[Closed] Salmond on Newsnight

Except the regions decided it was a ridiculous idea a couple of years ago and quite rightly threw a bag over it.

Oh and I'm a former lancastrian holed up in Scotland FWIW

I wish Scotland would take the north of England when they go Independent. Otherwise I'll be moving north of the border too. It might be daft for the regions to have their own parliament in some ways but they are losing out on money and influence compared to Scotland.

Teh oil is in Scottish territorial waters. Clear in international law. and already delineated.

Not according to the News Night report, which said that the law covering this is not clear cut. Plus the investment for extraction has come from the UK not Scotland, so maybe they can lay claim to the oil but not the assets in place.

Besides the oil revenues seem to be only about £4bn a year; hardly the stuff that economies are made from.

TJ one other thing in the spirit of debate. You make several references to the concept of a 'peoples right to self determination'.

Can you define the word 'peoples' in that sentence please as it relates to this debate.

it was controlled from Halifax, West Yorkshire

The Ridings of Yorkshire are a republic and nothing to do with the UK

zokes - Member

And this bit???

and have three answers to a very simple question.
Seeing as that's the important part.

SNP policy is to campaign for independence. However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Scotland in favour of a more federal UK. The argument is that, if you're going to have a referendum, it would be churlish to ignore what currently appears to be the most popular option.

However..... I don't see how you can put the federal option to only one nation of the UK, given the complexities it would then impose on the other nations (like would there have to be an English parliament?)

As I've pointed out in the past, the Czechs and Slovaks opted for federalism but it got so acrimonious that they ended up with a full split.

So, for me, it's all only heading in one direction and any intervening discussion is just delaying the inevitable.

Scotland may be 8% of the population, but its institutions have made a hugely disproportionate impact on the national debt

so taking that point 92% of the population are liable for less debt because 1 or more "Scottish" banks wen't belly up? Remember Scots taxpayers bailed everyone out too. what a silly argument.

Whoever owns/owned/will own the RBS, the small little ordinary people who hold the accounts would have suffered in the extreme if it had not been bailed out. All those savings wiped out. Nobody with a mortgage owns their house any more. No access to your bank accounts. A run on all the other banks as a result. Northern Rock times lots and lots.

These little people live all over the United Kingdom. It's a spurious and factually incorrect argument to say that England bailed out Scotland in the matter of RBS.

But don't let actual verifiable facts get in the way of a good emotive rammy over "the right of a people to self-determination" where did you steal that from Metternich or Hitler ?? Sounds awfy familiar.

Scotland has the best of both worlds at the moment (I stole that from Voltaire) we have the advantage of being in the United Kingdom, together with excellent international awareness Scotland as a nation, and a good outlook as a tourist destination.

Next time you meet an American/Chinese/Israeli ask them what they know about Scotland. Then ask them what they know about Wales.

I think Independence is absolute madness and will not vote for it, I may even help campaign against it.

McBoo - seriously, do you have some kind of cognitive impairment that prevents you from processing the information that is presented to you time and time again? RBS currently has UK government as its majority shareholder as a consequence of the 'bailout' - The money borrowed to buy the shares, and the shares themselves are part of the overall assets and liabilities of the UK as a whole, and the SNP independence proposals accept that Scotland should shoulder a proportion of the liabilities as part of the arrangements.

Conflating the RBS and oil revenues just adds to the obfuscation, whether it's being done deliberately to cause mischief or because people simply can't think clearly.

SNP policy is to campaign for independence. However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Scotland in favour of a more federal UK. The argument is that, if you're going to have a referendum, it would be churlish to ignore what currently appears to be the most popular option.

So Druidh, from the options you lay out, the only two that are viable are either independence, or not.

Popular or otherwise, the idea of federalism isn't something the 50m or so 'little englanders' are probably that fussed about, so it's always going to be a non-starter, as any vote for it would have to involve the rest of the UK.

As an aside, I don't see the point in federalism at all. We have it here in Oz, and it's just an almighty mess of inconsistencies and constant wrangling interstate and between the state and commonwealth governments.

European banks that had operations spread over several countries had multinational solutions. why would Scotland have been liable for loss making parts of he bank based in England?

Is that a serious question?

Once again actually being openminded and listening might allow you to understand a bit more.

Indeed both are very important. An open minded person would recognise that it is possible to be pro-self determination, persuaded by arguments on the merits of economic and political independence and yet still want (pompous) politicians to be held properly to account. One of the few sensible points made by Paxman last night was that this was an issue for all the Scots not just the SNP and indeed important for all of the UK population.

Salmond is now under intense scrutiny as he should be when proposing such an important issue. People can differ on whether or not he is doing a good job, but he should not (nor should any politician) be given an easy ride on this important issue.

Hels

But don't let actual verifiable facts get in the way of a good emotive rammy over "the right of a people to self-determination" where did you steal that from Metternich or Hitler ?? Sounds awfy familiar.

* Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of [b]the UN Charter[/b] is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[13]
* Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[14] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[15] Both read: "[b]All peoples have the right of self-determination[/b]. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
* The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

Plus the investment for extraction has come from the UK not Scotland,

Actually, most of it has come from private companies that buy blocks of rights to prospect for oil. Most of the infrastructure is privately owned as well. The way some people talk on here, you'd think the UK was some big nationalised socialist paradise, rather than the product of a neo-liberal wet dream where every almost national asset of value was sold off in a bargain basement firesale years ago.

so those that think the oil in Scotlands territorial waters as defined in international law belong to England as well would you like 92% of Ben Nevis as well? how about 92% of Loch Lomond?

The postage costs on 92% of Ben Nevis are going to be ****ing astronomical!!!

We're not going to have to pay import duty too are we?

zokes - whether it's just the "meeja" stirring it or not, polls suggest that there is a growing demand for some sort of more" fair" settlement for England now that the smaller nations have some form of devolved government. The West Lothian question writ large if you will.

In addition, you only have to read threads like these to see that there are grudges on all sides and, from my perception at least, the famous Scottish "shoulder chip" seems to have transferred itself south of the border.

Binners - Landfill tax?

so those that think the oil in Scotlands territorial waters as defined in international law belong to England

England?

thats what McBoo seemed to be claiming wrecker

so those that think the oil in Scotlands territorial waters as defined in international law belong to England as well would you like 92% of Ben Nevis as well? how about 92% of Loch Lomond?

No, but we won't quibble about them taking the whole 100% rather than just the 8% they deserve of you 😉

There should be a vote for the independence yes or no; independence should not be based on who does better or worse, it should be a 'gut' feeling.

The details will be worked out afterwards, will take years and both sides will feel abused by the other. I can ignore most of the rubbish spouted by Eck as it is details and like virtually anyone else it gibbersh.

Devo-Max is a totally different matter. All the referendum will do (if won) is to enable the Scottish Govt (or SNP as the two appear to be the same) to head down to discuss more devolved powesr. It does require Westminster to actually give any more powers to Scotland. Before devolving more powers to Scotland, Westminster would need to determine the impact on the entire UK.

It would be good is Scotland could rustle up another meaningful politician or two to keep Eck under review. (I found it very amusing that when Salmond left the SNP, it almost collapsed - he needed to go back and sort it out. What happens we he goes - or is he First Minster for life?)

Let the southerners pay for it. They need it. We've got plenty hills up here, but its as flat as a witches tit once you get past Birmingham.

To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to live there 😀

zokes - whether it's just the "meeja" stirring it or not, polls suggest that there is a growing demand for some sort of more" fair" settlement for England now that the smaller nations have some form of devolved government. The West Lothian question writ large if you will.

I'm sure there are plenty people who would also like an English parliament.

But financially, it's so utterly, utterly wasteful. Another lot of MPs and their staff, who will spend most of their time arguing with the 'federal' MPs in Westminster, and their state counterparts in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

when Salmond left the SNP, it almost collapsed

when was that?

zokes - Member
I'm sure there are plenty people who would also like an English parliament.

But financially, it's so utterly, utterly wasteful. Another lot of MPs and their staff, who will spend most of their time arguing with the 'federal' MPs in Westminster, and their state counterparts in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Actually, most of it has come from private companies that buy blocks of rights to prospect for oil. Most of the infrastructure is privately owned as well.

Yes of course it is.

TJ - you offer the principle of self-determination as a right, but not the definition of 'peoples', which is where it gets very complicated when things have become very diffuse over time.

The idea of Scottish Nationalism is far easier to define and thus more clearly defined than being 'Scottish' is.

Who are the 'peoples' that should be self-determining?

Plus the investment for extraction has come from the UK not Scotland, so maybe they can lay claim to the oil but not the assets in place.

The UK government invested in the extraction? What extraction process was that? As far as I know the government merely sold the rights to explore and produce individual blocks and then gathered the taxes.

Unless you're talking about the roads round about Aberdeen in which case can we pay back the £3.47 in instalments?

In the case of Scotland it has been made fairly clear and even the difference between " the scots people" ( the race / ethnic group) and " the people of Scotland" ( those with scots nationality) has been looked at and discussed

Who are the 'peoples' that should be self-determining?

In this case the people of Scotland.

I guess it would depend on just how much was devolved to the federal parliaments. Certainly, there would be no need to have 600-odd MPs in a UK parliament. One side benefit is that it would necessitate a complete shake-up of the UK "constitution", e.g. what would be the role of the House of Lords? In fact, why would we even need one? That's a saving right there!

I guess that much is true, but by that same tenet, you then stand even less chance of having your views heard at the federal level when your Westminster MP has 5x the number of people to represent.

As for the Lords, most countries have an upper and lower house. I suspect they'd be replaced by a senate or similar.

But if it's anything like Oz (or the USA for that matter), the amount of time wasted fighting either interstate, or with the federal parliament is amazing. That simply wouldn't exist in a non-federal system.

Conflating the RBS and oil revenues just adds to the obfuscation, whether it's being done deliberately to cause mischief or because people simply can't think clearly.

Well, get used to it, because this argument is going to be drilled into the public consciousness for the next 2yrs.

Call me daves intervention had one immediate effect

1000+ new SNP members and 3% increase in the pro independence polls

those with scots nationality

WTF is that? Are people getting scottish passports already?

Would England, Wales and Northern Ireland (whatever that country might be called if Salmond wins the vote) have to reapply for EU membership, would they, and would the rest of the EU let them in?

Seems to me that France say might look more favourably on a Scots application than an EWNI one.

PS For what it's worth I'm a born and raised Scot living in Yorkshire and I'm probably not a fan of either Salmond or independence.

Call me daves intervention had one immediate effect

1000+ new SNP members and 3% increase in the pro independence polls

Great. As discussed, I think most people don't really care that much whether Scotland becomes independent or not. However, we're very concerned about some of the assumptions being made about how that is achieved... And for that matter, so too should be the pro-independents...

Well, get used to it, because this argument is going to be drilled into the public consciousness for the next 2yrs.

By unionist mischief makers probably, the same way the Euro issue keeps getting dragged up as clear when it's anything but?

There was a survey being debated on Radio Scotland yesterday where a fairly large chunk of English people interview were in favour of both full Scottish Independence and Devo Max, especially if it solved the west lothian question. A federal system might be the best way forward?

those with scots nationality

So, precisely noone then. Legally, everyone in the UK is British by nationality.

Would England, Wales and Northern Ireland (whatever that country might be called if Salmond wins the vote) have to reapply for EU membership, would they, and would the rest of the EU let them in?

England, wales and NI would be called "the United Kingdom". Why would that change just because a minority decided to leave? The UK is already a part of the EU.
I have no doubt that scotland would be welcomed. Provided they adopted the euro; naturally.

By [s]unionist mischief makers probably[/s]the press,

Who have very loud and repetitive, and influential voices on such issues

Would England, Wales and Northern Ireland (whatever that country might be called if Salmond wins the vote) have to reapply for EU membership, would they, and would the rest of the EU let them in?

That's making the assumption Call me Dave would even bother. We're a net economic contributor to an basket-case economy. I can't see any way on earth we'd go in on the terms we're on now.

And who'd suffer as a direct result. Smaller independent nations. That's who. Like that one we'd now have to our northern border

Oh... and any new entrants to the EU are constitutionaly required to adapt the Euro. We wouldn't have that. Ever!

But don't let that stop you. Good luck. Let us know how that works out for you. I've heard its been a rip-roaring success for small sovereign states 😀

igm - Member
Would England, Wales and Northern Ireland (whatever that country might be called if Salmond wins the vote) have to reapply for EU membership, would they, and would the rest of the EU let them in?

Seems to me that France say might look more favourably on a Scots application than an EWNI one.

Not so sure Wrecker. France might well argue that EWNI is fundamentally different to ESWNI. If only for devilment.

Remember also the kingdoms that make up the UK are E & S, not W and NI. Difficult to be the United Kingdom with just the one kingdom.

If anyone is interested in these kind of things, I recommend the upstairs room in Dublin's municipal museum which covers the politics leading up to 1916. Fantastic parallels.

wrecker - Member
England, wales and NI would be called "the United Kingdom". Why would that change just because a minority decided to leave? The UK is already a part of the EU.

As I say, the EU question is yet to be resolved. Basing it on the fact that folk who live in Scotland are already EU citizens, one might argue that there's no need for them to re-apply for citizenship.

possibly igm, but then as binners correctly points out the remainder of the UK could tell them to shove their EU membership up their arse which would not be acceptable to brussels as we are (and would still be) a net contributor.

A fair answer.

Oh... and any new entrants to the EU are constitutionaly required to adapt the Euro. We wouldn't have that. Ever!

Its not quite that simple though. It only applies in certain situations and at least one Law Professor has said it wouldnt effect the UK or Scotland.

igm - Member

Would England, Wales and Northern Ireland (whatever that country might be called if Salmond wins the vote) have to reapply for EU membership, would they, and would the rest of the EU let them in?

Its an interesting question and opinion is divided even amongst folk who should know the bbc did a good summary of the debate which I cannot find now. Its unclear. there are three possibilities and expert opinion is divided

Scotland and the rump UK both remain EU members, Both need to reapply and Only Scotland would need to reapply

Myself I favour the position that there is no more UK and both resultant states are new and would need to reapply and would be treated equally

both resultant states are new and would need to reapply and would be treated equally

Oh, and what is a person with scottish nationality?

Myself I favour the position that there is no more UK and both resultant states are new and would need to reapply and would be treated equally

Not so sure on that. No matter how much France and Germany may want to stick it to us thanks to CMD's recent antics, there's no getting away from the economics:

1) A small country of 5m reliant mainly on a fast-dwindling resource of oil which would almost certainly be a net receiver from the EU,

vs

2) The remaining 55m British citizens, who will remain net contributors to the EU.

In case you'd not noticed, the EU isn't exactly flush with cash right now - I suspect that they'd be favourable towards a contributor more than a receiver.

Oh, and what is a person with scottish nationality?

Anyone who either lives in Scotland for over a certain time or who has family ties here, parents, grand parents? Just a guess... Does it matter?

Does it matter?

Yes - even if its just in the case of wanting equal access to all so that they can benefit from the superior structure of Scottish university education.

Anyone who either lives in Scotland for over a certain time or who has family ties here, parents, grand parents? Just a guess... Does it matter?

Kind of makes you wonder what the point is at all. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of the UK's populace would qualify through a grandparent or similar. So independent from who, precisely?

Myself I favour the position that there is no more UK and both resultant states are new and would need to reapply and would be treated equally

You negotiate from a position of strength TJ. The Eu needs the rump UK more than we need them, right now

Does the EU want another small economy with some extremely dubious economic policies? One with an above average reliance on its financial sector and some pretty heavy duty welfare comitments? Hmmmmmmmm..... I wonder

But in an independent Scotland, rUK students would be allowed in for free unless that loop hole is closed.

It must be based on where you live and/or you're family heritage.

Edit:

So independent from who, precisely?

Westminster.

I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of the UK's populace would qualify through a grandparent or similar

Westminster.

little scotlanders eh?

Independence from Westminster at the expense of ceding powers to Brussels? Right....

little scotlanders eh?

Yawn 😆

Scotland would be a net contributor to the EU

Scotland holds most of the EUs energy sources and fishing grounds and would be an engaged and positive partner in the EU.

I think that the EU would be likely to look favourably on Scottish membership.

I believe both successor nations would be in the same position but as you can take three real experts on the issue and get 3 differnt answers its a tricky one.

Serious question now Uncle Jezza. Would you get a vote?

What are the criteria?

In a bizarre case of STW mirroring real life..... all of the above not answered here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16636325

'....will someone think of the Panda's....' 😉

Scotland holds most of the EUs energy sources and fishing grounds and would be an engaged and positive partner in the EU.

Doubtful on the former, and as for the latter, I guess you've not seen where the Spanish et al fish, regardless of sovereignty...

binners - Member
Serious question now Uncle Jezza. Would you get a vote?

What are the criteria?

Anyone who either lives in Scotland for over a certain time or who has family ties here, parents, grand parents? Just a guess... Does it matter?

Interesting bit in on the BBC web site about the views of US citizens with "Scottish roots" on this -

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16537073 ]25m Americans claim Scottish ancestry, according to some estimates[/url]

That might skew the vote a bit.

Also some interesting bits on there about the possible makeup of governments in Scotland; oh how I would laugh if an independent Scotland ended up with a right wing government instead of Salmonds "progressive" state.

The Scots already have a very nice slice of the welfare system, with a much better deal than the English get.

Personally I couldn't care less if they have their independence, but I do worry what it may cost us later picking up the pieces of this egotistical madness.

I do worry what it may cost us later picking up the pieces of this egotistical madness.

binners - Member

Serious question now Uncle Jezza. Would you get a vote?

What are the criteria?

As I have a vote in Scotland now yes I would

The Scots already have a very nice slice of the welfare system, with a much better deal than the English get.

If you're going to resent the NHS and welfare benefits we get in Scotland, dont resent us, resent the fact you didn't vote for a party that would give you them.

Its not Scotland fault that we get free uni education yet the English have to pay £9000 a year, that was CmD and his cronies who brought that in, and we certainly didnt vote for him.

oh how I would laugh if an independent Scotland ended up with a right wing government instead of Salmonds "progressive" state.

seems pretty unlikely given the voting patterns in Scotland for the last 50 years

Scotland holds most of the EUs energy sources and fishing grounds and would be an engaged and positive partner in the EU.

So what happens when Abu-[s]Dabi[/s]Shetland decides it would rather be independant seeing as you've decided the oil's being divided up geographicaly rather than demographicaly?

Would the same rules apply?

Its a bit of a non argument seeing as they've not expressed any desire to separate, and we went over this last time, but yes, the same rules would apply. 🙄

seems pretty unlikely given the voting patterns in Scotland for the last 50 years

Draw up a list of small oil rich countries that have left wing governments?

Personally I couldn't care less if they have their independence, but I do worry what it may cost us later picking up the pieces of this egotistical madness.

My position exactly! Salmonds economic policies are insane, cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. Totally and utterly unsustainable in the medium to long term. I suspect he'd be coming cap-in-hand, effectively bankrupt, in a few years.

Either direct to Westminster, or through the EU to save a bit of face. The result would be the same. Us picking up the tab for Salmonds ego-fuelled flights of fancy

Draw up a list of small oil rich countries that have left wing governments?

That's an interesting point. Mark Thatcher and his friends, as you read this, could be tooling up for a military coup 😆

That's an interesting point. Mark Thatcher and his friends, as you read this, could be tooling up for a military coup

Not really much to worry about though is it?
A couple of Glaswegian taxi drivers would take care of them.

Draw up a list of small oil rich countries that have left wing governments?

Norway.

Probably the closest country to Scotland socially and politically as well.

If you're going to resent the NHS and welfare benefits we get in Scotland, dont resent us, resent the fact you didn't vote for a party that would give you them.

Its not Scotland fault that we get free uni education yet the English have to pay £9000 a year, that was CmD and his cronies who brought that in, and we certainly didnt vote for him.

When the egotistical experiment goes t1ts up (as it surely will, for the current levels of benefits scots receive have been shown to be totally unsustainable in the long term), you'll have the benefit of Greek/Italian style imposition of eurocrats who will impose a standard of state benefit way below that even the underdog English currently receive.

enjoy..

, for the current levels of benefits scots receive have been shown to be totally unsustainable in the long term),

Proof?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2011/12/05/price-of-independence-poll-shows-majority-of-scots-would-back-split-if-it-made-them-500-better-off-86908-23611253/

The Scottish Social Attitudes survey found that 65 per cent of Scots would back independence if it meant that they would be slightly wealthier.

Proof?

Just about every independent study on the economic situation in scotland.

The most recent I'm aware of by the CPPR

'Latest analysis by the Centre for Public Policy and Regions said Scotland would face a budget deficit of about £17 billion per year and inherit a £125 billion share of the UK’s national debt.'

thisisnotaspoon - Member

seems pretty unlikely given the voting patterns in Scotland for the last 50 years

Draw up a list of small oil rich countries that have left wing governments?

Draw up list of small oil producing countries that are not in the gulf.
Norway,Scotland.

Draw up a small list of oil producing countries that are not in the gulf and dont have right wing governments.
Norway, Scotland.
Easy.

seems pretty unlikely given the voting patterns in Scotland for the last 50 years

The SNP have had an increasing proportion of the vote since 1970 when they overtook the liberals. I would suggest that a significant part of their support is from people who support Scottish independence and have voted accordingly. If that issue is out of the way the political landscape changes and other parties' negative associations with the Westminster parties are lost; I wouldn't like to bet on what happens after that.

Interesting interview last night but not particuarly useful to inform and it got bogged down with unnessecary detail (transporting gold FFS!).

I guess from a rUK (un-united kingdom?) point of view there are few downsides economically - loss of some oil and renewable revenues, plus costs that we'd have to bear to reorganise joint services. On the postive ecenomics side? I beleive that the gov payout to the scotish gov is above the 8% of their percentage of the population. The main negative I have is that without scottish labour MPs we'll become almost a one party state in the UK.

From a Scottish point of view there are many more possible economic risks, plus practical problems (re-organisation)and just it being harder to be a small country in the global ecomomy (eg. what if the scottish curency devalues for some reason or scottish government bonds have higher interest). Although self determination is right people should have.

I'm Scottish but live in Cumbria so I understand the deep rooted national pride that Scots have. I do really worry about the viability of a freestanding nation. Alex Salmond has frequently quoted Denmark as the example of what a population of 5m can do.

I work for a Danish company and they come from a recent position as an industrial and economic powerhouse with income coming from all over the world (a scenario that will be impossible for a developed nation to produce in the medium term). Alex has also failed to state that the Dane's pay 50% income tax and a Ford Focus costs about 35k with taxes. You need to pay an awful lot of tax to maintain a NHS style infrastructure with only 5m inhabitants.