[Closed] Salmond on Newsnight

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.