The effect of a Scottish Yes vote on the rest of the UK?

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

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

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!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100285785/scottish-independence-what-does-the-political-establishment-think-its-playing-at/

Spin – Member

For 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 actual 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.

Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided. That ought to prompt some new political thinking from Westminster but I expect the usual denial.

If the one thing a yes vote achieves for rUK is killing the outmoded, regressive two-party political system, it might just have been worth it.

Surely it’s time to ditch all the coloured-tie and propaganda crap and get down to some serious pragmatism?

That ought to be the case in a post yes scenario, but never underestimate the depths to which Westminster will sink, even if it hurts the rUK to do so.

Yeah, sorry Molls. Thats what I meant. Convince people who should be natural labour voters to actually vote. Which will actually have to involve being more than just a poor imitation of the tories, with a wafer-thin veneer of a social conscience.

Say what you like about Alex Salmond, but he’s got people out voting, who wouldn’t normally be arsed

the union is deeply divided

What is the problem people have in Scotland? They certainly get a lot of spending so can’t be that. Just don’t like being controlled from a far away place? Having Scottish PMs doesn’t seem to help.