Indyref 6

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Welcome to indyref 6

Spidergirl8 asked close to end of last thread:

What impact would independence have on fiscal policy and economic stability
What impact would the ageing population have on the future
Is the predicted future a positive one, based on fact

If the bite goes no, what has actually been achieved? Does that not just put Scotland on the back foot?

Let's try and give not too biased answers please!

Apparently, the "new offer" won't breach purdah, because while both Scot and WM gvts are bound by the Agreement, political parties are not...

www.mumsnet.com/politics/mumsnetters-on-scottish-referendum

The MN Survey was linked in ads on the side of the page, for at least a couple of weeks.

I'd need to listen to exactly what he said and how it was presented - I don't think it's necessarily a clear cut breach. Westminster have, I believe, said they will follow the rules but aren't fully bound by it - Santana is correct that the rules apply to the govt.

I think the currency options are viable, I've been reading a lot about it since I didn't know much about economics prior to reading up on it due to the referendum. I thought this was quite a good explanation (if anyone's interested, I know a lot of people will already know all of this):

FT article on currency options

At the moment I feel like we're on a rollercoaster driven by someone I neither like nor trust, heading for a section of track that hasn't been built yet.

Exactly. There was a very interesting article in The Orcadian back in June picking holes in all the things Eck has promised Orkney in the event of a yes vote.

It pointed out they are in Holyrood's gift at the moment but he's chosen not to do any of them. The word "bribe" was mentioned.

That's not true Santana, the UK Government agreed to act according to the same statutory restrictions. See note 3.2

www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00457748.pdf

Is that the Insight bit, OldLady? I've trained myself to ignore the sidebar. Damn!

If you read the Herald article, the UK govt isn't legally bound to it, only morally/politically. They've got some sort of loophole.

That's when you no longer have the money to pay for all the goodies.

Time will tell.

Thats what I was thinking OldLady re political parties and why I said I'd need to listen to it (xposted) - I looked up the regs and they don't apply to political parties.

"Subject to sub-paragraph (3), no material to which this paragraph applies is to be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of—
(a) the Scottish Ministers or any other part of the Scottish Administration,
20 (b) the SPCB, or
(c) any Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions
(within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998)."

"If you read the Herald article, the UK govt isn't legally bound to it, only morally/politically. They've got some sort of loophole."

There is no loophole. The same restrictions apply to WM governments before referendums and elections. On this occasion, the power to hold the referendum had to be granted to the SG under the latest amendments to the Scotland Act. That is why conduct concerning this referendum has to be outlined by the SG, and why WM has to agree to be bound by it.

Numanoid I think that just shows how uncertain it is tbh. I don't dispute that at least some of the currency options are viable - but whether they would be and good is a different matter. I stand by my very brief summary of them at the start of this thread.

And this from my FB... "...the law inhibiting Scottish Government activity is a law. The Edinburgh Agreement is exactly what it says on the box, an agreement. History is littered with broken treaties..."

Santana, Insight, yes. (I had to go check...) I don't usually notice it myself, but the thread came up in Active Convos when I saw and posted on it, so I noticed it more often, iyswim.

Agree with statistically on that link.
These eminent people give wildly different ratings to the various options, which just shows how unpredictable they are. It really is jumping into the dark.

re: the mumsnet survey - people could have several email addresses/usernames in order to fill out the survey more than once.

I have a few different accounts on here (for when I don't want to be ID'd), hypothetically I could have done that survey several times.

I didn't btw but I doubt the results.

It is interesting to see a majority feel Scotland is not at risk from staying in the UK

sconequeen

I have the utmost respect for the view that the population of Scotland has the right to self-determination, provided that is what most of the electorate want. If you feel your identity is significantly defined by being Scottish then you are entitled to claim self-determination. It goes without saying IMO.

The philosophical issue aside, claiming self-determination in the case of UK, given the long history, lack of significant differences between Scotland and rUK (IMO), principle of dismantling a union with the result that Scotland will be competing with rUK and claiming resources for itself, is IMO not the right course of action. Especially as a significant percentage of the Scottish electorate don't want to leave the UK.

I must be about as no as they come. Even if I thought Scotland could have an economically successful separation from rUK I'd still vote no as I don't feel a Scottish identity sufficient to warrant self-determinism; I feel more British than Scottish and I don't like the idea of breaking up the island called Britain into two separate nation states. It seems like a regressive step.

I don't envy anyone who is undecided, given the passion on both sides of the debate.

frankie, you should namechange when you don't want to be ID'd, not set up a new account and email. MN do not approve!

choccoluva you put it well.

I don't feel a Scottish identity sufficient to warrant self-determinism

I think I'd agree with you there. I might not have a while ago but a combination of working across the border and the run up to this referendum has made me think about my national identity quite a lot. I love Scotland, warts and all, but I don't think it's so dramatically different, that we as people are so dramatically different, to warrant total separation.

I identify myself as Scottish, not British so I don't feel the need to be attached to the UK. It has always pissed me off when applying for a passport that I've had to fill in 'British' at the nationality part of it.

I can understand that feeling IrnBru.

I too feel Scottish, but I'm very happy to describe myself as British. It must be annoying if you strongly identify as Scottish though.

I don't feel a Scottish identity sufficient to warrant self-determinism; I feel more British than Scottish and I don't like the idea of breaking up the island called Britain into two separate nation states. It seems like a regressive step.

I've never thought of myself as Scottish. I felt "pissed off" by a form from I think Edinburgh Council or SG which had no option for "British"

I only choose British if Scottish isn't an option. I have lived in other countries as well as in Scotland, but I don't see the referendum as being anything to do with us being different from rUK, I see it as being a chance to govern ourselves and prosper. Just as a lot of people in rUK are hoping it'll start a wave of political change, for the better, across Britain (and I hope it does).