Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.
Do you not think that London would be a target anyway regardless of where the subs are placed?
Glasgow or London. No problem to a MIRV.
I see Swinney is back claiming that Scotland would be entitled to ~10% of every asset located elsewhere (but of course rUK isn't entitled to a share of the assets in Scotland).
Just plain daft - do we really want to have to haggle with rUK over their 90% share of the Scottish Parliament building? Of every non-PFI school and hospital?
On the plus side, this would give rUK 90% of the trams so perhaps there is a silver lining?
It's to be expected, if Westminster are playing hardball, then so will the Yes campaign. It's mostly hot air on both sides.
In what way is Westminster playing hardball? In terms of division of assets its utterly one sided. It's the SNP saying they'll default on the debt if there is no Sterling zone. Thats a threat.
What threats have Westminster actually issued? And I mean threats, not warnings of what things MIGHT look like post-independence, which is essentially the No Campaigns strategy. Pointing out potential problems for an Independent Scotland and how the Union is beneficial in those respects (Or is thought to be).
And for what its worth, I don't see how Westminster saying no to a Sterling zone should even be considered a threat. It just makes sense for the UK. Wheres the benefit to the UK in underwriting Scotland in the following areas: Banking and Fiscal policy post independence?
At no point have Westminster said for example "We'll block you from the EU", "We'll block you from NATO". Those would be threats. Westminster haven't even said "We don't want Scotland using Sterling". They've just said that a Sterling zone is off the table. And rightly so.
Threats? Who mentioned threats? Oh you did, I didn't.
Hard ball as in "not talking to the other side" they're both at it, standing on opposite sides of the fence shouting at each other, trying to grab sound bites and not actually giving the people who will vote a true picture of what would, or wouldn't happen.
We've had some clarity over a handful of issues, nothing more.
I'll repeat - who mentioned threats? You did. To threaten anything would utterly moronic for Westminster, they know it and so does the SNP.
It's about the same sort of threat as "I'm going to shoot ......... myself in the foot"
The likes of Citigroup and Blackrock etc have already made clear that if that refusal to accept debt came to pass then it would be treated as a
default event and increase the cost of finance even further.
Swinney's comments here fail at the first sanity check - they aren't even vaguely a sensible negotiating position.
There are relatively few areas where the two sides are playing proper hardball. Nuclear weapons are one (for Yes) and the currency union is another (for No). These positions are so entrenched as to be politically irreversible.
Senior members of the SNP have, on numerous occasions threatened to walk away from UK debt on the premise that it's Scotland's right to formal currency union with the UK post independence.
Just as they've also threatened to eject trident from Scotland in an unworkable time-frame.
It's much easier for a party who wants division to make threats like this, because ultimately, it serves their short term interests.
Halfmad, you make a fair point, you didn't mention threats at all. My apologies.
Still, I don't really see where Westminster are playing hardball at all, other than ruling out a Sterling zone. Westminster haven't tried to use anything against Scotland as leverage for not voting for Independence. Unlike the SNP, who threaten not to take on Scotlands share of UK debt if they don't get what they want.
Yes but I don't think anyone really takes the SNP seriously! Which in itself is dangerous.
I agree Westminster could play it much tougher but it'd only hard their cause, that's not the case for the SNP (as opposed to the Yes campaign). The SNP in many ways can't lose from a no vote either, they'll have done what they committed to,raised their profile and had several good swings at Westminster.
Can you imagine Westminster playing it tough? It would just drive voters to the SNP. It would be a campaign of putting Scotland down, implying that it couldn't make it as an independent state (They're quite close to saying that anyway!)
It really is a David and Goliath scenario. It's hard for the No Campaign to sound anything but condescending.
Totally agree RE in the event of a no vote. Independence or no Independence, Scotland will be getting more autonomy.
I think Westminster playing it tough would mostly consist of shoving their various vetoes up Alex's rear end, then using them.
Because so much of the Yes campaign is anti-Westminster, rather than pro-independence, the more softly they tread the better. Some of the 'interventions' have not been helpful.
Westminster playing it tough is just saying No. That's all they have to do and unless someone wants to start a terrorist campaign then there isn't a darned thing anyone can do about it.
If the Scottish Parliament unilaterally declared Independence are we going to see British tanks rolling in from England? I do not think so. So they can do something about it.
They can't unilaterally declare independence, they have no legal powers to do so, that is reserved to Westminster and International Law is on the side of Westminster in this, so that is out of the window.
If they did all the UK Government have to do is dissolve the devolved parliament and that's that. And why would any British military need to roll in from England? There is quite enough in Scotland already.
It would be destructive beyond comprehension for the result not to be respected by either side.
Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion...no one suggested it would happen, only that if Westminster wanted to play tough it effectively holds all the cards....as well as the casino in this case.
So now Scotland is predicted to have a credit rating two points below the UK's. And a currency union would reduce the rUK's credit rating, but apparently still in our best interests according to Yes.
The argument Yes have made all along is about the cost to business. So now we have a big cost to business (increased cost of finance) and political suicide for any politicians that agree to it vs a small cost to business due to FX costs if a currency union is not agreed.
But don't worry! Comrade Salmond says it is in rUK's best interests.
Surprised it's likely to be an A grade to be honest, I wonder what it would be if iScotland told rUK to stuff their debt and didn't bother with an attempt at currency union.
Might be in the article, don't have time nor patience to look at the moment, had a big lunch
"Risks tilted to the down side" is the key phrase. That means iScotland will only get an A if everything is perfect. If they don't get a currency union, they'll be lucky to get BBB.
Separate names with a comma.