Wales is heading the same way - yet being sensible about the whole thing, and not bringing up a silly (in my opinion) issue of total independence. Wales realises that there is value to having the United Kingdom, but also realises that they can maintain their own culture and heritage whilst making their own laws under devolution. Remove Scotland from the Union and we might see a lot of economic problems. As already mentioned, there will be an en-masse removal of the armed forces that will absolutely decimate local economies and populations, we could see a drop in businesses working cross-border and so on.
Taiwan isn't even recognized by the UN, let alone the security council Thank the absolute power of UN Veto to deny 23 Million their right to a voice. (And not to mention the numerous human rights abuses that get action vetoed etcetc)
I doubt very much it's a matter of Wales being sensible about it. Wales doesn't have the revenue streams that Scotland has (even though Scotland's are expected to run out during the course of this century) so it's extremely unlikely it would ever seriously propose putting the matter of independence to a vote. Wales cannot afford independence, pure and simple.
...neither can Scotland, realistically, in the long-term, which is what this is all about. Wales is being sensible and acknowledging that fact up front.
I agree, sorry I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about the impact on the local economy of removal of the bases and the manufacturing that goes with it, as well as the direct loss of jobs and wages.
What revenue stream is this? If you're referring North Sea oil and gas, the licensing of the wells is controlled by London, from London. If Scotland gained Independence Westminster has already made clear they plan to move the entire operation south to Newcastle.
I'm curious what makes you think Westminster has the power to force the companies landing NS oil from Grangemouth to Newcastle? Also how it intends to force companies to relocate from Aberdeen to Newcastle? The oil would be in Scottish territorial waters and London wouldn't have the legal authority to licence the wells...
Because London controls the licence that the companies need to drill. No licence, no drilling. Want a licence, time to move from Aberdeen. Pretty obvious really.
I am pro independence in principal but I am on the fence and open to persuasion on how practical it would be and if it would be beneficial. My biggest fear in this whole debate is that it will not stay rational and the people of Scotland will not be presented with clear ambiguous evidence by either side on the benefits or downsides of independence. My other fear is that voters will not take the time to explore the issues at hand and give this matter the attention it deserves. As someone who has read into the history of Scotland the calls for independence make more sense to me in the context of our history. Before you reach for the flame throwers this isn't in a William Wallace, King Robert the Bruce I hate the English way. Our history shows us that we have always been distinct. We have always been different in our ideals, our attitudes and our actions than our neighbours south of the border and the lure of self determination is a strong and powerful one. I also have a growing interest in economics so to me (and to most voters) the financial implications are of vital importance but we should not let them over shadow everything else. All of us who have left home to set up our own households know we would be financially better off if we lived with our families yet we choose not to do this. We choose to bear the costs and responsibilities of living our independent lives for the freedom to make our own choices and to me that is the fundamental reason for wanting to be separate. A salient point is that currently there are more giant panda’s in Scotland than there are Westminster conservative MP’s. Major choices that effect our economy, well being and relationships with the rest of the world are being taken by a government which was not elected by, or is in tune with, the people of Scotland. I also passionately believe that we have everything we need to be a successful small nation. For a tiny country on the very edge of Europe we have had a disproportionately huge effect on the world. We are historically a country of nation builders. Scottish ideas and our people have built and shaped the modern world and I see no reason at all why we can not succeed. We all ready have our own distinct legal system, education system and NHS Scotland is a separate entity from the UK NHS. Many of the institutions needed for running a country are well established here. Forming a new country is not some great unknown. In the modern world, and notably Europe, it has been a regular occurrence and we are in a far better position to do so successfully than many of the nations who have done so. Every birth has its pains, its trouble, its dark times but I believe the end result could be worth it. The crowns were joined to form the United Kingdom in 1603 but we were separate countries within the Kingdom for 104 years until the act of Union in 1707. The country was broke after the disastrous Darien affair which failed in large part due to interference and broken promises of the English government. The act of union itself was signed by the parliament, made up of the landed aristocracy, who did so for their own personal financial and political gain. Religious infighting and royal succession also played it’s part but the point is the Union was bitterly opposed by the people. If you want to cite historic examples, context is everything. For clarification I do not believe the Union has been a bad thing for Scotland, all parties have done very well out of it. Onto the issues: Will Scotland remain in the EU? From my understanding this is completely up in the air as it is uncharted territory. No member states have broken up into separate countries so no precedent exists and legal opinion seems to be divided on what would happen. It seems to come down to two options. Scotland goes through the membership process the same as any other new member country or the member countries can agree to give them special access which bypasses the normal process. What the UK government is keeping quiet about and what I think they are terrified of is what will the consequences be for the rest of the UK. There is a distinct possibility that they would also have to re-apply for membership and re-negotiate their status. The UK is not particularly popular in Europe at the moment and is viewed as a noisy neighbour who thinks they are more important than they really are. An opportunity to limit the UK's power, remove their right to the Veto or force them toplay a bigger role would be welcomed by many. What currency would Scotland have? An interesting question indeed! Until the recently the Euro would have been the obvious choice but that is now anathema to the public and has become a toxic choice. Personally I also believe that we are heading towards a Federalised European state so why break the Union with the UK to join a bigger EU wide political Union where you have even less of a voice? There is also an argument that with the current situation in the Eurozone the member states would waive the requirement that new EU members have to join the Euro which would leave us with the pound. Again if the other parties involved will let us keep the pound we will not have any control of it so what is the point of independence? Who gets the franchise? (the right to vote) I agree with extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds as if your eligible to pay taxes and join the armed forces then you have a right to choose who governs you. I do also think it is a cynical move by the SNP as that age group is probably more likely to vote on jingoistic reasons in my opinion. As for the rest of the population it should be the same as any other political vote and open to any registered voters in Scotland. As a true democracy the vote should be open to everyone living in Scotland regardless of where they were born. Also it should not be extended to those Scots living elsewhere in the world. I agree with the 2014 date as it allows both sides of the debate time to prepare detailed cases to support their views. Defence I find the idea that we would need aircraft carriers and submarines laughable. We have a population of less than 5.5 million people and with no colonial hangover we have no desire to extend a military influence beyond our borders. The idea muted has been for a Scottish Defence Force. What that entails exactly I have no idea and will see what the debate brings up. It has also been mentioned elsewhere that Scotland’s political influence in the world would be tiny. My response to that is so what? Our government should be focused on the well being of its citizens. It would only be fair that we take on our share of the national debt but what the share should be will be an interesting one to watch. The banking crisis is an interesting one too. Elsewhere people have pointed out that as an independent nation Scotland would not have been able to bail out its failing banks. To me this is a pointless argument as it’s full of what ifs and unknowns. If Scotland was independent what regulatory regime would the banks have operated under? Would we have been a member of the Euro etc? RBS and HBOS were Scottish based banks but they had become large multinationals who’s practices and acquisitions (buying ABN Amro is what really sank RBS) were approved by the city regulators and the Bank of England. It is easy to point the finger and say “they are Scottish banks” but it was the UK financial system they operated in. Would our share of the national debt include the financing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which our parliament opposed? Would it include the cost of the London Olympics, or Trident? These are all costs we are currently paying which we did not choose too. North sea oil reserves will be the biggest bun fight of the whole debate as it is really the financial lynch pin of the independence argument. It is a finite resource but we are constantly improving our efficiency at extracting it from the ground. Currently we can only extract 30-40% of the oil from a well but that is improving all the time and exploration and new discoveries are still happening. As for the oil companies they will support who ever provides the best deal. I have family and friends in the industry and George Osbornes surprise windfall tax was the biggest shock the industry has had for a long time. An independent government they have little to fear from. Oil revenues, while they last, will give us a nice footing to help diversify the rest of the economy. Lastly I want to tackle this myth of the recalcitrant and ungrateful Scots biting the hand that subsidises their life style. The Scottish parliament receives it’s funding via a block grant from the UK government and how they spend it is up to them. Choices such as free personal health care for the elderly, free prescriptions (which I oppose) and free university education come at the cost of other areas of expenditure such as infrastructure. The Scottish parliament has ran a balanced budget every year since its inception. These policies do not always work out as intended either. My niece scored the highest possible results in her exams and was refused a university place as they had already filled their slots for Scottish students. There were places available on the course but they were holding them for fee paying students. This is sums it up nicely for now. Until we get more information it is impossible to make an informed decision. The next few years will certainly be interesting. They control the licences just now because they are in UK waters. If the fields falls into Scottish territorial waters than that responsibility will move to Scotland. The idea that the entire operation will move to Newcastle is idiotic.
Err, national waters only extend 12 nautical miles from the coast. The North Sea drilling is rather a lot further away than that, in international waters, so Scotland cannot claim territorial rights to the oil. The UK (ie: Westminster) has a right to a certain block of sea where it can drill under international agreement. This automatically devolving to Scotland if independence happens isn't a certainty, and probably wouldn't happen.
Ok another possible hypothetical that's been raised, what happens if Shetland and Orkney islands decided they want to be British. Their MPs have floated the idea they become independent of Scotland and remain British after negotiating more independence and a better deal to themselves. Both sets of islands would contain a fair amount of territorial waters and those rights therein giving themselves a nice big bargaining chip, and the independence precedent would have been set. So far both sides keep details far to scarce, and the pro indepence side flogging the We'll be Scottish argument isn't winning me over the it will remain the same argument from the Antis
I think it'd be at least mildly amusing to see them go whole hog into independence, and then when it all falls flat on its arse, see them flog the people who pushed for it in the street. I couldn't give a toss either way, to be quite honest. If they want it, let 'em have it. If they do it and end up going back in time due to a lack of money, and start trading bottle caps that could be dearly amusing.
Territorial waters are different to the continental shelf rights. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. If you look at the map on page 29 of this document it shows how the continental shelf would likely be split between Scotland and the UK from a legal perspective. But like everything else in this debate it's up for discussion and we have yet to see any details from either side. If they have the right to vote on the issue then why not? The paper linked too above also shows what would happen if Orkney and Shetland split from Scotland and stayed with the UK. The rules concerning foreign islands off a nations coast and how it affects mineral rights are complex but they would legally be in Scottish waters. What I have found particularly odd during the debate so far is the pro union camp have had surprisingly little to offer. Is limiting the question to a clear yes/no option possibly a masterstroke by the separatists? If devo max is not offered as a choice and therefore not up for discussion then the choices are change or more of the same.
My biggest concern is the Unionist campaign is run as badly as the non SNP campaigns were on the run up to the Holyrood elections. Lots of negativity from Labour; not telling us why they should be elected but telling us why not to vote SNP. Personally I'm yet to be convinced independence is a fantastic idea so as it stands would vote for the status quo
*EU rules state that ANY new European state must go through the Membership process. *Only if ALL members agree (and like they can all agree on anything ATM) *EU law does not restrict any legal and arranged Movement of member state borders. (the UK would still exist just without northern Britain "Scotland"). The UK is the member state, not it's parts. You really have one choice if you want it to work, The Scottish pound. Independently controlled by your new treasury. Unless you are willing to either have the rest of the UK dictate your interest rates etc. which is not always going to favor Scotland, if ever. Please don't forget the Many Billions of dept that the Scottish banks themselves have, the UK will hand back that dept to a new Scotland. (see later) "As a true democracy the vote should be open to everyone living in Scotland regardless of where they were born." To be members of the EU your must maintain at the least a civil defence force with limited capability to support other EU states as needed (basicly what Ireland does) As Members of the UK up until any change these are as much your debts as the rest of the UK's to say, but we did not want/choose/need is not a realistic answer. [/quote] Even if you vote for independence under section 30, the UK has no obligation to hand back any current or claimed assets or resources licenced Through the UK (which as a member of the UK you have agreed to, whether you had a say or not, "current UK Laws"). And as the UK Gov have stated that they would amend those agreements to source @ Newcastle. (they will get away with this because any company who says no will loose the right to use said licence and it will be sold to a competitor.) So not idiotic, As a fact of Law you have (being a member of the UK) already agreed to the UK Have those licences and if you become independent you do get territorial waters but those licences still stand as you agreed to them. You are of course free to see if the UK can sell those licences back to you. (as licences can be bought and sold between states) Per head you receive more money in the Block payment than you make in revenue per head. while I am not greatly opposed to this state, I think by the time you have payed to form a fully functional Government with all of it's branches (law/tax/economy/services/etc/etc/etc) (full versions not the semi-state versions you have ATM) with all the laws and governance needed, you will be seriously out of pocket again think big numbers. It is not like Europe can afford to help ATM, like they did with the eastern block countries. More likely the UK will stand you a Loan & a Grant. For now, although I am sure there will be a lot to go over. I have a worrying feeling that Mr Independence will make it all political and much less about actual facts and laws, and what really needs to happen if Scotland votes yes. And for balance I am sure Mr UK will be telling you how you will all be "Dooooommed" if you leave and will be left wanting. Time will tell. But for now Don't have nightmares........
Ah cheers for that. However, it still supports the fact that an independent Scotland wouldn't just get the entire oil field income.
From what I have read these are the matters the lawyers are divided on. Will the UK still be the UK if Scotland splits off to be a new nation? If for example the UK is the only EU member who objects to Scotland bypassing the normal membership process (a big if I know but bare with me) than the arguments start on if the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" still exists. The state border has moved but the territory has not been transferred to an existing sovereign state. EU law is not my strong point and I am only going from press coverage of the debate so far. I agree. One for the International lawyers to sort out. It's sounds like a good time to be an international lawyer. The industry would be very resistant to moving the whole operation down to Newcastle. The vast infrastructure required to keep oil extraction going is based in Scotland and it is not feasible for it to move. A simple example. It would not be safe to operate helicopters over that distance. Finding unambiguous information on this is actually quite difficult. I have seen articles that claim we are a net contributor and some that claim we get funds than we raise. The last article I read by Stephanie Flanders the BBC economist was that Scotland currently ran at a subsidy of £2500 per head. That sounds a lot but as the UK is running in a deficit it was a far lower figure than the rest of the UK. I fear your right.
LOL..... I know...... And even after the vote, and IF Scotland votes yes, it will take an age to get to an agreement (land/sea/oil/money/Whiskey/etc) that can be then passed by both the UK (Parl & Lords) & Scottish Governments & then our Head of State "HM EQII" (although I can say that's not really an issue (i hope not any way)).
