h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm curious how Westminster will change.

If Scotland devolves, then does that mean ALL Scottish MP's will automatically be barred from the Palace of Westminster?

Further, how will the House of Lords be decided? Will Scottish Lords also have to relinquish there titles? Or just be expelled from the House.

If the latter then will Holyrood create an Upper House, or will they be cast into the wilderness?

Other factors to be considered are the maintenance of communications, infrastructure etc.

For example, will roads, Motorways, railway tracks, electricity grid, gas, telephony, Royal Mail etc. all be supported by the respective Nations?

For example, Scotland will have to create it's own postal service, or rely on TNT, DHL or equivalent, as it will not be eligible to use Royal Mail postal services. In the same way, without the pound Sterling Scotland will be in a similar position to England with accepting Scottish notes.

Scottish notes can be tendered legally in England, but cannot be given back out again. They have to go to the Bank of England and be repatriated.

Also, if Scotland do opt for their own currency, no doubt it will purchase them from the same Country that most countries purchase theirs from, namely England for notes via DeLa Rue, and Wales for coinage, being Llantrisant.

And I guess it's stamps will also come from England, via the Walsall Security Printers.

In fact, the postal service is a major headache and, if Scotland does dissolve, then it will be a relief for the Royal Mail, which has found deliveries to the highlands and islands both onerous and expensive, but has a remit that all of the UK will pay for, and receive, the same postal service irrespective of it's locality.

As for the rest? I'm none too sure. Will the roads vary either side of the border?

And will the highlands of Scotland, with a minuscule population, get the same treatment as the cities and big towns.

These specifics appear to have been largely ignored, with Currency, Parliament, Education and other high profile items topping the agenda.

But the lowly items that are probably more decisive, and expensive, appear to be being ignored.

MMF

I was at a dinner with a Scottish intellectual nationalist (I was a +1 at the dinner) who said that "It is just repealing the two Acts of Union (Scotland 1706; England 1707)". He said that given the pound was shared before, it should be shared afterwards - it was only about repealing the two Acts and so making it all the same as it was 1700.

My comment was that a lot has changed since 1707 but he insisted it was about "rights" and discussions about economics were distractions. It felt as if he was assuming as if the world would be on their side, ready to cover any cracks and ensure nobody got hurt.

Given that the President of the EU has said there will be no more countries joining and the governor the Bank of England saying that currency union is nearly impossible (see the PS below), why are the "yes" campaign not taking these problems as opportunities for forging a new path? There seems to be a romantic retreat into the past, rather than vision for forging a new future.



PS: I had questioned if the problem with Scotland using the pound was interest rates. It turns out it is about cash reserves covering runs on banks and ensuring market liquidity. Quoting from www.currencynews.co.uk:

"The Bank of England supremo attempted to remain politically neutral during his comments to the Treasury Select Committee, the implication of his words was clear – a vote in favour of independence from the Scottish people would destabilise Scotland’s economy. With regard the prospect of an independent Scotland having the Pound Sterling, Carney observed that, ‘the scale of reserves of a country that adopts another country’s currency increases with the size of that country’s financial system, the complexity of its financial system, the extent of its (banking sector)’."

Here is further thought.

Let's say the vote is "yes". Scotland has no further MPs in the England and Wales parliament and no influence over how internal decisions are taken.

So I keep hearing about the strength of the Scottish post-voting negotiating position. However, why should a England/Wales parliament do much beyond the minimum needed to ‘... continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’

It seems to me that once the Scots voters withdraw their votes, they remove their representation and their ability to drive the outcome. I am certain the Westminster parliament will be fair but I am not sure it needs to be generous.



PS: The quote is from the Edinburgh Agreement itself.

What are we asking for that requires generosity beyond fairness?

One thing no-one's mentioned yet is that all the websites with drop-downs for countries that have "United Kingdom" as an option will have to be updated to separately list Scotland.

For years afterwards forms will still be filled in with Scots having to chose United Kingdom because the site hasn't been updated.

Given I only have the UK national press to read and they are not fair, I can't give specifics. What I do see though is politicians handing out promises with the largesse of a Fairy Godmother throwing sweeties to children at a Christmas pantomime.

My comment isn't whether anyone has seriously asked that the UK national debt is divided up pro-rata; if all assets owned by the UK should be cashed up divided between both parties pro-rata; if currency union should happen at all.

My comment is that negotiations are tricky things and there will be arguments for both sides. However the electoral accountability for the larger player, should there be a "yes" vote, is only going to be on one.

There is a saying that "In matters of law and politics you should never ask a question unless you already know the answer"

It would appear the current wunch of bankers in Westminster have either forgotten this basic truth.

If we vote Yes then we'll still have MPs til March 2016 when we become independent. I don't know why England would be especially generous (fair yes hopefully).

What would surprise me is Westminster not signing up for as close a trading relationship as possible, including sharing sterline, out of sheer self-interest. Who wants to cause a recession out of spite?

recession?

Good point Pastey, but maybe this should be looked upon as an opportunity?

I say we rename the new country "Aadvarkville"

England can really balls our economy up if it wants, but only at cost to itself. I think this will be pretty unllikely, especially with a general election in May.

The British voter won't regard that as an issue they will look after themselves the old them and us will soon re establish itself.

So much of the SNP's planning involves oil revenues. The main arguments have been about the amount of oil remaining with Yes campaigners trumpeting huge figures for reserves which will pay for swathes of new spending, an oil fund and tax cuts for corporations. But here are the figures that matter -

In 2000, there were 4.3 million barrels a day coming ashore.
In 2005, 3 million
In 2010, 2 million
In 2012, 1.5 million
Last year, 1.3 million.

Hundreds of job losses have been announced in the last few weeks, with more expected.

Scottish nationalism was borne of the oil boom fuelling selfish greed and it will die after this referendum as the revenues continue to dwindle.

If the figures are true then then they will have been victims of self delusion red faces all round.
Do you think England will bail them out?

Do you think England will bail them out?

With what?
The Bankers have effectively bankrupted the whole UK.

Well they are on their own then

Weird story on morning TV today about Ben Nevis ... Apparently the UK will lose its highest peak should the Yes vote prevail Doh!

Both sides seem to me to be insulting the voters intelligence.

I presume, should Yes prevail, that Scotland would become a republic similar to Ireland, which the UK had a special relationship with prior to the EU regarding taxation/travel, etc.
I can't see how Scotland could be truly independent if the Scottish pound was tied to Sterling underwritten by English financial institutions as this would mean that a significant amount of power would remain south of the border.

Scotland could still call its currency 'pound', retain its design (even keep the queen's head should they wish, if they retain Commonwealth status), its value would be dependent on complex factors as any other country. Or they could decide to adopt the Euro ... Probably not at the moment.

S&P seem to be saying Scotland will be rated AAA, figures for North sea gas/oil are disputed but that and the financial services sector, etc should make it a stable viable independent country. That, of course, would be highly dependent upon the way its government performed and decisions made ...

They already have separate laws/education system. The Royal Mail will probably have to reclassify so posting to Scotland would be more expensive than posting to Northern Ireland, but independent Scotland could institute its own postal service costing in service to remote areas and it looks like the Royal Mail isn't going to operate as it has traditionally for much longer. Whether they have a standing army and other decisions would be theirs.

Much depends on how the economy/taxation is handled, but would be more Scotland I centric so might be beneficial to the population, or might not!

Can't see how Scottish MPs/Lords could remain in England/Wales parliament so that should save us a bit of cash.

Nice post Jazzhag! Some good thoughts in there.

On the off-shore oil point raised earlier, the SNP seem to be assuming that Scotland will get the oil. That's a massive assumption.

In what way would mineral resources in Scotland be English?

They're off-shore.

The actual boundaries of what would be UK and what would be Scotland will no doubt get thrashed out over the next two years if there's a yes vote.
But I wouldn't assume either way. There's been far stranger border lines drawn when countries break up.