Poll: Most English wouldn't want to share the pound with an independent Scotland

The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.

The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.

However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.

But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.

A VOTE all the way on the other side of the world could have far-reaching unintended consequences for us here in Australia.

Next month, the voters of Scotland will go to the polls to decide whether or not they want to declare their independence from the United Kingdom.

This affects Australia because it has sparked a discussion about the UK flag — the Union Jack — and whether it needs to be changed if Scotland votes to secede.

The Union Jack, also known as the Union Flag, is a composite of the flags of England (a red cross on a white background), Scotland (a white, diagonal cross on a blue background) and Ireland (a red, diagonal cross on a white background), and has origins that stretch back to 1606.

If Scotland leaves the UK, some have argued that the Scottish element of the flag, St Andrew’s cross, should be removed.

Eilzel wrote:Well I guess a poll of standard English people is largely meaningless in terms of actual decisions being made on this (and for all the talk it is looking increasingly likely Salmond's dream will come to nothing in September anyways).

I don't see 'why' Scotland couldn't share the pound, that would of course be a Westminster decision since it IS the currency of the UK, HOWEVER, Alistair Darling, the Scottish former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Labour and a Unionist, did point out in the recent Yes/No debate that keeping the pound would actually be detrimental to an independent Scotland since it would have no control over the currency (much as failing EU economies had no control over the euro which led them to further crisis).

Personally I think Salmond has not really through this aspect and has just ploughed forward with reassuring assumptions to independence supporters.

^Veya, would the corner Union Flag not lose the blue colour altogether in the Oz flag? Since it is only the Scots Saltire flag that uses the colour anyway?

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Well I guess a poll of standard English people is largely meaningless in terms of actual decisions being made on this (and for all the talk it is looking increasingly likely Salmond's dream will come to nothing in September anyways).

I don't see 'why' Scotland couldn't share the pound, that would of course be a Westminster decision since it IS the currency of the UK, HOWEVER, Alistair Darling, the Scottish former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Labour and a Unionist, did point out in the recent Yes/No debate that keeping the pound would actually be detrimental to an independent Scotland since it would have no control over the currency (much as failing EU economies had no control over the euro which led them to further crisis).

Personally I think Salmond has not really through this aspect and has just ploughed forward with reassuring assumptions to independence supporters.

^Veya, would the corner Union Flag not lose the blue colour altogether in the Oz flag? Since it is only the Scots Saltire flag that uses the colour anyway?

I thought that too   
Dunno the Back ground is blue so maybe they just say it is the Crosses on the Already blue back ground   

veya_victaous wrote:If Scotland really wanted to Future-proof itself it would just change the Currency to the Yuan, same amount of control (as Euro or Pound) but VASTLY more stable.

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Well I guess a poll of standard English people is largely meaningless in terms of actual decisions being made on this (and for all the talk it is looking increasingly likely Salmond's dream will come to nothing in September anyways).

I don't see 'why' Scotland couldn't share the pound, that would of course be a Westminster decision since it IS the currency of the UK, HOWEVER, Alistair Darling, the Scottish former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Labour and a Unionist, did point out in the recent Yes/No debate that keeping the pound would actually be detrimental to an independent Scotland since it would have no control over the currency (much as failing EU economies had no control over the euro which led them to further crisis).

Personally I think Salmond has not really through this aspect and has just ploughed forward with reassuring assumptions to independence supporters.

^Veya, would the corner Union Flag not lose the blue colour altogether in the Oz flag? Since it is only the Scots Saltire flag that uses the colour anyway?

I thought that too   
Dunno the Back ground is blue so maybe they just say it is the Crosses on the Already blue back ground   

Thought that might be the reason, it would look better without the blue though if it comes to it   

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thought that might be the reason, it would look better without the blue though if it comes to it   

Be interesting if We did, apparently we are one of only 5 countries that still have the colonial flag. so it is possible but no one cares that strongly.
If it were to change 99% sure it will be to this, swapping Union Jack with the Native Aboriginal flag

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.

The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.

However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.

But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044574/English-reject-Alex-Salmonds-plan-to-share-the-pound.html

Maybe some of our English can shed light on this attitude; sounds to me like sour grapes or something ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.

The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.

However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.

But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044574/English-reject-Alex-Salmonds-plan-to-share-the-pound.html

Maybe some of our English can shed light on this attitude; sounds to me like sour grapes or something ...

I guess the feeling is that if Scotland want to be separate, they can be totally separate.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.

The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.

However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.

But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044574/English-reject-Alex-Salmonds-plan-to-share-the-pound.html

Maybe some of our English can shed light on this attitude; sounds to me like sour grapes or something ...

Original Quill wrote:

The English flag before Union was the Cross of St. George.  With Ireland coming a century later you still have both types of crosses; just remove the blue of the Cross of St. Andrew.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The English flag before Union was the Cross of St. George.  With Ireland coming a century later you still have both types of crosses; just remove the blue of the Cross of St. Andrew.

What happened to the Welsh?

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

What happened to the Welsh?

They have a Prince.

The Spectator wrote:Last week, David Cameron said that we have ‘seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history’. He meant the United Kingdom. It was a powerful speech, part of a welcome and overdue campaign to make us all think about what is at stake in the referendum on Scottish independence. It seems strange to argue that the loss of less than 10 per cent of the population would bring this country to an end, and yet I do really suspect it might be so. Mr Cameron did not touch on the question of what the nation, minus Scotland, might be called, perhaps because he does not know and is fearful of making plans for such an eventuality. But the difficulty of getting the right name is a fascinating emblem of the depth of the problem. It could not, obviously, be called the United Kingdom, since that name derives from the union of the two which would be dissevered by a Yes vote. Nor could it be Great Britain, since a physically large chunk would have left. It could not be ‘Little Britain’ — which is spoken for — or even ‘South Britain’. It cannot be called ‘England, Wales and Northern Ireland’, since that is too long, and misrepresents the component parts as being equivalent entities. Nor, however, could it be just ‘England’, because of the insult to Northern Ireland and Wales. There simply isn’t an answer. What sort of a country is nameless?

Didge wrote:Needs blue still Quill.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.

The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.

........................................

Original Quill wrote:More importantly, what name will be given to the remaining nation?

The Spectator wrote:Last week, David Cameron said that we have ‘seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history’. He meant the United Kingdom. It was a powerful speech, part of a welcome and overdue campaign to make us all think about what is at stake in the referendum on Scottish independence. It seems strange to argue that the loss of less than 10 per cent of the population would bring this country to an end, and yet I do really suspect it might be so. Mr Cameron did not touch on the question of what the nation, minus Scotland, might be called, perhaps because he does not know and is fearful of making plans for such an eventuality. But the difficulty of getting the right name is a fascinating emblem of the depth of the problem. It could not, obviously, be called the United Kingdom, since that name derives from the union of the two which would be dissevered by a Yes vote.  Nor could it be Great Britain, since a physically large chunk would have left.  It could not be ‘Little Britain’ — which is spoken for — or even ‘South Britain’. It cannot be called ‘England, Wales and Northern Ireland’, since that is too long, and misrepresents the component parts as being equivalent entities. Nor, however, could it be just ‘England’, because of the insult to Northern Ireland and Wales. There simply isn’t an answer. What sort of a country is nameless?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Needs blue still Quill.

The blue comes from Scotland, which will have flounced.  England and Ireland are red, and Wales adds the red and green.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I guess the feeling is that if Scotland want to be separate, they can be totally separate.

But isn't like saying you'll take your ball and go home if you don't get your way?

The world is full of currency unions both formal and informal, and it seems to work fine. Of course, it would be much more difficult for Scotland to be independent if it also had to set up a new currency; is that why the English want them to have to do so; basically kicking them in the ass as they walk out the door?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

But isn't like saying you'll take your ball and go home if you don't get your way?

The world is full of currency unions both formal and informal, and it seems to work fine. Of course, it would be much more difficult for Scotland to be independent if it also had to set up a new currency; is that why the English want them to have to do so; basically kicking them in the ass as they walk out the door?

What's wrong with that? Flouncers don't normally have rights.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Needs blue still Quill.

The blue comes from Scotland, which will have flounced.  England and Ireland are red, and Wales adds the red and green.

Tommy Monk wrote:Independence is an illusion as they will join the EU straight away and be controlled by EU regulations just as they are now.


And much weaker as A result.

Tommy Monk wrote:Independence is an illusion as they will join the EU straight away and be controlled by EU regulations just as they are now.


And much weaker as A result.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Original Quill wrote:More importantly, what name will be given to the remaining nation?

Ah,that's interesting.

I assumed it would just remain the United Kingdom..just a little less united than before!   

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Independence is an illusion as they will join the EU straight away and be controlled by EU regulations just as they are now.


And much weaker as A result.

So if we leave the UK and don't join the EU we would have what you want for the UK?

If that's the case then thank goodness you don't have a say in what the outcome may be but we'll let you know our decision in due course.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So if we leave the UK and don't join the EU we would have what you want for the UK?

If that's the case then thank goodness you don't have a say in what the outcome may be but we'll let you know our decision in due course.

Yes...frankly, I believe that Scotland, if they leave the UK, will become one of the powerhouses of the EU.  (Scotland will surely join the EU, for the EU has already declared that an independent Scotland gets all that North Sea oil.  Scotland is not going to give that up.)

Scots already have a reputation for brains...and their intestinal fortitude ain't bad either.  With the wealth of the North Sea oil, they will have it all.  I see them stepping to the head of the line as far as Europe is concerned.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...frankly, I believe that Scotland, if they leave the UK, will become one of the powerhouses of the EU.  (Scotland will surely join the EU, for the EU has already declared that an independent Scotland gets all that North Sea oil.  Scotland is not going to give that up.)

Scots already have a reputation for brains...and their intestinal fortitude ain't bad either.  With the wealth of the North Sea oil, they will have it all.  I see them stepping to the head of the line as far as Europe is concerned.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Spoken like a true jock.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Spoken like a true jock.

Anyway you look at it Shady.  Scots have the four best universities in the UK.  They are the most industrious lot over there.  Their MPs go right to the top as far as Westminster is concerned.

They are...how should I say...blessed.   ::D:: 

Shady wrote:Why should it only be the Scottish who get to decide whether they go independent or not?All countries within the Union should be asked the question & be able to vote.

And for many reasons,but mainly financial ones,lots of Brits want to see the Scottish go it alone because they are regarded as a financial burden to the rest of the nation.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Anyway you look at it Shady.  Scots have the four best universities in the UK.  They are the most industrious lot over there.  Their MPs go right to the top as far as Westminster is concerned.

They are...how should I say...blessed.   ::D:: 

Disagree on best Universities and if they go their own way will have to start charging students Quill

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Spoken like a true jock.

Anyway you look at it Shady.  Scots have the four best universities in the UK.  They are the most industrious lot over there.  Their MPs go right to the top as far as Westminster is concerned.

They are...how should I say...blessed.   ::D:: 

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Disagree on best Universities and if they go their own way will have to start charging students Quill

Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Aberdeen are still the best in the UK.  Financial arrangements are malleable.

Didge wrote:If Scotland want to go their own way, let them, in fact I think it would be good for England, being as we should start reclaiming an English identity that has been lost through the identity of British. A British identity only came about through Acts of Union and see this as a golden opportunity to revive what was once great about England, where many English people see themselves as English first and hold little for a British identity, which has created also a problem where immigrants who have come to these shores have had a British identity more than an English identity taught into them.

I even think England would be better off going their own way, and if the rest still want to see the Royal family as their monarchy, fair play, but I think many would be far happier if the Union was to completely dissolve.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...frankly, I believe that Scotland, if they leave the UK, will become one of the powerhouses of the EU.  (Scotland will surely join the EU, for the EU has already declared that an independent Scotland gets all that North Sea oil.  Scotland is not going to give that up.)

Scots already have a reputation for brains...and their intestinal fortitude ain't bad either.  With the wealth of the North Sea oil, they will have it all.  I see them stepping to the head of the line as far as Europe is concerned.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Spoken like a true jock.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:Why should it only be the Scottish who get to decide whether they go independent or not?All countries within the Union should be asked the question & be able to vote.

And for many reasons,but mainly financial ones,lots of Brits want to see the Scottish go it alone because they are regarded as a financial burden to the rest of the nation.

It's the difference between a negative impetus and a positive impetus.  We live in an ideology of self-determination.  To allow the other three to vote on Scotland's independence would be to deny Scotland's right to self-determination.  It would be a vote of negative impetus.  

None of us in western democracies like that.