to wonder why the SNP aren't getting the same bashing that UKIP are?

[kinkytoes]

I'm not a political expert by any means and I know there has been a lot of discussion on both topics here.

But both these parties have the same ultimate aim - independence for their countries. Why is no-one calling SNP supporters racist? Not that I think they should be - just curious about the apparent double standard.

rUK cannot be compelled to join CU, no, other routes can be negotiated. But WM would be outstandingly stupid to do so.

It is unfair Lanabelle, but that is democracy - the majority have the most impact. There will always be a minority who feels unheard. That wouldn't change in an independent Scotland either. The people of Glasgow and Edinburgh will have more say than those who live in the remotest parts of the Highlands. I would suggest that the same would apply to supposed negotiations between Scotland and WM - its a numbers game.

OldLady - part of what I was reading suggested that international law is not that clear on the matter. Several international lawyers, from what I am reading say the dividing line is up for negotiation as well. The law is a matter of interpretation and some countries have used a different means of deciding ownership which differ from the one the Scottish want so there is a precedent set. It still needs negotiation but I presume the 'yes' campaign are clear on that too?

I have seen other interpretations of international law too, but the majority say 90% Scots, and I can't recall seeing anyone from WM/BetterTogether asking for anything different. There is the tiny matter of the thousands of square meters of seabed stolen from us when Bliar redrew maritime boundaries, of course, so we might end up in some international court or other, but I'd prefer to think both sides will be grown up enough to negotiate nicely.

As for democracy, if it's the democratic will of rUK to keep and update Trident, then rUK can democratically house it and pay for it, after a Yes vote. :)

rUK cannot be compelled to join CU, no, other routes can be negotiated. But WM would be outstandingly stupid to do so.

You keep making this outrageous claim without backing it up.

Why would WM be outstandingly stupid to not enter into a currency union with Scotland?

I am sure they will - WM won't want something so important on foreign soil and I am sure there are parts of the rUK would love to have the 11,000 jobs that go with it. We should probably have that ship building contract back in Portsmouth to let some of those 1,800 people have their jobs back as well.

International law says the oil is 90% Scottish

which international law is that?

Would rUK be equally stupid not to enter into currency union with one of its bigger trading partners?

Or does it just apply to one of rUKs small trading partners?

Well, international law says that currently none of the oil is Scottish, and 100% of it is British. If Scotland became independent, there would presumably be a territorial division according to the various maritime treaties.

As for the "stolen" area: given that allocation will be as per these treaties, I fail to see the significance of reallocating an area of the North Sea to non-Scottish jurisdiction as "stealing". It is as silly as saying the UK "stole Scotland's oil" . The truth is that oil which would have been Scotland, had Scotland been independent, was used for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

By the way, on all topics relating to Scottish independence, there are many good, unbiased sources of information. There are, for example, lots and lots of legal blogs going into the issues of currency union, pensions, the EU and so on. Wings over Scotland, by contrast is advocacy-based, terribly biased, and unreliable as a result.

FWIW, I do understand there is consensus amongst experts on both sides of the debate and neither that Scotland would have 90%+ of the oil. I understand that the Yessers' calculations of iScotland's wealth are made on that basis.

look out for the front page of the Sunday Herald tomorrow...

Toad, can you suggest some good ones, please? I'm not Scottish, I live about as far south as you can get but it still interests me and I think it is relevant to me because I live in Britain and that could potentially change without me or the vast majority of the rest of Britain having any say in the matter.

Well, international law says that currently none of the oil is Scottish, and 100% of it is British. If Scotland became independent, there would presumably be a territorial division according to the various maritime treaties.

There are three ways to draw a boundary line

1. treaty
2. special circumstance
3. equidistance

All the links I've seen highlight equidistance to give an approximate 90% figure, but the International Court of Justice has ruled that this is neither "a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status in relation to other methods"

here

Do spill, BogQueen!

Ah, the Sunday Herald is backing yes.

The Herald has clearly been 'Yes' for ages. No surprise there.

I prefer an actual story on the front page of a Sunday paper. Ho hum.

That's all over my Twitterfeed, TheBogQueen.

Santana, see my links at 15.56 and 15.57 today. An independent, unbiased, "has no dog in this race" economics professor says that for WM not to join CU would be daft, to put it mildly. It's not an outrageous claim, nor have I failed to support it.

scotlandseptember18.com/ Bertha, probably this link provides the least-biased, most evidence-based info available.

OldLady

Why should anyone accept his word over a host of dissenting voices? What does he says that proves all the others wrong? Please do tell, without posting a link to Wings over Scotland.

Even in these globalised times, it is overwhelmingly the case that independent states use a currency specific to them, and do not share its governance with any other state. This enables the government of that state to manage it in a way suitable for its own economy. Inter-state currency unions, or even pegging mechanisms, can have all sorts of problems as have been seen over the years with the Euro, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Gold Standard and so on. What is so special about Scotland that it is somehow different?

Even leaving that aside, what is so special about Scotland that rUK would be obliged to enter a currency union with Scotland? Or are you conceding that point now?

lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/ is good for thinking through legal ramifications, but be warned, he's a yesser.

Is there a host of dissenting voices? I see a bunch of economically-illiterate politicians bleating that it won't happen. I see civil servants, paid to work the party line, saying the same. But I'm not seeing loads of people who might actually have an idea shouting it down.

The Guardian had a very section last year on various aspects of Scottish independence. It included a particularly good Q&A on the legal ramifications of independence written by a professor of Scots law. I'll see if I can find it.

Oldlady, that site doesn't seem to have much on it - or am I not looking in the right place?

I am only on page 4, OldLady, but are you sure you've linked the right document?

What would bring significant costs for “all the United Kingdom” is the uncertainty about the long-term fate of Scotland’s currency that independence would bring, even if it formed a currency union with rUK. However, these costs could be contained by prudent policies by the Scottish Government, plus rational cooperation by the rUK Government, so they do not constitute a clear economic argument against independence.

a Scottish vote for independence would signal that a majority of Scots shared a vision for their nation that they saw as incompatible with the path being taken by the rest of the UK. That distinctive vision would surely require different tax and expenditure policies: these have been at the heart of the independence debate. If, in consequence, Scotland were to pursue looser fiscal policies than rUK, as Treasury fears, then international financial markets would require a higher risk premium on its sovereign debt. This would stress the currency union because of how fiscal and monetary policies are entwined.

A currency union would have a joint monetary policy, i.e., joint control of the money supply and the exchange rate against other currencies.

A central bank accountable to two governments with very different fiscal policies would therefore face an awkward choice.

Crossposted - was talking about scotlandseptember18.

Had a skim read of lallandspeatworrier and it looked pretty fair-minded to me.

You're probably in the right place, it's not a fast-moving site, and there's not much on it as yet. But it's totally non-aligned, and the information presented is evidence-based and non-partisan.

Nowhere near as much fun as the more partisan sites, though.

Santana, yes, I linked to the right documents. He's very thorough about examining many different scenarios, and then reaches his own conclusions. Interesting, aren't they?

Very interesting, thank you.

I don't think it's quite the support for a currency union that the yes side really want though.

1. a vote for independence would immediately raise currency issues that would inflict substantial long-term costs on Scotland and significant long-term costs on rUK
2. there would be substantial increases in legal costs and some fall-off of new cross-border business
3. The Scottish Government and all Scottish businesses would face sharply higher international borrowing rates for loans that mature beyond dates at which people feel confident in the currency union being maintained
4. There would be hard bargaining over fiscal sharing and rules to constrain the partners’ fiscal policies. The rUK would seek tight rules; Scotland would seek a high level of fiscal autonomy, but would give some up to avoid the massive shock of a separate currency and the exit of major financial institutions. .... the rUK Government could insist on tight constraints on Scotland’s fiscal policy the Scottish Government might not be willing to commit to tight fiscal rules for a very long term, as this would undermine the purpose of independence. an independent Scotland’s macroeconomic and monetary policies could not differ greatly from those of rUK
5. It would be as unfair and misleading for one side to forecast a disaster as it would be for the other to forecast only rosy outcomes

etc. etc.

The overall conclusion is that a CU is the best option for the rUK but (and this is the crucial bit) only if it subjected Scotland to really tight rules and regulations.

What I can't understand is a) why an independent Scotland wants to be placed under the control of a foreign government and b) why the UK wants to supervise Scotland all the time. As the analogy goes, it's like a student leaving home and bringing mummy all his washing home.

He's actually saying the same things as we were upthread- a CU doesn't equate to full independence.