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.Sorry.

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 the UN Charter 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: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. 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.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!

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 unionist mischief makers probablythe 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.I don’t think anyone really knows the answer to this one. I suspect that the Vienna Convention will apply – whereby the rUK (r=rump) would be seen as the “successor” state to all international treaties. However, I can imagine France and Germany having a field day trying to get all the UK opt-outs removed 🙂

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.

UK = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – but GB would no longer exist…..

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.