You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your spin.
What inaccuracies ? I have pointed out that Tory governments, despite all the spin, do not reduce the UK tax burden. You have not provided any shred of evidence that my claim is inaccurate. All you've provided is a lot of spin about "peaks", and lots of attempts at pointless point scoring, as you usually do.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]I have pointed out that Tory governments, despite all the spin, do not reduce the UK tax burden. You have not provided any shred of evidence that my claim is inaccurate.
I have mentioned Heath once or twice...
If you have to go back over 40 years before you can find any evidence at all that a Tory government has actually reduced the tax burden, then it very much makes my point, ie, despite all the spin Tory governments do not reduce the tax burden. Thank you for your help in proving that.
Fiscal policy includes taxation (input) AND government spending (output). [b]Far more informative to compare both together, [/b]hence the Guardian graph. Who delivers the biggest gap between the two (the deficit) and who delivers the surplus (albeit temporary)?
Following on from Q2, who forget his Keynesian training and why did he/they screw it up afterwards - hubris?
Of course none of this matters because in "La La Land" you can (uniquely) cut tax and raise revenue for ever, no wonder people want to vote yes!!!!
[quote=ernie_lynch ]If you have to go back over 40 years
As opposed to going back over 30? Of course the difficulty is if you're wanting to compare with the year immediately before a Tory government took power you have to go back over 30, or over 40 - and it seems you're happy with a single data point.
Yes thank you aracer, from now on I will say that it's been over 40 years since the Tories last reduced the tax burden.
Well done for "demolishing" my argument.
🙄
Far more informative to compare both together,
Still looks worse under Tories to me [ I would say that] but there is very little in it IMHO
Who delivers the biggest gap between the two (the deficit) and who delivers the surplus (albeit temporary)?
Is that not labour for both points? Not sure I get what you are trying to say here tbh.
However in general [ despite the big hitting] I am not sure there is much disagreement
Tories tend to not cut taxes but say they do
Shall we move back to the topic and call AS a BS lying ****?
Your argument being that neither the last Tory government nor the current coalition have reduced the tax burden, hence Tory government(s) don't reduce the tax burden?
[quote=Junkyard ]there is very little in it IMHO
I was going to suggest that we can all agree with that, but not sure that's the case, so I'll simply say that I agree.
Shall we move back to the topic and call AS a BS lying ****?
Surely we can all agree with that? No?
I've got evidence that over 40 years ago AS said something which wasn't a lie, so no, you're all wrong.
Linky or I don't believe it, ernie
AS even published a very big book recently outlining the case [b]against[/b] independence - so he tells the truth (indirectly) on the odd occasion!
bencooper - MemberSo much uncertainty either way.
Or perhaps a massive amount more uncertainty with independance.
I'm not sure how you could claim anything else, [i]unless[/i] you'll say anything to try and convince people to vote yes.
Hmmm....
Can we move on please. Just why we feel Scotland worth all this waffle. Yorkshire is far more worthy of freedom from the oppression of Westminster. We'll not be needing the pound as we spend nowt.
Or perhaps a massive amount more uncertainty with independance.
How do you quantify uncertainty?
Scotland has a strong economy. No-one - not Cameron, not Osborne, not Darling - denies that Scotland would manage fine after independence. So what's uncertain? Details around currency and EU membership are the main ones that are vexing people.
Well, EU membership is already at threat because of the Westminster government's plans for an in-out referendum. And currency - well depends on whether you think the UK economy is in safe hands at the moment.
The other uncertainty is whether you think Scotland is grown up enough to look after it's own affairs - or are we too poor, too wee, too stupid to look after ourselves?
The No campaign's real trump card is uncertainty. You can't be sure what'll happen if you vote Yes, so best play it safe and vote No
Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If they do their job properly then there is no uncertainty, just a list of outcomes, options and explanation about how these will become reality. Wasn’t there a big white booklet which cost millions to produce and distribute which would dispel all of the uncertainty?
Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If they do their job properly then there is no uncertainty, just a list of outcomes, options and explanation about how these will become reality. Wasn’t there a big white booklet which cost millions to produce and distribute which would dispel all of the uncertainty?
If they were to go though and spell out the possibilities and what they would like to do based on every possible decision that could be make that is out of their hands the book would be an awful awful lot bigger.
As far as I can tell they've done about as much as they can. They've listed their policy position, what they want to achieve and the effects they think it will have, which is a more than any of the No parties have done. The truth is in the case of a yes vote the SNP will carry out the process and then there will an election and which point any of the political policies that would occur after independence could be changed. Not a lot of point looking further than that.
Scotland has a strong economy.
The South East has a strong economy. In fact the economy of London and the South East has expanded almost twice as fast as the rest of the country since the 2008 financial crisis, and now a quarter of the UK's population is responsible for half of the UK's growth.
Does that make the case that an independent South East of England would be financially sound ? Of course not. It is precisely because the South East is part of a much larger country that it is doing so well. Without the rest of the UK the South East would be up Shit Creek without a paddle.
It does probably make the case for the rest of the UK to break away from the South East though 🙂
There is one big flaw with the White Paper - it assumes after independence a Scottish government would be negotiating with a rational Westminster government who is interested in an amicable settlement that benefits the rUK.
The White Paper doesn't anticipate the Westminster government taking a massive huff, refusing any kind of currency negotiation, and threatening to put guard posts along the border.
Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If their job properly then there is no uncertainty
The UK government is deliberately preventing access to the EU commission and therefore causing the uncertainty .
gordimhor - MemberThe UK government is deliberately preventing access to the EU commission and therefore causing the uncertainty.
One aspect of uncertainty out of many many more.
One aspect of uncertainty out of many many more.
Please give examples - I'm trying to quantify whether, say, things are more uncertain after 5 years of independence or 5 years staying in the union.
[quote=bencooper ]There is one big flaw with the White Paper - it assumes after independence a Scottish government would be negotiating with a rational Westminster government who is interested in an amicable settlement that benefits [s]the rUK.[/s] Scotland
Fixed that for you, on the basis that you're referring to the currency "asset". Have you still not noticed that the currency argument is done - the research has been done and suggests that it would not be to the benefit of rUK to have a currency union, so I'm not sure what you think there is to negotiate.
Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
Jobs leaving Scotland.
Loss of trade.
The many costs of becoming independant.
Et cetera.
I'm trying to quantify
You're really not.
You're trying to find any way to promote the Yes vote whilst ignoring anything that might suggest it isn't a good idea.
Be honest with yourself.
I'd rather maintain the union, because I like the way the UK is made up of several different entities each with their own identity.
Maybe that's because I'm the product of Grandparents all of differing nationalities, I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the Yes vote, and anyone who pretends that it will be definitely a positive or a negative outcome is talking out of their 'arris.
Fixed that for you
Not really - surveys show that most people and businesses in the rUK think a currency union makes sense.
Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
Jobs leaving Scotland.
Loss of trade.
The many costs of becoming independant.
What businesses? Some have said that they're making contingency plans just in case everything goes wrong, but of course they are - every business does, and it doesn't mean they think they'll need the contingency plans.
The costs are more than offset by the savings, not having to pay for Trident and the many other things where Westminster has different spending priorities to Holyrood.
Maybe that's because I'm the product of Grandparents all of differing nationalities, I'm not sure.
Yeah, me too - two grandparents from Manchester, two from New York State. Not quite sure why grandparents come into this.
The costs are more than offset by the savings
This is a prime example of you offering up an opinion as fact.
You have absolutely no idea how much it could end up costing Scotland, no one does.
You have absolutely no idea how much it could end up costing Scotland, no one does.
One can make guesses by looking at similarly-sized countries around the world.
[quote=bencooper ]Not really - surveys show that most people and businesses in the rUK think a currency union makes sense.
Do they? Linky?
In any case, the important question is what those people who know about such things say is to the benefit of rUK, not what man in the street (who doesn't appreciate the downsides for the rUK of currency union) thinks. Nor is it what the SNP thinks is to the benefit of rUK.
Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
Jobs leaving Scotland.
Loss of trade.
The many costs of becoming independant.
Et cetera.
And equally the exact opposite could happen. It's all guess work and scaremongering.
bencooper - MemberOne can make guesses by looking at similarly-sized countries around the world.
What countries of similar size, political system and economy are you comparing with?
And equally the exact opposite could happen. It's all guess work and scaremongering.
It's definitely guesswork.
Do they? Linky?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/16/opposition-currency-union-rises-sharply-england-an/
I've not seen any later than this. However, I have seen earlier polls taken before people had been informed/scaremongers as to what it would really mean. These happened to be much more positive.
was kind of after a linky supporting ben's assertion 😉
Ben, I believe that you are mistaken on two fronts (1) clear opposition to currency union in rUK * and (2) the responsibility of the gov or the rUK is to protect/maximise the interests of rUK - its that simple. They would have no direct responsibility towards the interests of a foreign country. It would be naive to assume that there would be a nice, smooth and easy adjustment process (for either side).
* Beyond public opinion (since that doesn't matter in practice), official advice has been requested and given re the Currency Union and the result was clear (no) and accepted by all three main political parties. It is off-the-agenda. Of course, we eck's team are working on plan c now, so he maintains his bluster in the embarrassing interim, but that is irrelevant. The potential costs of no currency union (ie transaction costs) are dwarfed by the assymetric risks associated with one. Only a fool would recommend accepting that unless there was clear control of all fiscal and monetary levers etc which is not what you folk are voting for. Fortunately, the government are not being advised by fools.
Time (long overdue) for Plan C....
I have no idea if Harvard educated economist Professor David Simpson is a fool but he claims :
[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/professor-david-simpson-currency-union-would-benefit-ruk-more-than-iscotlan.1393953769 ]Currency union would benefit rUK more than iScotland[/url]
Quote :
[i]It would actually be in Scotland's greater self-interest to use the pound unilaterally .....
The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is "an advantage, not a disadvantage" as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said.
"Indeed, this would not only be possible but, if Scottish interests alone were to count, it would be desirable. It would deliver the main benefits of a currency union of low transactions costs, no set up costs, no exchange rate risk, without some of the costs."[/i]
In his case, perhaps less a fool but more a maverick. Basic argument, without a lender of last resort, banks wouldn't take (much) less risk as there is no back-up. Nice theory, but practice over centuries says the opposite.
In the "real world", FS industry in Scotland is pretty clear and making contingencies already - imagine what would happen to your borrowing costs if there was no lender of last resort? Stay the same, come down....hardly!!
.... if Scottish interests alone were to count.....
They don't. Needs agreement with rUK and rUK 's position is clear. "No" and "call his bluff." - all freely available on the web too with supporting reasons.
I think an interesting observation in this thread is that it seems mostly the englandshirists that are pro no and the scotlandshirists are mostly pro yes.
Which is surprising on this board, other boards I go on there are place where it's abotu 90% yes so you can hardly read anything into that. but i'm quite surprised and encouraged about my general sense of things here. 🙂 Or that could just be my sense, I think a thread poll may be interesting viewing.
They don't. Needs agreement with rUK and rUK 's position is clear.
Have you read the link ?
[i]"It would be quite possible for Scotland to keep the pound following independence without entering into any formal currency union"[/i]
Btw you're arguing with Professor David Simpson, not me.
The HM Treasury one (yes) and that's the one that counts, the herald's? Only as far as a non-registration allows but I have read his arguments before. Interesting in theory, perhaps a bit late? But the logic is quite appealing for a libertarian!!
I posted a straw poll in a new thread. 🙂
Perhaps on this thread, although discussions socially the last few weeks suggest about 60% no amongst the Scotlandshirists, as you put it. The split there is more towards No being those that have thought about it lots and the Yes being those that like the principle and don't want to think about how it might actually have to work.it seems mostly the englandshirists that are pro no and the scotlandshirists are mostly pro yes.
Yes being those that like the principle and don't want to think about how it might actually have to work.
You mean the SNP? 😀
Maybe, more than willing to admit that my views and natural bias tend to yes.oldbloke - Member
it seems mostly the englandshirists that are pro no and the scotlandshirists are mostly pro yes.
Perhaps on this thread, although discussions socially the last few weeks suggest about 60% no amongst the Scotlandshirists, as you put it. The split there is more towards No being those that have thought about it lots and the Yes being those that like the principle and don't want to think about how it might actually have to work.
1) clear opposition to currency union in rUK * and (2) the responsibility of the gov or the rUK is to protect/maximise the interests of rUK - its that simple. They would have no direct responsibility towards the interests of a foreign country. It would be naive to assume that there would be a nice, smooth and easy adjustment process (for either side).
He is correct the union will only happen if rUK choose it and there are considerable disadvantages to them in agreeing to it. Will they I dont know tbh as it is a political decision rather than just an economic one. Knowing the truth is hard as currently they wont say or do anything that helps the yes vote. What they will do at the time is guess work largely though the prudent approach is to assume no they wont but it is only a probably.
Basic argument, without a lender of last resort, banks wouldn't take (much) less risk as there is no back-up. Nice theory, but practice over centuries says the opposite.
Examples ? It seems counter intuitive to say this - not saying it is wrong as I dont know.
The split there is more towards No being those that have thought about it lots and the Yes being those that like the principle and don't want to think about how it might actually have to work.
So what you are saying is that hose who agree with you have "thought about it"...confirmation bias somewhat.
I tend to agree yes is an emotive vote about self determination rather than an economic or logic one, FWIW the same applies to the EU as well and those who wish to leave.
Far from it. I've asked people why they take the view they do. Those who say no list off a bunch of reasons. Those who say yes just say they think it would be better and when asked how "better" would be achieved have little or nothing beyond saying local decision making is better. I'd have loved them to have more substantive thinking behind their views so we could have had a debate, but there wasn't much to work with.So what you are saying is that hose who agree with you have "thought about it"...confirmation bias somewhat.
was kind of after a linky supporting ben's assertion
Do you see what i did there
How do you quantify uncertainty?
Banks, speculators and investors do this literally all day every day eg when deciding which bonds to why and where to locate new investment. There is a massive, massive industry to do this.
The Harvard prof is addressing moral hazard hat incentivized risky behavior when there is a safety net (where the government interferes with the market). We don't have to imagine what would happen in a system without lenders of last resort - you can just look at bank behavior in markets where there isn't an effective central bank capable of intervening.
Scotland (or any other country) doesn't need the permission of the UK to use the pound. That is bobbins. It would need agreement determine monetary policy. Query whether that's a big loss when you only have a tenth of a voice anyway.
[quote=konabunny ]Scotland (or any other country) doesn't need the permission of the UK to use the pound. That is bobbins. It would need agreement determine monetary policy. Query whether that's a big loss when you only have a tenth of a voice anyway.
At the moment the economies of both parts are quite similar, and it isn't in the interests of the rest of the UK to have a monetary policy which would harm the Scottish economy, no matter how little "say" they might have in the matter. If I understand correctly one of the points of iS is to allow them to do things differently, and clearly it would no longer be in the interests of rUK to worry about the effect of monetary policy on Scotland. I wonder if there's any recent precedent of a currency area where the parties have different economies and the monetary policy which suits one doesn't suit the other, which we could use to see what happens?
Of course Scotland doesn't need permission to use the pound - or if that is awkward politically they could have their own Scottish pound which is tied to the rUK pound. That would be plan B and plan C I think, but those don't apparently exist (and opinion among the SNP advisors appears to be divided over the merits of either option). There does seem to be a lot of confusion over the idea that Scotland using the pound has been ruled out (I wonder if it's in some people's interests to further that confusion), when it's simply the currency union which has.
A tenth of a voice versus no voice - you decide. There is plenty of recent and relevant evidence to help you make the sensible decision.
I wonder if there's any recent precedent of a currency area where the parties have different economies and the monetary policy which suits one doesn't suit the other, which we could use to see what happens?
😀 but not sure it works without a smiley!!! 😀
I think he means the Euro zone
That said it would seem fair to say the ruk and iS are harmonised currently
When these guys agree, Independence is nearly a done deal. 🙂
[url=
Fans for Independence[/url]
[url=
Fans for Independence[/url]
I am confused. The paper today has a factual,balanced story that in the event of a yes vote Scotland would have as few as 3,000 uni places for Scots as English students would use the EU agreement to flood over the border. But I thought that on the second 10 or so pages of this thread all the clever English people on here were telling us we would not be part of the EU. Or is that just an example of another non scary project no-fear story and I should not worry myself about it?
Oh it is all so difficult! What is a poor simple Teuchter like me to do in September?
How could you forget [url=
Thistle fans for independence[/url] 😉
I don't think anyone sensible has ever said Scotland won't be part of the EU, what is debatable is what conditions are imposed to join it, and most would expect the Euro to be one.
Once part of the EU, then the Scottish Uni's will have to let in people from England, Wales and N.I. under normal EU conditions. The SNP have tried claiming they'd keep the current system in place once independent, but that clearly would be in breach of EU law.
all the clever English people on here were telling us we would not be part of the EU.
English ? Why English ? You appear to be assuming that all those who question the wisdom of Scottish independence must be English, why's that ?
Alistair Darling is a Scottish MP, lives in Scotland, represents Scottish constituents, and will vote in the Scottish referendum.
This is what he says : [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9856083/Alistair-Darling-Scotland-faces-nine-year-wait-to-join-EU.html ]Scotland faces nine-year wait to join EU[/url]
The need to reduce the argument for Scottish independence to the level of Scottish v English smacks of desperation. Presumably this desperation is due to a lack of a sensible strategy which has looked at all the consequences of independence in detail.
There's certainly no carefully thought out 'business plan' by the yes campaign to offer the referendum voters.
You appear to be assuming that all those who question the wisdom of Scottish independence must be English, why's that ?
He spoke of on here and as far as I am aware that is broadly true. Sadlly Alistair Darling does not post on here.
I do agree that reducing it to nationality is pointless but i think his broader point was the no campaign is more "english" and runs scare stories that are utter BS via a campaign called project fear.
Yes I'm aware that Alistair Darling doesn't post on here. But as I said, he [i][b]appears[/i][/b] to be assuming that all those who question the wisdom of Scottish independence must be English.
Of course I might have got that wrong and duckman fully understands that the problem for the Yes campaign isn't opposition from the English and Welsh, but from Scottish voters.
[b][i] Some 46% of those outside of Scotland asked to imagine waking up and finding the country independent from the rest of the UK said they "wouldn't mind", while 34% said they would be dismayed and 11% said they would be delighted.
When adults in Scotland were asked the same question, there was more evidence of the task facing Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, and the Yes campaign - with 46% saying they would be dismayed and just a quarter saying they would be delighted.[/i][/b]
http://news.sky.com/story/1201211/scottish-independence-46-percent-dont-mind
ernie_lynch - Member
English ? Why English ?
Crikey, Ernie I know you said you haven't been following the debate that closely, but I am surprised that you need to ask this!!!! The answer is obvious.......
All this uncertainty business.
How on earth did all those countries which fought for independence survive? Surely they faced much more uncertainty than the Scots will with a negotiated independence. Or is this just another version of the Scots are stupider than other people?
Can anyone show an example of the EU expelling 5 million citizens? There is not a precedent for Scotland. The EU has shown a pragmatic approach in the past and it will again. Something will be negotiated, and sooner rather than later. This is just fear tactics.
But if we don't get into the EU, what's the problem with that? There's other similar sized European countries flourishing outwith the EU. Heck, even the Channel Islands are not EU members, and they're tiny. Or is this once again just another version of the Scots are too stupid argument?
How on earth did all those countries which fought for independence survive?
Well for a start they weren't part of the UK. This theory that Scotland is somehow the last colony of the British Empire is absurd.
Of course Scotland can be independent, and of course it shouldn't have too much trouble joining the EU. The uncertainty is whether it will benefit Scotland. In the opinion of many it won't.
Can anyone show an example of the EU expelling 5 million citizens?
Scottish people won't stop being in the EU for the simple reason even if Scotland wasn't in it, you'd just use a rUK passport, which you;d be entitled too. It's the trade deals, rebates, currency etc. that will change for an iScotland regardless of whether it's in or out of the EU. These could have profound effects on everything from companies of all industries, farmers, fishermen, and other things like EU money for regeneration projects.
he appears to be assuming that all those who question the wisdom of Scottish independence must be English
You sure ? not sure how he could have made it clearer it was reference to here tbh
all the clever English people on here were telling us we would not be part of the EU
ernie_lynch - Memberall the clever English people on here were telling us we would not be part of the EU.
English ? Why English ? You appear to be assuming that all those who question the wisdom of Scottish independence must be English, why's that ?
Ernie; see JY's post. And if you can be bothered, about pages 10-20 of the thread.
Of course I might have got that wrong and duckman fully understands that the problem for the Yes campaign isn't opposition from the English and Welsh, but from Scottish voters.
Yes,you did get that wrong,you lot can't vote in Sept,only folk up here can,hence stories like today's Uni scare. "my clever English people" quote was based on the number of posts started with "You are dreaming if you think you will get into Europe." or words to that effect. Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree, and there are lots of Spanish people who want to ensure they keep Catalonia posting on here. It is of course also to be commended that nobody from the Westminster Government has attempted to influence the decision making progress in any way.
[quote=epicyclo ]Can anyone show an example of the EU expelling 5 million citizens?
Have I missed something here? Isn't it you voting to leave, rather than us voting to throw you out?
But if we don't get into the EU, what's the problem with that?
<shrug> don't expect me to try and argue the advantages of being in the EU, but there seem plenty on your side who consider it essential.
Why wouldn't Scotland want to be in the EU? The benefits would outweigh the losses. Though we want independence from Westminster we don't want to be isolationist. That doesn't work. The No campaign are trying their best to paint it as a choice between being part of everything or being part of nothing, which is so far from the truth.
Despite all your protestations duckman, you give every impression that you see the Scottish independence debate as a Scottish v English issue.
And misgivings about an independent Scotland's EU status isn't restricted to "you lot" who can't vote, as my link shows.
Whatever you want Ernie,as JY pointed out to you I used the term "on this thread" but hey-ho, if you want to reduce my reasons for wanting independence,which have been stated on this,and many other threads a number of times to a dislike of the English,carry on. Oh and good to see your multiple bans haven't stopped your selective use of quoting to try and score cheap points.
looks slightly different to"you lot" who can't vote
which is what I actually wrote.Yes,you did get that wrong,you lot can't vote in Sept,only folk up here can,hence stories like today's Uni scare.
And just to clear another point up, "folk" refers to all current residents of Scotland who can participate in the September poll,regardless of country of birth.
Despite all your protestations duckman, you give every impression that you see the Scottish independence debate as a Scottish v English issue.
No he does not nor does he even come close to suggesting that neither in what you quoted nor in this thread
Its a very weak attack and I am not sure why you have decided to play the man with a made up attack.
Whatever you want Ernie,as JY pointed out to you I used the term "on this thread"
Yes I was fully aware that you said "on this thread", I never doubted that. I pointed out that misgivings about an independent Scotland's EU status isn't restricted to 'clever English people' on this thread.
I provided a link to comments made by a Scottish politician (which junkyard helpfully pointed out doesn't post on here) to show that.
I'm glad to hear you claim that you don't see the Scottish independence debate as a Scottish v English issue, that's excellent. I do however retain the right not to be fully convinced.
[quote=Junkyard ]I am not sure why you have decided to play the man with a made up attack.
Not been here long? 😉
ernie_lynch - Member
"How on earth did all those countries which fought for independence survive?"
Well for a start they weren't part of the UK. This theory that Scotland is somehow the last colony of the British Empire is absurd...
I'm not just talking about countries which got independence from the UK. There's plenty other examples. Nothing to do where they got their independence from, they would have faced far more uncertainty, and yet somehow they have gone forward.
I agree. Scotland is not a colony. We are a country in a bipartisan agreement with England and its territories (at 1707) to form the United Kingdom.
<whoosh> - you know what that sound is epicyclo?
I'd imagine those countries which actually fought for their independence had rather less rosy prospects if they hadn't done so than ones which have a nice civilised vote on the issue.
aracer - Member
<whoosh> - you know what that sound is epicyclo?...
The air leaking from your head? 🙂
😆
That WAS a good comeback.
How will the vote work then?
Will it be a simple majority, if so how would it go if it were 50.3 % yes, 49.7% no for example?
Is there a minimum figure at which Independence is achieved?
Aha, you have spotted a problem - the Edinburgh Agreement allows the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on independence. It does not bind the Westminster Government to honour the result of that referendum, and some Westminster ministers have hinted that they might not. In the event of a close vote, Westminster could argue that the referendum has failed to deliver a "decisive expression of the views of the people of Scotland", as required by the Edinburgh Agreement.
bencooper - Member
Aha, you have spotted a problem - the Edinburgh Agreement allows the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on independence. It does not bind the Westminster Government to honour the result of that referendum, and some Westminster ministers have hinted that they might not...
That could result in a small amount of unrest...
[quote=bencooper ]In the event of a close vote, Westminster could argue that the referendum has failed to deliver a "decisive expression of the views of the people of Scotland", as required by the Edinburgh Agreement.
Does the Edinburgh agreement actually say the bit you've quoted and give any more context (clearly I could go and look it up, but as you have a greater interest in this than I do I'm assuming you might know)?
Well if there isn't a clear cut result perhaps they could agree to give independence to any counties that vote for it, but any counties that vote against it remain in the union ?
It seems to have worked well in Ireland so I can't see why the same arrangement shouldn't be used in Scotland.