|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The fact is that the vote in September doesn't actually confer independence. Scotland would only become independent once the RUK gov. gives its consent after negotiations have been completed.
A row over something huge like debt could see those negotiations being pushed far past the 2016 deadline. The fact is there is nothing compelling the RUK gov. to let Scotland go without a commitment to pay back its debt.
|
While I agree that simply walking away without negotiating on debt and all that would be disastrous and the UK would respond with measures that would probably ruin the Scottish economy, the Scottish people could do it without a "by your leave". They don't need the consent of the UK. What, would London try and bomb them back to the negotiating table?
But yeah, just leaving without securing debt would be moronic for Scotland. The punitive economic measures that would be inflicted on them would cost far more than any debt settlement. I agree that separatism, while romantic in a way, is pointless and reckless for many of the reasons you have mentioned, but I do believe that Scotland as an independent nation has a right to exist with or without the consent of the British government. That's like saying that if England wanted to leave a union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall, it would need the permission of Scotland to do so.
Anyways, as an American, let me caution those who would whimsically engage in secession...You are always better off united than divided. Unless you were Ireland and totally getting screwed over for centuries... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anyways, as an American, let me caution those who would whimsically engage in secession...You are always better off united than divided. Unless you were Ireland and totally getting screwed over for centuries... |
When your work in ESL is done, could you pop over to Israel and sort out the Middle East out please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yet the Bank of England said it would have no problem with a currency union, and without a currency union the Scots have no reason to take on that debt. |
The BoE will do whatever it is asked to do as the currency union is fundamentally a political decision between the RUK and Scottish governments. Therefore if you have all the major political leaders of all the major RUK parties saying that they will oppose a currency union you cannot have a currency union.
Also the BoE along with the Treasury have warned that a currency union would not be advantageous for the RUK and it would involve the Scots ceding sovereignty. If the economic case for independence only makes sense with a currency union you might as well stay in the union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
The fact is that the vote in September doesn't actually confer independence. Scotland would only become independent once the RUK gov. gives its consent after negotiations have been completed.
A row over something huge like debt could see those negotiations being pushed far past the 2016 deadline. The fact is there is nothing compelling the RUK gov. to let Scotland go without a commitment to pay back its debt.
|
While I agree that simply walking away without negotiating on debt and all that would be disastrous and the UK would respond with measures that would probably ruin the Scottish economy, the Scottish people could do it without a "by your leave". They don't need the consent of the UK. What, would London try and bomb them back to the negotiating table?
But yeah, just leaving without securing debt would be moronic for Scotland. The punitive economic measures that would be inflicted on them would cost far more than any debt settlement. I agree that separatism, while romantic in a way, is pointless and reckless for many of the reasons you have mentioned, but I do believe that Scotland as an independent nation has a right to exist with or without the consent of the British government. That's like saying that if England wanted to leave a union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall, it would need the permission of Scotland to do so.
Anyways, as an American, let me caution those who would whimsically engage in secession...You are always better off united than divided. Unless you were Ireland and totally getting screwed over for centuries... |
I agree that it is a lot more nuanced than just the RUK 'letting' the Scots leave, but the RUK is under no obligation to conclude negotiations for formal Scottish independence until they are satisfied and that is unlikely without a deal in regards to Scotland's huge debt.
In anycase the only reason why more and more Scots are even interested in independence is because they think they will get Norweigian style wealth. Nobody is going to start throwing bombs about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
The fact is that the vote in September doesn't actually confer independence. Scotland would only become independent once the RUK gov. gives its consent after negotiations have been completed.
A row over something huge like debt could see those negotiations being pushed far past the 2016 deadline. The fact is there is nothing compelling the RUK gov. to let Scotland go without a commitment to pay back its debt.
|
While I agree that simply walking away without negotiating on debt and all that would be disastrous and the UK would respond with measures that would probably ruin the Scottish economy, the Scottish people could do it without a "by your leave". They don't need the consent of the UK. What, would London try and bomb them back to the negotiating table?
But yeah, just leaving without securing debt would be moronic for Scotland. The punitive economic measures that would be inflicted on them would cost far more than any debt settlement. I agree that separatism, while romantic in a way, is pointless and reckless for many of the reasons you have mentioned, but I do believe that Scotland as an independent nation has a right to exist with or without the consent of the British government. That's like saying that if England wanted to leave a union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall, it would need the permission of Scotland to do so.
Anyways, as an American, let me caution those who would whimsically engage in secession...You are always better off united than divided. Unless you were Ireland and totally getting screwed over for centuries... |
I agree that it is a lot more nuanced than just the RUK 'letting' the Scots leave, but the RUK is under no obligation to conclude negotiations for formal Scottish independence until they are satisfied and that is unlikely without a deal in regards to Scotland's huge debt.
In anycase the only reason why more and more Scots are even interested in independence is because they think they will get Norweigian style wealth. Nobody is going to start throwing bombs about. |
And without a currency union Scotland won't take on any of the debt. So we're back to the start again.
Your final point is an out and out lie. You've gotten to the point where you're so desperate you've started insinuating the Scots greed is the "only reason" for them wanting independence.
I'm glad you're finally showing your true colours.
For Scots independence isn't about being anti-English. It's about being able to control their own affairs, instead of allowing the current ruling elite and existing structures of authority to ignore what is best for the people of Scotland while lining their own pockets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And without a currency union Scotland won't take on any of the debt. So we're back to the start again. |
Let me say this again.
The RUK has ruled out a currency union.
A currency union is the only hope Scotland has of maintaining its vitally important balance of trade and finance industry.
The issue of debt is completely seperate.
The RUK and Scotland will reach an agreement about how much debt Scotland will inherit. The figure is unknown and the Scots could negotiate for a smaller debt if they agree to keep Faslane etc.
BUT
There is no way in hell that 146 bn can just be walked away from, that is politically and economically unacceptable for the RUK AND Scotland.
The pound is not a shared asset it belongs to the United Kingdom, if you leave good luck, but don't expect the RUK to underwrite your country's finances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Your final point is an out and out lie. You've gotten to the point where you're so desperate you've started insinuating the Scots greed is the "only reason" for them wanting independence. |
In 2011 over two thirds responded to a pollster that they would back independence if it meant an extra 500 quid.
In 2013 that figure fell to 52%, but it still represents a huge proportion.
All this braveheart nonsense is only important for a small minority.
Economics and money is at the heart of this debate and it is simply a lie to say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
