nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Water John

circadian wrote: »

I doubt many who voted for brexit know a single thing about crofting.

Sadly, many farmers did vote for Brexit. They believed Michael Gove would look after them.

bob mcbob

Water John wrote: »

Not sure how many crofters are left?

It is more the hill farmers that are at risk. One of the main areas for this is the Scottish Borders (the most Unionist part of the country). That is why Gove is so worried about this trade deal.

This article from 4 years ago highlights the fears for hill farming - all of which seem to be coming true.

First, it is highly unlikely the deeply indebted British state could afford to provide the same level of funding to hill farming as the broad shoulders of EU's CAP.

Second, the UK government, by inclination and to a great degree forced by circumstance, will follow an increasing neo-liberal approach to agriculture. Unlike the EU that is wedded to the idea of the family farm and sustainable food production, right wing hawks in Westminster will seek to divest public funding from farming and turn over food production and farming to the multinational corporate sector to compete with countries like Argentina, Brazil and of course the USA. In those countries, intensive farming systems that suppress and destruct nature predominate and have led to massive social and environmental problems.

Parts of the UK, especially southern and Eastern England could succeed following this model, but Scotland’s hill farming sector could not.

https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/15301380.fears-for-the-future-of-scottish-hill-farming/

Larbre34

circadian wrote: »

I doubt many who voted for brexit know a single thing about crofting.

They didn't know much about EU membership either evidently.

Mr.Nice Guy

So much for staying neutral on political matters. The monarchy seemingly will be part of Johnson's so-called 'love bombing'.

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1396374108670148609

It doesn't surprise me they're willing participants as I can't imagine Scotland would tolerate the Windsors for very long in the event of it going independent.

PommieBast

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me they're willing participants as I can't imagine Scotland would tolerate the Windsors for very long in the event of it going independent.

From memory some major Scottish landowners were/are members of the royal family, and as a result the SNP was originally formed out of a republican movement. Could have got wires crossed though..

Peregrinus

To be fair to the Queen, this is a Daily Mail report, so it could be a steaming pile of horse manure from beginning to end.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair to the Queen, this is a Daily Mail report, so it could be a steaming pile of horse manure from beginning to end.

The Queen is a well known horse woman, even at her age, and so her being associated with horse manure should not be a surprise to anyone.

pixelburp

Notwithstanding the possible BS of the article, I'm not sure I'd pin my hopes of maintaining a cuddly relationship within the UK on a 95-year-old monarch who is likely to throw open the succession question soon enough (not trying to be harsh but it does seem likely, despite her access to top tier medicine and statistical likelihood to outlast her husband)

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

Notwithstanding the possible BS of the article, I'm not sure I'd pin my hopes of maintaining a cuddly relationship within the UK on a 95-year-old monarch who is likely to throw open the succession question soon enough (not trying to be harsh but it does seem likely, despite her access to top tier medicine and statistical likelihood to outlast her husband)

She has outlasted her husband.

breatheme

Sam Russell wrote: »

She has outlasted her husband.

In the "outliving him" sense, yes. In the "living longer than him" sense, no.

Linguistic ambiguity strikes again.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

She has outlasted her husband.

Not by age is what I meant; I phrased it wrong. Phillip passed aged 99, she's currently 95. Statistically, Elizabeth is likely to hit her centenary, but one imagines there can't be anything over a decade more of her reign.

If anything, weaponising Liz might simply highlight to Scots the upheaval a new monarch might cause in the UK. Doubt it'll be a full blown succession crisis but it may get ugly. It'll be fascinating if nothing, a true "generational" event, as Johnson has tried to frame the Indy vote.

Sam Russell

Her mother lasted over the century, so she might well, and she might actually live longer than her mother. The real question is will her eldest son outlive her, or will he predecease her.

Peregrinus

pixelburp wrote: »

Not by age is what I meant; I phrased it wrong. Phillip passed aged 99, she's currently 95. Statistically, Elizabeth is likely to hit her centenary . . . .

If we're being morbid, no. Based on her nationality, age and gender, median life expectancy today is 3.17 years. Her chance of hitting 100 is only about 1 in 5. She gets bonus points because her mother lived to be 101 and because she has enjoyed excellent medical care all her life, but loses points because her father died at 56. Overall, these factors help, but they're not likely to raise her chances of hitting 100 from 1 in 5 to more than 1 in 2.

If she makes it to 97 she has a 1 in 3 chance of seeing 100; at 98 she has (nearly) a 1 in 2 chance. If she's alive on her 99th birthday, however, then she'll have a 2 in 3 chance of seeing her 100th birthday.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Her mother lasted over the century, so she might well, and she might actually live longer than her mother. The real question is will her eldest son outlive her, or will he predecease her.

For a British man aged 72, median life expectancy is 13.22 years. Plus, Charles would get more bonus point than his mother, because both his parents have lived to a very advanced age. He'd have to be very unlucky not to outlive his mother.

Water John

The Scot Indy movement simply say that this isn't about the monarchy and that the Queen would remain Head of State until the Scots if or when decide otherwise in the future.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we're being morbid, no. Based on her nationality, age and gender, median life expectancy today is 3.17 years. Her chance of hitting 100 is only about 1 in 5. She gets bonus points because her mother lived to be 101 and because she has enjoyed excellent medical care all her life, but loses points because her father died at 56. Overall, these factors help, but they're not likely to raise her chances of hitting 100 from 1 in 5 to more than 1 in 2.

If she makes it to 97 she has a 1 in 3 chance of seeing 100; at 98 she has (nearly) a 1 in 2 chance. If she's alive on her 99th birthday, however, then she'll have a 2 in 3 chance of seeing her 100th birthday.

For a British man aged 72, median life expectancy is 13.22 years. Plus, Charles would get more bonus point than his mother, because both his parents have lived to a very advanced age. He'd have to be very unlucky not to outlive his mother.

On That 3.17 figure , does that mean 3.17 years remaining expectancy ?

Sam Russell

20silkcut wrote: »

On That 3.17 figure , does that mean 3.17 years remaining expectancy ?

It means that of 100 people of her age living today, in 3.17 years, 50 would have died from all causes, while 50 would still be alive.

HalloweenJack

It's quite arrogant and patronising (though the DM are probably framing it in this way to allay their readers' fears) to assume that the Scottish desire for independence is so flimsy that a 'charm offensive' by the Royal Family would be enough to soften their position.

Surely DM readers are the last bastion of society that would believe such nonsense is actually possible?

Sam Russell

HalloweenJack wrote: »

It's quite arrogant and patronising (though the DM are probably framing it in this way to allay their readers' fears) to assume that the Scottish desire for independence is so flimsy that a 'charm offensive' by the Royal Family would be enough to soften their position.

Surely DM readers are the last bastion of society that would believe such nonsense is actually possible?

Surely that is precisely the audience of the DM, and the general belief that their readers believe that the Monarchy are listened to by the loyal subjects of Scotland - particularly those that want independence.

They can but try.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

It means that of 100 people of her age living today, in 3.17 years, 50 would have died from all causes

That number would include poor people and people from Glasgow.

Liz and Charlie are at the opposite end of the spectrum and have 24/7 access to the best medical care.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That number would include poor people and people from Glasgow.

Liz and Charlie are at the opposite end of the spectrum and have 24/7 access to the best medical care.

they probably don't have the same drug problem that plagues Glasgow either, which tends to help with life expectancy.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

they probably don't have the same drug problem that plagues Glasgow either, which tends to help with life expectancy.

Not many 95 year olds have a severe drug problem. Most of those who have one, do not make even 50 years, many do not make 30.

Those that live to a great age fall into two camps - those who lead serene loving lives with not a care, and those who are so bloody awkward death dare not approach them.

I'm not sure which group she would be in.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That number would include poor people and people from Glasgow.

Liz and Charlie are at the opposite end of the spectrum and have 24/7 access to the best medical care.

Those factors would tend to improve life expectancy. Other factors attending the queen would tend to reduce her life expectancy - the fact that her father died at 56, as already stated; the fact that she was married for most of her adult life.*

Taking the rough with the smooth, there would be a lot more smoothing factors than roughening factors in the queen's circumstances, so chances are that she will be in the 50% that live more than the median. But, as already noted, she'd have to be in the top 20% to see 100. And, even taking her comfortable circumstances into account, I don't think any insurance company would give you even money on that.

*[Fascinating trivial fact of the day; ever-married women have a shorter life expectancy than never-married women; for men it's the other way around.]

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Below standard posts removed.

Mr.Nice Guy

The Telegraph have done a series of polls on English attitudes to Scottish independence. This is from a Twitter thread:

A Telegraph poll has not found the levels of overwhelming support for a united Britain that the Prime Minister may have been hoping for.

When asked to what extent do you support or oppose Scottish independence in an exclusive Telegraph poll, just 32 per cent said they opposed it, and only 20 per cent said they “strongly oppose” separation.

Twenty five per cent actually supported the Scots going it alone, with 30 per cent so disinterested they are neither in support nor opposition.

The Barnett Formula, the mechanism used by the Treasury to allocate money to Scotland, has already proved unpopular in England. The poll found little support for more funding to be given to persuade Scots to stay (26 pc support vs 34 pc opposed).

The English also seem disinclined to allow the Scots to continue using the pound if they leave the union. Asked if they would prefer them to keep using sterling, 35 per cent said yes but 30 per cent said no, while 35 per cent were undecided.

English voters do not seem to have much faith in Scotland being successful on its own, however. Although 31 per cent believe England will be weaker without Scotland (compared to 18 per cent who thought it would be stronger), nearly half of English voters said they thought independence would “fail”.

Only a third believe Scotland would thrive outside of the UK.

Scotland doesn't need permission to continue using the pound, correct? I thought that was made clear in the previous campaign.

Can't say the above findings are a great surprise.

Capt'n Midnight

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Scotland doesn't need permission to continue using the pound, correct? I thought that was made clear in the previous campaign.

Can't say the above findings are a great surprise.

EVERY single Scottish pound in circulation is backed by reserves of English Sterling. IIRC it costs something like 0.5% a year to finance it.

Besides lots of governments peg their currency to a larger one
Look at how many countries are pegged to the euro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_status_and_usage_of_the_euro#Pegged_currencies

Or the dollar or a basket containing a set % of main reserve currencies. Or Sterling like we used to do, or the Isle of Man or the Channel islands do but unlike Scotland and NI they don't have full reserves of English Sterling.

Peregrinus

Currently, all Scottish banknotes are issued by private Scottish banks. Same goes for NI banknotes. And UK law requires those banks, as a condition of their note issue privileges, to hold sterling reserves equal to their notes in issue.

But that's a different matter from the question of whether a the central bank of an independent Scotland could issue a currency linked to sterling without holding equivalent sterling reserves. Yes, it could. All it would have to do is to adopt a policy that it would buy and sell or amount of its own currency in exchange for sterling at a price of 1:1. They might in addition hold reserves of sterling, though certainly not reserves equal to the full amount of Scottish notes in issue, but that's irrelevant. It's not the reserves that make for the link with sterling, but the commitment to exchange Scottish notes for sterling notes at the fixed rate.

And, of course, they would not need the permission of the Bank of England or the UK government to make this commitment. Sterling is freely tradeable. Anybody can buy or sell any amount of it at any price they like, without any permission from anyone.

Kermit.de.frog

My heart has always been in self determination for every country to make their own choices.

BUT speaking selfishly my brain tells me I don't want to see Scotland independent because I believe they'll end up a like for like competitor for us.

David McWilliam's recently warned that their economic handbook post independence is sitting in a drawer in Edinburgh and it would be chapter and verse the same as the IDA handbook.

I'd rather they remained hamstrung as part of the UK on balance with some extra powers.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

My heart has always been in self determination for every country to make their own choices.

BUT speaking selfishly my brain tells me I don't want to see Scotland independent because I believe they'll end up a like for like competitor for us.

David McWilliam's recently warned that their economic handbook post independence is sitting in a drawer in Edinburgh and it would be chapter and verse the same as the IDA handbook.

I'd rather they remained hamstrung as part of the UK on balance with some extra powers.

I see where you're coming from.

But obviously that's not an argument that will find any traction in Scotland. And Scots views on whether Scotland should seek independence matter in a way that yours (and mine) don't.

LuckyLloyd

Yeah the potential (and difficult to quantify) impacts on Ireland are of a secondary concern to what should happen in terms of Scottish independence.

pixelburp

This segue, again? So again I say: pity the country whose economy is so precarious & brittle that all it took to collapse it, was (apparently) the introduction of a single "rival" within its geographic area.

Maybe Scotland might become a rival for FDI with its own rate; maybe it won't, we can't possibly know; and I don't ascribe any great ability to fortune tell with David McWilliams, a man who seems more enthused to be seen than believed. And even if we WERE to consider the possibility that President Sturgeon might enact a rival corp tax to make those on Merrion St. quiver - I can be equally as sure that the likes of France would be VERY quick to suggest that their vote for Scotland joining the EU would depend on that low tax rate being amended. Ireland gets enough side-eyes from its neighbours in Brussels, I have my doubts many would suddenly embrace a new member with that same strategy.

But there's a persistent attempt to poo-poo any nominal support for Scottish independence on this - frankly - paranoid basis that they'd be immediate, aggressive competitors or just plain rivals; as if Scotland would be the first linguistic or cultural bedfellow to arrive into the EU, or that 27 equal nations and partners were only an Irn-Bru away from acrimony. Heck if we're indulging in fantasy, maybe Ireland and Scotland would pool political or strategic resources to become a "Celtic Bloc" within the EU; it's about as likely IMO.

Sometimes it feels like in these threads, a cognitive bias hints that ideologically, there's us; there's the UK; then there's this big amorphous blob called "the EU" that at best is basically France, Germany and assorted pals - but never any acknowledgement as to who actually makes up the majority of said blob.