I think it's pointless to approach these kind of discussions with anything other than pragmatic realpolitik, which is why we can conclusively say that answering any of these questions would be a bad idea. The whole appeal of an independent Scotland, much like a post-Brexit UK, is as a blank canvas on which to project one's own idealised imaginings of future nation.
Giving details makes the prospect less appealing to some segment of the people currently in favor, which is why people who are opposed to the change will keep asking these questions, and people who are advocating it will keep ignoring them.
Not the author of this post by the way, you have a pretty clear vision of how it should go, but I guarantee that if it does happen it won't happen exactly as you imagine in. Strategically, if you want an independent Scotland it's probably best not to worry too much about the kind of independent Scotland you'll end up with, just leave those decisions to whoever ends up in power at the time.
I think Murray's comments fall in two different categories. Your objection is valid for one category but not the other. Objections like "will taxes go up or down" are obviously ridiculously specific and your objection is valid.
However, I think questions about currency are perfectly fair. Ask Ian Murray to predict what currency rUK will be using in five years and I think he could tell you. Ask Nicola Sturgeon what currency an independent Scotland will use and she can't.
My point is that currency (and possibly a few others) is a big deal that it's worth having a discussion about before making one's mind up about indy.
> However, I think questions about currency are perfectly fair. Ask Ian Murray to predict what currency rUK will be using in five years and I think he could tell you.
True, but there's many things he couldn't tell me: who'll be prime minister or chancellor, for example?
> Ask Nicola Sturgeon what currency an independent Scotland will use and she can't.
Realistically the only sensible option is an independent Scottish currency. The timescale of when this will be introduced is harder to say for certain.
> True, but there's many things he couldn't tell me: who'll be prime minister or chancellor, for example?
Yes, but that was my point: that there are two categories of question and your response is valid to only one category. If a hypothetical unionist was saying "I'm not voting for independence because I don't know who the first minister will be after independence" then you can correctly respond that we don't know that for the UK either. If the hypothetical unionist says "I'm not voting for independence because not knowing what currency we'll use is too much uncertainty for me" then your objection doesn't apply. You need to be careful not to accidentally motte-and-bailey, where the motte is "staying with the UK is also uncertain" and the bailey is "staying with the UK is just as uncertain".
> Realistically the only sensible option is an independent Scottish currency. The timescale of when this will be introduced is harder to say for certain
Really? I've not heard that case made so explicitly before. Most of my bubble assume we'll stay with the pound. I'd be interested in reading an argument for why a new currency is the only sensible option, if you know of a good one you can link (or if you fancy writing one!) :)
I think it's pointless to approach these kind of discussions with anything other than pragmatic realpolitik, which is why we can conclusively say that answering any of these questions would be a bad idea. The whole appeal of an independent Scotland, much like a post-Brexit UK, is as a blank canvas on which to project one's own idealised imaginings of future nation.
Giving details makes the prospect less appealing to some segment of the people currently in favor, which is why people who are opposed to the change will keep asking these questions, and people who are advocating it will keep ignoring them.
Not the author of this post by the way, you have a pretty clear vision of how it should go, but I guarantee that if it does happen it won't happen exactly as you imagine in. Strategically, if you want an independent Scotland it's probably best not to worry too much about the kind of independent Scotland you'll end up with, just leave those decisions to whoever ends up in power at the time.
I think Murray's comments fall in two different categories. Your objection is valid for one category but not the other. Objections like "will taxes go up or down" are obviously ridiculously specific and your objection is valid.
However, I think questions about currency are perfectly fair. Ask Ian Murray to predict what currency rUK will be using in five years and I think he could tell you. Ask Nicola Sturgeon what currency an independent Scotland will use and she can't.
My point is that currency (and possibly a few others) is a big deal that it's worth having a discussion about before making one's mind up about indy.
> However, I think questions about currency are perfectly fair. Ask Ian Murray to predict what currency rUK will be using in five years and I think he could tell you.
True, but there's many things he couldn't tell me: who'll be prime minister or chancellor, for example?
> Ask Nicola Sturgeon what currency an independent Scotland will use and she can't.
Realistically the only sensible option is an independent Scottish currency. The timescale of when this will be introduced is harder to say for certain.
> True, but there's many things he couldn't tell me: who'll be prime minister or chancellor, for example?
Yes, but that was my point: that there are two categories of question and your response is valid to only one category. If a hypothetical unionist was saying "I'm not voting for independence because I don't know who the first minister will be after independence" then you can correctly respond that we don't know that for the UK either. If the hypothetical unionist says "I'm not voting for independence because not knowing what currency we'll use is too much uncertainty for me" then your objection doesn't apply. You need to be careful not to accidentally motte-and-bailey, where the motte is "staying with the UK is also uncertain" and the bailey is "staying with the UK is just as uncertain".
> Realistically the only sensible option is an independent Scottish currency. The timescale of when this will be introduced is harder to say for certain
Really? I've not heard that case made so explicitly before. Most of my bubble assume we'll stay with the pound. I'd be interested in reading an argument for why a new currency is the only sensible option, if you know of a good one you can link (or if you fancy writing one!) :)