..has no tax and revenue system, no vehicle and driver licensing...
I'm sure they're capable of setting this up. They do have bureaucrats up there you know!
My point is: Scotland can't just become independent without a few key things being agreed with rUK - for e.g. Scotland can't just take all the oil just because they'd like to - any split has to be agreed with rUK first.
So an overall proposal of these key things has to be negotiated. Right now I think we're all assuming the Scottish parliament and rUK parliament will just agree these between them.
My point is that if rUK electorate feel this isn't in our best interests, we'll demand a referendum (or the current government will offer one so they don't get voted out).
I can't see how the Scottish parliament could stop the rUK parliament offering a referendum to its electorate.. but if we don't like the look of the split, we'll vote against and we'll be back right where we are, having endured years of stress and uncertainty which will likely have reduced investment and therefore economic growth...
Yes the rUK could have a (highly unlikely) referendum to accept a deal. But if it voted no what would it change? It's not going to force them to remain in the UK. It might delay things a bit, but Scotland would simply walk away and go it alone.
Right now I think we're all assuming the Scottish parliament and rUK parliament will just agree these between them.
I think we're all assuming that the two governments will act in a manner befitting two mature nations who are at peace and have the best interests of both at heart. The alternative is rather horrifying.
but Scotland would simply walk away and go it alone.
But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?
None of these things can be unilaterally decided by either Scotland or rUK governments - they're currently shared resources and will have to be allocated under a formal agreement between both sides...
But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?None of these things can be unilaterally decided by either Scotland or rUK governments
Of course it can unilaterally decide to go it alone without accepting any of the debt, setting up it's own currency, and claiming the oil as it's own. What it can't do of course is dictate the rUK's and the international community's response, which would be rather stern. Wars have started over much less.
Who will be to blame if Scotland goes on its' merry way and it all goes horribly wrong? Hitherto, it has been relatively easy to blame the Westminster Crew. AS will claim all the kudos if it works but if it bombs...is he going to hold his hands up and fess up that it was a bit of a bodge/back of an envelope fudge?
I may be wrong, not having been privy to the detailed (proposed) fiscal policies of the SNP but it does seem to me that AS is spending the same revenue time and time again.
As such, it all seems like a house of cards. The dodgy rhetoric of both sides is unconvincing and the only thing that seems to have emerged to me, is a rather unpleasant kind of nationalism.
OTOH I can't say I don't agree with the anti London-centric sentiments.
AS will claim all the kudos if it works but if it bombs...is he going to hold his hands up and fess up that it was a bit of a bodge/back of an envelope fudge?
He'll still blame Westminster for not handing it over
I think there are many arguments flying around, some convincing some less so. FWIW I see not much of the narrow nationalism to be honest, but I'm aware some have and don't doubt its presence (egg throwing tribal idiots in Fife anyone).
However I have seen some great debates as well, and it has at least made everyone aware that there is something to be decided, and very few (of my ken) are sleep walking into this, and the turnout will be - I'd hazard - > 83% which is all you can ask for really.
Firmly in the "dinna ken" camp BTW..
Who will be to blame if Scotland goes on its' merry way and it all goes horribly wrong? Hitherto, it has been relatively easy to blame the Westminster Crew. Don't worry.....[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/independent-scotland-to-blame-cats-2013020658754 ]Alex has sorted all that out already[/url]
Similar to the immigrants stealing our jobs whilst also sitting around all day on benefits.
Going it alone means Scotland receives more powerz!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@yourguitarhero, I think you have the dial turned to 11 (see what I did there : )
But with what share of the debt, what share of the oil, with what currency?
debt - about the same share as the share of the assets we get
oil - what's in our territorial waters as defined by international law
currency - don't know but I'd go with the smackerooni because where winning the euro millions might be great, how much better would it be if those millions were smackeroonis?
Not too difficult is it?
What it can't do of course is dictate the rUK's and the international community's response, which would be rather stern. Wars have started over much less.
I so wish I'd added "no military" to my list up there (I suspected you'd say you didn't want one)
debt - about the same share as the share of the assets we get
So long as you're clear about what is and what isn't an asset!
This thread was interesting till it lost it's way around the 3rd or 4th page and started talking about Scotland.
That wasn't the OPs question....
So long as you're clear about what is and what isn't an asset!
No, as long as the people doing the negotiations agree amongst themselves what is and isn't an asset. I won't be taking part
This thread was interesting till it lost it's way around the 3rd or 4th page and started talking about Scotland.
Scotland's the centre of the universe - just ask all those English people who like talking about it so much
debt - about the same share as the share of the assets we get
oil - what's in our territorial waters as defined by international law
currency - don't know but I'd go with the smackerooni because where winning the euro millions might be great, how much better would it be if those millions were smackeroonis?
Not too difficult is it?
As this is a thread about the UK, we will be getting
Debt: portion as related to our population (approx 91%)
Oil revenue: portion as related to our population (approx 91%)
Currency: The pound
Not too difficult, take it or leave it ... 😉
One of my best mates has just taken a job in Abu Dhabi. I think I might follow him. At least they're already agreed on which oil belongs to which country in that part of the world 🙂
So has everybody here apart from jambalaya who wants to rewrite international law 😉
This is a quote from an FT article I've previously linked to:
Taken from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3Cq2h7sTX
International law assigns the rights to new discoveries to established states. It does not say how mineral rights should be assigned if such a state were to break up. To date, there are no international legal precedents for the secession of a resource-rich region in a democracy. The only secessions by resource-rich regions are Timor Leste, South Sudan and the break-up of the USSR. In each case the seceding populations had been imprisoned in repressive polities of which they manifestly did not wish to be a part. Given the chance of independence, they seized their freedom; the fact they had oil was incidental.
If it is established as a principle that local populations that turn out to be fortunately endowed can secede, there will be two consequences. One is inequality: it will create oases of wealth in deserts of poverty. The other is conflict: as in Nigeria, the dispossessed majorities will not graciously acquiesce to this precedent.
The debate over Scottish secession has been shamefully parochial. The vital consequence is not whether the rich regions of Catalonia and Flanders use independence as a precedent. It is whether regions of poor countries that become resource-rich are tempted to renege on fragile social contracts that share the wealth equally. The Scottish Enlightenment pioneered the concept of global justice: Scotland must now face its implications.
IANAL, but I suspect it's not as simple as you might hope.
^^ Quite.
So, assuming there's a yes vote, governments on both sides have to work out an agreement (without precedent and with no clear guidance from international law) on how to share the oil - existing reserves and potential new reserves.
Assuming both sides are happy with that agreement, will either side decide to put the agreement to a referendum to give it (the agreement) and themselves legitimacy in the eyes of their respective electorates...? who knows...
Not saying it's impossible but chance of it being simple, quick and without rancour between the negotiating parties and their respective electorates, well I wish everyone luck!
I'll just leave this here
If both sides have to agree the terms, post independence vote, anyone reckon it'll actually happen before the next millennium? The lawyers must be all voting yes, and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect!
I would like a nice big circular railway going between London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinbrough, Leeds, Ipswich(just for me) and back to London.
Then perhaps the folk who live at the top of tiny little island wouldn't feel so left out.
Will Britain still exist?
Will Britain still exist?
For a while yes, but ultimately erosion and plate tectonics will take their toll.
if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happening.
Not contemplating nuking it from orbit Molls?
if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happening.
Give it a couple of years and Aberdeen will be voting for secession!
Spin - MemberFor a while yes, but ultimately erosion and plate tectonics will take their toll.
Only if you vote Yes. Gordon Brown promises an end to boom and magma flow. Hmm, no wait, actually I checked the small print and he only promises to have a conversation about it, on a timeline.
Britain refers to the whole island. So I'll only be as British as a Spanish person is Iberian.
I'll have to call myself Welsh I suppose.
I'll stick with being called Yorkshire person as I'm very pc love.
if aberdeen and the oil industry wasnt there (it actually wasnt the first choice, think it was hartlepool? - please correct me not 100% sure) this wouldnt be happen
If the Roman Empire hadn't collapsed, you'd be having this conversation in Latin.
So?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28744490
Double summer time. Yes please.
Given the chance of independence, they seized their freedom; the fact they had oil was incidental.
idk about South Sudan but this is but absolute fiction for Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28744490
Apparently yet another example of Scotland having less real control over their own affairs after independence - what's more, an example of where UK policy is currently set for the benefit of Scotland, where England might benefit from a different policy.
it's sort of funny that Yessers keep saying the vote is for independence and not a vote for a particular post-independence platform, and that the details of iScotland's march to equity and social justice can be worked out later, but all the same Yes Scotland has a policy on an issue as marginal as summer time zones.
It's sort of funny that Noers keep complaining that too many policies seem to have been decided already but also complain about "lack of detail" on what Yes means for Scotland.
If you're happy that they waste their time dreaming up plans for summer time zones while constantly dodging vital questions and peddling unsubstantiated pipe dreams on major issues I guess that's up to you.
So has everybody here apart from jambalaya who wants to rewrite international law
😀 very good. International law is one of those fabulous concepts which everyone talks about but which doesn't really mean much in this case. Scotland wants Independence and for that to happen it has to be granted by Westminster and that can be subject to specific terms and conditions. International law doesn't allow Scotland to break away unilaterally. No re-write of law required.
As we all know most of the oil/exploration rights have already been sold, so what we would dividing is the revenue stream from that. That can be divided however we want.
I think when the rest of the UK really latches on to the fact we will be worse off (and Scotland worse still) I really do anticipate quite a backlash. Perhaps just a question as to how much of that will be directed at Scotland and how much at Westminster, Better Together has quite a Labour orientated face to it and there is a body of Tory opinion that is very happy to see the prospect of fewer Labour MPs.
Its an interesting one Jambalaya. I've been giving this a bit of thought myself. If its a yes vote then I imagine it'll cause absolute chaos in the labour party. Which will embark on an 80's style implosion. But I don't know which way the outcome will go. They could conclude that:
a) Scotland (as well as large parts of the north) has completely rejected Blairite New Labour, so the Labour party needs to get back to being an[i] actual [/i] labour party, to try and recapture its core vote by actually representing their interests for a change, instead of just ignoring them and taking their votes for granted, and just being the tories with more convincing smiles
or
b) Now Scotland is gone, we are now in a mainly conservative country. So we need to be even more like the Tories. So lets carry on Blairs legacy, privatise everything, including the NHS, and dismantle the welfare state. But we'll not look like we're enjoying it as much as the Tories clearly are
I'd like to think the former, but I suspect, depressingly and predictably, it'll be the latter
Scotland (as well as large parts of the north) has completely rejected Blairite New Labour
Really?
I'd accept that they (narrowly) rejected Brownism, which was far, far from NL territory, and I don't think that you could allege for one minute that Ed is anywhere close to NL in outlook or policy.
Put his brother back in and I reckon they would walk the election.
to try and recapture its core vote
That's not what they need - they need to capture the 50% or so of people who can't be arse to vote. Most people lean left, because they aren't that rich, so it should be easy enough.