him as someone who put it at risk. Could have folded on devo max, but went all in.

Depressingly, I think Boris is going to be up next.

Yet more posters thinking the SNP are going to set up a Politburo and permanent dictatorship

 

Separate the referendum from the party. The Scots will still be able to vote post-independence, and if a sniff of this SNP cuts plan is true, then Scots will be able to vote them out.

This is true papster, but whilst I don't usually turn to George Galloway for calming advice, he did point out that the party that drives independence in these situations usually (he said always) designs the constitution.

One concern would be that something in the constitution might make it difficult to unseat the incumbent.

Yet more posters thinking the SNP are going to set up a Politburo and permanent dictatorship

 

Separate the referendum from the party. The Scots will still be able to vote post-independence, and if a sniff of this SNP cuts plan is true, then Scots will be able to vote them out.

You're now being naive as well as borderline mental. You can't separate the two when the SNP are the driving force behind the campaign for independence and are attempting to convince people to give them the result they want by telling outright, bare-faced lies, and if they get the result they want then no amount of voting them out will restore the benefits of the Union. Once they're gone, they're gone.

It'll be a huge gamble for the Scots, just as it was for Cameron. I wonder if he's done regardless. Even if the Scots vote no, no-one will now regard him as saviour of the Union. They'll see him as someone who put it at risk. Could have folded on devo max, but went all in.

If the Scots say Yes then the result in itself won't be a defining issue at the next GE but the manner in which they leave and the cost to your average rUK voter absolutely will be. A Yes vote won't do for Cameron, but not playing the hardest of hardballs with them come negotiation time would. It's one of the things the underlines how ludicrous some of the claims of Salmond, Sturgeon et al have been regarding currency union, oil shares etc - any rUK government that doesn't absolutely screw the Scots to the wall and make their balls bleed during the separation negotiations will be hammered at the polling station. Farage and UKIP would milk that for all it's worth and the Tories are already scared enough of losing vote to them next year...

Your wrong here re more lies etc Torres

 

This will happen whether it's a yes or no vote . There is a 400 million pound deficit .

 

Our NHS chairman has been quite open about It. the NHS are having to reshape itself over the next two years is something He has been predicting since last summer. That will happen regardless of a Yes or No vote!

No, no - voting Yes is the only to save the NHS - haven't you been told?

If the Scots say Yes then the result in itself won't be a defining issue at the next GE but the manner in which they leave and the cost to your average rUK voter absolutely will be. A Yes vote won't do for Cameron, but not playing the hardest of hardballs with them come negotiation time would. It's one of the things the underlines how ludicrous some of the claims of Salmond, Sturgeon et al have been regarding currency union, oil shares etc - any rUK government that doesn't absolutely screw the Scots to the wall and make their balls bleed during the separation negotiations will be hammered at the polling station. Farage and UKIP would milk that for all it's worth and the Tories are already scared enough of losing vote to them next year...

If that's remotely true, then I wouldn't blame the Scots for leaving at all. We offer a referendum, they vote yes, so we punish them? Is spite what we're about now?

Very interesting article, which puts the rise of the Yes campaign into a bit of context.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists

Perhaps the most arresting fact about the Scottish referendum is this: that there is no newspaper – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supports independence except the Sunday Herald. The Scots who will vote yes have been almost without representation in the media.

 

There is nothing unusual about this. Change in any direction, except further over the brink of market fundamentalism and planetary destruction, requires the defiance of almost the entire battery of salaried opinion. What distinguishes the independence campaign is that it has continued to prosper despite this assault.

If that's remotely true, then I wouldn't blame the Scots for leaving at all. We offer a referendum, they vote yes, so we punish them? Is spite what we're about now?

To be fair we elect politicians to represent us and politicians wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't secure the best deal for rUK - in a lot of cases that would mean hammering Scotland not out of spite but out of self-interest. Scotland and the SNP don't seem to have any problems trying to get the best deal for themselves and there's no reason rUK should feel guilty about doing the same.

I'd agree it'll go down with the electorate pretty well but there's still legitimate reasons for making deals at the detriment to Scotland besides just popularity.

If that's remotely true, then I wouldn't blame the Scots for leaving at all. We offer a referendum, they vote yes, so we punish them? Is spite what we're about now?

It's not spite, it's about standing up for what is good for the rest of the UK. If Scotland leave then we have no obligation to them and absolutely no reason at all to not inflict the most pain we can in order to get the best deal possible for the rest of the UK. It's something that the vast majority will support.

It's not spite, it's about standing up for what is good for the rest of the UK. If Scotland leave then we have no obligation to them and absolutely no reason at all to not inflict the most pain we can in order to get the best deal possible for the rest of the UK. It's something that the vast majority will support.

That is spite, hypo.

I'd suggest that like someone who works down the sewers, you just can't smell it anymore.

If the Scots say Yes then the result in itself won't be a defining issue at the next GE but the manner in which they leave and the cost to your average rUK voter absolutely will be. A Yes vote won't do for Cameron, but not playing the hardest of hardballs with them come negotiation time would. It's one of the things the underlines how ludicrous some of the claims of Salmond, Sturgeon et al have been regarding currency union, oil shares etc - any rUK government that doesn't absolutely screw the Scots to the wall and make their balls bleed during the separation negotiations will be hammered at the polling station. Farage and UKIP would milk that for all it's worth and the Tories are already scared enough of losing vote to them next year...

That's certainly one view. I follow the logic, and you may very well be right.

However, the thought that uncertainty over a newly independent Scotland's future only hurts 'them' and not 'us', doesn't seem likely. I can't see a way that Cameron could come out of a Yes vote in a positive enough light to retain his position.

Let's say that Cameron plays hardball as you suggest, and let's say that Salmond plays hardball too. Scotland would likely become a pariah in the financial markets, paying junk-status levels of interest to secure itself the cash it would need to exist.

So would Cameron be laughing at the poor Scots, and playing to the Tory-voting crowd as you suggest? Well he might try, but rUK at this time would not be immune.

If Scotland were to be forced to operate using a shadow-pound without the backing of a central bank, then Salmond would surely turn his back on Scotland's share of the debt that the current UK has amassed. Or in effect, the rUK would have assumed greater net debt.

Add to that, or probably more accurately subtract from that the reduced exchequer revenue as our second biggest trading partner (Salmond's figures so I don't know the accuracy) would be a basket case, and taxation on North Sea oil and Scottish corporations would have disappeared.

If Scotland were so damaged by these actions, what would happen to the Scottish workforce? Would they look from the terrible situation in the north to the relative stability in the south and respect their newly found and polished border? I doubt it. They would instead push south for jobs or benefits - albeit without EU or UK citizenship. What would happen to our job market in such a situation? What pressure would it put on social services, policing, housing and the health system?

Ask yourself how the financial markets would treat rUK in such a situation?

So whilst you may be right, to my mind if Cameron did choose to publicly debag Salmond and flush his head down the water closet for having the temerity to demonstrate the will of the people of Scotland (albeit a will that was formed without exposure to the full truth as you've said), then it would surely be nothing more than pyrrhic pride, because rUK would have become significantly destabilised from the same hardball-stance.

If you're right then Cameron would have to judge that kicking the Scots for the pleasure of his party and those likely to return him to power, would be more important than the significant destabilisation of rUK.

Either way, to my mind if that scenario did pan out, then Cameron wouldn't survive as he would have broken up the Union and reversed much of the "good" he's achieved in putting the country on a more stable financial footing.

Personally I think that Salmond's poker-player reading of the situation is spot on. His bet is 3 months (arbitrary figure) of uncertainty for a fledgling country that is riding the can-do, positive emotion of independence would be manageable. Whereas 3 months of uncertainty for rUK would be enough to make 'us' see that pragmatism > pay-back.

It's a big bet, but Salmond has played it, has gone all-in, and hasn't blinked. If we get Yes, we'll find out who's been bluffing.

That is spite, hypo.

 

I'd suggest that like someone who works down the sewers, you just can't smell it anymore.

No it isn't. Scotland getting screwed over is a consequence of it but the motivation- as has been pointed out above- will be to do what is best for the UK. If we had similar negotiations with other countries than that is what we would do so why should Scotland be any different simply because we had a shared history?

It's not spite, it's about standing up for what is good for the rest of the UK. If Scotland leave then we have no obligation to them and absolutely no reason at all to not inflict the most pain we can in order to get the best deal possible for the rest of the UK. It's something that the vast majority will support.

This seems a little naive to me.

You're right that there is every reason to try to get the best deal for rUK, but I think that might also be to give an independent Scotland some or most of what it wants.

The two things are in tension; pain for an independent Scotland would translate to pain for rUK.

This seems a little naive to me.

 

You're right that there is every reason to try to get the best deal for rUK, but I think that might also be to give an independent Scotland some or most of what it wants.

 

The two things are in tension; pain for an independent Scotland would translate to pain for rUK.

Not so sure that is true in the longer term. I do think they need to learn that actions have consequences though and that independence means that they have to go it alone. Too many are voting for short term reasons or because they dislike the current Tory government.

Do you think we will agree to a shared pound? Whoever agrees to that will be committing political suicide.

To be fair we elect politicians to represent us and politicians wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't secure the best deal for rUK - in a lot of cases that would mean hammering Scotland not out of spite but out of self-interest. Scotland and the SNP don't seem to have any problems trying to get the best deal for themselves and there's no reason rUK should feel guilty about doing the same.

 

I'd agree it'll go down with the electorate pretty well but there's still legitimate reasons for making deals at the detriment to Scotland besides just popularity.

Absolutely after independence replace 'Scotland' with 'France' and you get the general idea.

Not so sure that is true in the longer term. I do think they need to learn that actions have consequences though and that independence means that they have to go it alone. Too many are voting for short term reasons or because they dislike the current Tory government.

 

Do you think we will agree to a shared pound? Whoever agrees to that will be committing political suicide.

Yes, in some way, it seems unavoidable to me. But I don't think either side would get exactly what they want from such an arrangement.

An independent Scotland would need to tie its economy closely to that of rUK, which reduces its taxation and expenditure freedom - two of the key tenets of the Yes movement's campaign. This isn't ideal, but it would give a post-independence Scotland time to stabilise before making a later move (Euro / Scottish Dollar).

Regarding the political suicide, this would obviously only happen if there is a Yes vote, and whilst I wouldn't rule that out, I'm leaning towards a No as the outcome.

If there were to be a Yes vote, then I think history would show that Cameron started to unwittingly tie the noose when he agreed to the referendum on Salmond's terms. That he would go on to place his neck in the noose and jump, would be simply the conclusion of that process. He, or perhaps his successor would share the pound because the alternative or a crippled Scotland would badly impact rUK.

In fairness to Cameron, I don't think anyone thought it would be as close, or that the Better Together team would have done such a poor job.

The metaphor of divorce has been mentioned quite a few times in the media.

Let's examine that divorce, shall we?

2012

Scots: "Things aren't working out. We want more independence within the marriage".

Westminster: "More independence!? We gave you control of some of the budget over a decade ago! No way. Take this marriage or leave it, and there's no way I'll agree unless your kids do"

Scots: "Ok, if that's our only option"

Westminster: "It is."

2014

Westminster: "Still planning on that divorce?"

Scots: "Aye"

Westminster: "You'll never make it y'know. Don't know how to tell you this, but I've run up loads of debt. Part of that is yours"

Scots: "We'll cope"

Westminster: "You won't have your own money. We'll make sure of it. Forget about the kids getting work too. I've called in a few favours - convinced your major employers to leave if we split"

Scots: "Are you sure this is fair?"

Westminster: "Fair?! Who gives a fúck about fair? Stay inside the marriage or we'll fúck you and the kids up. We've warned you".

Nothing like an amicable split, eh?

Yes, in some way, it seems unavoidable to me. But I don't think either side would get exactly what they want from such an arrangement.

 

An independent Scotland would need to tie its economy closely to that of rUK, which reduces its taxation and expenditure freedom - two of the key tenets of the Yes movement's campaign. This isn't ideal, but it would give a post-independence Scotland time to stabilise before making a later move (Euro / Scottish Dollar).

 

Regarding the political suicide, this would obviously only happen if there is a Yes vote, and whilst I wouldn't rule that out, I'm leaning towards a No as the outcome.

 

If there were to be a Yes vote, then I think history would show that Cameron started to unwittingly tie the noose when he agreed to the referendum on Salmond's terms. That he would go on to place his neck in the noose and jump, would be simply the conclusion of that process. He, or perhaps his successor would share the pound because the alternative or a crippled Scotland would badly impact rUK.

 

In fairness to Cameron, I don't think anyone thought it would be as close, or that the Better Together team would have done such a poor job.

As you say, Scotland can continue to use the Pound, or any other currency barring perhaps the Euro, in much the same manner as Gibraltar does now or Ireland did at a de facto fixed rate until 1979 until eventually adopting the Euro in 2002. Of course this would mean that all major economic decisions would be severely restricted and they would not be able to print their own extra inflationary money and would suffer the consequences when we did the same.

The metaphor of divorce has been mentioned quite a few times in the media.

 

Let's examine that divorce, shall we?

 

2012

 

Scots: "Things aren't working out. We want more independence within the marriage".

Westminster: "More independence!? We gave you control of some of the budget over a decade ago! No way. Take this marriage or leave it, and there's no way I'll agree unless your kids do"

Scots: "Ok, if that's our only option"

Westminster: "It is."

 

2014

Westminster: "Still planning on that divorce?"

Scots: "Aye"

Westminster: "You'll never make it y'know. Don't know how to tell you this, but I've run up loads of debt. Part of that is yours"

Scots: "We'll cope"

Westminster: "You won't have your own money. We'll make sure of it. Forget about the kids getting work too. I've called in a few favours - convinced your major employers to leave if we split"

Scots: "Are you sure this is fair?"

Westminster: "Fair?! Who gives a fúck about fair? Stay inside the marriage or we'll fúck you and the kids up. We've warned you".

 

Nothing like an amicable split, eh?

That should be 'We've run up loads of debt' or more accurately 'the incompetent Scots Pillocks that were in charge of the UK for 13 years ran up loads of debt'. Effectively the wife's been spending more than the husband's been earning.

That should be 'We've run up loads of debt' or more accurately 'the incompetent Scots Pillocks that were in charge of the UK for 13 years ran up loads of debt'. Effectively the wife's been spending more than the husband's been earning.

The fact that you cherry-picked that post says it all.

The fact that you cherry-picked that post says it all.

Just the important inaccuracies. We don't want to be here all day

As you say, Scotland can continue to use the Pound, or any other currency barring perhaps the Euro, in much the same manner as Gibraltar does now or Ireland did at a de facto fixed rate until 1979 until eventually adopting the Euro in 2002. Of course this would mean that all major economic decisions would be severely restricted and they would not be able to print their own extra inflationary money and would suffer the consequences when we did the same.

That's one scenario, but I'm suggesting that some greater currency union would have to exist given a Yes vote.

This might be the backing of a central bank (BoE) for an independant Scotland for example, but all of the tradeoffs you list (and more) would probably mean that this wasn't what the Yes voters were expecting.

I think Salmond knows this, and I think he's sees independence in two stages. Firstly stability through sovereign independence with some degree of economic union, and then secondly financial independence.

Just the important inaccuracies. We don't want to be here all day

I'd argue that paying to be the US' willing imperialist lapdog or maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent (lol) probably adds a lot to the budget, neither of which the independence crowd are particularly keen on.

Don't want to be here all day? Who are you kidding?

That's one scenario, but I'm suggesting that some greater currency union would have to exist given a Yes vote.

 

This might be the backing of a central bank (BoE) for an independant Scotland for example, but all of the tradeoffs you list (and more) would probably mean that this wasn't what the Yes voters were expecting.

 

I think Salmond knows this, and I think he's sees independence in two stages. Firstly stability through sovereign independence with some degree of economic union, and then secondly financial independence.

Currency union with an independent Scotland just wouldn't work, and wouldn't be in the interests of rUK. Why would we choose to saddle ourselves with a country over which we had no control?

More importantly the markets would react badly and both economies would suffer because of the uncertainty and risk. There's simply no benefit for rUK in a currency union and trying to establish a working framework for it would be a nightmare.

There will be some areas where working with Scotland would be mutually beneficial - there would be no point in imposing trade tariffs whilst they were waiting for EU membership. The same with work permits and many other things but a currency union isn't one of those things.

Looking at things post-18 September, Clause 30 of The Edinburgh Agreement states ... "The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom".

This would appear to hamper any "squeeze-until-the-pips-squeak" attitude on the part of rUK.

The key words being "in the best interest" - as saintbletch puts it in post 703, the two countries are so linked it wouldn't be of any help for the rUK to play excessive hard-ball, whereas for Scotland, a bit of hard-ball could well go a long way.

Do we really want to see UN Refugee camps in Berwick-on-Tweed? Or in Gretna, come to that.

It's not spite, it's about standing up for what is good for the rest of the UK. If Scotland leave then we have no obligation to them and absolutely no reason at all to not inflict the most pain we can in order to get the best deal possible for the rest of the UK. It's something that the vast majority will support.

Aww, you're so sweet Hypo. No wait, sweet is the wrong word. What's that one i'm thinking of again?

..oh yeah, bitter.

Doesn't really matter what the agreement says Codger, in reality the rUK government will do whatever is in the best interests of rUK, not Scotland. The rUK electorate simply won't stand for any excess generosity towards Scotland.

Aww, you're so sweet Hypo. No wait, sweet is the wrong word. What's that one i'm thinking of again?

 

..oh yeah, bitter.

It's odd being described as bitter when I honestly do not give a toss about an independent Scotland. I think they are fools if they vote yes and I expect it to hurt but I'm certainly not bitter about it. The UK needs to look after their own interests and if that means hurting the Scots who have decided to go alone then so be it.

They will almost certainly vote no though, making this conversation irrelevant.

Doesn't really matter what the agreement says Codger, in reality the rUK government will do whatever is in the best interests of rUK, not Scotland. The rUK electorate simply won't stand for any excess generosity towards Scotland.

Little Englanders must have their vengeance.

Little Englanders must have their vengeance.

You're wilfully misunderstanding what is being said.

But the point is "the best interests of rUK" is not necessarily the same as the knee-jerk reaction. If your despised neighbour's house is burning down, you get out your water buckets and fire blankets and help him out because it is in your own best interests to do so. Do nothing and you risk your own house burning down.

Private Eye nailing it again.

You really are an odd bugger, Scousehampton.

Sometimes you really overplay the anti-establishment Millitant Tendency crap..

From the Guardian's live feed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-salmond-and-darling-interviewed-on-today-live#block-54194f23e4b0cf0f0c9e13a9

The Scottish Police Federation seems to be accusing journalists and no campaigners of exaggerating the extent of aggression deployed during the election campaign. It has released this statement from Brian Docherty, its chairman.

 

The referendum debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured.

 

It was inevitable that the closer we came to the 18th of September passions would increase but that does not justify the exaggerated rhetoric that is being deployed with increased frequency. Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration yet nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Scotland’s citizens are overwhelmingly law abiding and tolerant and it is preposterous to imply that by placing a cross in a box, our citizens will suddenly abandon the personal virtues and values held dear to them all.

 

At this time it is more important than ever that individuals be they politicians, journalists or whoever should carefully consider their words, maintain level heads and act with respect. Respect is not demonstrated by suggesting a minority of mindless idiots are representative of anything. One of the many joys of this campaign has been how it has awakened political awareness across almost every single section of society. The success enjoyed by the many should not be sullied by the actions of the few.

Wholly gullible, Batman!

From the Guardian's live feed.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-salmond-and-darling-interviewed-on-today-live#block-54194f23e4b0cf0f0c9e13a9

 

 

 

Wholly gullible, Batman!

Ah! So the police are in on the conspiracy too.

Ah! So the police are in on the conspiracy too.

I don't know why you're responding to me when you could be selling Batman the Tower Of London.

Currency union with an independent Scotland just wouldn't work, and wouldn't be in the interests of rUK. Why would we choose to saddle ourselves with a country over which we had no control?

 

More importantly the markets would react badly and both economies would suffer because of the uncertainty and risk. There's simply no benefit for rUK in a currency union and trying to establish a working framework for it would be a nightmare.

 

There will be some areas where working with Scotland would be mutually beneficial - there would be no point in imposing trade tariffs whilst they were waiting for EU membership. The same with work permits and many other things but a currency union isn't one of those things.

You're right. Why would we underwrite an independent Scottish economy without the control? We wouldn't and shouldn't.

But I'm not suggesting that.

As I said in an earlier post, a wider currency union (BoE being Scotland's central bank) would have to come at the cost of controls on an independent Scotland's expenditure and taxation. The Eurozone has taught us this.

This isn't what Salmond is publicly stating he wants, and it's not what Yes voters will be expecting, but I think it's a natural conclusion given the other factors you list and I listed in previous posts. And what's more I think Salmond knows this and sees it as a safe haven for the independent Scotland to find its feet.

Either way Salmond has played a blinder (in a Francis Urquhart/Frank Underwood sort-of-a-way).