I was told, the other day, that David Cameron and co. should stop making comments about the Independence referendum that is scheduled to occur in Scotland in September 2014. The thrust of this, pro-Union, person was that Cameron drives the undecided and those in the 'No camp' into being Yes voters because he is so English. Tory boy toff and Eton educated were mentioned as some kind of toxic association.
He went on to suggest that Cameron could do more for the No campaign by saying something along the lines of Cameron actually wanting Scotland to leave the Union and this would make Cameron very happy, etc.. The general thought was that because Cameron is English and because he is a Tory, whatever he says antagonizes voters and makes them do the opposite thing to whatever Cameron wants!
I do not share the opinion that Scottish voters are so shallow that they would take such a momentous decision based on a knee-jerk reaction to comments made by the UK Prime Minister. Nor do I subscribe to the thoughts that the decision is solely a Scottish decision and that the rest of the United Kingdom can have no say in the matter. I welcome the contributions made by the non-Scottish based MPs as well as those Scottish based ones. Also, the honesty that they are displaying in telling the Scots, things that their own elected representatives seem 'feart' to tell them. For example, that if Scotland voted for independence, they would not be able to use the Pound Sterling as a currency. Or rather they would be able to use it but would have zero influence over economic policy and would not be able to depend upon the Bank of England for any bail-outs or such.
It is unfortunately all too rare that we can count on politicians being truthful and so large doses of salt must be taken but the very loud and very public unanimity amongst the leaders of the British parties, suggests that they would find it very difficult to row back on this matter.
When asked, by the leading (and Scottish) commentator, Andrew Neil, what was the Scottish Nationalist Party's Plan B given the united front displayed by Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP took almost 15 minutes saying that the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems didn't actually mean it and all the time, when repeatedly pressed, clearly demonstrated that the SNP have no Plan B!
Couple the Westminster position with the Brussels position, that all new members must adopt the Euro currency, and the EU saying that an independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU and you can see where things are heading, currency-wise, in an independent Scotland.
It is difficult to adopt a Mel Gibson/Willam Wallace stance and cry 'FREEDOM' as you throw off the supposed shackles of English dominance and then immediately replace them with those of the undemocratic EU. I know that the Brussels gravy train pays a lot better than the Westminster one but it's a funny kind of independence that is being offered!
However, it seems that the SNP are not the only ones without a Plan B. Recent reports suggest that the UK Government has no plan in place for how they will deal with a Yes to independence majority vote. (Other than saying that an independent Scotland would not be part of a Pound Sterling currency union!)
I am pro-Union. I believe that the countries of the United Kingdom are 'better together', however, surely it is stupid or some might say, arrogant, to not give any thought to what would be the consequences of a Yes vote?
Some of the issues are reasonably straightforward, at the macro level. For example, sharing out National Debt. However, what about a simple thing like deciding citizenship? Is an English-born worker in Aberdeen's oil industry to be considered as 'Scottish' for pension purposes, come the day? Is a Scot, working in London's banking industry to receive a pension from the rump UK or from Scotland? They will currently both be paying into the same system. This is just one of the very many complex questions that would need to be answered but it beggars belief that no one in either government seems to be thinking about this. Or is it that they are just not saying?
One further example. Say there is a Yes vote and say that after the shock has worn off, a timetable is agreed that sets a date for separation in mid 2018. What then of the 2015 UK General election? Would the MPs elected for Scottish Westminster have any right (certainly only a very questionable moral one) to vote on issues that affect only the rump UK? Should they be restricted to only voting on 'Scottish' issues? Would Scottish voters be involved in a 2017 referendum on EU membership, as promised by the Conservatives (if they were successful in the General Election)?
He went on to suggest that Cameron could do more for the No campaign by saying something along the lines of Cameron actually wanting Scotland to leave the Union and this would make Cameron very happy, etc.. The general thought was that because Cameron is English and because he is a Tory, whatever he says antagonizes voters and makes them do the opposite thing to whatever Cameron wants!
I do not share the opinion that Scottish voters are so shallow that they would take such a momentous decision based on a knee-jerk reaction to comments made by the UK Prime Minister. Nor do I subscribe to the thoughts that the decision is solely a Scottish decision and that the rest of the United Kingdom can have no say in the matter. I welcome the contributions made by the non-Scottish based MPs as well as those Scottish based ones. Also, the honesty that they are displaying in telling the Scots, things that their own elected representatives seem 'feart' to tell them. For example, that if Scotland voted for independence, they would not be able to use the Pound Sterling as a currency. Or rather they would be able to use it but would have zero influence over economic policy and would not be able to depend upon the Bank of England for any bail-outs or such.
It is unfortunately all too rare that we can count on politicians being truthful and so large doses of salt must be taken but the very loud and very public unanimity amongst the leaders of the British parties, suggests that they would find it very difficult to row back on this matter.
When asked, by the leading (and Scottish) commentator, Andrew Neil, what was the Scottish Nationalist Party's Plan B given the united front displayed by Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP took almost 15 minutes saying that the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems didn't actually mean it and all the time, when repeatedly pressed, clearly demonstrated that the SNP have no Plan B!
Couple the Westminster position with the Brussels position, that all new members must adopt the Euro currency, and the EU saying that an independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU and you can see where things are heading, currency-wise, in an independent Scotland.
It is difficult to adopt a Mel Gibson/Willam Wallace stance and cry 'FREEDOM' as you throw off the supposed shackles of English dominance and then immediately replace them with those of the undemocratic EU. I know that the Brussels gravy train pays a lot better than the Westminster one but it's a funny kind of independence that is being offered!
However, it seems that the SNP are not the only ones without a Plan B. Recent reports suggest that the UK Government has no plan in place for how they will deal with a Yes to independence majority vote. (Other than saying that an independent Scotland would not be part of a Pound Sterling currency union!)
I am pro-Union. I believe that the countries of the United Kingdom are 'better together', however, surely it is stupid or some might say, arrogant, to not give any thought to what would be the consequences of a Yes vote?
Some of the issues are reasonably straightforward, at the macro level. For example, sharing out National Debt. However, what about a simple thing like deciding citizenship? Is an English-born worker in Aberdeen's oil industry to be considered as 'Scottish' for pension purposes, come the day? Is a Scot, working in London's banking industry to receive a pension from the rump UK or from Scotland? They will currently both be paying into the same system. This is just one of the very many complex questions that would need to be answered but it beggars belief that no one in either government seems to be thinking about this. Or is it that they are just not saying?
One further example. Say there is a Yes vote and say that after the shock has worn off, a timetable is agreed that sets a date for separation in mid 2018. What then of the 2015 UK General election? Would the MPs elected for Scottish Westminster have any right (certainly only a very questionable moral one) to vote on issues that affect only the rump UK? Should they be restricted to only voting on 'Scottish' issues? Would Scottish voters be involved in a 2017 referendum on EU membership, as promised by the Conservatives (if they were successful in the General Election)?
No comments:
Post a Comment