[Closed] Scotland to help pay deficit - even if independence goes ahead

Everything costs.
No doubt we will have to have think tanks,focus groups and some beardy creative bloke to come up with a multi million pound design for the logo on your driving licence.
Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=clanadonia&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=en-GB&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BsjVUrU_05LsBq-DgaAH&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=640&bih=335&rlz=1Y1XIUG_enGB551GB551#biv=i%7C29%3Bd%7CxrvNjls8zEGdSM%3A
there you are a beardy creative type

No doubt we will have to have think tanks,focus groups and some beardy creative bloke to come up with a multi million pound design for the logo on your driving licence.
Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.

[i]Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.
[/i]

This.

Negotiations could have started years ago- but the UK government has declined. Almost as though they don't want you to know the answers, eh? Ask who gains from the uncertainty.

Why?

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation - i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Salmond naively has already revealed his hand in the form of his 'letter to Santa' and as a result, despite all the 'Braveheart Bluster' Scotland is in a pretty weak position right now. So I suspect the UK government will simply sit tight until after the result of the vote.

Rightly so too. Don't see why the rest of the UK should be wasting our time right now debating this until the 'chip on the shoulder' Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

until the Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

And what would those be then?

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation - i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Indeed, but surely it shouldn't be for the UK Government to try and dictate the debate, it should be the Yes and No Campaigns. The UK Gov represents everyone in the UK as it stands, that includes everyone in Scotland, most of whom would like more concrete information.

until the Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

And what would those be then?

Err, there would seem to be plenty of issues judging by the debate on this.

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation - i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Indeed, but surely it shouldn't be for the UK Government to try and dictate the debate, it should be the Yes and No Campaigns. The UK Gov represents everyone in the UK as it stands, that includes everyone in Scotland, most of whom would like more concrete information.

It's up to Salmond and his band of Braveheart wannabees to make a strong case for independance. The fact that he hasn't so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

And anyway it seems like quite a few Anti English Scots simply want FREEDOOOOOOOMMMM! from the oppressors regardless of how the rational facts stack up, so detailed information would likely just fall on deaf ears in these cases.

[quote=rebel12 ]
And anyway it seems like quite a few Anti English Scots simply want FREEDOOOOOOOMMMM! from the oppressors regardless of how the rational facts stack up, so detailed information would likely just fall on deaf ears in these cases.
Anti-English Scots like Mike Russell or Christian Allard for instance?

Err, there would seem to be plenty of issues judging by the debate on this.

Have seen plenty of issues discussed, but not any 'identity' issues?

Salmond and his band of Braveheart wannabees

quite a few Anti English Scots simply want FREEDOOOOOOOMMMM! from the oppressors

Comments like this, and who ever it was who described nationalists as Natsis don't really do much to help the debate, do they. It's just a bit childish.

The fact that he hasn't so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

No, of course it shouldnt, but if they're asked to go and get figures or ask for advice they should do it as they represent the people asking instead of taking sides and refusing to play ball. If everything is as they say it is then it would help the No Campaign anyway.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/15/george-osborne-reform-eu-quits-tory-dismantling?CMP=twt_gu ]Reform EU or Britain quits - George Osborne lays down ultimatum[/url]

So, in the event of a Yes vote Scotland may or may not be in the EU. In the event of a No vote, Scotland may or may not be in the EU. Great.

The fact that he hasn't so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

No, of course it shouldnt, but if they're asked to go and get figures or ask for advice they should do it as they represent the people asking instead of taking sides and refusing to play ball. If everything is as they say it is then it would help the No Campaign anyway.

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP. So whom should the UK government represent right now when the Scots can't even make up their own minds?

The UK government has publicly declared that they are pro-union since it's clearly in the best interests of both parties (including the many Scots who will vote to stay in the Union). Do you have a problem with this?

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP. So whom should the UK government represent right now when the Scots can't even make up their own minds?

The UK government has publicly declared that they are pro-union since it's clearly in the best interests of both parties (including the many Scots who will vote to stay in the Union). Do you have a problem with this?

The Scottish people voted in a majority SNP Government in Scotland. Part of their manifesto was to hold the referendum. Now, obviously not everyone who voted for the SNP wants independence, but the mandate is there for them to liaise with the Scottish Government. They should work with both sides to provide the data that both sides are asking for. I don't have a problem with Westminster stating they are pro-union, but working against the process favours one side more than the other. I have a problem with that.

rene59 - Member

The majority of us Scots don't want "independence" and are very happy within the UK. So this is all hypothetical and dull. It's going to be a very tiresome 8 months.......

About a third of us do though and a majority may be willing to stay within the UK but whenever polled they want change in the form of much more devolved powers to be happy to do so. This currently is not on the table and from what I have seen there is no vision from Better Together as to what this would look like, probably because there would be three different versions.

To me that makes a no vote much more of an uncertainty than a yes vote. To suggest people are happy with things as they are is a joke.

A no vote which leads to the status quo remaining in the longer term would be disastrous for Scotland. You can't have a country where the democratic wishes of the majority are ignored.

If you look at democracies around the world - virtually no-one is happy with their current government or their current economic position. I have posted elsewhere that we need to get away from the "Things can only get better" mentality of politics/democracy. Things can always, and often do, get worse. Promising "change" is the easiest, laziest form of politics. Oh, apart from nationalism of course!
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years, so what reason is there to believe that things will be better run in an independent Scotland? Apart from promises/lies from another (even worse) politician.

The Scottish people voted in a majority SNP Government in Scotland. Part of their manifesto was to hold the referendum. Now, obviously not everyone who voted for the SNP wants independence, but the mandate is there for them to liaise with the Scottish Government. They should work with both sides to provide the data that both sides are asking for. I don't have a problem with Westminster stating they are pro-union, but working against the process favours one side more than the other. I have a problem with that.

That may be the case but as we all know statistics can be spun in whatever way a politician want's. I don't see why the UK government should waste their time and funds entering into a costly and potentially damaging debate prior to a referendum result being in place. Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

It seems from the Moray survey posted before that Scottish support for independence is much higher in the most deprived areas and much less in the more affluent areas. Unfortunately if that's the case I can see a lot of movement of the affluent or most highly qualified people out of Scotland and into the rest of the UK if independence does go ahead. Perhaps a similar kind of 'brain drain' as has happened in Irelend?

I can see a lot of movement of the affluent or most highly qualified people out of Scotland and into the rest of the UK if independence does go ahead.

[quote=robbespierre ]
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years,
Really? How many of the government MPs have, at any one time, been Scottish?

[quote=rebel12 ] I don't see why the UK government should waste their time and funds entering into a costly and potentially damaging debate prior to a referendum result being in place.
Ah - so you don't approve of UK Civil Servants being used to provide reports rubbishing the Scottish Government's claims or providing any alternative answers?

Robespierre The simple reason to vote yes is that people living in Scotland are better placed to make decisions about Scotland. the no campaign has the backing of Westminster govt which is the only body that has access to the information about Scotland joining the EU in the event of a yes vote. The EU can only pass on its position to the current existing member state. The no campaign then asks Yes Scotland to provide information that it knows Yes Scotland can't get. Their tactics are to keep the people of Scotland on the mushroom diet.

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP

rebel12 - Member

Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

And when it's data that the UK government holds, and won't provide? Or a point where only discussion between the two can provide the data, but the UK government refuses to engage? They've been criticised by the Electoral Commission for exactly this, incidentally, not just our word for it.

What rankles, though, isn't so much that they've not engaged- it's that from day one they've demanded answers from the Yes campaign, while simultaneously working to make it impossible to give those answers. So not merely refusing to contribute honestly to the debate, but blaming the other party for their own machinations. The democratic process is founded on the capability to make informed decisions, so when your government is actively working to make it harder for you to do so, that's a problem that goes far beyond this vote.

(hilariously, when challenged for information on what the future holds for Scotland within the UK, they refuse to answer)

So as the debate's gone on, and this has become a constant theme, people ask- why don't they want us to know? Now it could be simply tactical- playing the "tell us this thing, oh, you can't, because of something we did" game for cheap points. Unsporting 😉 But, you know, dishonest and anti-democratic too.

But it reaches a point where you have to suspect there is more to it. Why won't the UK government seek clarity from the EU on the status of an independent Scotland? They insist our membership won't be automatic, will be difficult, might take years. But if that's the case, then they have nothing to lose by getting the clarification we want. In fact, it'd be a devastating blow to the Yes campaign if they were to get the answer they insist is correct. Yet the Yes campaign asks for it, and the UK government declines.

So what is it that makes them hold back? Draw your own conclusions. You can learn a lot about a situation by what people won't tell you.

Oh, and again, apparently Yes campaign uncertainty on EU membership is immensely damaging to businesses in Scotland. But UK uncertainty on EU membership because of the referendum? That's absolutely fine.

I don't see why the UK government should waste their time and funds entering into a costly and potentially damaging debate prior to a referendum result being in place. Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

A debate with Westminster is exactly what I don't want. All I want is for them to get the legal advice asked for by the Scottish Government and the Yes Campaign.

As has been pointed out, the No Campaign ask questions knowing full well that the Yes Campaign cant give a definitive answer as that can only come from the EU who will only deal with Westminster. It's definitely too much to hope for when politics on this scare are involved but a little impartiality and straight questions/legal answers would go along way.

So what is it that makes them hold back?

It's still hypothetical at this point?

But UK uncertainty on EU membership because of the referendum? That's absolutely fine.

Like it or not, there's no real uncertainty over rUK membership of the EU. If there was, then [b]we[/b] would also be getting a referendum.

Unsporting

But it reaches a point where you have to suspect there is more to it. Why won't the UK government seek clarity from the EU on the status of an independent Scotland? They insist our membership won't be automatic, will be difficult, might take years. But if that's the case, then they have nothing to lose by getting the clarification we want.

I don't doubt the UK government is doing as little as possible to cooperate with the Yes campaign, but on this point at least the answer is clear - the Spanish government explicitly asked the EU about this point a couple of months back (regarding Catalonia) and there is no automatic EU membership.

and there is no automatic EU membership.

I can't quite remember the article/news in question, but did they not also so that they couldn't see any difficult in making a smooth transition to being a full member?

Spin or not, the EU thing is a good example of mis-information, unsporting behaviour, tactics - all the things that we love politicians for. Sadly I think this will only get worse.

The EU is pretty clear on how new states are dealt with. The problem was promising something up-front which you cannot deliver - bit like currencies etc...

I can see a lot of movement of the affluent or most highly qualified people out of Scotland and into the rest of the UK if independence does go ahead.

Yeah but I can also see this happening as O&G winds down in the next few decades.

It would be interesting to see yes/no voting tendencies against education/income/job/industry type stats though.

There is no EU policy on what to do when a member state splits. If there was, we would have had it produced by now.

The Spanish. They could kill this one stone dead by explicitly stating that they would veto Scottish membership - after all, what have they got to lose? So - why haven't they done exactly that?

And why hasn't the UK Govt. gone to the EU and asked for the answer we all want? If it was guaranteed to kill the argument, what is the delay?

oldnpastit - Member

Like it or not, there's no real uncertainty over rUK membership of the EU. If there was, then we would also be getting a referendum.

Er, you [i]are[/i] getting a referendum on EU membership.

mogrim - Member

I don't doubt the UK government is doing as little as possible to cooperate with the Yes campaign, but on this point at least the answer is clear - the Spanish government explicitly asked the EU about this point a couple of months back (regarding Catalonia) and there is no automatic EU membership.

Which doesn't answer the question of what actually will happen.

Here's a question ... who wrote these words?

"it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations. Precisely what the conditions of membership would be is not quite so clear, though immediate requirements to join the Euro or Schengen agreement can surely be avoided."

(a) Alex Salmond (Scottish First Minister)
(b) David Cameron (UK Prime Minister)
(c) Professor Jim Gallacher (formerly the UK's most senior civil servant responsible for devolution, and recent appointee as adviser to Better Together on policy and strategy)

Tactics, Scotroutes, tactics!!

They are learning the game from that master (sic) politician on the other side who appears to be simultaneously losing it. 😉

There is a massive trump card for the better together camp to play, but they are being sensible and biding their time. Perhaps wait to counter the CW games effect.

Yes campaign uncertainty on EU membership is immensely damaging to businesses in Scotland. But UK uncertainty on EU membership because of the referendum?

That just the greedy financial speculators in the city looking for any excuse to turn a fast buck at the expense of others.

The problem is simple Scots, either you want independence or you don't. Once we've established that then we can have a debate on EU membership, currency, North Sea Oil etc.

Otherwise what do you suggest we do? Get all this sorted upfront at huge expense to the taxpayer only to have Scotland vote for no independence. What a huge wast of money and resource that would be at a time when austerity is needed.

The principle of independence surely is all about the grand plan to govern yourselves and control your own destiny as a Nation going forward? It's not to pick and choose what you want or don't want from the UK/EU and then see which way the wind is blowing come your day to vote on the issue?

scotroutes - Member

robbespierre »
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years,

Really? How many of the government MPs have, at any one time, been Scottish?

That's irrelevant.
What matters is how many Scots were senior members of the cabinet?

[quote=robbespierre ]

scotroutes - Member
robbespierre »
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years,
Really? How many of the government MPs have, at any one time, been Scottish?

That's irrelevant.
What matters is how many Scots were senior members of the cabinet?

On second thoughts, maybe you do need us to look after you after all

BBSB - I was going to suggest that "the cream rises to the top", but then so do certain types of turd.

creamy ones?
like the top picture?

scotroutes - Member

robbespierre »
scotroutes - Member
robbespierre »
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years,
Really? How many of the government MPs have, at any one time, been Scottish?

That's irrelevant.
What matters is how many Scots were senior members of the cabinet?
OK - how many? And who voted them into that position?

As you well know, the number varies over time but we were way over-represented for our population - I would guestimate by something like 2-3x on average. Also, the government and policies for most of that period were exactly what Scotland voted for, yet we are now blaming the consequences on that bad "UK Government".
As a Scot, I find this embarassing.

Unless the Scots in the cabinet were making decisions that favoured Scotland over the rest of the UK, I don't see how the national make up of the cabinet makes any difference.

rebel12 - Member

The problem is simple Scots, either you want independence or you don't. Once we've established that then we can have a debate on EU membership, currency, North Sea Oil etc.

The scots would like some idea of what they're voting for- one thing both parties agree on. We're british too you know, we've as much right to the attention of the UK government as anyone else.

I thought that was all in the book of dreams!!!

Sorry cheap shot. I largely agree. Having policies made/proposed on the hoof does no one any good as this week has shown.

mogrim - Member
I don't doubt the UK government is doing as little as possible to cooperate with the Yes campaign, but on this point at least the answer is clear - the Spanish government explicitly asked the EU about this point a couple of months back (regarding Catalonia) and there is no automatic EU membership.

Northwind - Member
Which doesn't answer the question of what actually will happen.

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

It sort of does - there's no automatic membership, and Scotland will/would need to negotiate entry. Of course the rules could easily be changed/fudged to accommodate a newly independant Scotland, but as it stands it's not a given.

scotroutes - Member
There is no EU policy on what to do when a member state splits. If there was, we would have had it produced by now.

The Spanish. They could kill this one stone dead by explicitly stating that they would veto Scottish membership - after all, what have they got to lose? So - why haven't they done exactly that?

According to [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html ]The Independant[/url] they are considering it, but I doubt they're in any hurry to reveal their cards - despite the Catalan government pushing for a referendum they don't have the authority to do so, and by playing for time the national government should be able to benefit from an improvement in the Spanish economy.

[quote=mogrim ]
there's no automatic membership
Nor is there an automatic exclusion. There is nothing in any of the EU treaties to cover this situation.

scotroutes - Member
There is no EU policy on what to do when a member state splits. If there was, we would have had it produced by now.
The Spanish. They could kill this one stone dead by explicitly stating that they would veto Scottish membership - after all, what have they got to lose? So - why haven't they done exactly that?

Spain has indicated it [b]could[/b] block an independent Scotland's accession to the European Union, [b]sources[/b] said.

I believe there were 5Scots in the cabinet at one time . I don't see any of them campaigning for independence and 3 I know are against. Brown, Darling, Wilson. So yes at that time Scotland voted for mostly labour in a UK election.Labour was and is a unionist party. Since then Scotland has voted in the SNP twice. That's at least partly because people felt let down by labour. There's no reason for keeping on going with something that has not worked.