Alex Salmond and Independence

[MajorTom]

Will they get to own their surrounding waters? I can't see The Queen or Westminster letting them own them. Which will be very profitable in the near future.

 

[Scrumpet]

What exactly is the argument for not allowing Scottish MPs to vote while they're still part of the union?

 

[x42bn6]

Will they get to own their surrounding waters? I can't see The Queen or Westminster letting them own them. Which will be very profitable in the near future.

They will own their waters under the same lines as international law, the same way that the UK and Ireland (via Northern Ireland) share "sea borders".

 

[Sir A1ex]

EU but not euro like Denmark.

...or the UK.

 

[MajorTom]

They will own their waters under the same lines as international law, the same way that the UK and Ireland (via Northern Ireland) share "sea borders".

Yeah, just read a short segment about the medium line which will mean Scotland get about 90% of the oil reserves. I can see some negotiating happening though as BP and whoever has had subsidies for infrastructure investment from the government will be arguing about such clear cut ruling. That will be the most critical part and what it all boils down to.

 

[rednev]

What exactly is the argument for not allowing Scottish MPs to vote while they're still part of the union?

It would be a peculiar situation if Scottish MPs in Scottish seats were voting on matters that they know will no longer affect their constituents. Then there's the fact that Parliament would surely have to be dissolved in 2016 if MPs in Scottish seats were elected in 2015, causing disruption. It would be a constitutional mess, really.

 

[Chorley1974]

Yeah, just read a short segment about the medium line which will mean Scotland get about 90% of the oil reserves. I can see some negotiating happening though as BP and whoever has had subsidies for infrastructure investment from the government will be arguing about such clear cut ruling. That will be the most critical part and what it all boils down to.

I think the Geopolitics piece with the oil companies is quite interesting. I imagine there is quite a degree of nervousness for the oil companies, what has been a very politically stable region is potentially going to become more risky, as the oil companies have invested £billions in the North Sea in recent years, and have plans to continue to do so. If the investment is subsidised then a new country/government is a potential game changer.

 

[rcoobc]

They will still be in the Euro-Zone, if not in the EU and have to conform to the laws/regulations that they set. So it is fickle, really.

I've been without proper internet or news for a few days, did I miss something?!

 

[MajorTom]

Various forms of EU status. They will be a member of one of the associated forms if not the actual EU.

 

[rcoobc]

Various forms of EU status. They will be a member of one of the associated forms if not the actual EU.

The Eurozone?

Edit; also how is being free to negotiate on individual treaties ala Norway and Switzerland not independance?

 

[Jippy]

...or the UK.

Er, yeah, most obvious example I guess!

Not sure how much investment the oil majors have put into the region lately. The North Sea's mature field seems to be increasily being targeted by smaller firms specialising in draining the last few drops out where the majors have moved on from. It would make negotiations with the UK and Scots governments even more fragmented and complicated.

 

[MajorTom]

The Eurozone?

Edit; also how is being free to negotiate on individual treaties ala Norway and Switzerland not independance?

Yeah. If they go independent then surely their money will not be regulated by the Bank of England and will take on the Euro which will mean they will be a part of the Euro-zone at the very least. It depends on how you see independence. The power structure will remain exactly the same as what it is now.

 

[rcoobc]

They don't have to be in the euorzone. They could be EEA like Norway or EU but not euro like Denmark.

Technically they "can't" join the EU without joining the Euro. Denmark and the UK have proper opt outs, Sweden used a loophole but all subsequent countries "have" to join in.

I say that with not much confidence because who knows what the future holds

 

[rcoobc]

Yeah. If they go independent then surely their money will not be regulated by the Bank of England and will take on the Euro which will mean they will be apart of the Euro-zone at the very least. It depends on how you see independence. The power structure will remain exactly the same as what it is now.

They'll probably either keep the pound or just peg their own currency to the pound. Who knows though. We can't stop them using the pound. One day they might join the euro, who knows to be honest. I think of the three options, joining the Euro is by far the least likely.

 

[MajorTom]

Indeed, I don't think anyone has stated their intentions when it comes to that aspect. It will be interesting to see which option they choose, should the time arise.

 

[Jippy]

Technically they "can't" join the EU without joining the Euro. Denmark and the UK have proper opt outs, Sweden used a loophole but all subsequent countries "have" to join in.

I say that with not much confidence because who knows what the future holds

Ah OK. I did my international relations degree in 1999, so my knowledge is a bit out of date.

 

[711]

Technically they "can't" join the EU without joining the Euro. Denmark and the UK have proper opt outs, Sweden used a loophole but all subsequent countries "have" to join in.

I say that with not much confidence because who knows what the future holds

Well that would depend on whether the EU chose to regard Scotland as a brand new applicant or an existing member, just re-defined.

Interestingly though, if the EU did consider Scotland a new applicant it might have to consider the the remains of the UK as one too. After all, it wouldn't be the same country as it was, would it?

 

[Jippy]

Well that would depend on whether the EU chose to regard Scotland as a brand new applicant or an existing member, just re-defined.

Interestingly though, if the EU did consider Scotland a new applicant it might have to consider the the remains of the UK as one too. After all, it wouldn't be the same country as it was, would it?

Doubt the second part will happen cos it will be a ballache all round. Presumably all of the subsidies would have to be recalculated. I bet bureacrats all over are praying they vote no. The paperwork mountain will be colossal.

 

[Cheesy]

Well that would depend on whether the EU chose to regard Scotland as a brand new applicant or an existing member, just re-defined.

Interestingly though, if the EU did consider Scotland a new applicant it might have to consider the the remains of the UK as one too. After all, it wouldn't be the same country as it was, would it?

Yeah, I reckon we'd have to re-apply since we'd technically be a new nation. Although I don't see why we wouldn't get in to be honest. Since the Yes campaign have used the new nation argument for not taking on any debt if we don't get our fair share of assets, we shouldn't be able to just change our stance depending on whether it suits us or not. So I reckon we'd probably join the EU, but we'd have to re-apply to do so.

 

[Hal9000]

Indeed, I don't think anyone has stated their intentions when it comes to that aspect. It will be interesting to see which option they choose, should the time arise.

It's because they have no plan, and there plan is solely to share a money union with the UK still, despite the UK goverment saying numerous times it won't happen. Salmond and co think Westminster is bluffing

Scottish Government: "Upon independence we will be in a money union with the UK and share the pound"
UK Government: "No you won't"
Scottish Government: "Erm... yes they will, ignore them"
UK Government: "We seriously won't... we will not enter a union if Scotland are independent"
Scotland Government: "Ignore them, they're bluffing, we'll still be able to use the pound, they need us"
UK Government: "Seriously you won't...we're not lieing"
Scottish Government: "lalalala can't hear you, can't wait to use that shiny pound, lalalala'
UK Government: *Shrugs*

 

[Scrumpet]

To be fair, you left out the part where a government minister told the Guardian that it is a bluff.

 

[Plugsy]

To be fair, you left out the part where a government minister told the Guardian that it is a bluff.

It's still quite a flimsy 'in', isn't it? "someone leaked once that..."

We don't know who this government minister was. It may well have been Michael Gove or some other cretin with no say on it whatsoever. If you were putting the economy of your entire country at stake would you not expect to deliver something more concrete than an anonymous government leak to a newspaper?

So far we have a report from a senior civil servant decrying the idea, the governor of the BoE speaking of problems of an economic union without a political one, both of the parties who will form the net government insisting there shall be no union....and on the other side you have a leak.

It's just like the EU argument. The head of the Commission and various other EU officials and experts have come forward to say for a variety of reasons Scotland will not just automatically ascend to member status but it's ignored as "lies" or "bullying" and Salmond thinks he can join because his own lawyer says he can, as if things work that way.

Part of me wants Scotland to vote for independence because I'm convinced the outcome will be fecking hilarious.

 

[Plugsy]

Has there ever been a country that gained independence after sorting everything out? Genuine question. What happened in the velvet revolution?

Well in terms of referendums being held or independence being declared as part of war or revolution maybe things are slightly different. The only example I can think of is the Quebec independence vote of 1995, where I think a shared currency agreement was in place before hand. Could be wrong though.

 

[nimic]

Interestingly though, if the EU did consider Scotland a new applicant it might have to consider the the remains of the UK as one too. After all, it wouldn't be the same country as it was, would it?

Not if they follow the precedent set by the reunification of Germany. Adding East Germany was far greater a change than losing Scotland. The UK will still be considered the same country, just as Germany was considered the same country as West Germany.

 

[Plugsy]

The UK would remain as it is, part of the EU, part of NATO and on the Security Council as a permanent member. Our political, economic and military influence (that affect each in different ways) would ensure this. Plus there's the above example of German unification

 

[rcoobc]

I have a question,

How far would the rUK drop in the lists of the world?

What will our economy rank? Will we have fallen to 9th by GDP? What other major changes will have occurred?

 

[Plugsy]

I have a question,

How far would the rUK drop in the lists of the world?

What will our economy rank? Will we have fallen to 9th by GDP? What other major changes will have occurred?

This doesn't answer your question but...

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

Google says Scottish GDP is £130bn while the UK's is £1.4tn, so the UK economy without Scotland will be about £1.27tn which will leave us about in same place....i think...maybe just below Brazil

 

[Hal9000]

To be fair, you left out the part where a government minister told the Guardian that it is a bluff.

Even if that was true? Do you really think it's wise for Salmond to base his entire post independence plane a that a money union will defiantly happen? Maybe the UK government is lying, maybe EU is lying that Scotland won't automatically get member status.... How ever to have no plan b for either of these situations is just pure lunacy.

 

[Plugsy]

The entire decision is being taken on the basis of "we know someone who can vouch for us", given Mr Salmond's previous when it comes to claims of independent legal advice on various matters where he spent £20,000 in defending legal advice in respect of Scotland's position within the EU in the event of independence, that turned out in the end not to actually exist at all, I'd be sceptical as to whether this is the man who you'd want to trust on this issue. It seems a bit like basing the future of an entire country on a wink and a nod.

Surely there has to be something more substantial than this. Even if the SNP legal position on the EU is correct (which seems dubious) to challenge the community and commission itself for membership will take many, many years through the courts.

We're not at war with Scotland. There isn't gross oppression of the Scottish peoples. It isn't an imperative that the vote take place in 2014, so there is absolutely no earthly reason why Scotland could not have gathered all this assurance and support that they need but don't have, in advance of the poll.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Financially, the UK will surely be better off without Scotland (minus oil, of course but I'm sure we could negotiate something for that), right? They can not contribute anywhere near as much as they take from us in terms of free healthcare, education etc. The major downside I see to losing them is losing Labour seats that they provide, but would losing the deadwood make up for that?

Obviously the flag will look a bit naff, but I suppose we could just keep it as is really, for "historical reasons". I genuinely think I want them to vote "yes", with the caveat of all the sensible ones coming to live in cumbria or something and providing their sensible anti-tory votes.

Does anyone know what Salmond's plan actually is? Is this all just posturing or does he genuinely think he can make an independent Scotland work?

 

[Silva]

Salmond's an ideologically driven dick, we aught to keep people like him out of power. If Scotland goes independent, he's going to get overwhelmed and completely feck the country.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If we take it that the Scots become independent this year. Then the next Westminster election would be in 2015. So Scottish people won't be allowed to vote in that election. That means a Conservative govt. It follows then that there would be an in out referendum on the EU (in 2017?) which would probably go to the out campaign. The whole basis of the politics in the rUK would be very different.

I assume that the House of Lords would have to be reformed with Scottish lords leaving? What does Salmond propose as a second chamber for Scotland or isn't there going to be one?

 

[Silva]

I don't think the current Torie executives would hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If their members really pushed for it, I can just see it ending with a massive split and half the party going to UKIP.

 

[Cheesy]

Financially, the UK will surely be better off without Scotland (minus oil, of course but I'm sure we could negotiate something for that), right? They can not contribute anywhere near as much as they take from us in terms of free healthcare, education etc. The major downside I see to losing them is losing Labour seats that they provide, but would losing the deadwood make up for that?

Obviously the flag will look a bit naff, but I suppose we could just keep it as is really, for "historical reasons". I genuinely think I want them to vote "yes", with the caveat of all the sensible ones coming to live in cumbria or something and providing their sensible anti-tory votes.

Does anyone know what Salmond's plan actually is? Is this all just posturing or does he genuinely think he can make an independent Scotland work?

Well the White Paper sets out the SNP's plan, although it has come under some criticism, but the basic plan would be that Scotland's fairer and more equal, with more emphasis on bringing people out of poverty as opposed to spending money on things like nuclear weapons/wars etc.

But it's not all about him, as some seem to think. There would be an election in 2016, where he wouldn't be guaranteed to get into power since there's a chance the SNP would eventually re-brand themselves since they'd have achieved their central goal. Scottish Labour, for example, would have a good chance of getting into power. Salmond's the central figure driving the referendum forward, but he's not the only one. The important point would be that Scotland would get to elect who it's sees best fit to run it's country. If we saw that to be Salmond, fine. If not, then we'd at least get that choice.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I don't think the current Torie executives would hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If their members really pushed for it, I can just see it ending with a massive split and half the party going to UKIP.

It is their policy isn't it ,to hold one if they win the next election which they would if Scotland votes for independence?

 

[Jippy]

Well the White Paper sets out the SNP's plan, although it has come under some criticism, but the basic plan would be that Scotland's fairer and more equal, with more emphasis on bringing people out of poverty as opposed to spending money on things like nuclear weapons/wars etc.
a m
But it's not all about him, as some seem to think. There would be an election in 2016, where he wouldn't be guaranteed to get into power since there's a chance the SNP would eventually re-brand themselves since they'd have achieved their central goal. Scottish Labour, for example, would have a good chance of getting into power. Salmond's the central figure driving the referendum forward, but he's not the only one. The important point would be that Scotland would get to elect who it's sees best fit to run it's country. If we saw that to be Salmond, fine. If not, then we'd at least get that choice.

Yep Salmond wants

 

[Jippy]

Fecking phone. Yep Salmond wants Scotland to be 'more fair and equal' with higher benefits and minimum wages etc...Just don't ask him about who is going to pay for it all.

 

[Cheesy]

Fecking phone. Yep Salmond wants Scotland to be 'more fair and equal' with higher benefits and minimum wages etc...Just don't ask him about who is going to pay for it all.

The intention would be that it would come from our own resources which we'd be able to use ourselves, ie setting up an oil fund with our future oil reserves.

 

[Silva]

It is their policy isn't it ,to hold one if they win the next election which they would if Scotland votes for independence?

Manifesto's aren't really the thing I look at in politics. If certain politicians are historically inclined to do something, I expect they'll carry on doing the same. I don't think the Conservative's top dogs really want out of the EU and they'll avoid a referendum if they can. Seems to me that it's mostly something the back benchers want.

 

[Jippy]

The intention would be that it would come from our own resources which we'd be able to use ourselves, ie setting up an oil fund with our future oil reserves.

The oil revenues are obviously declining though and if some big financial services employers leave, like some have threatened, that will hurt. Much has already been said about Scotland's potential higher borrowing costs too.
I'm just intrigued about will happen. I don't want Scotland to go to shit- I have a lot of friends from there and have been there loads of times- it is a beautiful country.
I just think Salmond underestimated just how expensive and complicated the whole process will be.