Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Support "No" Campaign in Scottish Referendum
At last a campaign has got going which is giving a chance to all of us, who do not have a vote on the question, to express our opinion on the proposed break up of our country.
Everyone can take part via https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
For months I've been frustrated by the tactic of the "no" campaign in concentrating solely on economic issues and currency. Positions on these matters tend to shift in the short and medium term and they are therefore of small relevance in relation to a question of how the peoples of this island are to work together, to view themselves and to be viewed by others over the coming centuries.
Now we can express our views on what is really at stake - which is 300 years of fruitful collaboration (actually 400 years de facto) in which the achievements of the English and the Scots together have dominated almost every field of human endeavour.
This is no accident. The presence of different traditions fosters innovation, while unity in a larger whole creates a larger canvass on which to paint and prevents the onset of a narrow provincialism.
I hope we all sign up.
David Schmitz
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Philip on
-
I would have agreed some years ago that carving up nations into tiny enclaves for narrow benefits was not a good way to go; and I still believe that about, say Catalunya. But considering the current and last government, both of whom are now in the process of denying the causes of the economic crises, and consequently not addressing those causes has made me reconsider my position. The bankers have been let off the hook and the rest of us have been made to pay the price instead. The Post Office has been sold off to the private sector, with the NHS in the process. We really need policies which will reverse this trend, and the public agrees with this, but our political class act with impunity. Scottish independence offers a chance to break with this destructive paradigm. Hopefully it will do so, and send a message to the remainder of the UK that there IS an alternative.
-
Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on
-
Dear Philip,
I have to say that I agree with your former opinion, but that your present opinion does not convince me.
You may wish to recall firstly that the biggest millstones placed around the government's neck comprised (1) the Royal Bank of Scotland and (2) the Halifax Bank of Scotland, and secondly that the then Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath persuaded the management of Lloyds to merge with it in a rescue attempt, thereby making Lloyds insolvent into the bargain.
All of which demonstrates an important point which I had not touched on - namely, that it is a false premise to consider that a decision on constitutional change should be influenced by ones view of any electoral advantage or disadvantage for the immediate or even the foreseeable future. Constitutional change has effects which far outlast the shifting alliances and accommodations which go to make up political parties or coalition governments.
The last government, of which I of course did not approve, may have been dominated by Scots, but that never influenced me to reject the Union, any more than the prospect of many years of Conservative dominance in England and Wales would cause me to cling more closely to it. I would seek other antidotes to such a prospect.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I hope others follow.
Best regards,
David
-
-
As an Irish person, I know that there is free passage between the UK and Ireland, without passport or visa. Irish qualifications are recognised here and visa versa. Many UK and International companies operate on a 32 county basis and suffer no harm, as this merely rationalises their business activities. No reason to doubt it would be any different for Scotland. Similarly, Ireland used Sterling during the first decade after independence and the Irish Pound was linked to the Pound Sterling until 1979. There are fair arguments against independence, but these are not some of them.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Interesting comment about currency. As Jonny suggests it's all about "the economy stupid".
1. I suspect Ireland used Sterling *with the agreement of the UK* following independence (something I believe will not happen if Scotland votes Yes). The rest of the UK will simply not allow it and this will show just how hard it is to go it alone to the Scots.
2. Scotland is perfectly at liberty to peg its currency to Sterling, as many nations globally do to the USD$- no agreement from the UK will be required to do so. However, this will remove an enormous amount of economic independence in Scottish economic decision making. So, in effect Scotland will still find itself tied to decision making by the rest of the UK!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Yes. Currently the Bank of England sets monetary policy in the overall national interest. In the event of Scottish independence, the Bank of England would set monetary policy solely in the interest of the remaining group (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
Foreign exchange rates would then reflect economic conditions in that area only (inflation, unemployment, stage of economic cycle etc).
Dependence on the pound, which Mr Salmond seems to want (!), is the achilles heel of the SNP and Alastair Darling has been right to focus on it.
An 'independent' Scotland that used or effectively used Sterling, would be likely to suffer the drawbacks that some countries in the Euro zone have: a currency whose base interest rate and exchange rate were unsuitable for local conditions.
IMO, it would be a trap.
-
-
A Salvo from John Bull's Other Island:
I am launching a campaign, six weeks before the Centenary of the passing into Law by His Majesty's House of Commons of Great Britain & Ireland (coincidentally on 18th September 1914) of the Third Irish Home Rule Bill (Government of Ireland Act 1914), which will give a chance to all of us, who did not have a vote on the question, to express our opinion on the break up of my country through the connivance of the Conservative & Unionist Party, the opposition of the Lords, the mutinous refusal of His Majesty's Forces at the Curragh to enforce the will of Parliament, and (in 1916) the two-timing skulduggery of Herbert Asquith's Minister of Munitions, Welsh Wizard David Lloyd George.
I am calling on the Liberal & Democratic successors in Harringay & Haringey of H.H. Asquith, D.L. George and W.L. Spencer-Churchill to support my campaign to right this monstrous wrong by Thursday, 18th September 2014. Otherwise, I shall feel constrained to say a resounding YES to the Integrity of Scotland - no mere province She! - and even contemplate voting for Gina and Emine in 1918 er 2018.
-
-
Gosh, where do I start? Perhaps I'd better not!
Best,
David
-
-
David, thanks for beginning this thread.
I've signed.
It's good that there's at least one thing all three major parties can agree on, even if not all their members might.
I believe Johnny is right and that economic issues will determine the outcome.
In my view, the oil under the North Sea, off Scotland's shores and so often factored into SNP calculations, would be worth little ... without the enormous capital investment and technical expertise that has been provided over decades ... by international oil companies, against a stable, predictable political background. (Compare with risks faced today by international oil companies involved in the Russian Federation.)
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Salmond et al were very clever to force this through quickly so during the time of the most hated government in the UK since about 1983, if not forever. So it must be tempting for the Scots to want to cut loose from Westminster rule. But nationalism? Really?
-
-
I'm grateful for all the comments, and I've particularly enjoyed the definition of nationalism.
In answer to Joe's question, I'm not afraid of ever closer union, though I'm cautious about it. I feel that the next task for the EU is to reform its institutions, rather than to engage in further integration. I also feel that closer union should follow upon a convergence which occurs naturally between member states, and that it should not follow a predetermined design, at least for now.
There is of course a great difference between the EU and the UK in that the UK is a unitary state which has functioned well for many centuries and whose people have a sense of kinship which is greater than that which for now exists between most people here and the peoples elsewhere in Europe. Of course there are people who, like me, have continental ties, but we are the exception.
I've tweeted a mention of the campaign which prompted me to start this post. Anyone who agrees with me may wish to do the same, or to retweet what I've said on @schmitz_dr
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
