Scotland votes no to Independence

[kylemore]

If there was a yes vote when would Scotland actually become independent ?


I also notice that no pro-independence contributors on here have responded to my comments on NHS prescriptions and University fees

1 - ASAP, I do not trust an inch the people we will be negotiating with, however it's thought that transfer of sovereignty would take place around May 2016.

2 - Because in the great scheme of things it's irelevent - it's a bit like a Yankee in 1776 saying he's against American Independence because the "Founding Fathers" have not adequately explained how street cleaning in Boston's going to be paid for after Independence!

 

[ainsworth74]

1 - ASAP, I do not trust an inch the people we will be negotiating with, however it's thought that transfer of sovereignty would take place around May 2016.

Good! The feeling is mutual :P

 

[ExRes]

1 - ASAP, I do not trust an inch the people we will be negotiating with, however it's thought that transfer of sovereignty would take place around May 2016.

2 - Because in the great scheme of things it's irelevent - it's a bit like a Yankee in 1776 saying he's against American Independence because the "Founding Fathers" have not adequately explained how street cleaning in Boston's going to be paid for after Independence!

What a load of guff, explaining how a Scottish government is going to find around a quarter of a billion pounds a year is nothing like street cleaning in Boston and is most certainly not irrelevant, if that's the attitude of your potential leaders then good luck mirroring your economy on that of Zimbabwe

 

[kylemore]

What a load of guff, explaining how a Scottish government is going to find around a quarter of a billion pounds a year is nothing like street cleaning in Boston and is most certainly not irrelevant, if that's the attitude of your potential leaders then good luck mirroring your economy on that of Zimbabwe

Let me explain - 100% of Scottish Oil/Gas/Whisky Tax revenues which currently go to the British Exchequer and which we at present only get a proportion back will after Independence be entirely ours out of which I'm sure we can find "a quarter of a billion pounds" - after all that can't be that much more than say 3 month's expenditure on Crossrail for instance?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good! The feeling is mutual :P

That it's come to this after "300 Glorious Years Together"

 

[scotsman]

It's conversations like these that push people to yes votes.

 

[Oswyntail]

Let me explain - 100% of Scottish Oil/Gas... will after Independence be entirely ours out ...

Well, to an extent. There will, of course, be negotiation regarding where the territorial waters extend to; add to that a certain amount of haggling over the relative contributions of London based firms. Or is the oil industry to be "nationalised" without compensation - that'll encourage inward investment. The negotiations on those points alone will give immense scope for fun.
If anyone maintains that this is "non-negotiable", then you must surely allow for equally "non-negotiable" stances from the UK side.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well, to an extent. There will, of course, be negotiation regarding where the territorial waters extend to; add to that a certain amount of haggling over the relative contributions of London based firms. Or is the oil industry to be "nationalised" without compensation - that'll encourage inward investment. The negotiations on those points alone will give immense scope for fun.
If anyone maintains that this is "non-negotiable", then you must surely allow for equally "non-negotiable" stances from the UK side.

Unfortunately Scotland already has its own territorial jurisdiction that continues out to sea, so we already know which oil fields are legally ours. This includes Rockall, which from the very start was designated part of Scotland, so any claim the UK has to it and its surrounding areas would immediately transfer to the independent Scottish state. These claims are just as absolute as the fact that Scotland wouldn't be taking Berwick-upon-Tweed. However, it is clearly the case that the Scottish negotiating team would be able to use what the country has a legal right to as bargaining chips, if need be.

Existing business contracts would have to remain as-is, but any new contracts could be done differently. Even if a state-owned oil company was not created it would be possible to tax commercial operations in order to receive more funds than are currently raised. For an oil company, an investment in Scotland (given the correct geological conditions) is a good investment even if extra taxes are imposed, as the region is spectacularly politically and legally stable (independence wouldn't change that too much, if at all, given that it's not a 'revolution', and there's nowhere near the same risk as there is for oil investments in the Arab or developing world.

 

[Abpj17]

What I'm saying is that at all points, the possibility of Scotland becoming independent was far, far higher than most other possibilities that the UK Goverment have contingency plans for. The effect of Scottish independence upon the remaining UK would be spectacular, especially when it has a third of the land mass and all your nuclear weapons. Even Canada made preparations in case the Quebecois won.

Companies have said various things about their preparations for a Yes vote but none have actually said they would pick up sticks and leave. Whether they feel they need to or not is dependent upon the outcomes of the negotiations. Even if RBS or others have to split their banking businesses into Scotland and rUK in order to satisfy EU rules, there is no absolute need for them to move all their headquarters jobs down to London because there's no necessity to actually make decisions in the same country that your headquarters is located in. If it makes sense economically to keep operations up here, as moving an entire labour force down to London would be a rather expensive affair, then they will do that.

The amount of land isn't a big deal - it's sparsely populated for the most part. Nuclear weapons would be moved or an agreement to keep them there.

Companies have said they would pick up sticks and leave - or rather move their registered offices. It's reasonable to suggest many would keep staff north of the border, but taxes paid south.

There was an interesting piece on the Telegraph website today about the Northern Isles being closer to Norway than London, and whether they would want to stay with an Independence Scotland (and that quite a lot of the oil was theirs!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-isles-where-Viking-blood-still-flows.html

 

[Flamingo]

Unfortunately Scotland already has its own territorial jurisdiction that continues out to sea, so we already know which oil fields are legally ours. This includes Rockall, which from the very start was designated part of Scotland, so any claim the UK has to it and its surrounding areas would immediately transfer to the independent Scottish state. These claims are just as absolute as the fact that Scotland wouldn't be taking Berwick-upon-Tweed. However, it is clearly the case that the Scottish negotiating team would be able to use what the country has a legal right to as bargaining chips, if need be.

Existing business contracts would have to remain as-is, but any new contracts could be done differently. Even if a state-owned oil company was not created it would be possible to tax commercial operations in order to receive more funds than are currently raised. For an oil company, an investment in Scotland (given the correct geological conditions) is a good investment even if extra taxes are imposed, as the region is spectacularly politically and legally stable (independence wouldn't change that too much, if at all, given that it's not a 'revolution', and there's nowhere near the same risk as there is for oil investments in the Arab or developing world.

Any claims over Rockall might cause a diplomatic spat with Dublin...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall#Ireland

.Ireland

The Irish naval vessel, LE Roisin, on routine patrol at Rockall 230 nautical miles off the north-west coast of Ireland, 12 October 2012
The Irish claims to the rock are based on its proximity to the Irish mainland.[56] Ireland has never formally claimed sovereignty over Rockall, but formally rejected the British territorial claim, "which would be the basis for a claim to a 12 mile territorial sea".[57] Additionally, Ireland regards Rockall as irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) as the rock is uninhabitable.[2][58][59]

In 1988, Ireland and the United Kingdom signed an EEZ boundary agreement, ignoring the rock, that includes Rockall within the United Kingdom's EEZ.[2]

In October 2012, the Irish Independent published a picture of the Irish Navy ship L.E. Roisin sailing past Rockall, and claimed that it was defending Ireland's sovereign rights to the rock.[60]

 

[Giugiaro]

Bitching over rocks. Heck...


Kinda reminds me of something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands


Is this still a thing?

 

[ExRes]

It's conversations like these that push people to yes votes.

Why ?

What is wrong with a conversation about how an independent Scotland is going to survive in the real financial world ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The amount of land isn't a big deal - it's sparsely populated for the most part. Nuclear weapons would be moved or an agreement to keep them there.

Companies have said they would pick up sticks and leave - or rather move their registered offices. It's reasonable to suggest many would keep staff north of the border, but taxes paid south.

There was an interesting piece on the Telegraph website today about the Northern Isles being closer to Norway than London, and whether they would want to stay with an Independence Scotland (and that quite a lot of the oil was theirs!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-isles-where-Viking-blood-still-flows.html

The amount of land is a big deal, even if it isn't densely populated. The problem of Trident is that there is no good place to relocate it to down south, since it was put in Faslane because it is a magnificent place to put a naval base and Coulport (the more important one) is a fantastic place to store the nukes. If you watched the STV panel debate last night Patrick Harvie (of the Greens, for Yes) was saying that the result of a Yes vote would be to push Trident over the edge, since the military case for it is weak, the economic case for it is abysmal and after a Yes vote the cost of renewing it would include the biblical cost of replacing HMNB Clyde in England. The independent Scottish state is under no obligation to allow the rUK continued access to the base. Access could be agreed but it would depend upon Scotland approving it.

Any claims over Rockall might cause a diplomatic spat with Dublin...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall#Ireland

That's why I worded it in the way I did. After a Yes vote the United Kingdom would no longer be involved in that territorial dispute, replaced by the new independent Scottish state. The rUK cannot make a new claim to it based on the proximity of Northern Ireland because the UK had deemed it to be exclusively in Scotland.

 

[Clip]

The amount of land is a big deal, even if it isn't densely populated. The problem of Trident is that there is no good place to relocate it to down south, since it was put in Faslane because it is a magnificent place to put a naval base and Coulport (the more important one) is a fantastic place to store the nukes. If you watched the STV panel debate last night Patrick Harvie (of the Greens, for Yes) was saying that the result of a Yes vote would be to push Trident over the edge, since the military case for it is weak, the economic case for it is abysmal and after a Yes vote the cost of renewing it would include the biblical cost of replacing HMNB Clyde in England. The independent Scottish state is under no obligation to allow the rUK continued access to the base. Access could be agreed but it would depend upon Scotland approving it.

Hasnt Salmond already said that he would want Scotland Nuke free? If so thats a hell of a lot of jobs on th eline not to mention the supply trade in the west of Scotland.

 

[kylemore]

Hasnt Salmond already said that he would want Scotland Nuke free? If so thats a hell of a lot of jobs on th eline not to mention the supply trade in the west of Scotland.

Around 5-600 depending on Trident according to UK MOD. Easily soaked up by proposed Scottish Defense Forces.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, to an extent. There will, of course, be negotiation regarding where the territorial waters extend to; add to that a certain amount of haggling over the relative contributions of London based firms. Or is the oil industry to be "nationalised" without compensation - that'll encourage inward investment. The negotiations on those points alone will give immense scope for fun.
If anyone maintains that this is "non-negotiable", then you must surely allow for equally "non-negotiable" stances from the UK side.

"London Based Oil Firms" presumably fulfill their legal Tax obligations in say Russia, Norway, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Alaska etc etc - if they didn't they'd be thrown out!

Why should the situation be different in Scotland?

 

[Clip]

Around 5-600 depending on Trident according to UK MOD. Easily soaked up by proposed Scottish Defense Forces.

So youre saying half the population of Helensburgh are now going to join the forces? Amazing.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Hasnt Salmond already said that he would want Scotland Nuke free? If so thats a hell of a lot of jobs on th eline not to mention the supply trade in the west of Scotland.

If your main justification for keeping Trident is the few hundred jobs it provides in Argyll and Bute you're not winning. For the cost of Trident you could employ several orders of magnitude more people. Simply paying the current Faslane staff the same amount to sit around doing absolutely nothing all day would be spectacularly cheaper than continuing to fund Trident.

 

[Clip]

If your main justification for keeping Trident is the few hundred jobs it provides in Argyll and Bute you're not winning. For the cost of Trident you could employ several orders of magnitude more people. Simply paying the current Faslane staff the same amount to sit around doing absolutely nothing all day would be spectacularly cheaper than continuing to fund Trident.

I wasnt trying to justify anything at all just pointing out that there would be a lot of job losses so get off your soapbox.

 

[Oswyntail]

......
"London Based Oil Firms" presumably fulfill their legal Tax obligations in say Russia, Norway, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Alaska etc etc - if they didn't they'd be thrown out!

Why should the situation be different in Scotland?

Because, perhaps, they might consider the level of those tax obligations to be starting completely from scratch - new country and all that, and one that desperately needs whatever oil money they can get. As I said, the negotiations could be fun.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Let me explain - 100% of Scottish Oil/Gas/Whisky Tax revenues which currently go to the British Exchequer and which we at present only get a proportion back will after Independence be entirely ours out of which I'm sure we can find "a quarter of a billion pounds" - after all that can't be that much more than say 3 month's expenditure on Crossrail for instance?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That it's come to this after "300 Glorious Years Together"

What will happen to the jobs of all those civil servants and m.o.d. people working in Scotland surplus to the requirements of Scotland? I assume the jobs exported to Scotland from the rest of the Uk will be returned to NI, Wales and England to be taken up by people South of the border and improve our unemployment figures.
Jeff

 

[Flamingo]

Personally, I think that England and Wales should declare independence first, which would have the bonus of leaving Scotland stuck with Northern Ireland...

 

[kylemore]

So youre saying half the population of Helensburgh are now going to join the forces? Amazing.

5-6 HUNDRED dependent on Trident - based on the MOD's own estimation.

Plus there's 5 years to sort it out - re-employing 5-600 people - not a cataclysmic problem for a modern European country of over 5million people one would have thought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because, perhaps, they might consider the level of those tax obligations to be starting completely from scratch - new country and all that, and one that desperately needs whatever oil money they can get. As I said, the negotiations could be fun.

Well if they don't honour their Tax obligations they can sling their hook.

There'll be plenty of non "London based oil companies" scrambling to take their place. But that won't happen - they'll pay up as they do everywhere else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What will happen to the jobs of all those civil servants and m.o.d. people working in Scotland surplus to the requirements of Scotland? I assume the jobs exported to Scotland from the rest of the Uk will be returned to NI, Wales and England to be taken up by people South of the border and improve our unemployment figures.
Jeff

Well stuff that is now done in London that we need done will now be done in Scotland - it ain't rocket science!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I wasnt trying to justify anything at all just pointing out that there would be a lot of job losses so get off your soapbox.

But my point is that those job losses are irrelevant when an equal or greater number of jobs can be provided (to the same people, in the same area) using significantly less money than Scotland pays for Trident at the moment.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Personally, I think that England and Wales should declare independence first, which would have the bonus of leaving Scotland stuck with Northern Ireland...

Be careful. You might give London the idea of becoming a city state. Then all the rest of us would be in the mire.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well stuff that is now done in London that we need done will now be done in Scotland - it ain't rocket science!

Agreed. But that number will be about one tenth of those moving the opposite way. You must be aware that there are far fewer people in Scotland than the rest of the UK that need administering.
But perhaps we will outsource to the cheapest supplier and you will be cheaper than Bangladesh and keep the jobs.

 

[Clip]

5-6 HUNDRED dependent on Trident - based on the MOD's own estimation.

Plus there's 5 years to sort it out - re-employing 5-600 people - not a cataclysmic problem for a modern European country of over 5million people one would have thought.

Thats just the Naval folk though - Im talking about all the support people as well . After living in Helensburgh for quite some time and having a job in the base I am well aware that there is more than just the naval folk who are directly impacted should the base close. A good story about it here

But my point is that those job losses are irrelevant when an equal or greater number of jobs can be provided (to the same people, in the same area) using significantly less money than Scotland pays for Trident at the moment.

Fact or opinion? If fact then break it down for me - show me that what you are saying with facts,figures and numbers.

Though I did like your point about just paying for them to do nothing.

 

[kylemore]

Thats just the Naval folk though - Im talking about all the support people as well . After living in Helensburgh for quite some time and having a job in the base I am well aware that there is more than just the naval folk who are directly impacted should the base close. A good story about it here




Fact or opinion? If fact then break it down for me - show me that what you are saying with facts,figures and numbers.

Though I did like your point about just paying for them to do nothing.

Perhaps Faslane could also be the base for the Offshore Supply Vessels, Pipe Laying Vessels, Diving Support Vessels etc that will be required for the development of the Clyde Oilfield - left undeveloped at MOD insistence to avoid impeding the use of the Clyde as a Trident base. Mind you knowing the Merchant Navy's opinion of the seamanship skills of the Royal Navy (dreadful), I'm not suprised that they needed as clear a path as possible to the Gareloch.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thats just the Naval folk though - Im talking about all the support people as well . After living in Helensburgh for quite some time and having a job in the base I am well aware that there is more than just the naval folk who are directly impacted should the base close. A good story about it here




Fact or opinion? If fact then break it down for me - show me that what you are saying with facts,figures and numbers.

Though I did like your point about just paying for them to do nothing.

Assuming a worst-case scenario where all the figures in this Severin Carrel piece for the Guardian are correct:

Annual cost of Trident: £2,240,000,000
Number of jobs supported by Trident across the UK: ~8000 in Scotland, ~6500 at Aldermaston and ~400 at Rolls Royce, totalling ~15,000

Cost of Trident per year per job in the whole UK: £149,333.

Now, those job figures are very, very optimistic for the exact number that the UK nuclear deterrent alone is responsible for. The MOD have estimated that the number directly employed by Trident alone is an order of magnitude lower, and nuclear technicians across the country can find other jobs related to helping with decommissioning and security of other countries' arsenals. Therefore it's more likely that each job costs the UK Government around a million pounds a year, which is pessimistically 20 times how much these people are paid on average. Those jobs then do not stimulate a lot of new economic growth in the UK, as so many parts are so specialised or imported, while using that money to invest in more jobs would employ more people, meaning more money into local economies and thus higher tax receipts that then help save even more money. The economic case for Trident is particularly weak and the cost of renewing it with new submarines will be high. There will be costs involved in decommissioning it if there is a Yes vote but those costs are going to exist for a few years and then be gone forever - the same cost will be there if we ever choose to disarm for other reasons in future, so no saving there.

Now, it is unknown whether there is oil in the west coast that was not allowed to be tapped because of Polaris and Trident. If there is oil, then there can be a reasonably sustainable replacement industry to employ people in Argyll and Bute. If there isn't oil, then the savings from Trident can be invested in programmes designed specifically to create jobs. That wouldn't have to mean Keynesian hole digging and filling as there are other sustainable industries that can work to replace the military in these areas.

 

[ExRes]

Not sure why everyone's so interested in Trident, I would've thought that a currency and a Central Bank would be slightly more important*

* Please refer to EU statement

 

[Abpj17]

The amount of land is a big deal, even if it isn't densely populated. The problem of Trident is that there is no good place to relocate it to down south, since it was put in Faslane because it is a magnificent place to put a naval base and Coulport (the more important one) is a fantastic place to store the nukes. If you watched the STV panel debate last night Patrick Harvie (of the Greens, for Yes) was saying that the result of a Yes vote would be to push Trident over the edge, since the military case for it is weak, the economic case for it is abysmal and after a Yes vote the cost of renewing it would include the biblical cost of replacing HMNB Clyde in England. The independent Scottish state is under no obligation to allow the rUK continued access to the base. Access could be agreed but it would depend upon Scotland approving it.



That's why I worded it in the way I did. After a Yes vote the United Kingdom would no longer be involved in that territorial dispute, replaced by the new independent Scottish state. The rUK cannot make a new claim to it based on the proximity of Northern Ireland because the UK had deemed it to be exclusively in Scotland.

Why is the amount of land a big deal? It'll reduce costs for rUK. A whole host of public and universal services are harder and more costly to provide to disparate populations.

Somewhere could be found for Trident (isn't Plymouth spoken about?). And of course Scotland is under no obligation to keep - rUK would need to pay for it; and Scotland would keep at least some of the jobs associated with it. Or perhaps rUK could pay France to look after it somewhere near Brest? France are comfortable with nuclear stuff, and under some combinations of start points it's closer than Faslane.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not sure why everyone's so interested in Trident, I would've thought that a currency and a Central Bank would be slightly more important*

* Please refer to EU statement

It wasn't an EU statement. It was a statement from someone who used to be involved in such things, but his statement was in his personal capacity and has no bearing on what the EU would actually do in the event of a Yes vote. The EU might prefer a No vote, so that they don't ever need to think about such problems, but if there is a Yes vote they have little choice but to follow the path of least resistance and ensure Scotland's continued membership of the EU.

Why is the amount of land a big deal? It'll reduce costs for rUK. A whole host of public and universal services are harder and more costly to provide to disparate populations.

Somewhere could be found for Trident (isn't Plymouth spoken about?). And of course Scotland is under no obligation to keep - rUK would need to pay for it; and Scotland would keep at least some of the jobs associated with it. Or perhaps rUK could pay France to look after it somewhere near Brest? France are comfortable with nuclear stuff, and under some combinations of start points it's closer than Faslane.

What you need to ask in all situations is "how would it be after a No vote?". A No vote is not a vote for everything to be the same as it has been. The Tories are very interested in privatising Royal Mail and there's no telling if at some point in the future they would stop the universal service obligation in order to increase profits. If the Highlands and Islands are going to vote SNP it is irrelevant to the Tories if they allow this obligation to go, and could be beneficial to them if they framed it as a way of allowing the remaining mainland/lowland service to not need to increase stamp prices by as much.

What I would like to know is how much it actually costs Royal Mail to transport mail around Scotland. The vast majority of the population do live in the Central Belt, the East Coast to Aberdeen or in Inverness. Does it cost that much to send up a van or two? As an independent country we could run rural services properly, involving integration of rural post, telecoms, transport and other services (the Swiss base their rural bus network on their postal system, I believe) that would save costs.

The problem with everywhere-but-Faslane is not Faslane but Coulport, where the hill has been mined out to securely store the nuclear warheads. Even if it is possible to harbour the submarines you need to have somewhere to store the nukes in a separate but nearby location and that is a problem in Plymouth because you've got a population of 100,000 right on your doorstep. At the very least the cost and timescale of replacing Coulport could sink the entire UK nuclear deterrent since whether they're allowed to use HMNB Clyde is up to the people of Scotland.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Personally, I think that England and Wales should declare independence first, which would have the bonus of leaving Scotland stuck with Northern Ireland...

Top post!

It's a sad fact that the English do not, and cannot, think in terms of English independence. The anomaly is that England hasn't had a government for 300 years but while most English people don't realise that simple truth, many of those in the other 3 nations have had their own government albeit with limitations and have been working with them for years (alongside the UK government).

I don't have a view on whether it would be beneficial or not for England to have its own government, but it is astonishing that there is never any discussion on English independence, or even on the creation of an English government such as those with limited powers already established in Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh. I can't understand the English contentment with their nation not having a government. Why would a nation be so wedded to 3 other nations who persistenly clain that they want out?

Anyway, to return to your 'bonus', I reckon the long experience of sectarianism in Glasgow makes Scotland a better equipped nation to work with NI than England could ever be. So that's another reason for me to agree with you!