Scotland & Sterling

[Wharton]

What benefits would accrue to the remainder of the UK if an independent Scotland could be prevented from retaining Sterling as its currency?

[EDDIE51]

You have had an honest answer, it just does not fit what you wanted it to be.
Scotland has too weak an economy on it's own to share sterling. If it happened there would very possily be an economic collapse on the lines of Greece or Cyprus which was due to being in the Euro when they never should have been admitted to the euro zone in the first place. Keeping an independant Scotland out of a shared stirling eliminates that risk.

[woofgang]

Wharton are all Scots as boring as you?

[DTCwordfan]

That may be a tad harsh and reminiscent of the Prime Minister's verbal offerings.

Wharton, there aren't any direct benefits so no list is possible. However, we could list 'negative benefits'....

[Wharton]

New Judge - I admire your honesty and I always look forward to reading your erudite responses to questions in AnswerBank.

[Baldric]

Also known as Diogenes the Cynic

[Wharton]

Svejk - How could I refuse 'Best Answer' to a response containing the word 'none'? :-)

[Wharton]

woofgang - I hope not, but I haven't met them all :-)

DTCwordfan - Ok, give me a list of the negative benefits.

Baldric - I hope you, yours, and the dogs are all to the fore :-)

[Quizmonster]

NJ, I did not say the bishops “formulate and propose legislation”, I said they have “a direct impact on legislation.” Are you suggesting they don’t?

[factor-fiction]

>DTCwordfan - Ok, give me a list of the negative benefits.

I think more than half of the answers in this thread have done this. But it's a short list because the reasons relating to risk are so important.

[New Judge]

“Are you suggesting they [the bishops] don’t [have a direct impact on legislation]?”

Yes I am. Apart from the fact that there are only about 26 English Lords Spiritual (who are more than offset by the 63 Scottish peers) out of a total of about 800, that is not the point. The Lords (in their entirety) can only, at best, delay the introduction of legislation. If push comes to shove the Commons (as I’m sure you know) can invoke the Parliament Act and scupper the Lords’ veto.

The primary legislature in the UK is the House of Commons and the Commons reigns supreme. In theory the Monarch can halt legislation but in practice
she cannot. To suggest that 26 English peers have a direct impact on legislation is about the same as suggesting that the Monarch does. They are a small part of the process, but they have no impact, direct or otherwise.

[Quizmonster]

For pity's sake, if the 26 Lords Spiritual actually vote in the House - which of course they do - it's as plain as a pikestaff that they DO have an impact on legislation!
They may indeed be the very reason any given bill passes into law if, for example, a vote is carried with a majority of twenty and we know - because of the Church's view on the matter - all of THEM voted for it.

[New Judge]

Quite true, QM. But the legislation will have been originated, drafted and finally passed (or not) by the Commons. If the Lords vote in favour and the Commons do otherwise the Bill falls. If the Lords vote against and the Commons really want it passed it will be passed. The 26 bishops (or the 63 Scottish peers) cannot thwart the will of the Commons. The only direct impact the Lords have is to delay. I would suggest that is hardly the same as the utter iniquities presented by the West Lothian question. But if you think differently we’ll have to agree to differ.

[Peter Pedant]

The day ! The Day ! The sandy day
has not made this clearer - what can I say ?

when Schweik said None.
I think a lot of us thought_ none as in no advantages in allowing Salmond to keep Sterling

[Quizmonster]

NJ, bills are often originated in the Lords and that House is also frequently referred to as "an amending chamber". If they DO amend and that new version of the bill IS accepted by the Commons, as it sometimes is, then they have beyond a doubt "had a direct impact on legislation", haven't they? If 'originating' and 'amending' is as impactless as you seem to believe, I cannot imagine why they would bother to do either.
I don't really understand why you are arguing the point. Neither I nor any other rational being suggests that the Lords or the Queen hold sway over the Commons, but the Lords are manifestly not quite as toothless as you imagine.

[New Judge]

The only reason I am arguing the point, QM, is because you sought to equate the iniquities towards England brought about by the “West Lothian Question” with the effect that the 26 English Lords Spiritual have upon the legislature of the Scots. I simply argue that the impact of those Lords is nothing like so profound. I would be quite happy to see the 26 bishops removed from the Lords (whom I believe have no right to be there anyway, but that’s a different argument) if it meant the 59 Scottish MPs were prevented from voting at Westminster on matters which do not concern their constituents. In fact a mechanism should have been put in place to prevent the West Lothian Question ever arising when devolution took place. But as I think I have mentioned in the past, all three acts of devolution paid no heed to the English anyway, so I should not have been surprised.

But anyway, hopefully in September the Scots will vote to leave the Union and neither issue will any longer be a problem.

[Quizmonster]

NJ, Isn't the theft of £5.00 just as much a theft as the theft of £50,000?
The matter of the extent of the impact of the Lords Spiritual is an irrelevance, given that even you are now granting that they DO have an impact as in (quote): "The impact of those Lords is nothing like so profound."

[New Judge]

Yes QM, Theft is Theft. But whereas in your first example you'd probably be awarded a conditional discharge or a small fine your second example would see you in Crown Court facing a sentence of 2-3 years custody. When sentencing magistrates and judges have to take account of the impact the crime had upon the victim and usually the value of the goods or money stolen is a major factor in that assessment.

So it is with the Scottish conundrum. The impact that the Commons have upon the English is far greater than the effect the Lords have upon the Scottish because at the end of the day the Lords have no ultimate power of veto over the Commons. I can't be bothered to do the research but I should imagine that far more legislation has been influenced and to a greater degree by the 59 Scottish MPs than has been influenced by the 26 English bishops. But as I said hopefully we won't have to worry about it for too much longer.

[Quizmonster]

Again, NJ, you refer to (quote) "the effect the Lords have upon the Scottish", thereby confirming that they DO have an effect and consequently that the Lords Spiritual might easily - in a close-run vote - be the very people who have a decisive impact.
It's all very well to whinge about their right to vote, but can you give me any instance in which the involvement of Scottish MPs' votes at Westminster has had a deleterious effect on the English...that is an occasion when the vote would not have gone the way it did BUT FOR the Scottish vote?