Salmond on Newsnight

Does that count?

If it’s got fingers, it can probably count.

Double post

Nick – yu have got this all confused and I may have helped confuse.

There are the ethnic scots. You know those ginger folk with pale blue skin :-). Then there are the people who live in Scotland such as me.

You cannot get a vote based on being an ethnic scot – the qualification for voting must be residence as in all elections.

Nationality in an independent Scotland would be a different issue. the diaspora and folk such as you would be entitled to apply for scots citizenship.

If you want a vote that badly come to Scotland and pay taxes here

since about 10 minutes when ransos decided to make one up.

You really don’t have much of an argument if you’re reduced to inventing things I never said.

You cannot get a vote based on being an ethnic scot – the qualification for voting must be residence as in all elections.

If you want a vote that badly come to Scotland and pay taxes here

Look, I’m pretty sure I asked for people not to just state the rules. I know what they are, but I feel they’re unjust. At the moment I do pay my taxes – it all goes the the same Exchequer, unfair though you may feel this to be.

And this is not an ordinary election, where you vote for a local MP/MSP/council – it concerns the identity of the country. As such, those people who are, or consider themselves to be, Scottish (and by that I reckon those who’d be entitled to live in the newly independent Scotland) should have a right to vote.

nickf – I have some sympathy with your view but I’m not sure where the line would/could be drawn.

How much Scottish “heritage” would be necessary to guarantee a vote?
Scottish parents but never lived there?
Born in Scotland but not been there for 50 years?
Born English but lived in Scotland for 20 years before returning to England – perhaps temporarily?

Any idea what you think would be fairest?

As such, those people who are, or consider themselves to be, Scottish (and by that I reckon those who’d be entitled to live in the newly independent Scotland)

How are you going to define and administer that?
Its impractical if not impossible to do so.

What about second generation ex pats? third?

😀

igm – Member
Next up can we have a learned discussion of the difference between treaties and acts? Surely between two countries it should have been a treaty not an act? Was it legal in the first place?

I’m not sure if that was a dig at a post of mine in a previous thread. But I’ll repeat it here anyway.

There were two Acts of Union. One was passed in the English Parliament, one in the Scottish. They put into place the Treaty of Union drawn up in 1702.

Just like any other international treaty, it can be cancelled by either party by a follow up Act in parliament. The irony is that only through Devolution is there a Scottish parliament able to progress this.

It wasn’t actually Rasnos who invented the English Navy it was elzorillo. And thank god he did. If it wasn’t for the English Navy we would have taken a hell of a beating in The Cod Wars!

Just like any other international treaty, it can be cancelled by either party by a follow up Act in parliament. The irony is that only through Devolution is there a Scottish parliament able to progress this.

This is incorrect, treaties generally trump domestic law , whilst a treaty can contain a provision for withdrawal (the EU treaties do), many don’t so for obvious reasons (i.e. what value is a contract if the other party can walk away).

I don’t recall the Treaty of Versailles having a “provision for withdrawal” – or was that trumped by invading Poland?

So, what about dissolving the UK? Everyone for themselves?
What would it take to get this ball rolling?

ransos – Member

Really? You want to do this again?

If you like. We could once again have a go at explaining “you can’t have it both ways”.

The simple fact is that who gets what is a matter of negotiation, not entitlement.

You better get used to this argument. You want the oil, you are gettting RBS.

or was that trumped by invading Poland?

Here is Wiki, saves me providing chapter and verse:

Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that “termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention”[2]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months’ notice.
The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party[3]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention’s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.

wrecker – Member
So, what about dissolving the UK? Everyone for themselves?
What would it take to get this ball rolling?

An English Parliament?

Druidh – no dig intended. Just stirring.

On a serious point – Scotland has a vibrant and (largely) distinguished financial services industry (excluding Fred, Jimmy Cameron and McCocckup). Leaving aside the yah, boo, sucks of the specifics with RBS, lets consider what options a major financial services company would consider in the run up to independence.

So if, as I have read, the Scottish economy post-independence would be broadly the same scale as Serbia (currently rated BB if google is correct). So you are a large FS company that requires a combination of retail and wholesale funding. You credit rating (assuming they still exist in 2106 or whenever) would be capped by the Scottish ceiling – the same goes for any large ‘Scottish’ company that funds itself in the markets. What would you do in the run up to independence? Would you want to be domiciled and considered Scottish or part of a larger economic union? Ditto a major oil company with massive capital investment plans etc.

How many PIG multi-nationals would have been able to fund their growth ex-EU without Germany led funding costs (Ok the germans stiched them up with uncompetitive labour costs, but forget that for a moment)?

mcboo

You better get used to this argument. You want the oil, you are gettting RBS.

ditch_jockey – Member

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.

Comparison with serbia teamhurtmore? – weak. really weak.

How about a comparison with Norway. a more reasonable comparison

OK, WIP on the comparisons but scale hardly going to be Norway either. But it will be interesting to see some proper analysis on the matter. This is a serious point that I doubt has been properly thought through.

Unlikely that the credit rating would be AAA – happy to be corrected though, with proper analysis mind!

But TJ, always good to keep an open-mind on these things. I have a clear view on self-determination, but unsure on economic case. So rather than start with a closed mind, I will continue to investigate if that’s ok.

Please give me the link if you know where the analysis has been done properly.

One start but more heresay than analysis

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/markets-economy/credit-ratings-warning-about-independence.16356703?_=8ab5d9bd8cdcbc45785495fd7be28918177deec3

edit and another

http://www.bondvigilantes.com/2012/01/04/happy-hogmanay-would-an-independent-scotland-still-be-rated-aaa-and-might-the-rest-of-the-uk-get-downgraded-too/

AAA is extremely likely – an oil producing nation with a balanced budget?

Whats Norways rating? Norway being a very good comparator.

thm – any analysis I’ve read suggests an AA rating for Scotland.

Open-minded, TJ, c’mon. Have a little read first, lots of imponderables and variables to consider first. The bright guys in the Treasury and the City haven’t got there yet, so doubt you want to close your mind too early.

This is where things like Oil and RBS liabilities actually do become relevant rather than pawns in a scabby points scoring contest.

AA could well be correct druidh, but I look forward to some further analysis.

I tend to trust druidh on money matters relating to Scottish independence- and the reading and knowledge I have from following this for years.

Well he should contact the Treasury, S&P and Goldman Sachs quickly. Unlike you, they don’t know so he could make a fortune!! 😉

This is what TJ does well; pretends he’s clued up about something, presents his opinions as solid facts whilst furiously googling.

Mefty – Article 4

Just a thought on this ‘Right of a people to self-determination’ thing.

If we all agree that the People of Scotland have a right to self-determination, then why can the Peoples of England, Wales and N.I. not have the same right – i.e. whether to vote Scotland out of the Union?

Does seem a little one-sided, Scotland can vote to leave but if they vote to stay the rest of the Union has to accept her?

well mount a campaign and get elected to power then negotiate with the PM for a vote ,simples.

I’d have no problem with that 😛

If we didnt want to leave, however, you’d need to convince the UN that the rest of the UK are one ‘people’. Good luck with that.

Wrecker – i hope that is not true because I would like to understand this balanced budget idea a little further. Again it will be an important variable in the credit rating post independence.

The one source I quoted above suggest that Scotland was a negative contributor but points to an Oxford Economics paper that is rather out-of-date. It would good to have some reliable up-to-date data.

To be fair, this

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4030-independent-scotland-triple-a-rating-would-be-safe-says-scottish-government

gives the other side. Don’t you just love the first comment – imagine if that alx1 was running a company that employed you. Time to move on quickly!!

What i’m referring to is the fact that the People of Scotland have the right of self-determination but the rest of the UK hasn’t on this issue – why is this?

Coming into this very late, but Paxman’s aggressive questioning was probably partly inspired by the fact that Salmond’s wiped the floor with every other Newsnight interviewer he’s had recently. Like him or loathe him, he’s good at that stuff and it gets a response, Paxman would rather look biased than silly.

muddydwarf – Member

If we all agree that the People of Scotland have a right to self-determination, then why can the Peoples of England, Wales and N.I. not have the same right – i.e. whether to vote Scotland out of the Union?

Assuming just for one second that this wasn’t a joke, the clue is in the “self” part.

Article 4 of what? Thought it might be Treaty of Union but does not seem to be

THAT all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any Port or Place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of each Kingdom; except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.

We do have the right muddy. What we don’t have is any particular interest in asserting the right.

Precisely Northwind – the People of Scotland get to determine their future with regards to the Union, but the rest of the UK don’t get the chance to determine their own position as regards the Union.
Given that rather more English people* than Scots currently want to dissolve the Union why is it the question is only available to Scots?

*Not sure of how the Welsh and Northern Irish feel about the subject.

EDIT: @Ian Munro – how would it work then if Scotland voted to remain, would the rest of the UK (assuming enough of an impetus) have the right to vote to create a new Union sans Scotland?

muddydwarf – Member

Precisely Northwind – the People of Scotland get to determine their future with regards to the Union, but the rest of the UK don’t get the chance to determine their own position as regards the Union.
Given that rather more English people* than Scots currently want to dissolve the Union why is it the question is only available to Scots?

It isn’t. Any part of the union can opt to leave, that’s self-determination. Opting to throw someone else out, or to annexe someone else, is the complete opposite.

So in other words, the rest of the UK can’t kick Scotland out, but they can withdraw from the Union and create a new Union without Scotland whether Scotland wanted that or not?

That’s what i wanted to know.