Passat Estate here (2011) and takes a 160mm travel bike without a wheel off even with the driver’s seat full back. That doesn’t make it a fast bike carrying wagon, but the bi-turbo diesel one out next year might well be.

The Clyde shipyards are only kept open by huge Uk subsidies. They are doomed in an independant Scotland.

Well, subsidies are a tool of economic policy and if an iS is to be more fair than UK, who is to say that subsidising uneconomic production rather than leaving employment to market forces won’t be policy in iS.

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.

As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only

I’m very strongly in the No camp, but I don’t think you can say that. All these services have a mix of assets which exist and operating costs to continue them. Your point is valid for the latter but not for the former.

FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been “promised” to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.

Not quite true. One of the reasons Holyrood’s tax varying powers have not been used is that the cost of altering systems to cope consumes most of the benefit.

Another is that the capacity to set different tax rates refers only to taxes already operated by UK. If iS really wants to be independent and make the social change being talked about then it needs to have the capacity to have not just different tax rates, but different tax structures and regimes. For that it needs its own systems.

How’s that fit in with Dunleavey’s £200 million?

After a little peer review from colleagues at his own institution, Dunleavy raised the number. £200M was the start with the range he eventually quoted getting to the number the Treasury suggested and which Yes campaign ridiculed.

with our two we never found anything that they couldn’t work their way round. In the end just put everything we were worried about higher up or in a cupboard I put a proper lock on.

Their skills did turn out to be handy though when my wife jammed a drawer and they worked out how to release it.

Ben – the summary is 5 opinion pieces which have been done to death on here already. It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.

If that’s the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.

I did point that out to Ben a couple of pages ago but that didn’t seem to matter.

You did Ben, but you were also told that the Fiscal Commission looked at it and rejected it. I gave you the link to the reason.

That’s the problem AS has – he can’t keep saying currency union is the Fiscal Commission’s idea and then use something they rejected as plan B.

I’d forgotten Achnahaird Bay. Great topic for planning a trip down memory lane.

Ben, as AS is so keen on referring to the Fiscal Commission, let’s see what they had to say about that idea. Here’s a bit from the Technical Annex you can get from this link. Rejected in one paragraph.

International evidence suggests that informal monetary unions tend to be adopted by
transition economies or small territories with a special relationship with a larger trading
partner (e.g. between the UK and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Advanced
economies of a significant scale tend not to operate in such a monetary framework. Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution. The focus of the
discussion below is therefore set within the context of a formal monetary union.

I don’t doubt you’re right JY on the people and politics fudge, but on the quite important issues of the level of Scottish contributions and the proportion of the EU budget it receives, it is likely to take time to post results and agree what that implies.

Otherwise, the conversation might be:
EU: So, you want to join. We see from your referendum publications that you think Scotland’s one of the wealthiest nations and you’re going to improve poverty and social equality. That’s nice.
iS: Yup, all good.
EU: Great. As you’re so rich, and in fact richer than the UK was, you’ll be able to pay more than your proportional UK share. And as you’ve less social need, you’ll not be wanting as much back. Welcome in.
iS: Eh? That’s not what we meant.
EU: Well, what did you mean? Either you’re rich or you’re not. Either you have social need or you don’t. Make up your mind.
iS: Can we think about it?

no one can fudge liek the EU

Quite. I suspect they will. How long it takes and who wins the battle of give and take to get all the governments to agree is the challenge.

EU would need to know what iScotland would look like to agree the terms of joining. Full terms of separation from UK won’t be possible in 18 months, let alone clarity on the economic status of iScotland which would be needed to cover small details like contributions.

Interim measures – almost certainly. Final accession – years away and on uncertain terms.

You know Junkyard, you’re sounding remarkably like THM in that last para. Might we have consensus?

It does not seem to be saying what you claim it is saying. Furthermore you could argue it either ways to whether they maintain the opt outs as they are just syaing look we comply with the EU now and we will when we join.
I think you have been selective with your quote and i think it was poor to stop your quote at the point you did.

I didn’t stop a quote – the rest of what you list there isn’t in the draft I got from the ScotGovt website as it is draft legislation only, not an explanation as you seem to have, and I hope the link I gave earlier works. I think the wording you quote is flawed in the sense that it asserts there’s going to be no change in status. That suggests current UK opt outs and vetos can be retained. That may be the ScotGovt view but it is far from certain as none of the newer members have any.

I’m not sure what influence at the top table is worth. I may have missed it but I haven’t seen what ScotGovt would propose as being different about Europe with its influence. That ought to be articulated so we can consider if it is worth the change.

Scotland have no more or less MEP’s after independence than it does before. Given this its influence has not changed in that chamber- perhaps you wish to claim UKIP speak for them

The point is not the influence in EU. It is comparing the influence over the ultimate lawmaker before and after independence. Unlike the current position where Scotland has influence in the UK to affect how EU legislation is absorbed into law, which includes various opt outs and vetos, the draft constitution effectively says EU law goes straight into effect and Scotland will have negligible influence there.

Gordimhor – I’m looking at the document from the Scottish Government website entitled “THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE BILL: A CONSULTATION ON AN INTERIM CONSTITUTION FOR SCOTLAND”.

this one

I know, but as the debate has moved back from the trivial to the meaty issues, it is worth a reminder.

iS representation increases in other areas with in the EU

Says who? If you could point me to proposals any body of the EU governance regime is considering, that would be handy.

Wow you are able to predict the outcome. how helpful.

I’m not sure which bit you’re referring to here and a reference might be more useful than sarcasm. Apologies if I’ve picked the wrong bit to reply on, but the outcome is predicted in the draft Scottish constitution. It says:

24 Incorporation of European law
(1) Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law.
(2) Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law

It says separately that Treaties must be approved by Parliament, but the two points above effectively remove the role of Scottish Parliament in adopting EU legislation.

nothing relinquishes power more than getting the govt you did not vote for.

So please explain how moving from a position where you get legislation from a body on which you have c. 9% representation is less empowering than adopting legislation automatically from a body on which you have <1% representation?

do you want to be independent of the English at all costs

With 60 MEPs, England could have more influence on Scotland within the EU than Scotland’s own MEPs…

TRue of any member of the EU as well though

Not quite. Some have a right of veto on some subjects. Some incorporate EU law into their own law through a parliamentary process which guides or limits its application – like the UK. iS is deleting that safeguard.

Under union before and after devolution Scotland has ceded control to UK. But it still has significant representation there – at 2010 election, Scotland had 59 of 650 MPs.

A Currency Union – go read the Fiscal Commissions recommendation on how it would work and compare with the present situation and look at the impact the loss of 59 MPs influencing policy might have.

Handing control of your law to the EU means a legislature you have negligible influence in shaping – currently 6 seats of the 751. Compare % of seats Scotland has at Westminster with the % impact on EU Parliament and Commission. It makes worries about a government you didn’t vote for somewhat pointless. It is roughly equivalent to Scotland’s representation at Westminster being dropped to 5 seats.

So, I’d argue that an iS proposes to cede more control than it currently retains through the Union or EU arrangements.

Eager to help mt, so I’ve gone and bought some Yorkshire Tea. That work?

actions are what counts

Usually I’d agree, but in this case the published documents form the mandate upon which the vote will be based. What they promise is, I believe, damaging to Scotland’s prospects. For from being “if they’re mistakes, at least they’re our mistakes”, the ceding of control on so many important subjects means they’re not even our decisions.

Where do you get the notion that Scotland has not thrived under the Union? I may have missed evidence to that effect, but that’s a pretty broad statement which needs some evidence to support it.

Oddly, were genuine independence to be proposed I’d be quite open to it. But what we’re being offered is subservience to a number of countries and bodies way bigger than we are.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn’t make it true

I appreciate that THM is getting a bit hysterical, but he’s got a point: On a number of key issues where independence can be asserted the Government policy is to cede control of functions which might otherwise define independence.

The proposals for currency union, were it to happen, see Scotland less represented in decision making than under the Union. Scotland will not have the same veto capacity in the EU that UK has and under the draft constitution EU law will become effective in Scotland without being first considered by the Scottish Parliament.

Sandwood Bay, Mellon Udrigle, Bettyhill, several around Arisaig, Tentsmuir as some starters but there’ll be plenty more I’m sure someone else will suggest in a minute

I would see this as a victory for No as AS has pushed and pushed for a debate and has come away with nothing, he has made no progress.

More than that, on Salmond’s chosen timescale he would lead the negotiations in the event of a Yes vote. Last night, in my view, did not reveal the leadership or debating qualities necessary to deliver any kind of result Scotland would need. Quite simply, I do not want that man involved in the determination of my or my kids’ futures.

weather looks dreadful there this week

Indeed it is. Drivetrain grindingly dreadful to the point running became preferable. Still, there’s a wee bitty clear sky visible now and I can see the gondola for the first time today. It is all of 300 yds away.

That’s going to be a problem for the rUK government. It’s as if we’ve all been paying into a savings account, and instead of saving the money the government has been spending it

That’s exactly how it has been.

As I say, a bit of a non-issue. In the event of separation there’ll be a negotiation of the split of assets & liabilities. This is but one of many subjects of negotiation. And before you say “but the UK promised”, just think what that means when actuaries on both sides get involved.

[So basically, at the point of independence, an independent Scotland will have no pensions liability, as all the pensions will be being paid by the UK government]

Not so fast Ben. Not everyone is retired. For those yet to retire, their ultimate entitlement will be affected by pensions policies of iS. The rUK will not be picking up the full tab for a current 25 year old who retires in 40+ years. Largely another non-story about recognising liabilities at the point of independence. But nothing committed about liabilities generated thereafter.

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament

We did this many pages ago gordimor. The Lords did not remove the power. They proposed an amendment to a Bill which was accepted by the Commons (which could have rejected it). The Lords cannot pass legislation, only delay it for review or suggest amendments to it.

It is all theory really. What is proven however is that for major endurance exercises beer aids recovery and race preparation:
Andy Holden
:-)

Sometimes go out, but it is handy doing other sports. I don’t mind riding in rain, but cleaning the bike after a short ride seems a bit pointless. So I’ll go for a run or a paddle – as long as it is exercise outside I’m less troubled by the form it takes.

But there is something weirdly good about coming back muddy and knackered after several hours in the rain pushing hard enough never to feel cold. And then getting in the shower.

If you take the road to its end on the south side of Loch Euphort, you can head over Boreval and Eaval either as an out and back or as a circuit if you can get dropped at the other end. That’s good for a couple of hours.

Pick a beach and go for a run – just enjoy the scenery.

Lochmaddy Hotel does OK pub grub. Tigh Dearg was taken over and re-named Hamersay House. Haven’t beeen in since. Langass Lodge, if your budget extends to that, is the best place to eat.

Taigh Chearsabhagh[/url] is worth dropping into to see what’s on although its food is more lunch than dinner.

I think the 18 month timetable was more about trying to do it before the next Holyrood election than any thoroughly assessed timetable of what could be delivered when.

I think your assessment of the impact of the UK election is about right, but with an added ability for UK manifestos to cover negotiation points on what rUK would or would not agree to with an iS as it is inevitable that in the event of a Yes vote, the negotiating positions of the UK parties will be a significant factor in the election.

So what’s special about a Scottish parliament or the Scottish people that we get huge mistakes and cost overruns? Westminster’s track record in that direction isn’t brilliant either

Correct, but it isn’t proposing change. The Scottish Government is. So it needs to demonstrate its capacity to deliver. Which it hasn’t.

So what are you saying – that Scottish people just aren’t capable of running a country properly? Because those weren’t SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too).

You’ve been quite clear on the need to separate the independence debate from SNP and how it could be any party in future. They were public sector projects. The SNP had the last 3 years of the Creative Scotland project to demonstrate their capability.

I live and work in Scotland in a Scottish Company which is proud of what it and its people achieve. Scots (and the Poles, English, Irish, Oz etc who are all part of the modern Scotland) are capable of wonderful things. But the capacity of the public sector change machine to get bogged down in procedure and consultation and decision avoidance should not be underestimated.

Anyhow, how about those examples to give us confidence it can be done quickly and cheaply?

worries about start-up costs and EU membership are pretty short-sighted.

On the contrary Ben – the track record of change influenced by Scottish Government shows nothing to support the ability to deliver either speed or low cost:

SNH relocation. Announced Nov 2001. Achieved summer 2006. Holyrood committee examining it later condemned both the inadequate justification for the move and the cost.

Creative Scotland. Its creation announced Jan 2006. Delivered July 2010. For the effective merger of two bodies! The waste of money and the lack of clear political leadership was frigtening.

So go on, please do list examples of public sector change in Scotland which have been managed at speed and low cost to justify your confidence in both the 18 month transition timetable and the set up costs.

But then you can’t reason either with a mindset that dismisses as bullying, or whatever, any view other than your own. The iS campaign has done that so much it is as much of a turnoff as the No campign’s lack of imagination.

I keep hoping for something more useful with which to consider which way to vote but at the moment it is all heat and no light. So it is back to the White Paper which is so thin it isn’t enough for a soap script let alone the formation of a state.