The UK is a net contributor to the EU, but it also has the financial center of the EU in London. On top of that some areas of the UK are net recipients of EU money, others are contributors.
Losing the financial center alone may already tip the balance out of favor, and for some areas (notably Scotland) the loss will be much larger.
Back of the envelope has the UK in worse shape without the EU and access to their market than with.
Regardless of what will happen now, the UK will lose the financial center (it will most likely end up in Frankfurt am Main), Scotland will secede from the UK and will apply (assuming a majority votes for that proposal) to the EU as an independent entity, much like Ireland.
The one thing this referendum has already achieved is that the position of the UK on the world stage is marginalized further.
Simply put, London hands over money to the EU which hands most of it back to regions that London wouldn't have handed the money to in the first place (Scotland, North of England, Wales...somewhat ironically since many of them voted leave..).
I think the reason we are no longer part of the EU is in part bad PR on the part of the EU on what it actually did.
Which is why "what is the EU/what does the EU do" type queries have trended on google after the referendum.
People suddenly wondering how fucked/non-fucked we are since the result.
One of the main attractions of London as a banking centre is its EU membership. Sure, there are others, but it seems extremely likely that companies will relocate because they judge access to the EU market as more important.
There might not be an EU by the time Scotland gets a vote to secede
Doubtful: As long as France and Germany are on board, the EU will survive in some fashion.
The comment[1] of German economist Max Otte[2] regarding the British vote? Good riddance, now we can stop accomodating UK sensibilities. Also remember, when the UK wanted to join the EEC? De Gaulle sent them packing twice...
> Doubtful: As long as France and Germany are on board, the EU will survive in some fashion.
I would go further than that, while you are absolutely right, long before we reach that point we have the "second core" of Belgium, Italy and Spain, none of which are actually leaving anytime soon. Can add Portugal, Austria and Luxembourg as a "sure takers" third wave.
It's from 2014 (so in particular before the refugee crisis), but a look at Special Eurobarometer 415 [1] might still be instructive, eg QA13.3 [2]. This could have saved Cameron some embarrassment...
> Doubtful: As long as France and Germany are on board, the EU will survive in some fashion.
I disagree. The UK was the third largest net contributor to the EU, and one of only ~10 member states that have historically made positive net contributions.
Its influence and role as a net importer from the EU will see it win a relatively favorable exit, including access to the single market.
The UK exit, in addition to the financial impact on the EU, will inspire many other member states on the verge of leaving to do the same.
The EU is already on thin ice, and the UK voting to leave may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back.
> Its influence and role as a net importer from the EU will see it win a relatively favorable exit, including access to the single market.
> The UK exit, in addition to the financial impact on the EU, will inspire many other member states on the verge of leaving to do the same.
I disagree, UK will not have an easy exit exactly for the reason you say. It will make leaving an easy thing.
And you only see the economical part, UK has been seen in the rest of the EU as an obstacle to the EU and closer to USA than UE.
Right now, they don't have so much sympathies apart from some far right parties. And I wouldn't like to be friend with them
Between Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders they can still do a lot of damage to those countries but NL without the EU is a joke and France has way too much to lose (more than the UK did) so I highly doubt (hope?) that this will not come to pass.
Le Pen has less elected member of parliament than I have fingers on one of my hands (and I have the regular five fingers by hand).
Even in their "great swipe" of 2014, they got 14 mayors total. In a country counting roughly 36 000 mayors (yes, I know ...).
The FN is actually very very weak, it keeps being seen doing huge jump forwards in numbers but that's mostly because the others are being very dumb and for the FN a single new member of parliament is a 50% jump ahead, which makes for a good headline.
The FN biggest strength is actually the media attention they get and how it drives them forward, there was a study about that showing they were te party being given the most media attention and it giving them the biggest result boost (despite "we are ignored by the media" being on their main card, like all populist parties)
Europe has been unable to recreate Silicon Valley for a large number of reasons none of which have anything to do with why they can't move their financial center to Frankfurt.
Just a couple of them:
- no single language market of 300M people
- different attitude towards investment
- different attitude towards entrepreneurship
- no reason to cluster that much in such a small space
In fact, the US has been unable to 'recreate Silicon Valley', it's a world-wide accidental one-off and drawing parallels between its one-off-existence, lack of being replicated anywhere at all and the fact that London was a banking capital before the EU existed does nothing to guarantee Londons continued existence as a banking capital outside an otherwise unified EU once a large number of very relevant parties pulls out and is drawing very strange conclusions out of unrelated data.
The biggest hits from the brexit will be felt in London and it is already happening.
> Europe has been unable to recreate Silicon Valley for a large number of reasons none of which have anything to do with why they can't move their financial center to Frankfurt.
I'd argue that a lot of the reasons overlap. The key ones being: pre-existing access to capital, access to talent, and tolerance for risk-taking.
Capital is very easy to move (and is already moving), banking talent is not rare and tolerance for risk taking? We're talking about banking here. The tolerance for risk taking in banking goes just so far that you are not fired if the risk is covered before you are found out. Start-ups and banking have very little to do with each other.
I'd like to see a start-up succeed under the kind of risk-averse attitude that's prevalent in a bank and the kind of reporting duties they have.
Note that NYC is the banking center of the United States (and to some extent of the world) and that NYC also did not manage to re-create Silicon Valley.
20-somethings at Wall Street and City firms are making billion dollar trades--ones where even a small amount of risk can yield huge losses. That takes an appetite for risk. Those firms have pipelines funneling in the top graduates from the top schools. They've got access to (rare) talent. They've got the connections with individual and institutional investors that can raise billions of dollars on tight timelines to finance mergers, acquisitions, or expansion. That's access to capital that could move but isn't necessarily going to. And they've got a well-developed supporting infrastructure of accountants, lawyers, and analysts helping to keep the gears turning.
These are good points and I don't understand the downvotes. Silicon Valley is great ecosystem for startups but once they start to grow big, they do need financial services from the many many firms on wall street. That is a different kind of talent and I think SV (and perhaps HN as well) fails to understand the importance of the availability of capital instruments and prudent financial advice that is available so easily just across the country.
Underestimating the soft diplomatic skills of the English. It has always been their strength, not treaties. In no time you will see London be an Asian financial hub. They didn't need to be one before because they had it easy with the EU. But when they lose that business, they'll get to work in Asia. The distance won't matter.
Currently a lot of fincancial products can be created and managed in London, since once approved there, they are automatically approved in all other EU member states, too.
This of course will have to change once the UK has left the EU, making the people involved in these processes one of the first to be moved to Franfkurt etc.
Quite the case. One of the key reasons that the Scottish referendum in 2014 was not won was because of uncertainty about continued EU membership and the currency that the country would use.
To make that decision and less than two years later be dragged out of the EU anyway has pissed off a bunch of people. Lots of noise coming from former 'no' voters and media about how they feel misled. And now that Scotland has resoundingly - 24% margin! - voters to remain in the EU, it seems there is a bit of a mandate.
I am not enjoying the atmosphere here at the moment. This whole thing has been a colossal fuckup which has permanently damaged the UK.
> This whole thing has been a colossal fuckup which has permanently damaged the UK.
For me that's the biggest take away from it; half of the scots voters said they wanted out of that union, which usually means "we don't feel that country represents us properly". Now, that's not irreparable and you have a perfect, even stronger example in recent times with Quebec and Canada. The solution was "simple"; listen to them and go their way, if only a little. Show them that you care about them being in. Laugh all you want about the French labels everywhere in Canada but they're basically Canada saying "ok Quebec, we need you, let's stay together".
With that Brexit vote, the UK has thrown away one of the biggest thing scots were sure about; they wanted to be in the EU. Even if they manage to not lose them through independence, it has been marked in the sand that England decides and Scotland follows, even if they really don't want to.
(I mean 68% for remain ? I'm not sure any other EU country would get that at the moment, maybe Germany)
If I remember well even the EU said "well, quick admission is not certain, you would have to apply like any one else", then there was the Spanish question, the currency choice, ...
Scotland wanted in the EU but weren't sure they would be able to be properly and quickly outside the UK, while staying in was the safe way to keep EU membership. Now they know for sure they can only be in by being outside the UK.
Well, now I need to get Scottish citizenship when they get around to being independent to get around the EU since a British passport isn't going to do it any more.
The EU membership will most likely come with a change of currency, which means leaving the BoE for the ECB. Given the ECB's track record and it's inability to do what a central bank ought to do - protect banks from bank runs, devalue, etc. - I believe that it's suicidal. The QE was was a joke.
Surplus recycling is nowhere to be found in the European Union, vis-a-vis Germany Scotland will have deficit, hence it's doomed in the long run to become like Greece.
The way the EU manages the economy, it's stupid for any deficit country to come in and compared to Germany, everybody will be in huge deficit in the long run. At that point you depend on the Bundesbank to over-value and the German government to raise salaries. None of this will happen, at that point you'll have a country on it's knees depending on a foreign institution (the ECB) who is controlled by a foreign nation which has it's own interests to protect.
I'm sorry for GB. I'm sorry that a nation had to go through this, but their best bet is to stick together.
EDIT: The first thing that the German gov did after Brexit says a long shot about how Germany envisions Europe: They summoned the 6 (or 7) countries that created the European Union. But the EU has 27 members now.
Do you really want to be part of a union who doesn't give a damn about you and give your monetary policy to that union?
About 16 years ago, at her last speech, M. Thatcher in a rare moment of enlightenment said about the EUR: He who control the interest rates controls the Economy and he who controls the economy controls the politics in Europe
Sorry, but the point of the EU is not to just let everyone mooch off of the central banks and beg for handouts.
Scotland outside of UK and part of the EU is a Scotland ripe for service industry. If the EU helps it's member states to be better than they are individually, which is supposed to be how it works, then there's no reason to assume Scotland will be running at a deficit forever.
It will be initially though, which is what we know for certain. Whether they will become a service industry utopia, is something which remains to be seen. In that case, it makes much more sense for Scotland to have control over its monetary and fiscal policies and not have them dictated by the ECB.
Agree with most of your comment. One nit: interest rate (and monetary policy in general) isn't as important as the independence to determine fiscal policies. The two are related of course if you don't have an independent currency. That is my biggest beef with the Euro.
> One nit: interest rate (and monetary policy in general) isn't as important as the independence to determine fiscal policies. The two are related of course if you don't have an independent currency.
Yes but no. There is no deadline. So if you don't wait it, you can just delay it forever. Many countries does just that. Others like Poland, even if they would want to join, have national currently enforced in constitution and changing that is super hard.
Sorry, you are in almost everything wrong. Deficits are not really a problem. Currently, the lack of a deficit is the main reason, why the ECB set the interest rate to zero. Almost all European governments cut spending and remove money from the economy. The results are awful is most economies, except those which can export more than import. They live on the deficit of other countries.
BTW Germany is currently the country which suffers the most from the low interest rates of the ECB.
The problem is that countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal are being forced to cut spending, which doesn't end their crisis but will prolong them and make everybody poorer in the process.
There is certainly a point in which the deficit is too high, but where this point is, is unknown. It is the same with inflation, a little bit inflation is good for an economy. It gives incentives to spent money and to invest now and don't wait for lower prices. But too high inflation will hurt an economy badly.
> Sorry, you are in almost everything wrong. Deficits are not really a problem. Currently, the lack of a deficit is the main reason, why the ECB set the interest rate to zero. Almost all European governments cut spending and remove money from the economy. The results are awful is most economies, except those which can export more than import. They live on the deficit of other countries.
Maybe I didn't make my self clear: I didn't say that deficit is a problem per se. I argued that given the current design and status quo in the EU, any country that has a deficit vis-a-vis Germany should stay out of the common currency because inevitably, it will end up like Greece in the long run.
I agree with most of what you said. Regarding Germany and the ECB, that's true but it's only a small part of the bigger picture.
Actually, most newer members of the EU don't have the Euro (eg Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc). If Scotland wants to create a currency of their own, they can do that - even if the wanted to, they couldn't get the Euro right away, it takes some time.
On the other hand, one of the main arguments against leaving the UK, at the time of the referendum, was that Scotland couldn't leave the union and keep the GBP as their currency, and they feared a weak and especially a volatile currency could wreck havoc on their economy. Having a secure path to EU membership (without veto power by the UK) and the backing of the ECB would help a lot against that risk.
> The EU membership will most likely come with a change of currency, which means leaving the BoE for the ECB.
European countries (except UK, DK, SE) need to join the Euro but not right away. Many aren't there yet. In Scotland's case it can remain in a currency union with the UK until they are ready to join the Euro. Ireland was in a currency union with the UK after independence. It's not an exotic relationship, especially with economies so intertwined.
The EU project is a political one (encompassing things like currency, fiscal and social union), and not just a single market like the most liberal English right winger want it to be. The referendum is a plebiscite for this politic, even though it seems that part of the electorate has been conned into voting to leave.
David Cameron has resigned as a consequence of the vote. This should give you a hint of why I call this a plebiscite for the Tory leadership (and by extension the most liberal politics they prone at home and abroad).
I have a romantic view of referendums: I don't believe that decision taken via referendum can be wrong. It's the quintessence of democracy and I ultimately believe in democracy, which means I believe that the majority votes as best as the can.
IMHO you're misunderstanding: Listening BBC Radio 5 the last couple of days I can say that lack of transparency, austerity promotion and the way countries like Greece (primarily), Ireland and Portugal were treated in 2014 and 2015 by the EU played a major role in turning voters to Brexit.
Having seen first hand the British media (both English and Scottish) coverage of the debate surrounding the EU referendum, I can confidently say that part of the British electorate has been mislead to think all blame are on the EU institution. There is also the antiquated notion of Nation-State that does not apply to the UK as Northern Ireland and Scotland have voted to remain and are now seeing their future outside the EU against their will.
This is exactly how secession should work. Clearly the Scots and the English and Welsh have different opinions on being part of the EU. It is tyrannical for either group to force their preference on the others.
So let Scotland secede and join the EU. Problem solved, human freedom and happiness maximized.
See 'Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists' by Tom Woods:
I know of a lot of British people who do not want Scotland to be part of the UK. They get more funding per head, their own government and then complain they are unfairly treated.
Personally, I think you do deserve a second referendum. The remain/leave map shows a clear border. Northumberland votes out. North of that, its all remain.
The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref.
That and the EU/better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay.
Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be.
"Personally, I think you do deserve a second referendum. The remain/leave map shows a clear border. Northumberland votes out. North of that, its all remain."
It's tough luck. You can't threaten to quit every time things don't work out for you.
"The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref."
I don't think anybody envisioned we would actually leave.
"That and the EU/better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay."
It's not entirely clear that Scotland will be able to join the EU anyway. There's a long waiting list and large payment required.
"Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be."
I also voted remain. I'm not afraid of the threat of Scotland to the rest of the UK, I'm afraid of Scotland's threat to itself.
What will be interesting now is whether Scotland really has the economy to survive on their own in the EU. Other smaller Countries have not yet been successful.
Scotland and London are the only two regions that pay their own way. The rest live off subsidies from the UK and Europe. The ironies and cognitive dissonance of little Englanders never ceases.
Since this is a fact, you see some very odd and contorted phrases to imply otherwise. One classic is to say that Scotland spends more than it earns. Which is entirely true, Scotland runs a deficit. What isn't mentioned is that the UK as a whole runs a deficit. But Leave voters have shown themselves to be very susceptible to propaganda as long as it talks down "the other".
"Scotland and London are the only two regions that pay their own way. The rest live off subsidies from the UK and Europe. The ironies and cognitive dissonance of little Englanders never ceases."
I assume you don't live in England, or if you do you live in one of those two areas. It's not true at all. A lot of people travel daily to larger cities to work, making them look better than they are.
"What isn't mentioned is that the UK as a whole runs a deficit."
It's more about them running at more of a deficit. If you don't believe me, believe the Scottish [1].
"But Leave voters have shown themselves to be very susceptible to propaganda as long as it talks down "the other"."
I'm not a leave voter, if you're trying to use that against me.
Did you even read the link you hastily googled? Spoiler warning, it confirms what I said in my comment:
“As official figures show, Scotland has paid more in tax per head than the rest of the UK in each of the last 30 years and we contribute a higher share of UK revenues than we receive in public spending.”
That's fair, it takes a while to get into it. I admit I was wrong.
They still run a deficit though and need a financial market strong enough for people to invest in. It'll not be the walk in the park a lot of people think it may be. There will be some really hard times to come if thr decision comes to leaving the UK.
I'm still not convinced it is in Scotland's interests.
I'm on the fence myself, but making decisions based on patently false information has a bad track record in the very recent past.
And if they'll falsely accuse the Scots of "stealing" from them, falsely accuse immigrants of being bad for the economy, then really, who is safe in this post-fact politics?
I wish I could enjoy the looks on the Conservative Remain sides faces, as they process losing to a bunch of sociopathic liars. But schadenfreude is probably banned in post-Brexit Britain.
"I'm on the fence myself, but making decisions based on patently false information has a bad track record in the very recent past."
I very much agree. Ultimately, the difference between me and them is I admit when I'm wrong - rather than just digging a larger hole.
"And if they'll falsely accuse the Scots of "stealing" from them, falsely accuse immigrants of being bad for the economy, then really, who is safe in this post-fact politics?"
I think the UK really needs to go under reform regardless. I think if you're an MP or civil servant and you are caught lying, there should be some legal consequence. If you're paid by the tax payer and accept bribes or are dishonest, you have no place in UK politics.
What's really annoying is the only reason the Royal Family is still involved is to keep an eye on things. Well oh how they have slipped.
"I wish I could enjoy the looks on the Conservative Remain sides faces, as they process losing to a bunch of sociopathic liars. But schadenfreude is probably banned in post-Brexit Britain."
I feel bad for them. Perhaps the worst part is realising you're fighting for a Country that isn't worth saving.
There is a huge problem that the EU and IndyRef questions are mutually dependent and cannot be fairly resolved by asking independent questions in sequence. I believe the nuance of the situation requires multiple questions to be asked at the same time.
Given we have already had IndyRef1 and EU1 the defaults are that Scotland is part of the UK and that there will be a Brexit. There is something wrong about repeating referendums until an irreversible result occurs. I believe Indyref2 would be fairer as two questions:
1. "If Brexit, should Scotland be a separate country?" for Scots
2. "Should we still Brexit if there would be a Scexit?" for the whole UK to vote.
If the answers are "yes and no", then we get status quo.
And if the vote is again for leaving the EU, should we keep asking the question until we get the answer you want?
All the vote was about was UK membership of the EU: not austerity, the exchange rate of the pound, the integrity of the UK, or immigration. Anyone who voted thinking otherwise should accept the consequences. Things are going exactly as planned: the UK is now going to leave the EU, and if one or two parts of it secede, those areas which did vote to leave are going to leave the EU.
Scotland leaving the UK was a reasonably foreseeable result of Brexit, so voters in England and Wales should have asked themselves question 2 when they voted on Thursday.
Britain, as a whole, voting for leaving the EU wasn't foreseen at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, so voters in that wouldn't have asked themselves question 1.
So the Scottish government should at this stage try to negotiate a Danish-style deal (Scotland stays in EU and UK). If they are successful, there would be no immediate need for another independence referendum. Otherwise, they should get the best EU membership terms they can for Scotland, and hold another independence referendum.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and London wish to remain in the EU; non-London England and Wales wish to leave. The U.K. is already in the EU. Structurally, the simplest solution would be for non-City of London England* and Wales to secede from the UK, thereby allowing Scotland, Northern Ireland and the City to inherit the UK's EU membership. (Naturally, this won't happen because politics.)
* Why the City of London versus Greater London? The City exists as a special legal entity in British law. Given how Parliament derives its right to rule from the Crown and the City has a special arrangement with the Crown, the City would find it technically easier to withdraw from England (while remaining in the UK) than Greater London.
81 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/sturgeon-see...
The irony is really big here
The UK is a net contributor to the EU, but it also has the financial center of the EU in London. On top of that some areas of the UK are net recipients of EU money, others are contributors.
Losing the financial center alone may already tip the balance out of favor, and for some areas (notably Scotland) the loss will be much larger.
Back of the envelope has the UK in worse shape without the EU and access to their market than with.
Regardless of what will happen now, the UK will lose the financial center (it will most likely end up in Frankfurt am Main), Scotland will secede from the UK and will apply (assuming a majority votes for that proposal) to the EU as an independent entity, much like Ireland.
The one thing this referendum has already achieved is that the position of the UK on the world stage is marginalized further.
I think the reason we are no longer part of the EU is in part bad PR on the part of the EU on what it actually did.
Which is why "what is the EU/what does the EU do" type queries have trended on google after the referendum.
People suddenly wondering how fucked/non-fucked we are since the result.
One of the main attractions of London as a banking centre is its EU membership. Sure, there are others, but it seems extremely likely that companies will relocate because they judge access to the EU market as more important.
Fascinating time to be alive.
Doubtful: As long as France and Germany are on board, the EU will survive in some fashion.
The comment[1] of German economist Max Otte[2] regarding the British vote? Good riddance, now we can stop accomodating UK sensibilities. Also remember, when the UK wanted to join the EEC? De Gaulle sent them packing twice...
[1] http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/otte-interview-zu-brexit...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Otte
I would go further than that, while you are absolutely right, long before we reach that point we have the "second core" of Belgium, Italy and Spain, none of which are actually leaving anytime soon. Can add Portugal, Austria and Luxembourg as a "sure takers" third wave.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_415_en.p...
[2] http://i.imgur.com/2kNwdtf.png
I disagree. The UK was the third largest net contributor to the EU, and one of only ~10 member states that have historically made positive net contributions.
Its influence and role as a net importer from the EU will see it win a relatively favorable exit, including access to the single market.
The UK exit, in addition to the financial impact on the EU, will inspire many other member states on the verge of leaving to do the same.
The EU is already on thin ice, and the UK voting to leave may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back.
I disagree, UK will not have an easy exit exactly for the reason you say. It will make leaving an easy thing.
And you only see the economical part, UK has been seen in the rest of the EU as an obstacle to the EU and closer to USA than UE.
Right now, they don't have so much sympathies apart from some far right parties. And I wouldn't like to be friend with them
To keep things in perspective, the UK's contributions amounted to 10.7% of the general budget in the period 2007-2013.
All of them? The only ones asking a referendum are two far right parties in Holland and France
Even in their "great swipe" of 2014, they got 14 mayors total. In a country counting roughly 36 000 mayors (yes, I know ...).
The FN is actually very very weak, it keeps being seen doing huge jump forwards in numbers but that's mostly because the others are being very dumb and for the FN a single new member of parliament is a 50% jump ahead, which makes for a good headline.
The FN biggest strength is actually the media attention they get and how it drives them forward, there was a study about that showing they were te party being given the most media attention and it giving them the biggest result boost (despite "we are ignored by the media" being on their main card, like all populist parties)
Look at it another way. Europe has been unable to recreate Silicon Valley. What makes you think it'll be so easy to recreate the City?
Just a couple of them:
- no single language market of 300M people
- different attitude towards investment
- different attitude towards entrepreneurship
- no reason to cluster that much in such a small space
In fact, the US has been unable to 'recreate Silicon Valley', it's a world-wide accidental one-off and drawing parallels between its one-off-existence, lack of being replicated anywhere at all and the fact that London was a banking capital before the EU existed does nothing to guarantee Londons continued existence as a banking capital outside an otherwise unified EU once a large number of very relevant parties pulls out and is drawing very strange conclusions out of unrelated data.
The biggest hits from the brexit will be felt in London and it is already happening.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/24/london-brexit-jobs/
I'd argue that a lot of the reasons overlap. The key ones being: pre-existing access to capital, access to talent, and tolerance for risk-taking.
I'd like to see a start-up succeed under the kind of risk-averse attitude that's prevalent in a bank and the kind of reporting duties they have.
Note that NYC is the banking center of the United States (and to some extent of the world) and that NYC also did not manage to re-create Silicon Valley.
You can't easily recreate that somewhere else.
This of course will have to change once the UK has left the EU, making the people involved in these processes one of the first to be moved to Franfkurt etc.
To make that decision and less than two years later be dragged out of the EU anyway has pissed off a bunch of people. Lots of noise coming from former 'no' voters and media about how they feel misled. And now that Scotland has resoundingly - 24% margin! - voters to remain in the EU, it seems there is a bit of a mandate.
I am not enjoying the atmosphere here at the moment. This whole thing has been a colossal fuckup which has permanently damaged the UK.
For me that's the biggest take away from it; half of the scots voters said they wanted out of that union, which usually means "we don't feel that country represents us properly". Now, that's not irreparable and you have a perfect, even stronger example in recent times with Quebec and Canada. The solution was "simple"; listen to them and go their way, if only a little. Show them that you care about them being in. Laugh all you want about the French labels everywhere in Canada but they're basically Canada saying "ok Quebec, we need you, let's stay together".
With that Brexit vote, the UK has thrown away one of the biggest thing scots were sure about; they wanted to be in the EU. Even if they manage to not lose them through independence, it has been marked in the sand that England decides and Scotland follows, even if they really don't want to.
(I mean 68% for remain ? I'm not sure any other EU country would get that at the moment, maybe Germany)
Scotland wanted in the EU but weren't sure they would be able to be properly and quickly outside the UK, while staying in was the safe way to keep EU membership. Now they know for sure they can only be in by being outside the UK.
Surplus recycling is nowhere to be found in the European Union, vis-a-vis Germany Scotland will have deficit, hence it's doomed in the long run to become like Greece.
The way the EU manages the economy, it's stupid for any deficit country to come in and compared to Germany, everybody will be in huge deficit in the long run. At that point you depend on the Bundesbank to over-value and the German government to raise salaries. None of this will happen, at that point you'll have a country on it's knees depending on a foreign institution (the ECB) who is controlled by a foreign nation which has it's own interests to protect.
I'm sorry for GB. I'm sorry that a nation had to go through this, but their best bet is to stick together.
EDIT: The first thing that the German gov did after Brexit says a long shot about how Germany envisions Europe: They summoned the 6 (or 7) countries that created the European Union. But the EU has 27 members now.
Do you really want to be part of a union who doesn't give a damn about you and give your monetary policy to that union?
About 16 years ago, at her last speech, M. Thatcher in a rare moment of enlightenment said about the EUR: He who control the interest rates controls the Economy and he who controls the economy controls the politics in Europe
She was spot on.
Scotland outside of UK and part of the EU is a Scotland ripe for service industry. If the EU helps it's member states to be better than they are individually, which is supposed to be how it works, then there's no reason to assume Scotland will be running at a deficit forever.
agreed :-)
There's an interesting question around the fact that the UK has an opt out of the Euro.
BTW Germany is currently the country which suffers the most from the low interest rates of the ECB.
The problem is that countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal are being forced to cut spending, which doesn't end their crisis but will prolong them and make everybody poorer in the process.
There is certainly a point in which the deficit is too high, but where this point is, is unknown. It is the same with inflation, a little bit inflation is good for an economy. It gives incentives to spent money and to invest now and don't wait for lower prices. But too high inflation will hurt an economy badly.
Maybe I didn't make my self clear: I didn't say that deficit is a problem per se. I argued that given the current design and status quo in the EU, any country that has a deficit vis-a-vis Germany should stay out of the common currency because inevitably, it will end up like Greece in the long run.
I agree with most of what you said. Regarding Germany and the ECB, that's true but it's only a small part of the bigger picture.
On the other hand, one of the main arguments against leaving the UK, at the time of the referendum, was that Scotland couldn't leave the union and keep the GBP as their currency, and they feared a weak and especially a volatile currency could wreck havoc on their economy. Having a secure path to EU membership (without veto power by the UK) and the backing of the ECB would help a lot against that risk.
European countries (except UK, DK, SE) need to join the Euro but not right away. Many aren't there yet. In Scotland's case it can remain in a currency union with the UK until they are ready to join the Euro. Ireland was in a currency union with the UK after independence. It's not an exotic relationship, especially with economies so intertwined.
IMHO you're misunderstanding: Listening BBC Radio 5 the last couple of days I can say that lack of transparency, austerity promotion and the way countries like Greece (primarily), Ireland and Portugal were treated in 2014 and 2015 by the EU played a major role in turning voters to Brexit.
So let Scotland secede and join the EU. Problem solved, human freedom and happiness maximized.
See 'Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists' by Tom Woods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOEdvfMeIY
So .. According to you other european countries should get a referendum about UK being in the EU
The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref.
That and the EU/better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay.
Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be.
It's tough luck. You can't threaten to quit every time things don't work out for you.
"The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref."
I don't think anybody envisioned we would actually leave.
"That and the EU/better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay."
It's not entirely clear that Scotland will be able to join the EU anyway. There's a long waiting list and large payment required.
"Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be."
I also voted remain. I'm not afraid of the threat of Scotland to the rest of the UK, I'm afraid of Scotland's threat to itself.
What will be interesting now is whether Scotland really has the economy to survive on their own in the EU. Other smaller Countries have not yet been successful.
Since this is a fact, you see some very odd and contorted phrases to imply otherwise. One classic is to say that Scotland spends more than it earns. Which is entirely true, Scotland runs a deficit. What isn't mentioned is that the UK as a whole runs a deficit. But Leave voters have shown themselves to be very susceptible to propaganda as long as it talks down "the other".
I assume you don't live in England, or if you do you live in one of those two areas. It's not true at all. A lot of people travel daily to larger cities to work, making them look better than they are.
"What isn't mentioned is that the UK as a whole runs a deficit."
It's more about them running at more of a deficit. If you don't believe me, believe the Scottish [1].
"But Leave voters have shown themselves to be very susceptible to propaganda as long as it talks down "the other"."
I'm not a leave voter, if you're trying to use that against me.
[1] http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/public-spending-per-head-in-...
“As official figures show, Scotland has paid more in tax per head than the rest of the UK in each of the last 30 years and we contribute a higher share of UK revenues than we receive in public spending.”
They still run a deficit though and need a financial market strong enough for people to invest in. It'll not be the walk in the park a lot of people think it may be. There will be some really hard times to come if thr decision comes to leaving the UK.
I'm still not convinced it is in Scotland's interests.
And if they'll falsely accuse the Scots of "stealing" from them, falsely accuse immigrants of being bad for the economy, then really, who is safe in this post-fact politics?
I wish I could enjoy the looks on the Conservative Remain sides faces, as they process losing to a bunch of sociopathic liars. But schadenfreude is probably banned in post-Brexit Britain.
I very much agree. Ultimately, the difference between me and them is I admit when I'm wrong - rather than just digging a larger hole.
"And if they'll falsely accuse the Scots of "stealing" from them, falsely accuse immigrants of being bad for the economy, then really, who is safe in this post-fact politics?"
I think the UK really needs to go under reform regardless. I think if you're an MP or civil servant and you are caught lying, there should be some legal consequence. If you're paid by the tax payer and accept bribes or are dishonest, you have no place in UK politics.
What's really annoying is the only reason the Royal Family is still involved is to keep an eye on things. Well oh how they have slipped.
"I wish I could enjoy the looks on the Conservative Remain sides faces, as they process losing to a bunch of sociopathic liars. But schadenfreude is probably banned in post-Brexit Britain."
I feel bad for them. Perhaps the worst part is realising you're fighting for a Country that isn't worth saving.
Given we have already had IndyRef1 and EU1 the defaults are that Scotland is part of the UK and that there will be a Brexit. There is something wrong about repeating referendums until an irreversible result occurs. I believe Indyref2 would be fairer as two questions:
1. "If Brexit, should Scotland be a separate country?" for Scots
2. "Should we still Brexit if there would be a Scexit?" for the whole UK to vote.
If the answers are "yes and no", then we get status quo.
I also think if we just held the same EU referendum again -- a sort of "are you sure?" -- the response would be a decisive remain vote.
All the vote was about was UK membership of the EU: not austerity, the exchange rate of the pound, the integrity of the UK, or immigration. Anyone who voted thinking otherwise should accept the consequences. Things are going exactly as planned: the UK is now going to leave the EU, and if one or two parts of it secede, those areas which did vote to leave are going to leave the EU.
Britain, as a whole, voting for leaving the EU wasn't foreseen at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, so voters in that wouldn't have asked themselves question 1.
So the Scottish government should at this stage try to negotiate a Danish-style deal (Scotland stays in EU and UK). If they are successful, there would be no immediate need for another independence referendum. Otherwise, they should get the best EU membership terms they can for Scotland, and hold another independence referendum.
But I don't think it's accurate to say that lots of them had to be violent to get their independence. The British largely gave that politically.
* Why the City of London versus Greater London? The City exists as a special legal entity in British law. Given how Parliament derives its right to rule from the Crown and the City has a special arrangement with the Crown, the City would find it technically easier to withdraw from England (while remaining in the UK) than Greater London.