@Morningsider
The point is 'compelled'. We could choose to comply, we would not be compelled.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Is it just me that sees Jack Skellington from Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas looking out of the 'No Thanks' logo?
(In the interests of humourless balance, Mr Salmond is clearly Oogie Boogie from the same film.)
Posted 10 years ago # -
My mortgage is with an 'English' building society. It tracks the BoE base rate, which I am very happy about and have no intention to change.
I suspect there is nothing in the small print of my contract with them that caters for me suddenly becoming 'foreign' so I'm hoping they have no intention to
ditch mechange my mortgage eitherI would imagine most if not all 'Scottish' Banks are actually regulated by the BoE anyway so are defacto UK banks. If so, most folks mortgage would be unlikely to be affected any great deal.
Of course, international finance isn't my thing so maybe that's an overly simplistic view of things.
Posted 10 years ago # -
IWRATS - if it's a choice then it's of the Hobson's variety. What would happen to Scotland's economy if we couldn't freely access the single market?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Bikeability Edinburgh
Trying not to oversimplify or go beyond the bounds of what I understand myself....
* The 'Scottish' banks are regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority
* I'm nopt aware of any bank that is actually Scottish in any meaningful way
* The base rate is a consequence of the balance between the supply of money created by commercial lending (Sterling is a fiat currency) and the demand for money from those authorised to borrow from the BoE tempered by the issuing and purchasing of bonds including in pursuit of quantitative easing
* Your mortgage may be funded by deposits into your building society or by other money
* Many UK mortgages are actually financed by the savings of Chinese workers through a series of other investments
* The base rate is often seen as the floor to the cost of borrowing (as money could be lent to the BoE rather than to banks if they offered less than the BoE)
* Governments borrow money on the open market. Part of the rate they pay for that depends on the perceived probability of default. Currently about zero for the UK.
* Some people argued that the borrowing costs for iScotland would be higher. It would have no credit record right enough, but would have a hydrocarbon stream to offer as collateral so that's arguable.
* Ms Lamont conflated the rates that might be paid for borrowing by two states (iScotland and the rUK) with the rate set by the central bank for Sterling
*She forgot that the comparison should be with the rUK, not the UK
* If iScottish mortgages were Sterling denominated and banks in iScotland could move money to and from the BoE without undue frictional costs (as required by the EU) it's not self-evident that the customer rates in iScotland need to be higher than in rUKEtc, etc, etc. I've naturally no idea what mortgage rates would be in iScotland. I'm just horrified that someone as ill-informed as Ms Lamont is allowed to mix up a witches brew of fear and doubt and no one asks to see her sums or even if she has a vague notion of how mortgages are priced.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thought this bookie's eye view of what punters are backing in the #indyref sweepstakes would give the stattos here a wee chuckle.
Interesting that Edinburgh is the only city evenly split each way; London only city backing No; Everywhere else backing Yes.
Just a bit of fun, of course. I would imagine the demographics of betting shops are quite different from those of telephone polls: to stereotype rather weighted towards male and working class (though clearly not exclusively if punters are reportedly placing stakes as high as £600k). I suppose certain city types have always liked a flutter on the gee-gees, why not on the Yes/No?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Morningsider
My clarity of language appears to have abandoned me, apologies. The point I was making was one of logic, not of economics.
I have seen it proposed that Scotland would be at once expelled from the EU and subject to EU law.
Quite apart from my view of iScotland's place in the EU, the proposition itself is absurd. If you are outside the EU you are free to follow EU law or not. You cannot be compelled to follow it (or rather punished for not following it), and you can chose not to. Obvious to us, but not to everyone.
Posted 10 years ago # -
TBH, I'm glad no one asks many questions of Ms Lamont. I don't think Scotland has ever produced a lower calibre of politician than her.
And no, I haven't forgotten about Iain Gray.
Posted 10 years ago # -
And no, I haven't forgotten about Iain Gray.
To be fair, Mr Gray seems a decent enough chap. He was just in the wrong job.
Apparently amongst other things he's a football fan. Over the past year I've spotted him several times amongst the Hibs supporters while exiting Easter Road stadium.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That might explain why he always looks like he is chewing a wasp!
Posted 10 years ago # -
@crowriver what are the odds for a No vote? I heard 6/1 on. And 11/8 for yes so there is no return on the No vote you see so no one would take a punt on it?
Posted 10 years ago # -
You're better going for turnout and vote percentages than betting on the result. 2/1 on 40-45% or 4/1 on 45-50%. You get 7/2 on a 70-75% turnout, although it looks like the bookies are expecting 75-80%, which seems too high to me.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Fancy 7/2 on 70-75%
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yeah, I took that. I calculated 73% and today the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey had 74% certain to vote. Tomorrow it looks like TNS will have another poll showing 73% certain to vote.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@gembo, from the link I posted, current odds are 1/8 no; 9/2 yes.
However, what those stats don't show is what the odds were when the bets were placed. I imagine the betting odds will fluctuate according to the number and amount of bets placed, and also the twists and turns of the campaign 'race'.
there is no return on the No vote
Well you got that bit right! Nothing in it politically or financially for Scots. I certainly won't be "taking a punt" on that...
Posted 10 years ago # -
You can get a view of the odds from Neil Lovatt on twitter and at Political Betting. Current implied probabilities, derived from bookies' odds are 82% for No and 18% for Yes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
If you'll excuse me I have to say that this thread has developed a wonderfully nineteen eighties tinge. My memory is that it was during that decade that the idea of society as something to profit from rather than participate in came to the fore.
I'm not interested in making money out of the referendum but I am interested in being right, which is a tedious failing of mine. What I should be interested in is ensuring the right outcome for my country. Interesting article here on one of the crucial and yet unanswered questions 'How many new countries will there be after iScotland comes into existence?'
http://lril.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/12/lril.lru007.full.pdf
I'm pretty sure there would be three new countries.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@IWRATS, fantastic link! Very interesting read.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That's very noble of you and I feel suitably chastised and cheapened. But since we don't know what will be 'right' or even 'best' for our country ever (it's a natural experiment, the outcome being decisive, there being no independent control and no effective counterfactual to the actual outcome) I'll just carry on thinking about and calculating on the more mundane questions of turnout and percentage support. And on one of the few occassions in life where I feel I have a reasonable grasp of what's going on, I'll not feel too bad if I can take some money off the bookies in the process.
Anyway, the article is interesting although I skimmed it, particularly as it seemed rather too reliant on non-legal opinion about a matter of law and was spending too long on what I'm sure is a reasonable legal debate about the Union when the questions will ultimately be resolved by politics. And I just don't regard Tariq Ali as a useful authority on international law.
It seems more a practical question than a legal one, although with obviously legal implications. Who will creditors pursue for their debts and more generally where does the continuing liability lie? I guess if you want the liability for the UK debt to lie with the rest of the UK you have to accept that the rUK is the continuing state.
What will Scotland's position in the EU be? The SG seems to have accepted that the remainder of the UK's relationship will be unchanged (same with Nato and presumably other supranational organisations) so the rUK will be a continuing state, party to and subject to international agreements, and an independent Scotland will be a new state that needs to at least confirm if not establish these relationships.
These points seem to be generally agreed by the Scottish and UK governments and between Lawyers for Yes and Lawyer for No. I can't see what this has added that matters. And then it goes to pot at the end, abandoning legal discussion for something more Batemanesque.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ Instography
The UK Treasury has already confirmed the rUK's liability for all debts incurred up to the vote. I have no idea why they felt able to do this or on what legal basis. I guess they just assumed that they already represented the 'continuator state'. Clearly iScotland should contribute to the repayment and servicing costs of these debts if that can be made part of a fair divorce settlement.
Scotland's position in the law-based EU will be a political decision. We know that no EU law covers the splitting of a member state in two, or the budding off of a new state from a member state depending on your point of view. I can't see any reason why the EU would want to lose the territory of Scotland but retain Scots as EU citizens (there is no legal mechanism for withdrawing EU citizenship from anyone). Probably take longer than eighteen months to sort out, but I don't mind waiting.
NATO? Not law-bound, so who knows? I suspect the clue is in the title. Scotland points at the North Atlantic and is a good place from which to fly over it/slink about under it.
I find the question of how amny new countries there are if Scotland leaves the Union fascinating, because it is so revealing.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I can't even see that there's a question to be answered. I certainly missed it from the article - what does it reveal?
But my point was that it is generally accepted by both the Scottish and UK governments and by international bodies themselves, which will be regarded as the continuing state and which will be the new state. I've no doubt the EU wants Scotland in but the rUK's continuing membership is not in doubt while the EU would need to find a mechanism to continue Scotland's membership.
Secession and dissolution are two different things. It seems generally accepted that Scotland will secede and for Scotland to secede there needs to be both something to secede from and something left behind. It's implied by the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" implies that there is something that continues from which Scotland becomes independent. If the question were "should the United Kingdom be dissolved?" then there would be more doubt about who or what should be considered continuing or new.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Anyone else receive a leaflet in the post today from the Electoral Commision with a pic of a neon sign on the front and back covers reading "THE 2014 SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM VOTING GUIDE"?
All pretty standard stuff on how to register, how to vote, etc. Interesting bits for me are from page 7 onwards. First, what will happen after the referendum in summary. Then, oddly some full page ads (wi' photies an' a'thing) on pp 8-9, one from Yes Scotland, the other from some group calling themselves NO THANKS. I thought it was Better Together? Oh I see in the small print at the bottom it is still BT. Rebrand seems.....interesting. Anyway, on pp. 10-11 also a very interesting "factual" statement in more detail about what would happen after a Yes or No vote. Joint statement by the Scottish Government and the UK Government, apparently.
I reckon this latter is about as near to "the facts" as undecided voters will get*.
* - A complete contrast to the decidely unfactual and frankly scaremongering rhetoric in the NO THANKS ad. Apparently, we will "lose the strength of the UK pound. This would mean we would pay more for our mortgages, credit cards, and loans." Really???? Also apparently "If we leave we are putting our pensions at risk." At risk of what exactly? "If we leave we are risking big companies being forced to move south and Scottish jobs being lost." Forced? By whom? So, more doom, gloom and Project Fear from NO THANKS.
Oh and I love the quote from Ms Gardiner, apparently a "working mum" from Cambuslang: "Do I want to put my family's future at risk just so that nationalists can get what they want?" Thanks for that sophisticated thinking, Lisa.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I thought the leaflet was quite good. Both full page ads give a very good flavour of the two campaigns, and the neutral bits are neutral.
Posted 10 years ago # -
[list]Just the four of us left now with occasional CHdot, bdellar and firedfromthecircus bikeability and morningsider? Everyone else, well bored?
@crow, just out of interest are you ever wrong?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sorry Sally, did not mean to miss you out, just some lengthy posts when I scrolled back and memory failing me. I am often wrong.
As Margo said to Jim- were we just wrong?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Too busy listening to this -
Posted 10 years ago # -
@gem, never. ;-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Arthur Scargill. (@ScargillArthur)
13/08/2014 08:22
It would appear, perhaps contrary to the Murdoch press, that the Scottish YES campaign may be marginally ahead. Socialist strength in unity!"
Posted 10 years ago # -
The ERS leaflet is interesting. Not to a nerd who's heard all this a million times but for the average person, this is the first determinedly neutral thing they've seen (and you'd maybe be amazed at how poorly informed people are). My understanding is that the two campaigns were given their page and allowed to do what they liked with it.
To the punters, they feel like they're being asked to choose between Willy Wonka and the Wizard of Oz.
What is Scargill on about? I did a wee thing yesterday, since the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey is out. The SSAS is pretty much the best you're going to get in terms of measuring public opinion on issues of governance. It's not perfect but the best we have. They are measuring 39:61 over a fieldwork period from mid-May to mid-July. So I took each company's polls over the same period and averaged them to see how the polls were doing in comparison with this benchmark.
YouGov - 40:60
Ipsos MORI - 41:59
TNS-BMRB - 42:58
ICM - 44:56
Survation - 46:54
Panelbase - 47:53Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
