Ben@Forest wrote:A decade ago, pro-independence Scots sought a monetary union with a rump UK. Scotland would then continue to receive the lender-of-last-resort services and reputational benefits of association with the Bank of England. But the UK government quickly put the kibosh on that idea. Anyway, this possibility has been rendered moot by Brexit, because an independent Scotland that was already in a monetary union with an extra-EU country would be unable to rejoin the EU.
Unfortunately he doesn't support that statement with any reasons or sources.
Newspapers rarely do, but it will have been checked before print, it was published more than two months ago, there's no correction or clarification and there's nearly 1,000 comments. It makes sense anyway, otherwise applicant countries could be in monetary union with a range of currencies alien to the EU.
(Who to believe? - a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who's also a former senior policy adviser at the International Monetary Fund writing in a respected broadsheet newspaper which checks things both for accuracy and against libel actions or something you think? )
Professor with "latest book" to sell writes opinion piece in the Guardian. Yup, definitely the last word on what will happen in the future.
Hmmm... the Bank of England or another source that you can't remember?
That's a tough call. ; - )
Jonathan
No I said it was BoE or another credible source like a banking sector body or trading standards. I might not remember which but the credibility I do remember. If you can't trust trading standards...
The BoE page linked to seemed a bit simplistic, missing something I thought. I've never really looked at the BoE website. Is it dumbed down a bit?
Yes, I read something about that too. Can't remember where exactly, but it was definitely credible. Now where was it?
Tangled Metal wrote:Out of curiosity I've got a question for our Scottish, pro independence posters. Do you see the SNP as a long term, credible party you'd support after independence or do you see them as your best chance to get independence? If the latter do you think people will ditch their support for SNP once independence process and stability has been achieved?
My reason for asking is because I am kind of glad they're not outside of Scotland. As bad as English parties are I think they're slightly better than SNP.
I’ve stated before in an independent Scotland people will vote for whatever cause they want and because of our electoral system they will have some representation. I guess the reason you dislike SNP must be similar to our dislike of the Tory morphing EDL. I see their latest ploy is to take 8 MPs from Wales and 2 away from Scotland and add 10 more MP for England. What’s the betting the 8 from Wales are Labour seats and the 10 new in England are Southern heavy. It’s not an equal Union and there appears to be little effort to unite it. If Boris has his way there is no ref2 until 2055 so all votes in this poll are off.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote:I’ve stated before in an independent Scotland people will vote for whatever cause they want and because of our electoral system they will have some representation. I guess the reason you dislike SNP must be similar to our dislike of the Tory morphing EDL. I see their latest ploy is to take 8 MPs from Wales and 2 away from Scotland and add 10 more MP for England. What’s the betting the 8 from Wales are Labour seats and the 10 new in England are Southern heavy. It’s not an equal Union and there appears to be little effort to unite it. If Boris has his way there is no ref2 until 2055 so all votes in this poll are off.
Sounds good to me, don't know anyone in the real world who is not sick to the back teeth of all this referendum crap. It has been non stop for what seems like ever. On this side of the border we had indyref 1 from 2012-2015 then brexit for 2015 - 2021 and now we may be heading into indyref2. Suppose when that is done we can start another brexit or brenter - arghhhh!!
Referendums are just hideous devise monstrosities - more than one in a generation is too many. We need a decade or two to see how the results of Indyref1 and Brexit work out.
Pebble wrote:Referendums are just hideous devise monstrosities - more than one in a generation is too many. We need a decade or two to see how the results of Indyref1 and Brexit work out.
Believe me I share your pain but sadly not a grain of your optimism. Maybe since 2015 I’ve missed the early signs of WM acknowledging Scotland and her people are a different country and maybe just a wee bit of respect to their views could have gone a long long way.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote:I see their latest ploy is to take 8 MPs from Wales and 2 away from Scotland and add 10 more MP for England. What’s the betting the 8 from Wales are Labour seats and the 10 new in England are Southern heavy. It’s not an equal Union and there appears to be little effort to unite it. If Boris has his way there is no ref2 until 2055 so all votes in this poll are off.
The change in the seats is the work of the boundary commission, not any political party. It is thought Scotland will lose one and of course the SE will gain because more people keep living there . Apparently this latest change will ensure there is a more equal number of voters in each seat, except some islands which are too difficult to meld into another seat.
This review has been waited for for years, and it's long been acknowledged that the current seat distribution has favoured Labour. I'm sure that's going to elicit a Gradgrindian demand for facts from some quarters. But frankly, look it up yourself
I did ..boundary commission set up in 1986 wasn’t that Maggie. Sponsored by the Cabinet isn’t that the current gov.. Coupled with a trustworthy government what could possibly go wrong.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote:I did ..boundary commission set up in 1986 wasn’t that Maggie. Sponsored by the Cabinet isn’t that the current gov.. Coupled with a trustworthy government what could possibly go wrong.
It's sponsored by the Cabinet Office - the Civil Service. One only has to look at constituency sizes to know there are some gross disparities - the IoW has over 110,000 voters but just one MP (but of course may remain so because splitting it in two will mean undersized constituencies).
But there are conspiracies everywhere if you want to find them
Paulatic wrote:I did ..boundary commission set up in 1986 wasn’t that Maggie. Sponsored by the Cabinet isn’t that the current gov.. Coupled with a trustworthy government what could possibly go wrong.
It's sponsored by the Cabinet Office - the Civil Service. One only has to look at constituency sizes to know there are some gross disparities - the IoW has over 110,000 voters but just one MP (but of course may remain so because splitting it in two will mean undersized constituencies).
But there are conspiracies everywhere if you want to find them
Yes that’s right and as you seem to know a little of how it works can I ask is there any mechanism within it to protect representation from areas with a falling population? Do the views and opinions of those areas disappear and if they do is it reasonable to think those in more populated areas care about opinions from those less populated areas. I’d suggest the answer to that last question is currently no. You can substitute the word area with Scotland if you wish but I used area because I think it’s a UK wide problem.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Do the population of any area care about those of another area? Big or small we're all humans with our own petty priorities. Size of constituency or existence of a small constituency doesn't change that.
If a constituency has a population falling in size then that needs addressing not the size or area of the constituency. Constituency boundaries surely has to be, as much as possible, about keeping them uniform population size. Unless you disagree. If you do then I want a constituency for just my household please.
Paulatic wrote: ... Yes that’s right and as you seem to know a little of how it works can I ask is there any mechanism within it to protect representation from areas with a falling population? Do the views and opinions of those areas disappear and if they do is it reasonable to think those in more populated areas care about opinions from those less populated areas. I’d suggest the answer to that last question is currently no. You can substitute the word area with Scotland if you wish but I used area because I think it’s a UK wide problem.
I'm missing the point here. Are you saying that a constituency with a dwindling population should continue to enjoy the same level of parliamentary representation in perpetuity?
I suppose the question is how constituencies are enlarged to get the requisite number of voters? If to get 60,000 to 70,000 in a constituency a town gets added in to a primarily rural constituency how will it change that?
Paulatic is more ahead of the curve than me though, the Boundaries Commission has released information about a reduction of 8 seats in Wales, but the average constituency size in Wales is about 56,000. A lot lower than England and quite a bit lower than either Scotland or NI. Since Labour have 22 Welsh seats and the Conservatives have 14 you'd hope if the 2019 voting pattern was applied they'd lose about 5 and 3 respectively.
Ben@Forest wrote:Paulatic is more ahead of the curve than me though, the Boundaries Commission has released information about a reduction of 8 seats in Wales, but the average constituency size in Wales is about 56,000. A lot lower than England and quite a bit lower than either Scotland or NI. Since Labour have 22 Welsh seats and the Conservatives have 14 you'd hope if the 2019 voting pattern was applied they'd lose about 5 and 3 respectively.
Correct. It is only fair that WAles losesa few seats.
"The number of people able to vote (the electorate) differs by constituency. The Office for National Statistics gives the average electorate across constituencies of about:
72,200 in England 67,200 in Scotland 68,300 in Northern Ireland 56,000 in Wales"
Paulatic wrote: ... Yes that’s right and as you seem to know a little of how it works can I ask is there any mechanism within it to protect representation from areas with a falling population? Do the views and opinions of those areas disappear and if they do is it reasonable to think those in more populated areas care about opinions from those less populated areas. I’d suggest the answer to that last question is currently no. You can substitute the word area with Scotland if you wish but I used area because I think it’s a UK wide problem.
I'm missing the point here. Are you saying that a constituency with a dwindling population should continue to enjoy the same level of parliamentary representation in perpetuity?
I’ve visited old Sarum when staying on C&CC excellently situated for the city. While that might be an extreme example I take the point but the other extreme is highly represented high population areas can stamp their ideals on low populated areas. If there is a formula for the EC to use and if it hasn’t changed since Thatcher days it will be more than likely divisive rather than unifying.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Ben@Forest wrote:I suppose the question is how constituencies are enlarged to get the requisite number of voters? If to get 60,000 to 70,000 in a constituency a town gets added in to a primarily rural constituency how will it change that?
Yes I think How is very important and can only draw on my own experience as to what they did here. They split the town of Dumfries into two and added each side into rural areas. The cynical of us might translate that into they split a traditional Labour vote in half giving their numbers less influence. Which is why I wonder is there a formula they are bound to follow or can they at a whim draw lines to make acceptable numbers.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
)
