English Chess Forum

John McKenna wrote: as the deeds got worse the music got better.

Ah, I understand now. As long as I don't have to listen to Pat Kane, we may be fine...

Gordon Cadden wrote:No hard evidence which way Scottish chess players will vote, just a canny feel. I was thinking of debt laden RBS. The Chancellor George Osborne has declared that there will not be a currency union.
Scottish born Jonathan Rowson has declared his support for the "YES" vote. His employment makes it necessary for him to live in London, so as you say, he may not be able to vote.

I believe RBS is thinking of moving south (and LBG, which has a head office here, may follow), although presumably both banks are solvent.

Not only George Osborne but Danny Alexander and Ed Balls as well have ruled out currency union. Irrespective of the economic case, there seems to be some discontent down south regarding loss of sovereignty, so the temptation to share some economic risks with a newly foreign country may be resisted.

Yes, JR is one of a number of foreign residents urging ask to take risks they are unable to take themselves.

NickFaulks wrote:I merely suggested that any decision to split the UK in two should involve both halves, not just one.

I think the principle of self-determination is the dominant feature here.

The asymmetric nature of the UK is a problem. England is dominant in terms of size, and although some protection from the implementation of notionally unpopular policies has been provided by transferring powers to the other constituent nations, there is a residual difficulty. Have you heard of the West Lothian question? Of course, there is no requirement for any government minister to be a member of the House of Commons with constituents to be affected (or not) by policy changes, or indeed to be a member of the House of Lords.

It has been proposed to set up assemblies in the regions of England, but there is little appetite for this. London is a special case, and there remains the possibility of giving it greater autonomy in conjunction with reducing its economic influence

Alistair Campbell wrote: Have you heard of the West Lothian question?

Across the breakfast table in our house, we discuss little else. Seriously, of course I have, and I also know all about Ken Clarke's "Democracy Taskforce" ( try not to laugh ). The only mooted solution to the obvious asymmetry which has any chance of happening is Scottish independence, and that would be because the Scots wanted it, not because the English did.

I just read on the BBC news that there is a plan to grant Scotland greater power over finance, welfare and taxation if they vote 'No'.

Silly question, but wouldn't they also get all that if they voted yes?!

You'd think so Thing is though, while its very different emotionally, the practical differences between a heavily devolved Scotland and a formally independent one really aren't that clear cut.

Especially if the independent state is going to be in Europe (so no borders/restrictions), shares a currency with the UK, shares the same head of state and I'd presume has heavy cooperation where it makes sense, like border policies etc.

So they're trying to offer it as a 'safer' alternative. Seems to have more or less worked in Quebec in the end. It would of course have been much more convincing had this been the presented policy from the start!

I have to say the apparently proposed deadline of organising it all of 18 months after a positive referendum result seems very optimistic. All sorts of stuff to (re)organise.

" the practical differences between a heavily devolved Scotland and a formally independent one really aren't that clear cut."

there seems to be a general vagueness and lack of information. Will a separate Scotland have the same currency/stamps, will it apply to be in the Commonwealth (and I assume be let in automatically), will it suddenly become a pseudo-member of the EC (like the Channel Islands), and have to apply to be a full member, what will happen to UK military bases in Scotland? If military bases close, a lot of local businesses close as well, as most of the population is no longer there. Will big businesses leave as some have threatened?

There are other questions as well and I would have thought voters need some answers before deciding how to vote.

I have visited the Western Isles on a number of occasions and I got the impression that a Government in Edinburgh would be no more appealing than one in London!

Scotland would be better off governing its self and the other bonus if a yes vote wins is it will finish off our clueless leader Cameron.It will be real fun to watch the conservative and labour party turn on each other over a yes vote.I always remember call me dave claiming for a paper clip and some people(sheep) still go out and vote for him.

Never fear i just seen on the news David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg will miss Prime Minister's Questions to travel to Scotland to campaign for the union.

The unprecedented move follows indications in polls that Scottish voters could vote to leave the UK in the September 18 referendum.

Talk about panic you could not make it up.

Your leader here in waiting will always speak out about issues

Right time for lunch

Has anyone actually asked the population of England whether they would like Scotland to become independent? Any polls out there?

Ray Sayers wrote:I just read on the BBC news that there is a plan to grant Scotland greater power over finance, welfare and taxation if they vote 'No'.

Silly question, but wouldn't they also get all that if they voted yes?!

Well, yes, but we could also be bearing all the downside risk, rather than sharing it.

MartinCarpenter wrote:You'd think so Thing is though, while its very different emotionally, the practical differences between a heavily devolved Scotland and a formally independent one really aren't that clear cut.

Especially if the independent state is going to be in Europe (so no borders/restrictions), shares a currency with the UK, shares the same head of state and I'd presume has heavy cooperation where it makes sense, like border policies etc.

It depends on the level of devolution. A federal approach would only see Foreign Policy and Defence shared (yet these are 2 of the biggest bugbears). Variations on a theme of Indy Lite, Devo Max or Devo Plus see some or all of Corportation Tax, Benefits, Pensions, NI and VAT retained or not.

However, the currency position is quite unclear. I don’t see that we have a Euro opt-out on accession to the EU. And rUK’s future in Europe is a little unclear, so it’s quite possible to conceive of having two separate immigration and border policies.

I think i will fly the flag of Saint Andrew's cross with a big Yes on it.Go for it Scotland and help get rid of Cameron does any one on here own up to voting for him?

Did you see the panic in dave face on Sky news today.I do hope the people of Scotland give him a wonderful reception on wedersday.

Right time to walk the dog.

One of the points I saw raised in one newspaper article is that the issue of a currency union does affect the potential rump-UK a great deal. So there might have to be a referendum to decide whether the rump-UK wants to join a currency union with a newly independent Scotland. It is not a question of whether Scotland wants to keep the pound or not. On the actual question of independence, clearly the decision has to be with the people of Scotland (England could similarly vote to dissolve the Union so you can't really say Scotland can't do the same - I can never quite work out where Wales and Northern Ireland fit into that, though). The numbers of Scots unable to vote due to not being resident in Scotland is disquieting. The other thing I noticed when reading about the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was that there was actually no referendum there, something I hadn't realised.

Latest from the Governor of the Bank of England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29133217

Robert Peston has written some interesting articles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103437

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29129317

"The Saltire, the flag of Scotland, has been raised over Downing Street as the leaders of the three major parties come together to implore Scotland to reject independence. It took two attempts after the flag fell down the first time it was raised."

Carl, we need a 'face-palm' symbol...

Graham Borrowdale wrote:Has anyone actually asked the population of England whether they would like Scotland to become independent? Any polls out there?

Yes, and they consistently show a large majority wanting to preserve the union - contrary, of course, to much saloon bar anecdotage

Though what England wants is quite irrelevant. If the inhabitants of a clear geographical area within a state wish to dissociate themselves from that state it must be their right to do so. I uphold that right for Scotland as I uphold the right of Manchester to dissociate itself from Lancashire!

Michael Farthing wrote:Though what England wants is quite irrelevant. If the inhabitants of a clear geographical area within a state wish to dissociate themselves from that state it must be their right to do so. I uphold that right for Scotland as I uphold the right of Manchester to dissociate itself from Lancashire!

Actually I think it is extremely relevant. Not to the extent of having a voting influence, but a prospective Independent Scotland is going to need all the help from England/rUK it can get. Firstly in getting a fair deal from negotiations on Independence and secondly post Independence in being its major trading partner. Ironically an England well disposed towards the prospect of an Independent Scotland and happy to see them go are far more likely to conduct future relations with Scotland in a spirit of generousity. If Scottish Independence results in political and economic turmoil in England in the short or medium term then attitudes are likely to harden considerably.