1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Scottish Independence Vote

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ChargerWA, Sep 7, 2014.

  1. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    6,029
    More likely Scotland had much more to lose from their independence than to gain.

    What would they have gained by independence?

    They could have lost membership to the EU, or become a new member on compromised trade terms.

    I read that scotch accounts for 20% of their exports and that it's a British law that scotch whiskey can only be produced in Scotland, and that as part of trade agreements countries abide by this British law which may have changed in the case of independence with Scotland having little bargaining power.

    In addition RBS was threatening to relocate to England if the yes vote won.

    Sounds like a quick route to a 3rd world economy to me.
  2. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,117
    You have forgotten the oil factor and how much England would have to cede to Scotland, plus rental negotiations on nuclear weapons sites. Argument can be made that per head Scotland would be far better off in terms of GDP .
  3. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,423

    What would we have actually gained by being a republic?
  4. Highlander35 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    2,911
    The irony of saying this on an online forum is indeed hitting me repeatedly in the face, but it's all a bit academic and pointless to discuss it now isn't it?

    Didn't happen for a lot of reasons, may have been significantly better if they said yes, may have been significantly worse, ultimately, in a poor climate without a legitimate evil in Westminster, that uncertainty played a big part.
  5. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    On the JJJ Hack news program the figures that were bandied about were that the Scots on their own would have had the worlds 20th richest economy with all of the oil reserves in the North Sea and Whisky. No mention of losing control of the Whisky.

    But the UK as it stands is currently the 4th, so it was questionable how much better off they would have been.
  6. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    6,029
    What would have lost though? We are completely independent and the only change would be from a prime minister to a president.

    I agree it would be a purely emotionally driven decision for Australia, but we see no real benefit from it other than a 4 yearly dominance of the commonwealth games.

    Glad to be told any benefit we do get from out link to the UK, but from what I am aware our only link would not be affected as we would remain allies with the Uk and USA for defence reasons and our foreign policy would not change.
  7. daz Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    It wasn't that Australia was being asked to become a Republic or not in the last referendum, which I suspect would have got over the line easily; it was that we were being asked to become a republic or not under a very specific model, which was deeply flawed.

    I have no opinion on the Scottish vote really. A question was asked and a majority answer was given. That's it, really.
  8. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
  9. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    [quote="daz, post: 665924, member: 1759"]It wasn't that Australia was being asked to become a Republic or not in the last referendum, which I suspect would have got over the line easily; it was that we were being asked to become a republic or not under a very specific model, which was deeply flawed.

    I have no opinion on the Scottish vote really. A question was asked and a majority answer was given. That's it, really.[/quote]

    My understanding is that Howard put the Keating model for which was unpopular as the main sticking point was the Parliament was to elect the President. That's the nuts and bolts of it I think. Don't know if it was flawed so to speak.
  10. daz Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    I stand corrected, Ruggo. Unpopular is a better description than flawed.
  11. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    I'm not sure about the ins and outs of the Republican model Daz. I remember Malcom Turnbull had a lot to do with it and it kept large chunks of the Westminster system. I only recall that from reading Don Watson's "Recollections of a bleeding heart".

    With 20 years of hindsight it would probably make for some good analysis. We know what popular politics has delivered up to this point.
  12. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,423
    I never believe in changing stuff because nothing would be lost, it has to improve shit tangibly or what is the point?

    To me, it was like changing a corporate logo, so what
  13. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    6,029
    I'm indifferent to it anyway. I'm merely saying that's what is different between Australia and Scotland. Scotland potentially has a lot to lose, Australia would see no change other than the government structure (Which perhaps would be what we have to lose).

Share This Page