If Scotland votes to leave is the pound doomed?

[joecoolfrog]

Loptr

Britain will lose a majority of the tax from the oil but not all . Britain on the other hand will no longer be excessively subsidising the Scots , in the long term its Scotland that will be the poorer.

[Thai at Heart]

No but Scotland probably will be?

They will lose the pound and then will borrow in what?

Sheckles?

[manarak]

tomorrow is the day, dear brits and scots!

[Thai at Heart]

This vote could destroy the UK in one day.

Why...........?

Oil for one reason... If Scotland leaves the union, it takes the North Sea oil with it... Briton needs that revenue...

It is a case of swings and roundabouts on that one. The total oil matches closely what gets sent up north.

[manarak]

This vote could destroy the UK in one day.

Why...........?

Oil for one reason... If Scotland leaves the union, it takes the North Sea oil with it... Briton needs that revenue...

It is a case of swings and roundabouts on that one. The total oil matches closely what gets sent up north.

in that case, the oil wins, it's price in money will only go up.

[joecoolfrog]

So will the cost of public subsidy , the Scots have grown used to it.

[adammike]

is it exclusively Scotland's oil? its part of the assets of

the united kingdom, everything and I mean everything of any

worth will have to be negotiated,of course the lawyers are

rubbing there hands with glee.

Salmond won't live long enough to see any sort of Scotland

that's remotely independent.

[nontabury]

This vote could destroy the UK in one day.

Why...........?

Oil for one reason... If Scotland leaves the union, it takes the North Sea oil with it... Briton needs that revenue...

It is a case of swings and roundabouts on that one. The total oil matches closely what gets sent up north.

Yes but what about the jobs that will head south, along with the income from the Scottish financial sector. UK wins, let the Scots go for it.

[NanLaew]

No but Scotland probably will be?

They will lose the pound and then will borrow in what?

Sheckles?

Groats.

[pitrevie]

is it exclusively Scotland's oil? its part of the assets of

the united kingdom, everything and I mean everything of any

worth will have to be negotiated,of course the lawyers are

rubbing there hands with glee.

Salmond won't live long enough to see any sort of Scotland

that's remotely independent.

I am baffled by this so called independence. We want to keep the pound so that the Bank of England and the UK government will continue to dictate and we want to be free of Westminster control but join the EU so that we can be controlled by them. One thing positive that will come out of it is that they rid themselves of the ridiculous nuclear deterrent. The sooner we follow suit the sooner the UK economy can begin spending its taxes on things that really matter.

[jpinx]

And also the Kingdom of Northumbria, including a large part of southern Scotland, within it's area Edinburgh.

===================>>

Northumbria was originally one of the Scottish Kingdoms

Cannot agree with you on that point, it was an Anglo-Saxon (sasonach) kingdom, with it's capital firstly in Bamburgh and latter York, both of which are in England.

Anyhow don't worry we don't want Edinburgh back.

The Treaty of York (1237) fixed the boundaries with England close to the modern border -- do you really want to go back further when England was controlled by vikings and French?

[nontabury]

And also the Kingdom of Northumbria, including a large part of southern Scotland, within it's area Edinburgh.

===================>>

Northumbria was originally one of the Scottish Kingdoms

Cannot agree with you on that point, it was an Anglo-Saxon (sasonach) kingdom, with it's capital firstly in Bamburgh and latter York, both of which are in England.

Anyhow don't worry we don't want Edinburgh back.

The Treaty of York (1237) fixed the boundaries with England close to the modern border -- do you really want to go back further when England was controlled by vikings and French?

"YES" hundreds of years before when there was no England,no Scotland but a kingdom of Northumbria.

[i claudius]

And also the Kingdom of Northumbria, including a large part of southern Scotland, within it's area Edinburgh.

===================>>

Northumbria was originally one of the Scottish Kingdoms

Cannot agree with you on that point, it was an Anglo-Saxon (sasonach) kingdom, with it's capital firstly in Bamburgh and latter York, both of which are in England.

Anyhow don't worry we don't want Edinburgh back.

The Treaty of York (1237) fixed the boundaries with England close to the modern border -- do you really want to go back further when England was controlled by vikings and French?

"YES" hundreds of years before when there was no England,no Scotland but a kingdom of Northumbria.

We could have a new king , we could call him ARTHUR

[jpinx]

And also the Kingdom of Northumbria, including a large part of southern Scotland, within it's area Edinburgh.

===================>>

Northumbria was originally one of the Scottish Kingdoms

Cannot agree with you on that point, it was an Anglo-Saxon (sasonach) kingdom, with it's capital firstly in Bamburgh and latter York, both of which are in England.

Anyhow don't worry we don't want Edinburgh back.

The Treaty of York (1237) fixed the boundaries with England close to the modern border -- do you really want to go back further when England was controlled by vikings and French?

"YES" hundreds of years before when there was no England,no Scotland but a kingdom of Northumbria.

We could have a new king , we could call him ARTHUR

He'd be Arthur II -- the original Artur, the son of King Aidan of Dalriada, was probably born in the 550s, ruling Manau Gododdin from Camelon (alias Camelot) in Stirlingshire.

Edited September 18, 2014 by jpinx

[pitrevie]

And also the Kingdom of Northumbria, including a large part of southern Scotland, within it's area Edinburgh.

===================>>

Northumbria was originally one of the Scottish Kingdoms

Cannot agree with you on that point, it was an Anglo-Saxon (sasonach) kingdom, with it's capital firstly in Bamburgh and latter York, both of which are in England.

Anyhow don't worry we don't want Edinburgh back.

The Treaty of York (1237) fixed the boundaries with England close to the modern border -- do you really want to go back further when England was controlled by vikings and French?

"YES" hundreds of years before when there was no England,no Scotland but a kingdom of Northumbria.

I guess you can say that every nation is a result of someone with a bigger stick coming along at some juncture and taking over. China, The Soviet Union are good examples of this and many more recent ones. I always get a good laugh at the so called Scottish hero Robert the Bruce. The idea that he wanted independence for Scotland is another myth that we get. The only thing he wanted was to oppress the Scottish people without interference from England. All the leaders of all these countries were at some stage totalitarian dictators no more concerned with the lot of the common people than is Alex Salmond and his £3000 night hotel and his expensive tartan trews. The corrupt Westminster regime is going to be replaced by the corrupt Edinburgh equivalent.

[Naam]

for the record: the next in line in case there's a Scottish King is His Royal Highness Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102182/Could-the-Duke-of-Bavaria-be-the-next-King-of-Scotland.html

[jpinx]

Ouch - but no worse than having the mix that has occupied the "british" throne for a long time.

You gotta love it that they also say that on the same basis he can claim ... "....he is the rightful King Francis II of England, Scotland, Ireland and France."

[chiang mai]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

[sandyf]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

[jpinx]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

[chiang mai]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

I do agree Sandy, very much indeed.

[sandyf]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

I remember the Salmond rhetoric from his early days. If he really had Scotland's interest at heart he would have taken the fight to Westminster when the oil boom started. He opted to stay in Scotland, much easier to become a big fish in a small pond.

Had he taken a seat in parliament, it could well have changed the face of UK politics.

[jpinx]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

I remember the Salmond rhetoric from his early days. If he really had Scotland's interest at heart he would have taken the fight to Westminster when the oil boom started. He opted to stay in Scotland, much easier to become a big fish in a small pond.

Had he taken a seat in parliament, it could well have changed the face of UK politics.

If you remember those days - you will also remember that the SNP was miniscule and Thatcher was literally fighting a war with the unions. There was no chance to get a voice in Westminster until the Scottish Office was scrapped and the Scottish Assembly came into being. Since then he *has* taken the fight to Westminster

Don't confuse my factual corrections as being support for one side or the other - I merely present the facts as completely and impartially as I can.

[sandyf]

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

I remember the Salmond rhetoric from his early days. If he really had Scotland's interest at heart he would have taken the fight to Westminster when the oil boom started. He opted to stay in Scotland, much easier to become a big fish in a small pond.

Had he taken a seat in parliament, it could well have changed the face of UK politics.

If you remember those days - you will also remember that the SNP was miniscule and Thatcher was literally fighting a war with the unions. There was no chance to get a voice in Westminster until the Scottish Office was scrapped and the Scottish Assembly came into being. Since then he *has* taken the fight to Westminster

Don't confuse my factual corrections as being support for one side or the other - I merely present the facts as completely and impartially as I can.

By the time Thatcher came to power I would have been married and living in East Anglia and a bit detached from Scottish life. I was in Germany 72/74 so it must have been around 75/76 that he first started appearing on TV. From what I remember he was so extreme it appeared delusional. My father was a labour supporter and he thought he was a nutcase.

As I said , I do not believe he has ever had the interests of the country at heart and I hope that the YES theory does not get put to the test. In this modern environment the risk of failure is just too high.

[jpinx]

By the time Thatcher came to power I would have been married and living in East Anglia and a bit detached from Scottish life. I was in Germany 72/74 so it must have been around 75/76 that he first started appearing on TV. From what I remember he was so extreme it appeared delusional. My father was a labour supporter and he thought he was a nutcase.

I remember the Salmond rhetoric from his early days. If he really had Scotland's interest at heart he would have taken the fight to Westminster when the oil boom started. He opted to stay in Scotland, much easier to become a big fish in a small pond.

Had he taken a seat in parliament, it could well have changed the face of UK politics.

If you remember those days - you will also remember that the SNP was miniscule and Thatcher was literally fighting a war with the unions. There was no chance to get a voice in Westminster until the Scottish Office was scrapped and the Scottish Assembly came into being. Since then he *has* taken the fight to Westminster

Don't confuse my factual corrections as being support for one side or the other - I merely present the facts as completely and impartially as I can.

As I said , I do not believe he has ever had the interests of the country at heart and I hope that the YES theory does not get put to the test. In this modern environment the risk of failure is just too high.

==============================>>>

Rubbish -- many countries suffer much worse fates at the hands of the bankers. Ireland is doing alright now

[ATF]

for the record: the next in line in case there's a Scottish King is His Royal Highness Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102182/Could-the-Duke-of-Bavaria-be-the-next-King-of-Scotland.html

Why not? He'd get on great with the Germans and Greeks that are running the show down South.

[nontabury]

Sooo, is anyone game for a last moment W.A.G. on the outcome, where's JT when you actually need him?

I'm going to guess the "yes" vote could win, the logic being that a very high percentage of such ventures succeed, 88% as I read somewhere.

You may well be right but as a Scot I would see it as a sad day for Scotland.

I blame the No party for not mounting a more vigorous campaign to obtain a better future for Scotland from Westminster rather than just trying to discredit the impending divorce.

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

There is already disquiet amongst some MP's and the general public regarding the suggestion by the Westminster elite that if Scotland does vote "NO" then the taxpayers in the rest of the UK will have to make an Extra contribution to the Scottish coffers in addition to that already paid.

I am very happy that he din't offer MaxDevo, I would have been even more happy if he had told the Scots that in the event of a "NO" vote the Barnet formula would be repelled and they would be treated the same as everybody else in the UK.

[i claudius]

I just watched an american news channel they were asking people how they would vote it was interesting to see that seemingly decent types were voting no both young and old and the rough unemployed looking types were all for voting to leave .it seemed. as if they were the sort who were hoping bigger benefits were on offer

Edited September 18, 2014 by i claudius

[ATF]

I just watched an american news channel they were asking people how they would vote it was interesting to see that seemingly decent types were voting no both young and old and the rough unemployed looking types were all for voting to leave .it seemed. as if they were the sort who were hoping bigger benefits were on offer

Well all the spongers are believing they are going to get free shares in North Sea Oil which they can spend on heroin and McEwans.

Big tragedy however is that the Yes mob are going to open St. Andrews to women! Sacrilege!

[NanLaew]

You can blame Cameron for pig-headedly refusing Scotlands request for 3 options. The MaxDevo would have walked it. Westminster screws Scotland -- again!!!!!

I remember the Salmond rhetoric from his early days. If he really had Scotland's interest at heart he would have taken the fight to Westminster when the oil boom started. He opted to stay in Scotland, much easier to become a big fish in a small pond.

Had he taken a seat in parliament, it could well have changed the face of UK politics.

If you remember those days - you will also remember that the SNP was miniscule and Thatcher was literally fighting a war with the unions. There was no chance to get a voice in Westminster until the Scottish Office was scrapped and the Scottish Assembly came into being. Since then he *has* taken the fight to Westminster

Don't confuse my factual corrections as being support for one side or the other - I merely present the facts as completely and impartially as I can.

By the time Thatcher came to power I would have been married and living in East Anglia and a bit detached from Scottish life. I was in Germany 72/74 so it must have been around 75/76 that he first started appearing on TV. From what I remember he was so extreme it appeared delusional. My father was a labour supporter and he thought he was a nutcase.

As I said , I do not believe he has ever had the interests of the country at heart and I hope that the YES theory does not get put to the test. In this modern environment the risk of failure is just too high.

The North Sea oil boom predates Salmond's political career.

He joined the SNP in 1973 when he was about 19 years old so he would have been about 21 years old when you claim you first saw his rhetoric.

He was first elected to Westminster in 1987 when he was about 33 years old.