Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

Graham_Devon

zagubov wrote: »

Sounds like you're thinking of Berwick which was incorprated into England the same times as Wales. Bit of a bizarre one that with a country town ina separte legal jurisdiction , etc from its county.

Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent while still negotiating for years afterwards. Not a deal-breaker. Shared a currency for a while. Didn't bother with a referendum.

Sent a letter to the UN stating they'd conisder themselves bound by al pre-existing treaties. Why on earth do they have to make things look so simple when it's obviously better to make it difficult?

Did the Czech Republic and Slovakia want the same thing?

Only this all seems to be very much on Scotlands terms. You appear to be suggesting everyone else should deal with it and negotiate.

I ask, why should we? Why should we spend our money, as UK citizens, negotiating with Scots post independence?

Other than it would be very nice and generous for us to do this for Scots, could you give me a reason why we would? Afterall, it would be very nice if Scots shared the oil post independence too....but that would be absurd...right?

I think theres some danger here of a post independent Scotland engulfing itself with problems due to it's apparent sense of self importance.

BobQ

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have watched the BBC in Dublin, Cork and Tralee many times. I think they gained independence in the 1920s and they are certainly not British.

Of course Scotland can rely on the RoUK programmes but they will have to start funding a Scottish service if they want it. Whether it would be economic for the BBC to offer this facility to a small nation I do not know, but the BBC would no doubt consider the business case for doing so.


Did the BBC service in Tralee provide much news about Scotland?

zagubov

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Did the Czech Republic and Slovakia want the same thing?

Only this all seems to be very much on Scotlands terms. You appear to be suggesting everyone else should deal with it and negotiate.

I ask, why should we? Why should we spend our money, as UK citizens, negotiating with Scots post independence?

Other than it would be very nice and generous for us to do this for Scots, could you give me a reason why we would? Afterall, it would be very nice if Scots shared the oil post independence too....but that would be absurd...right?

I think theres some danger here of a post independent Scotland engulfing itself with problems due to it's apparent sense of self importance.

Not generous. Good business sense. RUK's Scotland's main export market, Scotland's rUK's second-top export market.

A sense of self-importance is what got Westminster into this position in the first place.

Both countries wanted to continue with existing treaties. Both were happy to share debt. That could be better dealt with quickly and amicably rather than via ultimatums. The diplomats and negotiators will fill their boots and sort it out.

BobQ wrote: »

Of course Scotland can rely on the RoUK programmes but they will have to start funding a Scottish service if they want it. Whether it would be economic for the BBC to offer this facility to a small nation I do not know, but the BBC would no doubt consider the business case for doing so.


Did the BBC service in Tralee provide much news about Scotland?

Would Eire trust the BBC to supply the Irish TV service? The internet chatter is that the BBC is too london-centric to be allowed to provide the service north of the border post-indy.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems to me that these smaller issues could see many potential yes votes lost.

These are the issues that a lot of people care the most about. They care little about the EU stuff....but whether they can watch strictly come dancing is often the difference between a yes or no vote.

The broadcasters are probably just airing the issues your normal run of the mill people are genuinely confronted with.

See, that worries me. This is not a regular election, it is a one-off chance to determine the future of Scotland. If I was a Scot and living in Scotland, I'd want to be abreast of all of the ins and outs and to make as informed a decision as I could.

It's a big decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. It isn't as though they can leave and then five years later decide to come back again. Similarly, cba is not a good reason to stay in.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Not generous. Good business sense. RUK's Scotland's main export market, Scotland's rUK's second-top export market.

A sense of self-importance is what got Westminster into this position in the first place.

Both countries wanted to continue with existing treaties. Both were happy to share debt. That could be better dealt with quickly and amicably rather than via ultimatums. The diplomats and negotiators will fill their boots and sort it out.



Would Eire trust the BBC to supply the Irish TV service? The internet chatter is that the BBC is too london-centric to be allowed to provide the service north of the border post-indy.

The key difference being that whilst Britain is important, Scotland is not.

London is the capital of one of the great countries of Europe. An independent Scotland would be just another small country on the edge of Europe. Portugal only without the nice weather.

adouglasmhor

BobQ wrote: »

Of course Scotland can rely on the RoUK programmes but they will have to start funding a Scottish service if they want it. Whether it would be economic for the BBC to offer this facility to a small nation I do not know, but the BBC would no doubt consider the business case for doing so.


Did the BBC service in Tralee provide much news about Scotland?

No just a little it was BBC NI and on the other hand UTV for the ITV franchise.

Loughton_Monkey

BobQ wrote: »

Of course Scotland can rely on the RoUK programmes but they will have to start funding a Scottish service if they want it. Whether it would be economic for the BBC to offer this facility to a small nation I do not know, but the BBC would no doubt consider the business case for doing so.


Did the BBC service in Tralee provide much news about Scotland?

This one's easy. Calculate Scottish Population X £145.50. Add 50%. Insist Scotland pays UK an annual fee of that amount (negitiable every year) and they charge whatever they want, however they want, otherwise we pull the transmissions.

Use any profit to subsidise RoUK License Fee.

One assumes BBC does not have to be "balanced" in a foreign country. Hence we can bombard all channels with 24 hour anti-Scottish propaganda....

Let's make money....

kabayiri

This has been an interesting thread. There are some salient points on both sides.

The points made by Gen and others seem to centre around the clear rules set out to operate the EU, including new member state entry. Mr Barrossos' comments seem to set them out clearly.

Zag's perspective does seem to echo what we hear from the Nationalists. In essence, it seems to be that pragmatism will win out. The overriding need to do deals will push forward because it makes good business sense.

I can envisage any number of ways which political vested interests could make Scotland's early independent years quite difficult. There could be political capital to be made from within the EU or from RoUK electioneering.

My problem with all this is one of process. If I tried to put myself in a typical voters shoes, how do I make sense of all this. Can I follow a systematic route which answers all the questions and concerns I might have. I'm not sure I could.

If the EU + UK were a new airliner and not a set of cooperating countries, the whole design or changes to the design would have been put through thousands of hours in a simulator. What ifs / contingencies / key points of failure would be analysed and impacted for.

Shame we don't have a simulator...

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

The key difference being that whilst Britain is important, Scotland is not.

London is the capital of one of the great countries of Europe. An independent Scotland would be just another small country on the edge of Europe. Portugal only without the nice weather.

And that's the way it should be. The Nordic countries, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand. There's loads of small countries that aren't important. They still provide a good place to live. And that at the end of the day is a proper job for a country to do.

Being part of a Lidl- budget pseudosuperpower with delusions of adequacy hasn't exactly enriched the place. There's plenty of things a governement should prioritise that parties gaining power in Westminster just forget about and get distracted by new adventures.

Better just get back to the job of giving people the life they want. Something more like what people thought New Labour was going to be, till the inevitable happened, and two endless wars later, here we are.

kabayiri wrote: »

I can envisage any number of ways which political vested interests could make Scotland's early independent years quite difficult. There could be political capital to be made from within the EU or from RoUK electioneering.

And there's ways round them too. Got to be creative and inventive.

The boring thing about all this is that "independence" isn't really what's needed. Something else is, but Westminster hasn't the imagination or nous to go for it.

kabayiri

zagubov wrote: »

...
The boring thing about all this is that "independence" isn't really what's needed. Something else is, but Westminster hasn't the imagination or nous to go for it.

I think you're right.

You seem to be arguing for 'evolution not revolution'.

We shouldn't be surprised. Politics often descends to lowest common denominator options.

If there is a substantial "No" majority, the galling thing is just how much political capital Westminster politicians might spin out of this. This might just be Cameron's Falkland moment...