Scotland the Brave!

[Gorth]

Questions about the independence referendum

 

After having ruled England for centuries (The Stuarts), England is now ruled by the Germans (the Hannovers). Apparently some highlanders thought it time to clamp down on the import of cheap haggis or whatever. Strange, I always thought Belgium would be the next European country to split up, followed by a north/south divide of Italy.

 

Dear Scotsmen, you've picked a hell of a time to join the Euro

[Cantousent]

Yeah, how bad does the ruling family have to be before the nobles in your country toss out the monarch to put in place one from a foreign country? I mean, who needs to invade if the people remove the king and cast about for one from outside? Of course, Europe has had its share of upheavals, migrations, and invasions over time, so no big deal I suppose. Nevertheless, this isn't about a king or even an oligarchy aristocracy.

 

The referendum on leaving the UK and becoming a sovereign country within the EU actually sounds somewhat disasterous. There are nations where disolution might not be entirely bad, but for many of the countries in question, I just think it's a way to become a junior partner in what is increasingly a German dominated economic zone. I known quite a few Germans and I've liked them all , but their influence in the Eurozone is not always the most wholesome aspect of the EU. France and Germany have the biggest sway in the zone, of course, but I think Germany is in the best shape to call the shots.

 

Of course, the European Union is kind of like the British Colonial system in that some of the members actually cost more money than they make, if not on paper, then in reality. Places like Greece and Italy and Spain are causing serious headaches. I mean, I know that the colonial model falls apart quickly, but, like some of the British colonies, some of the Eurozone countries are starting to be a drag on overall health. I'm not saying that an independent Scotland would end up in the same boat, but there are a lot of variables involved in separating from England, and some of them are going to be pretty tough on Scotland and a lot of those issues will follow them when they finally drop the pound and join the Euro.

 

Up to them, I suppose.

[Gorth]

Much of Europes history is about the houses of Anjou, Bourbon and Habsburg slugging it out on the battlefields with the Medici's cackling gleefully in the background while financing the wars

 

The "colonial" comparison is actually pretty apt, as it describes the quest of the old strong economies to cultivate new markets and resource sources. I think it was Enoch who described the Greek tragedy as a third world country economy trying to play in a first world league, paraphrased.

 

Now Scotland suddenly wants to throw in their lot too. I can understand the feeling of disenfranchisement (probably not a real word) with having too many layers of administration. Local parliament, then the one in London and finally eurocrats in Brussels trying to assert themselves as executive, unelected rulers of member states.

 

It would have made sense doing it 10 years ago when the common currency was looming on the horizon. The train has probably left the station by now.

 

...insert Monty Python skit with instantaneous turning into Scotsmen here...

[Humodour]

Haha, this is awesome.

[Walsingham]

I can totally understand the need for Scotland to be able to set its own economic policy. But total independence would leave them materially poorer, and the UK destitute in every other way. The Scots, with the notable of exception of a 'certain' former Prime Minister impersonator, are brick and mortar to the nation. They've been our writers, our engineers, our economists, our soldiers.

 

Any talk about ancient wrongs is just the blether of mountebanks and carpetbaggers. If they decide to split then they'll be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

Worse, they'll be trading a nation in which they have a very great democratic voice for a super-state where they have none.

[Morgoth]

I say we split the UK into 20 little pieces - for democracy and freedom, of course!

[Humodour]

I think there are a lot of countries out there that need to be split up for the good of their citizens and the world - The USA, China, for instance. Unfortunately I don't think the UK is one of them.

[Walsingham]

I say we split the UK into 20 little pieces - for democracy and freedom, of course!

 

A kind and generous offer. Please permit me to reciprocate the favour on your person.

[Rostere]

This was only a matter of time. Now, when will Wales become a sovereign country?

[Walsingham]

I'm surprised no-one's brought up the broader issue of optimal country size. Krez briefly mentioned it, but no more.

[Nightshape]

Now this will sound a bit weird, but without the Scots this country is genuinely screwed, we're talking Tory forever kinda screwed.

 

What Wals says is right thought, the Scots bring so much to the nation.

[Walsingham]

Now this will sound a bit weird, but without the Scots this country is genuinely screwed, we're talking Tory forever kinda screwed.

 

What Wals says is right thought, the Scots bring so much to the nation.

 

What Scotland really needs is a weak currency. They do agriculture and tourism. Swapping the pound for the Euro is barking mad.

 

However, I'd welcome a referendum in some ways. Make the case, force everyone to grow up a bit and think hard about the results rather than this sliding tumble by way of patriotism. Being pro-Scottish doesn't mean you have to be anti-British.

 

Plus, as Nightshape says, how bloody dull and insipid would England be without the other parts of the Union?

[Gorth]

Reminds of the time when the Faroe Islands had decided that all the flag waving was good and it was time to become fully independent. They probably had it all planned out from the goodbye speeches to the discussions about a foreign minister until somebody tapped them on their shoulder and said something to the effect of "Great, that means we no longer have to pay billions in subsidies, as that would be a grave insult to a foreign and independent nation to support them like a third world country". First they tried to argue that of course they could be independent and still receive subsidies, but eventually the sillyness of it became obvious to even the most die-hard nationalist and the plans are currently put on hold (last time I checked, about a decade ago).

[Nightshape]

Now this will sound a bit weird, but without the Scots this country is genuinely screwed, we're talking Tory forever kinda screwed.

 

What Wals says is right thought, the Scots bring so much to the nation.

 

What Scotland really needs is a weak currency. They do agriculture and tourism. Swapping the pound for the Euro is barking mad.

 

However, I'd welcome a referendum in some ways. Make the case, force everyone to grow up a bit and think hard about the results rather than this sliding tumble by way of patriotism. Being pro-Scottish doesn't mean you have to be anti-British.

 

Plus, as Nightshape says, how bloody dull and insipid would England be without the other parts of the Union?

 

I actually think that southern England, not counting Cornwall, is perhaps the dullest part of the Union, the city of London specifically, Greater London has its interesting parts, but my impression of exiting the tube at Bank (where I travel via daily), was somewhat an apocalyptic nightmare of grey suited human worker drones on their way to work in the financial sector, not only was the version of the rat race the most depressing, and frightening experience in my life, but it also reminded me specifically why the Scots are so important to this nation, we need hairy, grown men, in tartan skirts (kilts obviously), brandishing sporrans, and bag pipes to breath a little life into the UK, and we also need no nonsense speaking fire haired women who could quite happily stamp on your face as f*** your brains out.

[Humodour]

Now this will sound a bit weird, but without the Scots this country is genuinely screwed, we're talking Tory forever kinda screwed.

 

What Wals says is right thought, the Scots bring so much to the nation.

 

What Scotland really needs is a weak currency. They do agriculture and tourism. Swapping the pound for the Euro is barking mad.

 

Every country needs to be able to run its own monetary policy. I look at California and Greece and this belief is only hardened. The EU is a brilliant idea. A single currency (and a single central bank) for wildly different economies is not.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Krezack

[Morgoth]

I don't see how a weak currency is gonna help the people on medium and long term.

 

Switzerland, Germany etc. always had hard currency policy and it paid off for them.

[Walsingham]

I'm no financial wizard, but you can have countries with comparatively weak currencies. Obviously you don't want Zimbabwe levels, but being a bit lower helps exports and tourism.

 

Unless the demographics of Scotland change massively then it's going to remain low in population and high in land and minerals. So tourism and exports are going to stay what it makes. As Krez says, being in a commmon market is great. Being pegged to a strong currency isn't.

 

I suppose in theory it might make sense to have two euros and two banks. I read this suggestion in an article yesterday. Besides disturbing the megalomaniac dreams of core industrialised Europe, I think it could be a splendid idea.

[Humodour]

****ING ****ITY ****.

 

I had typed a response going into some economic detail, than I accidentally hit some keyboard combo that apparently means 'refresh'.

 

So, Morgoth, will 'just because' suffice?

[Zoraptor]

I don't see how a weak currency is gonna help the people on medium and long term.

It's not so much the strong/ weak currency dichotomy or keeping it at various levels longer term that is important (stability is usually the best approach long term), but the ability to have it be flexible and responsive to your unique circumstances as a country. Something that the current Euro set up lacks. If you're in an economic bind one of the best immediate responses is to drop the currency as it makes you 'instantly' more competitive.

 

If you're lucky enough to have your debt in your own denomination you can also inflate away/ print money to pay your debts by having a lower value currency, something Greece et alia would love to do at this point, and that the US is actually doing to an extent. If you don't then you want a sufficiently low currency to keep you competitive, but sufficiently high that you can still pay down debt, all without turning into Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. You can also make a bit of extra money and influence the valuation by buying/ selling your own currency, so long as you don't get into a speculation war you can't win (UK and the ERM, for example. Bet there are a few people retrospectively glad that happened)

[Wrath of Dagon]

All that currency manipulation does is come back to bite you in the ass in the end, as we're seeing right now. It's too bad the gold standard isn't viable for a modern economy.

[Humodour]

All that currency manipulation does is come back to bite you in the ass in the end, as we're seeing right now. It's too bad the gold standard isn't viable for a modern economy.

 

The lol standard.

[Morgoth]

All that currency manipulation does is come back to bite you in the ass in the end, as we're seeing right now. It's too bad the gold standard isn't viable for a modern economy.

 

The lol standard.

So, you think cotton/paper money is more worth? Based on what? You gotta explain this to me now, Krezzy.

[Humodour]

All that currency manipulation does is come back to bite you in the ass in the end, as we're seeing right now. It's too bad the gold standard isn't viable for a modern economy.

 

The lol standard.

So, you think cotton/paper money is more worth? Based on what? You gotta explain this to me now, Krezzy.

 

a) gold mining companies would control the world's money

b) certain countries have more gold than others (e.g. South Africa has huge reserves) and thus the richest countries would be those that could mine the most gold

c) everyone wants the Central Banks to step in and help prevent the collapse of the Eurozone, and yet that kind of behaviour would be impossible with a gold standard

 

Just as a few examples of why it's a stupid idea.

 

It's a simple enough concept and perhaps that's why it appeals so much to some people. Complexity like floated currencies and central banks can be so boring and difficult to understand, so why bother?

 

The existence of floated currencies and central banks did not cause these financial crises. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Guard Dog]

The existence of floated currencies and central banks did not cause these financial crises. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Very true (as was the rest of your post). Although there is a protectionist argument to be made in favor of asset backed currency. However, as I have conceeded numerous time here, the advances of the economies and standards of living we have seen over the past half century probably would not have happened had we not abandoned the gold standard.

 

Either way WoD it's a moot thing to argue because that genie is not going to get put back in that bottle.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're all acting like I said we should switch to the gold standard immediately. On the contrary, I said the gold standard isn't viable. The problem is the money supply has to expand at the same rate as the economy grows, which isn't possible with gold. Paper money is fine in theory, the problem is you're depending on spineless, cowardly politicians to make sure it doesn't lose value, which of course doesn't work. Paper money is great for the "eat the cake and have it too" mentality of believing you can get something for nothing, but this inevitably leads to disaster.