Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The answer to 1 is yes so the next 4 questions are irrelevant.

 

As for the oil I'm under the impression that it becomes Scotland's oil but that's quite a pivotal question.

I wouldn't be so sure about part 1. The Catalan situation might put paid to automatic membership.

[rossthejambo]

I was under the impression that EU membership was a certainty but I'm happy to be proved otherwise.

[trotter]

I wouldn't be so sure about part 1. The Catalan situation might put paid to automatic membership.

 

So in my hypothetical scenario that we DON'T automatically gain membership, any Scots who happen to be travelling around Europe around that time will find themselves with a world of hurt to deal with. Because you can guarantee that any such transition wouldn't go smoothly.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I was under the impression that EU membership was a certainty but I'm happy to be proved otherwise.

It depends what group of lawyers you listen to. No matter what happens, lawyers make money.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So in my hypothetical scenario that we DON'T automatically gain membership, any Scots who happen to be travelling around Europe around that time will find themselves with a world of hurt to deal with. Because you can guarantee that any such transition wouldn't go smoothly.

I think that is overstated. If you already have a British passport then there is no issue.

 

I would also doubt that the Common Travel Area will disappear.

[Patrick Bateman]

Still pmsl at the fact that this vote is being held on the anniversary of Bannockburn. The lamest thing I've heard in ages.

 

And the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup and the year before a UK General election when the Anti-Independence parties will be distracted and sniping at each other. This wasn't a coincidence. This is a perfect political storm.

 

 

A couple of questions I get from all of this Independence nonsense (as you may guess, I'm against it - can't we all just get along??):

 

1) Would an independent Scotland automatically become part of the EU?

2) If not, would the Schengen Treaty still apply for European travel, or would it change for Scots overnight?

3) Would I require a visa to remain living and working in England?

4) Would cross-border controls be instated - i.e. would I require a passport to go to my parents?

5) What happens to the UK military? Specifically the nukes at Faslane, and the number of Scottish soldiers in what would become English/Welsh units?

6) Do we automatically get possession of the North Sea oil in what would surely become 'our' territorial waters?

 

A lot of these are policy, not constitutional, matters. I wouldn't want to speculate, but I think there are enough precedents, particularly with the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland bordern, to suggest that any of problems 2-4 could be overcome with relative ease. If other countries can do it, why would it be such a problem for us? On point 5, Scotland would have its own defence Force, and, again, whilst Nukes are a policy issue, it seems highly likely that we'd vote to get rid of them. The final point is a matter of international maritime law; over 90% of the UK's North Sea oil reserves fall in what would be Scottish territorial waters. In short, they'd belong to Scotland post-independence. That aside, Scotland is a net EXPORTER whilst the UK is a net importer; we have a number of billion pound assets (Whisky, tourism) without mentioning vast renewable energy potential, both in terms of development and infrastructure.

 

The debate, it seems, has moved past whether Scotland can be independent; it evidently can. It's a matter of whether decisions regarding Scotland's economy, welfare and military (amongst others, but these are the largest) are better made in Westminster or in Scotland. Given Westminster's record over several decades, I find it astonishing that some people are convinced we'd instantly become an isolated basket case, it's simply nonsense.

[Ulysses]

I don't think there would be a fundamental issue with Scotland continuing in membership of the EU. The problem, if there is one, might be with the acceptability of the terms of that membership for the Scottish government. Even so, Scotland would find itself in the same EEA position as Iceland and Norway - which means that it would still have full access to the EU internal market.

 

Britain and Ireland operate a Common Travel Area (good man, Geoff ). In that context it is difficult to imagine how one would possibly need a passport to travel between England and Scotland given that both will be in the EEA.

[Ulysses]

The final point is a matter of international maritime law; over 90% of the UK's North Sea oil reserves fall in what would be Scottish territorial waters. In short, they'd belong to Scotland post-independence.

 

No they wouldn't. If Scotland were to vote to leave the United Kingdom, it would negotiate with the United Kingdom about the terms of its exit - including the issues of territoriality and mineral reserves. It would also have to negotiate the extent of debt it would take over from the UK - unless of course Cameron has already conceded these points, which I doubt he has and doubt he has the constitutional authority to do so.

[Patrick Bateman]

No they wouldn't. If Scotland were to vote to leave the United Kingdom, it would negotiate with the United Kingdom about the terms of its exit - including the issues of territoriality and mineral reserves. It would also have to negotiate the extent of debt it would take over from the UK - unless of course Cameron has already conceded these points, which I doubt he has and doubt he has the constitutional authority to do so.

 

Scotland could take this matter to international courts and/or the United Nations and would win based on our continental shelf. The apparent alterations made by War Criminal Blair in 1999 aren't worth the parchment they're written on, either. It's Scotland's oil.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

With all these natural resources and the net exporter status, why does Salmond want to keep the pound and effectively cede economic sovereignity?

[Patrick Bateman]

With all these natural resources and the net exporter status, why does Salmond want to keep the pound and effectively cede economic sovereignity?

 

I'm not a monetary expert, so I can't really express an opinion. What I would say is that this doesn't seem insurmountable and is something which we could resolve in the future. We'll only know when we have a parliament with the power to make these decisions, I suppose.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm not a monetary expert, so I can't really express an opinion. What I would say is that this doesn't seem insurmountable and is something which we could resolve in the future. We'll only know when we have a parliament with the power to make these decisions, I suppose.

Would you adopt the Euro? If continued membership of Scotland in the EU was conditional on adopting the Euro would you support that?

 

The reason I point this out is that monetary independence will be needed to run your own fiscal policy. A Scottish pound doesn't seem to be on the agenda for some reason.

[Patrick Bateman]

Would you adopt the Euro? If continued membership of Scotland in the EU was conditional on adopting the Euro would you support that?

 

The reason I point this out is that monetary independence will be needed to run your own fiscal policy. A Scottish pound doesn't seem to be on the agenda for some reason.

 

Again Geoff, I claim to have enough monetary knowledge to say either way, it's clearly a hurdle of some kind, but it can definitely be overcome. What I would say is that our monetary system post-independence would be better tailored to Scotland's economic needs than it is now. We'd have the full (or significantly more, depending on your outlook) control over our direction than we have just now, as we'll have 100% control over our affairs rather than 10%. I'd point towards devolution being a relative success, as I've said, I have no doubt our economic, military and welfare decisions would be better considered and decided in Scotland, rather than in London/South East England, where their needs are greatly different. The nitty gritty can be sorted out in time.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Again Geoff, I claim to have enough monetary knowledge to say either way, it's clearly a hurdle of some kind, but it can definitely be overcome. What I would say is that our monetary system post-independence would be better tailored to Scotland's economic needs than it is now.

 

Would the PIIGS group of countries in Europe say that?

 

We'd have the full (or significantly more, depending on your outlook) control over our direction than we have just now, as we'll have 100% control over our affairs rather than 10%. I'd point towards devolution being a relative success, as I've said, I have no doubt our economic, military and welfare decisions would be better considered and decided in Scotland, rather than in London/South East England, where their needs are greatly different. The nitty gritty can be sorted out in time.

 

See above.

 

Scotland would have fiscal autonomy with independence of course but in terms of a fiscal policy it would be restricted by whomever it shackled the currency to as they would be the effective underwriter of Scottish debt. Look at how Merkel was received in Greece, for example.

 

Scotland does have many reasons to be positive for its economic outlook relative to the UK but the idea that the 1948 welfare state settlement is safer in an independent Scotland is nonsense, unless Scotland has full economic powers of its own including its own currency. That gives Scotland the added flexibility of inflation and pseudo-default (printing money) as well as austerity when deficit funding becomes onerous (and Scotland will have a deficit on Day 1, no matter the outcome).

[IMA MAROON]

Scottish people voting for seperation because they want to be rich off the oil and claiming to be socialists.

 

Let's bump the working classes south of the border, we will be minted.

[Boris]

Scottish people voting for seperation because they want to be rich off the oil and claiming to be socialists.

 

Let's bump the working classes south of the border, we will be minted.

 

Perhaps it would inspire them?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Perhaps it would inspire them?

Communism - just a matter of time!

[Dunks]

I'm a little confused as to the opposition from the "no" camp in allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote - surely the "no" camp should be campaigning just the same with that demographic to evidence why "no" is better than "yes"?

 

It's almost as if it's a given that the majority of 16 & 17 year olds will automatically vote "yes". I certainly do not believe that will be the case.

[Hibee Hater]

Come on lads we are scotland. Lets get this done. Independence is the way forward we don't want to be part of Britain anymore and we don't need to.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Come on lads we are scotland. Lets get this done. Independence is the way forward we don't want to be part of Britain anymore and we don't need to.

But you want to keep the British currency. Why?

[Coco]

I was under the impression that EU membership was a certainty but I'm happy to be proved otherwise.

 

I am not sure if the outcome of this court case was revealed? Is the Scottish Government to be forced to say what the legal advice it has or has not received is or isn't?

[sarissa]

It depends what group of lawyers you listen to. No matter what happens, lawyers make money.

 

At the end of the day it will be a political decision.

 

From its birth and for all its history, the EU has promoted its expansion - of member states, of population and of political power,

 

Once any group of people have been given EU citizenship, it has never been taken away - not from unwanted immigrants, criminals, the insane or people living in former colonies 6,000 miles away.

 

The idea that it would start to do so with Scotland - and the idea that the EU would be say " Right, that's enough, this is as big as we ever want to be" is laughable.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

At the end of the day it will be a political decision.

 

From its birth and for all its history, the EU has promoted its expansion - of member states, of population and of political power,

 

Once any group of people have been given EU citizenship, it has never been taken away - not from unwanted immigrants, criminals, the insane or people living in former colonies 6,000 miles away.

 

The idea that it would start to do so with Scotland - and the idea that the EU would be say " Right, that's enough, this is as big as we ever want to be" is laughable.

The difference here though is that this would be the first time a member state has split up and the Scottish precedent would be closely watched by Lombardy, Cataluyna, the Flemish etc. A headache for the Council if not the Commission.

[Hibee Hater]

But you want to keep the British currency. Why?

 

I never said i did?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I never said i did?

Fair point. I was pointing out that was SNP policy should they win. Are you in favour of a Scottish pound then?

[Ulysses]

Scotland could take this matter to international courts and/or the United Nations and would win based on our continental shelf. The apparent alterations made by War Criminal Blair in 1999 aren't worth the parchment they're written on, either. It's Scotland's oil.

 

Scotland would not have the locus standi to take this to the international courts until it had seceded from the United Kingdom. It would not secede without reaching agreement with the UK on these matters. Therefore any claim it would subsequently make would be inadmissible because the claim would seek to overturn an agreement freely entered into by Scotland.

 

You omitted to deal with the issue of debt share apportionment.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Scotland would not have the locus standi to take this to the international courts until it had seceded from the United Kingdom. It would not secede without reaching agreement with the UK on these matters. Therefore any claim it would subsequently make would be inadmissible because the claim would seek to overturn an agreement freely entered into by Scotland.

 

You omitted to deal with the issue of debt share apportionment.

Uly, out of interest since I don't know the ins and outs, did the Irish state accept any UK national debt share from

1921 onwards?

[Ulysses]

Uly, out of interest since I don't know the ins and outs, did the Irish state accept any UK national debt share from

1921 onwards?

 

Yes, though I can't recall the precise details.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yes, though I can't recall the precise details.

 

 

Ok, went and found some details in the Boundary Commission article on Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commission_(Ireland)

[Darren]

To have no mention of Devo-Max is a slap in the face to the Scottish electorate. Should the NO campaign win and the status quo remains, then surely the clamour for devo-max (currently the most popular option!) will grow and you will have in effect a repeat of the Scottish Constitutional Convention of the late 80's/90's. Labour will fudge the issue otherwise they would have come out in support of it already. Yet again the Scottish electorate are treated as patsies and don't get the opportunity to vote for what they actually want.

 

Which, may in turn, play into the Yes campaign's hands.

 

Salmond has already grasped the nettle over the fact that the UK Government was responsible for vetoing the Devo Max option. I think Cameron has taken a huge risk. The more I think about it, the more likely independence seems to me.

 

It's incredible to think I'll have a vote on whether or not Scotland becomes independent. Momentous.

[Sarah O]

Salmond has already grasped the nettle over the fact that the UK Government was responsible for vetoing the Devo Max option. I think Cameron has taken a huge risk. The more I think about it, the more likely independence seems to me.

 

It's incredible to think I'll have a vote on whether or not Scotland becomes independent. Momentous.

 

[reaths17]

your not voting for independence, your voting to swap westminster for brussels. remaining dependant on the EU is not independance. we will still be bowing to someone elses wishes but with the EU we will have even less influence than we do with england.

 

 

[kingantti1874]

Have avoided this debate but good to see sturgeon admit that interest rates would be set by London, or alternatively Brussels - personally I can't wait for the fiscal autonomy promised ;-)

 

I can't believe how good an idea it is to hand a vote on the future of our country to kids not trusted enough to walk into ASDA and buy sparklers...

 

God help us

[kingantti1874]

your not voting for independence, your voting to swap westminster for brussels. remaining dependant on the EU is not independance. we will still be bowing to someone elses wishes but with the EU we will have even less influence than we do with england.

 

Correct - if Spain, Greece Ireland had ability to set own in west rates now there problems would be alleviated massively, but of course that doesn't suit ze Germans

[Sydney from Sydney]

Does anyone know how much mortgage rates would increase if Scotland gained automatic entry into the euro monetary mechanism? I know the European base rate is higher than the UK.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Does anyone know how much mortgage rates would increase if Scotland gained automatic entry into the euro monetary mechanism? I know the European base rate is higher than the UK.

Given that mortgage interest rates don't reflect reality thanks to the daft ZIRP being followed by the US and W Europe, I don't think this will be in any way relevant.

[dobmisterdobster]

your not voting for independence, your voting to swap westminster for brussels. remaining dependant on the EU is not independance. we will still be bowing to someone elses wishes but with the EU we will have even less influence than we do with england.

Scotland would be an actual country instead of just a region. There is a big difference.

As for "less influence".

 

Scotland (as a region of the UK), Population: 5,254,800 , 6 MEPs

 

Luxembourg, Population: 509,074, 6 MEPs

 

Denmark, Population: 5,543,453, 13 MEPs

 

See a problem here?

[Boris]

your not voting for independence, your voting to swap westminster for brussels. remaining dependant on the EU is not independance. we will still be bowing to someone elses wishes but with the EU we will have even less influence than we do with england.

 

But an independent Scottish Govt could set rates of income tax, for example, VAT, etc etc. Something it can't do now. It can also choose its own foreign policy etc

 

I'm intrigued at what level of influence you think Scotland currentlky has at Westminster. Westminster politics is not about the UK. It's about making sure that the swing demographic in the South East of England is kept sweet so, due to the undemocratic nature of the Westminster voting system, whichever party that succeeds there, will probably win the election.

[Sydney from Sydney]

Given that mortgage interest rates don't reflect reality thanks to the daft ZIRP being followed by the US and W Europe, I don't think this will be in any way relevant.

I thought European rates were higher than the US, Japan and the UK. Silly me.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

But an independent Scottish Govt could set rates of income tax, for example, VAT, etc etc. Something it can't do now. It can also choose its own foreign policy etc

 

I'm intrigued at what level of influence you think Scotland currentlky has at Westminster. Westminster politics is not about the UK. It's about making sure that the swing demographic in the South East of England is kept sweet so, due to the undemocratic nature of the Westminster voting system, whichever party that succeeds there, will probably win the election.

But under these plans, it still couldn't sell its own sovereign debt, meaning higher spending = higher taxes. Now, whether that is a good thing or not is debatable but at least it will truly hold Holyrood accountable for its spending.

[Boris]

But under these plans, it still couldn't sell its own sovereign debt, meaning higher spending = higher taxes. Now, whether that is a good thing or not is debatable but at least it will truly hold Holyrood accountable for its spending.

 

Either way Geoff, debt is going to be there.

 

As you say, Holyrood will be truly accountable. Which is what a Govt should be.

 

Newsnight Scotland was quite interesting last night, with Prof John Curtiss asking some good questions and, rather pleasingly, taking up the Devo-max "what happens next" question with the Unionists on the panel.

 

In other words, it's clear that Labour & the Tories are not going to offer any other form of constitutional change/enhanced powers to Holyrood should the No vote win the referendum.

 

In the interest of balance, the SNP chap was a bit of a fud too. The Green chap seemed to be the only one without an axe to grind.

 

This argument isn't simply about economics, but also political integrity and, dare I say, democracy.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Boris

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Either way Geoff, debt is going to be there.

 

As you say, Holyrood will be truly accountable. Which is what a Govt should be.

 

Newsnight Scotland was quite interesting last night, with Prof John Curtiss asking some good questions and, rather pleasingly, taking up the Devo-max "what happens next" question with the Unionists on the panel.

 

In other words, it's clear that Labour & the Tories are not going to offer any other form of constitutional change/enhanced powers to Holyrood should the No vote win the referendum.

 

This argument isn't simply about economics, but also political integrity and, dare I say, democracy.

I agree, which is why it will be fascinating to watch. I just wonder about the engagement levels of some of the electorate though.

[reaths17]

But an independent Scottish Govt could set rates of income tax, for example, VAT, etc etc. Something it can't do now. It can also choose its own foreign policy etc

 

I'm intrigued at what level of influence you think Scotland currentlky has at Westminster. Westminster politics is not about the UK. It's about making sure that the swing demographic in the South East of England is kept sweet so, due to the undemocratic nature of the Westminster voting system, whichever party that succeeds there, will probably win the election.

 

 

if we dont like some of merkels policies can we still veto them. if she decides she wants a cut of the oil/gas can we say no?

as it stands, for a country surrounded by water our fishing industry is none existant, yes i know that was a british disaster to give this away but with real independence we would have all the oil/gas, fishing etc belonging to us. norway with the same resources is coping pretty well. so why do we need to be ruled by the EU.

 

the SNP can either give us "independence" or shut the**** up

[Boris]

if we dont like some of merkels policies can we still veto them. if she decides she wants a cut of the oil/gas can we say no?

as it stands, for a country surrounded by water our fishing industry is none existant, yes i know that was a british disaster to give this away but with real independence we would have all the oil/gas, fishing etc belonging to us. norway with the same resources is coping pretty well. so why do we need to be ruled by the EU.

 

the SNP can either give us "independence" or shut the**** up

 

Your Norwegian allusion in relation to the EU is a good one.

 

Do you know that for Norway to trade with the EU their parliament HAS to pass laws harmonising aspects of Norwegian law with EU law? At least within the EU you would have a voice to debate these things, unlike the Norwegians...

[Vincent B.A]

But an independent Scottish Govt could set rates of income tax, for example, VAT, etc etc. Something it can't do now. It can also choose its own foreign policy etc

 

I'm intrigued at what level of influence you think Scotland currentlky has at Westminster. Westminster politics is not about the UK. It's about making sure that the swing demographic in the South East of England is kept sweet so, due to the undemocratic nature of the Westminster voting system, whichever party that succeeds there, will probably win the election.

 

 

I'm really not sure that setting VAT and changing tax levels is such a great thing. I cant see any evidence to suggest that these would come down but I can envisage them going up. Scotland has a massive proportion of its work force in the public sector and we'd have to pick up the bill for that ourselves. We would also have to take a slice of the UK government budget deficit and have huge costs for setting up and running an independent nation.

 

Foreign policy - yes we can have our own policy but we will not be anywhere near as influencial as the Great British influence. We'd be looking at having a small armed forces to protect key assests in Scotland like the north sea. I dont think we'd have any sort of power to intervene in external affairs.

 

We already have our own Parliament where we can set policy and manage importnant services like the NHS. I think influencing Westminter is become less of an importance than it once was.

[Boris]

I agree, which is why it will be fascinating to watch. I just wonder about the engagement levels of some of the electorate though.

 

Well, I'd happily offer my services as a benign dictator in the interim...

 

I hope that what we see is a proper debate about the pros and cons with actual arguments being presented.

 

I distrust the press and how correct these arguments will be in print, from both sides.

 

But most of all I would hope that the electorate do not see this as a short term fix i.e. what's in it for me. This isn't so much about my future, but my son's future and his kid's futures etc etc etc

 

Any benefits will not be felt for a good decade I would imagine, but is it a risk worth taking? For me, the status quo is not giving the Scottish electorate what it wants....and there we are back to devo-max and, hopefully, a federalised UK. BUt the chancers at Westminster know this isn't in THEIR interests (forget about the people, this is about keeping the political hegemony going!)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Your Norwegian allusion in relation to the EU is a good one.

 

Do you know that for Norway to trade with the EU their parliament HAS to pass laws harmonising aspects of Norwegian law with EU law? At least within the EU you would have a voice to debate these things, unlike the Norwegians...

This needs to be qualified. These measures are to allow Norway to enjoy free trade with the EU. Norway could trade in the same fashion as the US, Asia, Australia etc if it chose to do so.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Well, I'd happily offer my services as a benign dictator in the interim...

 

I hope that what we see is a proper debate about the pros and cons with actual arguments being presented.

 

I distrust the press and how correct these arguments will be in print, from both sides.

 

But most of all I would hope that the electorate do not see this as a short term fix i.e. what's in it for me. This isn't so much about my future, but my son's future and his kid's futures etc etc etc

 

Any benefits will not be felt for a good decade I would imagine, but is it a risk worth taking? For me, the status quo is not giving the Scottish electorate what it wants....and there we are back to devo-max and, hopefully, a federalised UK. BUt the chancers at Westminster know this isn't in THEIR interests (forget about the people, this is about keeping the political hegemony going!)

That would be good but I fear "jam today" if you vote for us and "Armageddon" if you vote for them will be wheeled out by all sides. Hope I'm proven wrong.

[Boris]

I'm really not sure that setting VAT and changing tax levels is such a great thing. I cant see any evidence to suggest that these would come down but I can envisage them going up. Scotland has a massive proportion of its work force in the public sector and we'd have to pick up the bill for that ourselves. We would also have to take a slice of the UK government budget deficit and have huge costs for setting up and running an independent nation.

 

Foreign policy - yes we can have our own policy but we will not be anywhere near as influencial as the Great British influence. We'd be looking at having a small armed forces to protect key assests in Scotland like the north sea. I dont think we'd have any sort of power to intervene in external affairs.

 

We already have our own Parliament where we can set policy and manage importnant services like the NHS. I think influencing Westminter is become less of an importance than it once was.

 

What's the point in being able to run your own stuff if you are reliant on Westminster for funding?

 

And who says tax increases would be a bad thing?

 

Taxation needs reset and looked at. Make it transparent, rather than hidden as so much of it is. Lose the hidden taxes and increase income tax and people may actually be better off!

 

Would you want us to have any power to intervene in external affairs? How much has the UK spunked (in financial & human terms) on ill advised forays into the desert, for example?

 

Edited October 16, 2012 by Boris

[Boris]

This needs to be qualified. These measures are to allow Norway to enjoy free trade with the EU. Norway could trade in the same fashion as the US, Asia, Australia etc if it chose to do so.

 

Which is what I said Geoff. To trade with the EU.

 

Sure, the rest of the world may have other requirements, but would seem daft to dismiss the biggest market on your doorstep, doesn't it?