[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Something which remains a distinct possibility :

There's only one poll that counts btw

Glad I've finally got to use that line. Someone usually gets in first.

To be honest, I've no real idea how this is going to pan out. If the polling companies findings are accurate, no voters are awfy quiet about it. Which is interesting in itself. The yes crowd are very very vocal, you'll see Yes far more than No. That said I've seen far more union jacks this last few months than in the first few years of being here.

Some of the findings in the Scottish Attitudes Survey where surprising as well.

Of course what would be far more ironic would be if the people of Scotland were to reject the nats and vote to remain in a union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

So you expected a Yes vote?

Glad I've finally got to use that line.

Yes but it wasn't really used appropriately was it ?

I said : [i]"Something which remains a distinct possibility".[/i] I made no prediction. The retort would have worked a lot better if I had actually attempted to predict the outcome of the referendum.

It wasn't a particularly serious retort tbh.

I was unsure of the correct emoticon to use so hoped the correct intonation would be apparent. Nevermind.

So you expected a Yes vote?

I thought it was the most likely outcome a few months back, I don't anymore.

ernie_lynch - Member

Now personally I think that Yes Scotland will probably win on the day, but no one knows for sure.

Posted 4 months ago #

New polls:

ICM for Scotland on Sunday: Yes 45% (+2), No 55% (-2)
Panelbase for Sunday Herald: Yes 48% (+2), No 52% (-2)
(Both excluding undecideds)

So opinion polls are still showing Yes Scotland trailing. Has there been any credible poll during the campaign which has placed the Yes camp in the lead even once ? I'm not aware of any and I find that quite remarkable.

32 days...

There was one outlier a few months ago which showed Yes ahead - other than that, no.

I don't find it surprising - for most people, the status quo is the default position, they need to think and read and discuss to decide they want a change.

I also think the polls could be way out - in either direction. There hasn't been an referendum like this before, and a huge number of people will be voting for the first time. I'm not convinced the polling companies have got their statistical sampling sorted out to take account of this.

... they need to think and read and discuss to decide they want a change.

I'm sure the majority of Scots have thought about it.

Now it gets really confusing, with Big Tony from Oz weighing in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28814936

Mr Abbott said those who would like to see the UK break up were "not the friends of justice... [or] freedom".

Tony Abbott is like George W Bush without the brains or diplomacy - if he agrees with you you're pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. It's worth reading some of the other stuff he's said on the subjects of climate change, homosexuality, etc.

Tony Abbott's comment was crass.

To claim that you can't support independence for Scotland and also be fully committed to justice and freedom is ridiculous in the extreme.

On the subject of "nationalism"

[img] [/img]

Files ^^^ away under the joint sub directory of Nazis/Thatcher

Tony Abbots a nob

Bens polls

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/08/icm-suggest-no-leaders-debate-boost-for-better-together/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/yes-48-no-52-breakthrough-poll-has-yes-at-record-high.24488719

Certainly close enough when accounting for the more motivated Yes voters on voting day.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/17/scottish-independence-tom-devine-yes-vote-referendum-alex-salmond

John will be annoyed http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinneys-former-chief-staff-4057902

"According to Westminster" made me chuckle. Presumably this includes the SNP MPs in Westminster.

Thatcher never argued that England should be "independent" from the rest of the UK, I fairly substantial difference to the Yes campaign's position I would have thought.

Yes Scotland really are bankrupt of any intelligent arguments that they need to come up with the most ridiculous bottom of the barrel scraping nonsense. No wonder poll after poll shows them trailing Better Together.

I knew I should have hung on for the "only one poll that counts" line

Yes Scotland really are bankrupt of any intelligent arguments that they need to come up with the most ridiculous bottom of the barrel scraping nonsense.

You see when you have to go for an attack on the intelligence of the other side because you have no better arguments to make - it means you have lost.

"According to Westminster" made me chuckle. Presumably this includes the SNP MPs in Westminster.

It's a quicker way of saying "According to the three main Westminster political parties".

Of course Thatcher didn't think England should be independent from the rest of the UK - if it was, she wouldn't have been able to use the oil money to prop up the City financial boom and destroy our industries.

Ben, can you copy and paste the Heralds Panelbase article for me please?

it means you have lost.

So there !

Yes Scotland are obviously struggling with providing intelligent arguments in favour of "independence" because so few exist.

I'm sure they would love to come up with something slightly more intelligent than the "Thatcher was a nationalist" puerile school playground type taunt.

Ben, can you copy and paste the Heralds Panelbase article for me please?

Sure, here you go:

The Panelbase survey found a record 43% of voters now say they will back independence on September 18, compared to 47% voting No.

The figures are 48% for Yes and 52% for No once undecided voters are removed, suggesting the Yes camp needs just a two-point swing for victory.

The gap between the two sides has halved from eight points to four since last month, when Panelbase put Yes on 46% and No on 54%.

Yes Scotland, who commissioned the new poll, hailed it as a turning point in the campaign. Chief executive Blair Jenkins said: "This is a breakthrough poll, showing support for Yes at a campaign high. It shows our message that only with independence can the wealth of Scotland work for all people is getting through. The No campaign are panicking at the steady closing of the polls and flinging mud, but it isn't working because people want to support a positive vision for Scotland's future.

"And in our view the internationalisation of the debate, with people like President Obama talking about Scotland, and the acceptance across the political spectrum that Scotland needs more powers, are galvanising the Yes vote."

Speaking in Stirling yesterday, deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "I'm confident that this campaign is neck and neck [with the No side] and that means it's there for us to win."

Sturgeon will tomorrow confirm the draft constitution for an independent Scotland would commit the country to the early removal of Trident nuclear weapons, a promise likely to appeal to the wavering Labour voters seen as critical to the outcome of the referendum.

The Panelbase exercise comes just days after a poll by Survation also found a record level of support for Yes, at 47%, compared to 53% for No.

Pollster Professor John Curtice said the two new polls together suggested that, after a few months in the doldrums, the Yes campaign appeared to be regaining momentum.

However, he also said the gender gap identified in the new Panelbase survey was "enormous", with support for Yes among decided female voters 15 points behind that for men, at 41% against 56%.

A Panelbase poll for Yes Scotland in April put the gap between the sexes at 10 points, with 42% of women backing Yes against 52% of men. He said: "It's women that really are a problem for the Yes side. You get a majority among men, and it's women who drag it [the total] down."

On a more positive note for Yes, support for independence has risen among decided Labour supporters (from 29% to 34%) and middle class ABC1 voters (from 38% to 41%) since Yes Scotland's last Panelbase poll in April.

Prof Curtice said the No camp ought to be worried that its much-vaunted "game-changer" moments, such as a veto on sharing the pound and President Obama's support for the union, didn't appear to be having much effect on voters.

"There's reason for Yes Scotland to be pleased, and reason for Better Together to be worried.

"As ever through this referendum campaign, there's a degree of uncertainty, but you can't discount it as 'wavy lines' [as Better Together once called unhelpful polls], when two companies come up with record poll shares for Yes. The advice to Better Together is, find ways to appeal to people using a far greater sensitivity to the Scottish psyche."

SNP sources last night insisted that the gender gap was closing, with the party hoping for a late burst of support for Yes among women just before polling day, as happened with female support for the SNP in the 2011 election. The First Minister recently suggested the lower level of support for independence among women was due to them taking longer to mull over the issues before making their decision.

The new Panelbase poll also found 55% of voters (discounting don't knows) were more likely to vote Yes if they felt the 2015 general election would produce another Tory-led government at Westminster, and 50% said they were more likely to vote Yes if a Labour government was imminent.

However, Prof Curtice said he was "sceptical" of such questions, as all scenarios helped Yes.

Discounting a poll by Panelbase last August which is now regarded as rogue, the new gap between the Yes and No is the narrowest yet.

The survey of 1060 people aged 16-plus was conducted between June 9 and 11, when both the Yes and No sides ramped up their campaigning for the 100-day countdown marker, and after the three unionist parties said they would give Holyrood more powers in the event of a No vote.

On the last day of the poll, Harry Potter author JK Rowling announced she had given £1m to the Better Together campaign to save the union.

Last week's other high profile interventions - from former US First Lady Hillary Clinton and Pope Francis - came after the poll ended.

Despite being told the gap between Yes and No had narrowed to less than five points, Better Together said: "It's impossible to comment on a poll that's not been shared with us."

Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson yesterday told the BBC she might campaign for a currency union with the rest of the UK in the event of a Yes if it was "best for Scotland", just as Chancellor George Osborne would oppose a union in the rest of the UK's interests.

It also emerged yesterday that the English Democrats, a party which campaigns for a devolved English parliament akin to Holyrood, has registered with the Electoral Commission as an official Yes campaigner in the referendum.

To be fair, both Yes Scotland and Better Together seem to be struggling with quality of debate.

Thanks Ben 🙂

Is that the first Panelbase/Yes Scotland poll since June?

Yes Scotland are obviously struggling with providing intelligent arguments in favour of "independence" because so few exist.

The Better Together arguments against independence are simple - currency, currency, currency, these luvvies love you, currency, currency, currency. There are good arguments against independence, but the No campaign aren't articulating them. If I was a No voter I'd be furious with how the campaign is being run - solely concentrating on the Pound now, ignoring all other arguments.

A poster saying Scottish Scottish nationalism is fine because Thatcher was apparently a nationalist also, seems a bit of an own goal to me.

And what exactly is wrong with scottish nationalism?

To be fair, both Yes Scotland and Better Together seem to be struggling with quality of debate

And what exactly is wrong with scottish nationalism?

I dislike nationalism. And patriotism. It's just another case of 'us and them' that as a species we should learn to do without.

Not singling out Scottish, or English in particular. Literally all of it on a global scale. There should be no 'us and them' just 'us'

The same goes for anything that drives these things btw. Which is a fair few things.

I'm English by chance*, human by design.

*well, by swimming.

I dislike nationalism. And patriotism. It's just another case of 'us and them' that as a species we should learn to do without

Absolutely. Scottish independence isn't about nationalism for me, it's about changing to a batter system of government.

And that Ben. In spite of disagreeing with you on many things. Is why we are ticking the same box.

it's about changing to a [b]batter[/b] system of government.

Only in Scotland 😆

😆

two kinds of nationlaism IMHO - had this debate with ernie

A pride in your roots and your origins

Nasty jingoistic/zenophobic nationalism

I am not a fan of either but the former seems to be a near universal human trait and the later seems to exist in more people than those who are indifferent to he place that os the luck/accident of their birth. Few would admire the later and many would admire the former

FWIW on that issue i will always correct anyone who says I am english - do have an english accent so not that surprising- but dont get correct if they call me a northerner.

Identity is such a strange issue tbh.

I cannot claim it is anythign other than the place of my birth as I have never chosen to live there as an adult and I dont want to do a Connerey

Identity is such a strange issue tbh.

Robert Kull's book 'Solitude' is a good read. In a round about way quite insightful. Even if you don't find it insightful, it's an interesting read regardless.

I'd have chanted less admittedly.

And what exactly is wrong with scottish nationalism?

it's about changing to a batter system of government.
Only in Scotland

Ha, Freudian slip 😀

And what exactly is wrong with scottish nationalism?

What's right with it?

I suppose we have to define what Scottish nationalism is. I think we can all agree that, for some reason or another, public opinion is different in Scotland on a range of issues. That's nothing to do with country of birth, it's a shared cultural thing.

wanmankylung - Member
You see when you have to go for an attack on the intelligence of the other side because you have no better arguments to make - it means you have lost.

(Leaving aside the stupidity of the Thatcher poster), on the contrary, this is an important point. YS's campaign from the start (as exemplified by the Book of Dreams) is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Blatant lies, deliberate manipulation and deceit. The insult to intelligence is believing that people will swallow it. Fortunately the accusation cannot be made for the majority of Scots as the polls indicate.

But if it needs to be said that one has to be a fool to swallow such nonsense, then so be it. The fools in Europe who swallowed a half baked political projects without sensible foundation are paying the price now. If only they had been warned.....

THM - you've just lost too.

Nope, it's the same with pointing out that UKIP talks blatant nonsense. The losers are those who are wiling to swallow the BS.

Rare for Ernie and I to agree that much - but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence. There is not an argument to lose, since none has been made at all.

Presenting fluff and fairly tales wrapped up in nonsense threats (eg debt) is not an argument it is the behaviour of little children. The argument was lost by yS from the start.

Plus, AS chose to underestimate the intelligence of women which is always a dangerous thing to do.

You been drinking? Had a bang to the head?

No clear as clear can be. Not fuddled by swallowing BS

Delusional then. Might be an idea to get someone to take you to the GP.

Fine doing a hours yoga instead.

What was it that you said to e_l BTW?

But do tell me, which is the more delusional, believing that sterlingisation is an appropriate option for a country with a large financial services industry or rejecting it as a non-starter? One party is a First Minister......

Rare for Ernie and I to agree that much - but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence. There is not argument to lose, since nine has been made at all.

You keep saying this, then whenever I or someone else gives you a case for independence you do the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

The case for independence (not a definitive list):

- A more democratic, representative government.
- Getting rid of the nuclear weapons.
- Safeguarding the funding and non-privatised nature of NHS Scotland.
- Keeping Scotland in the EU.
- Not engaging in any more illegal foreign wars.
- Using the oil wealth to build up a fund to benefit our children.
- Being able to spend more on national broadcasting.
- Getting rid of the second-largest unelected parliament in the World.
- Negotiating directly with the EU for a better deal for Scottish farmers and fishermen.
- Breaking the two-party system where the choice is between two right-wing parties.
- Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party.

I could go on, but a small person wants me to play with their balloon 😉

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean you're correct.

I dislike nationalism. And patriotism. It's just another case of 'us and them' that as a species we should learn to do without.

I expect nothing less than patriotism and a commitment to the nation from any citizen with a sense of community.

That is why the Tories under Thatcher, and since then, were and are deeply unpatriotic.

And this commitment to society should transcend all levels right down to local community level.

It's only by working for the common good that we can build truly democratic autonomous societies.

- A more democratic, representative government. - [b]really? no plans for PR, just more of the same with a more 'local' slant[/b]
- Getting rid of the nuclear weapons. - [b]not really, just pretending that its NIMBY (don't ask, don't tell)[/b]
- Safeguarding the funding and non-privatised nature of NHS Scotland. -[b] 'safeguarding'? its already a devolved issue![/b]
- Keeping Scotland in the EU. [b]HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA[/b]
- Not engaging in any more illegal foreign wars. - [b]not according to the white paper "A second naval squadron to contribute to NATO and other operations outside home waters"[/b]
- Using the oil wealth to build up a fund to benefit our children. - [b]really? I thought it would provide lower taxes, how can it do both whilst declining?[/b]
- Being able to spend more on national broadcasting. - [b]all together now: [url=

]"OHBC News"[/url] [/b]
- Getting rid of the second-largest unelected parliament in the World. - [b]and replacing powerless people with experience with all powerful behind the scenes yes men[/b]
- Negotiating directly with the EU for a better deal for Scottish farmers and fishermen. [b]I'm glad you accept you'll be negotiating with the EU rather than being a part of it[/b]
- Breaking the two-party system where the choice is between two right-wing parties. [b]you have to wonder where the SNP got the name the Tartan Tories[/b]
- Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party.[b] Really? Marx said it was always a party of the bourgeois, set up to systematically dupe the workers[/b]

Yep, and you fall over after the first two, so QED

So we've already gone from "no case" to "two cases" 😉

Assuming you're right - and I don't think you are - but even if you are then the first two alone are a compelling case. In fact the first one on its own - a fairer, more representative democracy - leads on to everything else.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Succinct, well argued, backed up with academic references - how can one argue against such an argument?

Notice how Better Together have suddenly stopped talking about the EU? It's because they got their fingers burnt by the new EU head who told them off in no uncertain terms.

Anyhow, for answers to your other arguments, I'll refer you back to the [url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/ ]Wee Blue Book[/url].

Succinct, well argued, backed up with academic references - how can one argue against such an argument?

Well, you know, I went and took legal advice on the issue, but I can't reveal it - what I can promise you is that everything I write is consistent with the legal advice I received...

- Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party.

Really? Marx said it was always a party of the bourgeois, set up to systematically dupe the workers

Maybe he meant Groucho Marx?

My apologies, I did of course mean to type Lenin but my brain and fingers were disconnected by a rather nice cup of java lava being poured for me by my darling daughter - obviously Lenin's left wing credentials as a commentator are significantly weaker.. ah!

Lenin very strongly argued that the Labour Party should be supported, which partly explains why the Morning Star and the CPB still maintains this now frankly ridiculous policy of continuing electoral support for Labour, despite the fact that the Labour Party today isn't even remotely recognisable, with regards to its aims and principles, to the Labour Party of a hundred years ago.

As a pragmatic rational individual who understood the need to apply logic and commonsense to the prevailing social and political conditions in such a way that they work in the best interests of working people, Lenin would never have supported today's Labour Party, imo.

It's the only serious policy disagreement I have with the Morning Star and the CPB despite the fact that they share many of my sentiments - it's just that support for Labour is too ingrained. However knowing when to let go when something is beyond repair is a judgment call.

EDIT : BTW Z-11 chooses to bring up Lenin's views on the Labour Party, whether falsely or correctly, with regards to the statement "Restoring the Labour Party to a true socialist party", but he knows full well that not all socialists are Leninist, or even Marxist. Lumping them altogether as such is a deliberate strategy in an attempt to confuse, oversimplify, and discredit.

I like it that the no camp take solace in the fact that they lead in the polls. It's fine by me, the polls all counted as yes/no/undecided. That's very different from what will actually happen come polling day.

So for talking sake lets say roughly the polls as a yes/no are sitting about 53/47 all that is required is around 6 points to even it up. The undecided are sitting at around 10/15%. So everything is still very much to play for.

The polls are reasonably positive for the yes camp tbh. Lets hope the no camp continue in their false security of the polls! 😆

but we both point out the simple fact that yS still (after ALL this time) has failed to present a case for independence

Presenting fluff and fairly tales

Ben, to be clear, I was saying that since the first two points were wrong there was no point carrying on. I was not conceding them! The first two are false premises.

Hope the ballon games are fun!

BTW, if you want to talk about being told off, just see what the BOE said to yS this week!!!

There is no way the first one can be wrong

A more democratic, representative government

And you say AS lies spins and attempts to pull the wool over people eyes.
Comedy gold as always this thread

A more democratic, representative government

Aye, right

[img] [/img]

However shit [and corrupt/inept/useless whatever] he is he still won the vote from the scottish people unlike thr current PM who was last of 4

So any actual facts to prove it would not be more representative/democratic or just a wee picture?

Well, for a start under either of the planned currency solutions the Scottish people will [i]cease[/i] to have any democratic control or representation in the setting of fiscal policies, which will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government

Fiscal Policy Definition: Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates to monitor and influence a nation's economy. It is the sister strategy to monetary policy through which a central bank influences a nation's money supply.

So that'll be that proven wrong them.

Next myth that you'd like debunked please?

However shit [and corrupt/inept/useless whatever] he is he still won the vote from the scottish people unlike thr current PM who was last of 4

Presuming we're talking parties here... and how many voters in Scotland voted for each.....

Didn't the SNP, Lib Dems and the Tories pretty much get the same number of votes at the last General Election, with Labour way ahead?

ernie_lynch - Member
...It's only by working for the common good that we can build truly democratic autonomous societies.

...However knowing when to let go when something is beyond repair is a judgment call.

Both of which are reasons I am voting yes.

(Snippets from Ernie's recent posts taken out of their original context, but true in their own right.)

Wanmankylung - even the supporters of independence and a currency union accept this is true

Donald Mackay's letter the other day:

[i]Fiscal policy within a monetary union would have to be based on symmetric rules for budget deficit and debt sustainability. Under a Conservative administration in Westminster after 2015 this would require a sustained period of prudence until the UK national debt level had achieved a sustainable level. The Treasury’s basic premise, that an independent Scotland in 2016 would inherit a chronically weak fiscal position, is unsustainable. It would be easier for Scotland to live within the fiscal rules, because the likely future direct and indirect impacts of North Sea oil and gas would be much greater than the Treasury suggests.[/i]

So much for your effort at debunking 😆

Yes but different elections [ which ninfan knew] so SNP won the scottish one [ 45 ish] so it must be fairer than them having CMD as PM as he did not win [ and was last - or his party more accurately
You are correct re the UK election with snp - libs - tories from circa 19% to 17 % about 1 % apart each - iirc snp got more votes but fewer seats than the lib dems]

Either way it is just not possible to put fwd any argument* [hence THM will ignore this] that shows that an iS wont be more democratic than now. Now they often get govts decided by another country so it is not hard to be more democratic than that.

* well I supect stw can come up with something specious

Seeing as you appear incapable of following the thread of a debate let me spell it out for you:

Well, for a start under either of the planned currency solutions the Scottish people will cease to have any democratic control or representation in the setting of fiscal policies, which will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government

Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates to monitor and influence a nation's economy. It is the sister strategy to monetary policy through which a central bank influences a nation's money supply.

Fiscal policy is the means by which a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates....

In an independent Scotland, the rUK government can't adjust Scotland's spending levels and tax rates. Therefore you are incorrect.

In an independent Scotland, the rUK government can't adjust Scotland's spending levels and tax rates. Therefore you are incorrect.

I suggest you read his letter again

[i]Fiscal policy within a monetary union would have to be based on symmetric rules for budget deficit and debt sustainability. Under a Conservative administration in Westminster after 2015 this would require a sustained period of prudence until the UK national debt level had achieved a sustainable level.
[/i]

Even if you get the monetary union that you want, then Scottish fiscal policy will be entirely constrained by the economic and fiscal policies of the rUK government, in which you will have less democratic representation than you do now!

You might also like to read this

[i]A question was raised as to whether there was any evidence, in the Irish example, of constraints on fiscal policy occurring as a result of the link with sterling. It was observed that Ireland inherited no debt when becoming an independent state, and that this is unlikely to be the case for Scotland should it become independent. In answer it was suggested that UK policy at that 3me fi4ed reasonably well with where
Ireland was, and that by and large it worked to Ireland’s advantage to be within the sterling regime. With regard to fiscal policy, it was observed that Ireland tended to look to the UK for changes to fiscal policy, and tended to follow the UK on this. The question of fiscal independence was not tested; there was no Irish involvement in the setting of UK monetary policy.[/i]

Have you read what you have written?

Wanmankylung - I appreciate that the DO deliberately makes it difficult to understand these topics, but I would really suggest (1) reading how monetary and fiscal policies work especially when you have currency union, (2) look at what has happened in Europe when you have one but not the other (and remember what mark Carney said about this) and (3) remember that the DO has already committed an IS to a corporate tax battle with rUK (although as it's in the book of dreams that could well be just another fabrication to make companies think it's a good idea) ie, setting tax rates below a level determined by rUK. You will then realise that your comments are somewhat off track.

Even the fiscal commission are clear on all this - it's a simple read. You will not get currency union without clear fiscal targets and constraints set by rUK. That of course assumes that rUK wants a CU in the first place which it doesn't.

Time for some simple lessons on how currency unions work both in theory and practice.

Either way, and IS will have considerable borrowing requirements at higher interest rates and with the volatility associate with oils prices. Hmmm, nice cocktail.....

You make it sound like having massive oil reserves is a bad thing. I bet that rUK would tear Scotland's hand off if we said hat we didn't want the oil because it was too volatile... But that's not going to happen because that would be stupid.

May I suggest that rUK will retain their need for massive borrowing and that the interest rates they will be charged will increase and that is your main gripe about Scotland leaving the UK. I have no problem with the rUK's economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent. Scotland has been subsidising the rUK for a lot of years.

I have no problem with the rUK's economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.

🙄

I have no problem with the rUK's economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.

It shows how little you understand then.

It shows how little you understand then.

Enlighten me.

I suggest you consider the interdependency of neighbouring states.

Especially ones with no effective borders and complete freedom of movement of people and goods.

The best you can hope for is a booming rUK.