Scottish Independence: SNP to be given power to hold binding referendum

So why do they apply to Denmark, large swathes of Eastern Europe and the UK had to exercise the right to not sign up them?

A EU wide treaty although only applying tighter fiscal rules to Eurozone countries would introduce the possibility of more tax harmonization across the whole of the EU and a EU wide tax for a EU bailout fund via majority voting.

We walked out because we are not willing to have a EU wide financial transaction tax. A financial transaction tax is effectively a tax on the UK as we are by far the largest center of financial services in Europe, and a EU bailout fund is effectively a Eurozone euro bailout fund.
We are also opposed to Tax harmonization of things like corporation tax.
The proposals are massively advantageous to Germany that wants to become the center of financial services in Europe, and wants to stop other countries luring foreign investment via lower corporation tax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A EU wide treaty although only applying tighter fiscial rules to Eurozone countries would introduce the possibility of more tax harmonization across the whole of the EU and a EU wide tax for a EU bailout fund via majority voting.

We walked out because we are not willing to have a EU wide financial transaction tax and not happy for such a tax to be used to bailout the EU. A financial transaction tax is effectively a tax on the UK as we are by far the largest center of financial services in Europe, and a EU bailout fund is effectively a Eurozone euro bailout fund.

I'm aware that we walked out over the transaction tax but the legislation essentially surrenders a degree of fiscal independence whether you use the Euro or not.

Again this comes back to the terms an independent Scotland would be joining the EU under. I suspect that those terms would be tougher than those under which they are currently members as part of the UK.
 
I'm aware that we walked out over the transaction tax but the legislation essentially surrenders a degree of fiscal independence whether you use the Euro or not.

Again this comes back to the terms an independent Scotland would be joining the EU under. I suspect that those terms would be tougher than those under which they are currently members as part of the UK.

I think that depends on who is subsidizing who as far as Scotland vs the rest of the UK is concerned. Is North Sea Oil still effectively resulting in Scotland subsidizing the rest of the UK.
 
I think that depends on who is subsidizing who as far as Scotland vs the rest of the UK is concerned. Is North Sea Oil still effectively resulting in Scotland subsidizing the rest of the UK.

The oil & gas question is something that would come out in the wash. Most of the oil per se is in international waters rather than Scottish territorial waters and as the fields move North, landfall is often made on the Shetlands who have rumbled in the past that they would be interested in pursuing other options than being part of an independent Scotland given the chance. It isn't automatically Scottish put it like that.

The support industry would be though and that's worth big bucks.
 
Breaking News: The Scottish government says it intends to hold an independence referendum in autumn 2014
 
dovercat said:
I think that depends on who is subsidizing who as far as Scotland vs the rest of the UK is concerned. Is North Sea Oil still effectively resulting in Scotland subsidizing the rest of the UK.

No. Mainly because service industries (including the big evil banks) contributes something like 70% of the UK's GDP - the vast majority of which is based in Southern England.

I'm not convinced that North Sea oil & gas has ever significantly subsidised anybody, plus, whenever it comes up in conversation, the Scottish side of the argument seems to simply believe the North Sea belongs soley to them... England would have a claim over a significant area much the same as the other countries bordering the sea do. In fact, I think the Eastern Counties should demand independence and sole control of our oil producing sectors of the North Sea... Oh.. And we'll tax anything coming through Felixstowe docks thats onward bound to the rest of the British Isles who have cruelly repressed and insulted us for centuries! We haven't forgot how you treated Robert Kett and us in 1549! We'll have our revenge!!

(if you can't tell, I think all this independence stuff is bloody nonsense... In case that wasn't entirely clear... ;))
 
Breaking News: The Scottish government says it intends to hold an independence referendum in autumn 2014

Conveniently that's 700 years since the Battle of Bannockburn. :lesson:

Ha Ha they've been railroaded into naming the date by Cameron. They didn't want to because they think they'll lose and the chance will be lost for another generation. Failure to name a date would have seen the supreme irony of a nationalist party blocking a vote on independence.

Well played DC. Well played.
 
as an Englishman, I would say its up to the Scots to decide (personally I hope the majority vote no) saying that, I do think to maintain the United Kingdom and to ensure the union lasts a long time; I do genuinely believe the UK should properly federalise. So all the home nations (with possibly London as a separate state to England) deal with most issues whilst foreign affairs, defence etc is the responsibility of a federal government.
 
No, it'd be a piece of cake. Independence, if it were voted for, would take a few years to work through anyway.

Other countries have joined the EU, and the main obstacles have been cultural, and to do with approaches to human rights. These issues don't apply with Scotland. Scotland would simply negotiate to leave, then immediately re-join under the same conditions as the UK, minus a few tweaks which I don't doubt would please both the Scots and the EU.

Now if Scotland also wanted to simultaniously join the Euro, then that might be quite different, but I doubt that'd happen. I really can't see the French and Germans not wanting Scotland in the EU.

Steve W

Um, other countries that have joined the EU since 2000 have been obliged to join the Euro either straight away or in the future. It is a requirement of new members to sign up to the Euro.

The odd part is, pro-independence Scots cite Norway as the shining beacon of nationhood that they now wish to aspire to but Norway isn't an EU member state and is unlikely to join any time soon.

I think the right to be independent is one that the Scots should decide on of their own accord but it irks me that some from north of the border are quick to blame the Union for their past and current ills but slow to recognise the benefits the Union has given them in the past and would continue to do so in the future.
 
Um, other countries that have joined the EU since 2000 have been obliged to join the Euro either straight away or in the future. It is a requirement of new members to sign up to the Euro.

In the real world, I think there are few other countries in Europe who would feel it was a very nice slap in the face for the English if Scotland decided to leave the UK.

As such they'd do everything possible to ensure the transition ran smoothly, and if that meant Scotland simply staying in the EU, I'm sure they'd do it.

Steve W
 
The nationalists seem to have forgotten why Scotland wanted to join with England in the first place: They were utterly bankrupt.

If the SNP leadership think they can replace the English taxpayer's subsidy with an EU one, then they are very much mistaken. Sure they'll personally be given huge payouts, but the odd development project won't pay the country's bills.

I would like to think the majority of Scots would realise this and vote down a referendum. If a vote was held in England, as it should be, then I'm not so sure.
 
The bit that angers me about Salmond's stance is this.

I can fully appreciate that he thinks it is wrong that parliament should be able to say whether they have a referendum or not. As he says, that is none of parliment's business and I agree with him.

But it is rather two faced that he doesn't want simple yes\no options but a third option of stay but with more powers and money from parliament. So in other words he wants the Scottish to be able to dictate changes to parliament that will impact residents that are not allowed to vote in the referendum.

Perhaps the English should have their own pre-emptive referendum "Should Scotland be asked to leave the UK, Yes or No".

Cheers,

Nigel
 
I don't see that is isn't Westminster's business.. After all, like it or not, that is where the whole of the UK is run from - if not, why are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's sitting in there (*cough*voting on solely English matters on occasion..). If Salmond doesn't like that, then perhaps he should have his referendum sooner, and potentially be free of meddling ;)

It's not upto Cornwall County Council to decide to have a referendum on independence is it?!
 
But it is rather two faced that he doesn't want simple yes\no options but a third option of stay but with more powers and money from parliament.

Actually, he's on very safe ground there.

When power was devolved to Scotland in the 1997 referendum the UK government offered two different options to 'no change'.

The voters could choose:

1 - No Scottish Parliament
2 - A Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers
3 - A Scottish Parliament with no tax-varying powers

Given that the UK government has already set a precedent of a multi-optin referendum in Scotland, with different levels of distancing from Westminster, they can hardly complain now if the Scots themselves want to do the same thing.

Steve W
 
It's because I'm envisaging a third option which basically boils down to

Stay in UK, but with increased powers X,Y,Z which ultimately requires additional funding from parliament.

Scottish people already enjoy a subsidy, so receive money than their English counterparts. I'm okay with the principle of this but not how the money is being used.

What I was expressing was wrong is that there could be a referendum option which demands that the rest of the UK pays Scotland more money.

I described Salmond as two faced because he is admamant that the UK can't have a say in the Scottish referendum but is happy that a Scottish referendum makes demands on the rest of the UK.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
It's because I'm envisaging a third option which basically boils down to

Stay in UK, but with increased powers X,Y,Z which ultimately requires additional funding from parliament.

Scottish people already enjoy a subsidy, so receive money than their English counterparts. I'm okay with the principle of this but not how the money is being used.

What I was expressing was wrong is that there could be a referendum option which demands that the rest of the UK pays Scotland more money.

I described Salmond as two faced because he is admamant that the UK can't have a say in the Scottish referendum but is happy that a Scottish referendum makes demands on the rest of the UK.

Cheers,

Nigel

I think the idea of 'Devo-Max' is that Scotland would decide everything for itself apart from major international issues (going to war, etc).

All tax revenue raised in Scotland would stay there and be spent there. Currently the Scottish parliament has powers to raise or lower income tax by a small amount. The idea is that they can raise or lower any tax they want as much or as little as they want, and they take the hit or the advantage in their expenditure.

It's not a particularly complicated st up. They do similar things elsewhere in the world.

Steve W
 
I think the idea of 'Devo-Max' is that Scotland would decide everything for itself apart from major international issues (going to war, etc).

But then should they be allowed to sit in Westminster voting on decisions that would affect the rest of us but not them?

I'm not particularly pro or anti independence, but it does smack of having their cake and eating it...
 
People seem to be forgetting about defence as Britains nuclear deterrant wouldn't cover Scotland if they went independant
 
All tax revenue raised in Scotland would stay there and be spent there.

No problem with that at all.

But I understand at the moment that their tax revenue per capita is lower than the national average, yet they receive more than the national average to spend.

Would they be giving that up? I doubt it, I imagine that the third option would be (under the covers, obviously not spelt out)

Continue in the UK, be able to set our own tax rates etc., but continue to receive 'top-ups' from the UK, more if necessary.

So for example, to ability to reduce Scottish taxation, but receive increased subsidy from the UK coffers to compensate.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
People seem to be forgetting about defence as Britains nuclear deterrant wouldn't cover Scotland if they went independant

Who do you fear would invade Scotland, traditionally that has been the English.

I thought the UK nuclear deterrent was four vanguard submarines armed with trident nuclear missiles based in Scotland. So do you anticipate us relocating our nuclear deterrent. I would assume we would pay Scotland rent for the base or have a mutual defense pact.
 
Who do you fear would invade Scotland, traditionally that has been the English.

I thought the UK nuclear deterrent was four vanguard submarines armed with trident nuclear missiles based in Scotland. So do you anticipate us relocating our nuclear deterrent. I would assume we would pay Scotland rent for the base or have a mutual defense pact.

I don't fear anyone invading Scotland but I am sure they wouldn't want to lose their status as a nuclear power

How much they pay is debateable as you'll get Salmond complaning we are holding them to ranson

There is a lot of military assests based in Scotland, the fact they they are in Scotland does no mean they belong to them
 
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Navy leases its main Black Sea base at Sevastopol from Ukraine.
 
Who do you fear would invade Scotland, traditionally that has been the English.

I thought the UK nuclear deterrent was four vanguard submarines armed with trident nuclear missiles based in Scotland. So do you anticipate us relocating our nuclear deterrent. I would assume we would pay Scotland rent for the base or have a mutual defense pact.

Good point :lesson:
 
There is a lot of military assests based in Scotland, the fact they they are in Scotland does no mean they belong to them
I was not saying they own the vanguard submarines, we only have four and Scotland is about 8% of the UK population so they do not get a vanguard submarine. What I was saying is that our current submarine base would be in their country. So we would presumably pay them rent or have a mutual defense pact, unless we build or expand another submarine base in England

People seem to be forgetting about defence as Britains nuclear deterrant wouldn't cover Scotland if they went independant

Scotland has nuclear power stations so presumably can enrich material to weapons grade. So I would expect it could have a nuclear deterrent if it wanted one, or be in a position where it could rapidly equip itself with a nuclear deterrent if it felt threatened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom