and by "Hull", I meant the City, not the rugby club.

I think that's part of the issue. Salmond should have had the answers set out years ago, but seems to have been caught out just recently in the TV debates. His party has been on a devolution/independence ticket for years, yet I do wonder if he or anyone has given thought to exactly what happens on day 1 of Scotland being independent.

I hope for the Scottish people that they aren't going to be left screwed over by Salmond/Sturgeon (or Darling/Brown) and political points scoring.

And while I'm thinking about it, WTF gives Gordon Brown the authority to start offering sweeteners on the basis of a "no" vote?

Sir Ian Mckellen for Queen of Scotland?

Quote: Standee "so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.'" Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

Quote: Standee "so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.'" Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

The decision isn't enacted immediately. Just as a No vote will bring through new negotiations on devolutionary powers, so would a Yes vote. Negotiations would take place during a period of status quo to reach the changeover.

Brown is in the Better Together campaign & simply delivering what he is told to. I would be amazed if anyone gives any credibility to anything that comes out of his mouth.

I'd kind of guessed that, but there would still be a Day 1 of independence

No they are not. The B of E is an Institution and Sterling is a currency. The currency has had no intrinsic value ever since the Gold Standard came to an end in 1971. You can't swap it for some tangible object (i.e. a lump of gold) and it is instead just used as a means of exchange. You can't have a share of that because its not an asset.

The pounds value which is based on how many of them there are in circulation and the world's perception of the strength of the UK economy (leading to countries tio want to buy or sell pounds) is just that. An exchange rate not something you can divide up. An asset can be divided so that would be the UK's currency reserves (for example) not the currency itself.

There is nothing to stop Scotland using it as a means of exchange as Panama uses the US dollar (and the US dollar is not something anyone would suggest Panama has a stake in as in it being an asset).

That it not what Salmond wants though. He wants to use the pound within a currency union so his banks are backed by not only Scottish but English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers and because he doesn't want an exchange rate in force across the Scottish / English border.

His insistence it is an asset is purely political in that he thinks he can use it to walk away from a debt (as he doesn't get a share of this "asset"icon_wink.gif or threaten to do so.



How did Scotland "contribute" to the pound?

By walking away from the Union they reduce the size of the UK economy so this will reduce the value of the pound (not that this would be a particularly bad thing for exports....) and so their contribution to its value (which isn't that great a proportion anyway) disappears. That percentage is their contribution to the pound but it relies on them being part of an economic union for this contribution to exist at all.

Even in a currency union any perceived risks of the Scottish government breaking any of the inevitable fiscal rules that would have to be put in place would affect it's value.

But lets suppose it went the other way and the Scottish economy was a success, why would the rest of the UK want the value of the pound inflated when it wasn't receiving any of the revenue from the Scottish economy?

Also if the pound is a UK-wide asset so are all Scotland's assets such as the oil which they have no intention of sharing.



No, they are using the excuse of being denied a currency union to threaten to walk away from a debt.

It does if they are in a currency union with the test of the UK. If not and they use the pound regardless that has other very negative implications for Scotland he keeps quiet on.



That is not what he wants. The BBC currently is the National public broadcaster for the UK as a whole so produces regional programming. Yes Scotland could buy the latest episode of Sherlock or the Scots could even watch it on Netflix as the BBC sells it to them but all the jobs, regional programming and production would cease or it would have to be funded by Scottish taxpayers alone. Or they could just go completely commercial which is the exact opposite of the kind of society on offer.



How is the DVLA a money spinner and for whom? Scotland will have to fund its own road building and repair program. On the back of road tax from however many drivers in Scotland? The Barnett formula is set as it is supposedly to cater for the fact it costs a lot more to fund services and infrastructure in remote parts of Scotland than the more metropolitan and easier to access UK. If that goes then they have to pay for this themselves. As to the civil service however large or small it is it will result in duplication compared to retaining the UK civil service.



How is that relevant? Scotland, we are told, will be a successful economy so will be a net contributor to the EU in the same way Denmark is for example. There won't be any shipbuilding subsidies going towards the Clyde.

Listening to the radio today, it was confirmed that the Queen does actually own Balmoral and her other Scottish estates, so unless Salmond plans to steal all holiday properties of all non-Scots, then they can't touch any of her assets.

I suppose they could nail her (and others) with a huge council tax bill, but I doubt it would do Salmond's cute and cuddly public image much good being seen dragging a vulnerable OAP through the courts, because she couldn't stump up her tax bill??

The Bank of England was formed by a Scot and has had many Scots in charge over its time, they have contributed royally to the success of the UK, Commonwealth and Empire, Glasgow didn't get its name of the Second City of The Commonwealth for nowt.

That's not to say they are "entitled" to anything BTW.

Will the Union Jack have to be changed if the vote is YES?

Do you mean the Union Flag?

The "Jack" is the staff it flies from

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

If it is changed will it be easier to get it the right way up for sports fans?

Hmmm, I suppose that if Scotland won't contribute to her stipend any longer then we could impose conditions on the public money that is the royal purse, things like "You may only spend our money on assets that you own within the union", which would then force her to go to Salmond and ask him for a purse too, or open up Balmoral for holiday rent, I'm warming to the idea of renting Balmoral for the week before she arrives and leaving it in a right old mess with two muddy dogs allowed on the setees and beds and what-not.