Osbourne says no to currency union.

Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too

The same bloke who convinced the Scottish government to embark on the Darien scheme, which almost bankrupted the entire country, and resulted in him becoming a MAJOR supporter of the Act of Union as tying Scotland to England would help sort out the finances of the country he ruined?

That one? Yeah, I’d be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.

That one? Yeah, I’d be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.

The Darién scheme was idealistic and foolish, but Paterson lost his wife and child in that pestilential swamp – it’s a sad story all round.

However, I wasn’t making a serious point about him.

If the majority say “yeah **** it lets give it a go” then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.

One of the more sensible posts I’ve seen for a while.

So it seems according to Jambalaya one set of UK taxpayers own the institutions funded through their taxes while another set of UK taxpayers lease the same institutions played for through their taxes….

hey piemonster careful with those insults. Us Yorkshires are not nutters and not English. Thanks for the “to tight to spend out” compliment. We see ourselves as not to different the Scottish on the tightness scale, mind we don’t have the sense of humour given the evidence on this thread.

Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.

What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes.

That’s an innovative position.

Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?

And none of the countries that have gained their independence in today’s world even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58

Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 😯 . The fail is strong in that post.
No prosperous western european democracy has been independent so it is not surprising to see that eastern europe is still poorer than western europe. I am not sure what you want that fact to prove tbh.

Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today’s world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.

I think everyone knows it will cost some money but it is not unaffordable nor will it fail due to “start up” costs.

Scotland’s fare[sic] share of assets. I don’t see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.

Not sure if that is serious tbh but it is an idiotic point.

Everything is ours, we are keeping it , now take your share of the debt will you in return for **** all. Ps thanks for the oil revenue.

Its a somewhat strange attitude and few will agree with this strong a stance.

Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?

It would be more accurate to say we’re (all) still repaying the loans taken out to buy them, hence a 1.3 trillion national debt.

Alex’s impression seems to be that if you decide to walk away and stop making repayments you still get to keep the keys…

Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods

now take your share of the debt will you in return for **** all

Hmm, I don’t think anyone i suggesting Scotland would get **** all, nobody has suggested for one second that we go in and repossess the hospitals, schools, forests, trams etc – they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn’t.

Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods

Same as above – everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share – thing is that you seem to think that means ‘we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK’ – well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

Yes, that’s going to take a bit of unpicking. Physical buildings etc get divided up on a geographic basis of course. Other assets get divided up somehow – by value? Obviously some things won’t work that way – we don’t want an aircraft carrier, for example, let alone two. Things like embassies? Perhaps some payment in lieu of sharing or something.

Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 . The fail is strong in that post.

My bad, I failed to fully read the webpage I was looking at for new countries since 1990, and instead just looked at states born from the break up of the USSR. I shall consider myself publicly shamed, and try to be a bit more diligent in the future.

The point remains the same though. Comparisons are made between small countries with high GDP per capita and Scotland. Those countries are long, long established, and differ from Scotland vastly in their economic makeup and social rights structure. It’s a comparison of apples and oranges. There is little chance of finding an exact parallel of Scotland’s bid for independence to use as an example, or I’m pretty sure we’d have heard of it by now, so the closest we can do is look at countries of a similar size that have become independent in “today’s world”. I arbitrarily decided that 1990 was the beginning of “today’s world” (as # of declarations of independence since 1990 is was what came up when I Googled), and if you look at those countries none seem to be faring anywhere near as well as the ones at the top of the list. This is the point jambalaya was making and the one I’m trying to add weight to.

they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn’t.

So that’s the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom. That is the fair way and logical way to work it out.

The oil is Scottish, the naval base on the Clyde is British. Houses of Parliament are also British, as in the Bank of England – you get the picture?

konabunny – Member
“Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?”
that’s a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?

I said to “meet our needs”. That’s all we need, and it was in response to

ninfan – Member
..how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?

ie, if the access from other hubs is inadequate or deliberately restricted by ninfanites, then there is no longer any restraint on an independent Scotland providing our own hub to meet our own needs.

Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.

But that’s not the point being discussed. It’s the cost involved, not who gets what. I’d imagine that UK will keep all the actual, physical bits located in the UK, and Scotland will keep all the actual, physical bits located in Scotland. Except the nukes, obviously 🙄
The difference is that everything is already set up to be used by the UK. Other than the removal of Scottish info, nothing will change from the way the UK public services operate. Scotland will have the infrastructure for some of what it needs, but the systems required to operate that infrastructure (i.e. a new tax regime) will have to be developed from scratch. Even a modification from UK systems to suit Scottish needs will be costly, as highlighted by the ICAS report on NZ tax structure.

So that’s the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

Please God, no. If the capability of HMR&C Cumbernauld is to be the basis of an iS tax regime, the country is fubarred.

Same as above – everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share – thing is that you seem to think that means ‘we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK’ – well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

And several RAF bases. And the contract for two aircraft carriers (I believe it’s been said that the UK won’t have a foreign county building its military ships).

You can have RBS back though. 😉

So that’s the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

I’m pretty sure the Scottish DVLA offices have all been closed down. However, I would instantly change to a “Yes” vote if independence would guarantee never having to deal with the DVLA again.

well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

No lets do it your way and the UK nuclear subs looks spectacularly weak but I am sure iS will get a few quid for them on EBAY.
I think everyone can see it will have to involve a bit of both.

My bad

I had to google to check all of them were independent to be fair 😳

I’m pretty sure the Scottish DVLA offices have all been closed down.

Turns out that you are correct, which means that we will take a financial share of the DVLA and develop our own system. Welcome to the Yes camp.

The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom.

Exactly. Except you fail to realise that as part of the Union, nothing is English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish. It’s all British.

Pimpmaster Jazz – Member
…I believe it’s been said that the UK won’t have a foreign county building its military ships.

Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?

If they can’t afford planes for the carriers, it doesn’t sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc…

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

You can have RBS back though

I’ve got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.

In the case of independence, won’t the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I’ve seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.

Exactly. Except you fail to realise that as part of the Union, nothing is English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish. It’s all British.

Well that’s no strictly true now is it…

Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?

Is the Scottish Government British?

Most banks and other related industries (e.g. insurance companies) who are ‘based’ in Scotland, have said that they are making provisions to relocate to the UK in the case of a Yes vote. Whether they do so is another point entirely. But there is a possibility where they could all move.

Well that’s no strictly true now is it…

Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?
I don’t recall an argument about why Scotland should get to keep its fair share of Stonehenge, nor Westminster trying to prize off its fair share of the Old Man of Hoy. Stop being silly.

Is the Scottish Government British?

I dunno. You mentioned Scotland’s fair share of the Bank of England and the Houses of Parliament. You tell me.

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

Can an iScotland afford to build ships? After all if we reach the conclusion that the UK can builds it’s Navel warships in Scotland (as per the briefing for the yS campaign – why should Scotland build it’s ships there? Remember that shipbuilding in the UK has virtually died out, because it is cheaper to build them overseas.

If Scotland does vote Yes then why should the UK build it’s navel vessels in Scotland? After it would be a foreign country and it could choose another foreign country to do the work. At the moment the UK has committed to building the remaining carrier (Prince of Wales) and it is supposed to announce today the building of three other navel ships to be built on the Clyde. But that is all.

Yup, I think I’ve read that somewhere too, but I also read something that mentioned that they may not have a choice in the matter, due to a law around having to be headquartered in the country where the majority of your business takes place. That works now, with headquarters in Edinburgh, and the bulk of business taking place in London, but would have to change post-independence surely?

Well the Bank of England is clearly a British institution as are the Houses of Parliament, so we’ll be having a bit of those thank you.

As for RBS, they have more employees in London than they do in Scotland, so maybe it’s best if they move their HQ south.

And how exactly do you propose to take “your bit” of the BoE/HoP?

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

Quid pro quo and by haggling/negotiating

I do not think anyone is literally saying they will take a %of the Parliament ot iS

It is a strange one as some assets belong to the member country where as the rest has to be divided up like a divorce.

you get the house I get the pension
You get the car I have the yacht etc

i dont think you can go itis physically in my country therefore it is mine with things that belong to the UK as they have to be split

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

Actually the HoP needs just over a billion quids worth of repairs. SO in real terms it is not worth that much!

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

I would have thought that the economics of maintaining current ship building in Scotland would not stack up. One of the longest coast lines in Europe, with ships paid for by only 5 million people. Our ship building industry manages to get by with MOD contracts. (We don’t seem to mind building war ships for an apparent war mongering UK btw).
Between building ships for our own needs, and only providing enough renewable energy for our own needs, perhaps you are an isolationist epicyclo.

Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?

If they can’t afford planes for the carriers, it doesn’t sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc…

Good question that I don’t know the answer to. I believe there are plans to replace the older elements of the fleet with the new class (who’s name escapes me). Where’s the money coming from? No idea.

TBF the entire carrier project is a shambles, and was under both Labour and the coalition. Scrapping the Harrier was a masterstroke of utmost stupidity, but then I’m sure there were financial reasons (keeping an ageing fleet airborne can’t be cheap). Maybe they should just bin HS2…

Anyhoo, that’s a separate conversation.

My understanding is (living near Portsmouth) that the shipyards are being ‘kept warm’ in case there’s a yes vote. An arsh if you’re a southern ship builder, but a great contingency if you’re overseeing the construction of state-of-the-art battleships and could be ‘losing’ your shipyard because it’s becoming Jonny Foreign.

I’ve got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.

In the case of independence, won’t the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I’ve seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.

As a layman that’s not adding up here either.

But that is as a layman, with no particular interest in the city.

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

@wanman I have no doubt AS will try this on. He will get precisely nowhere with it. Just like the currency union nonsense. AS needs to focus his negotiating energy on the EU in the unlikely event he wins. It will be the renegotiation of the Scottish membership of the EU which will be the defining factor in the Scots future.

The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis, and this basis might be easiest to acheive but could have significant disadvantages for everyone,there are Uk govt offices all over the Uk including Scotland and their roles often cross the various borders within the Uk for example I dealt with HMRC in Newcastle, DWP in both Dundee and Blackburn etc. There would be costs all around in changing the roles of all these offices no doubt there would be redundancies in some locations and possibly recruitment in others. Alternatively some horse trading could take place to ensure that both an independent Scotland and rUK have all the capacity needed to ensure the smoothest possible transition

I believe it’s been said that the UK won’t have a foreign county building its military ships

Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it’ll be happening. The contracts for the carriers are signed, BAE are building them in Rosyth, and BAE and the MoD have stated that that will be the case whether or not there’s independence. Even if BAE wanted to, there’s not a facility in the rUK that could build the second carrier.

So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.