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

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I understand it, the RoUK have agreed to standby the outcome of the referendum , therefore it has an obligation to it's electorate to be forthright.....

I believe that the Edinburgh agreement specifies that the referendum should "deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect". That's as far as it goes.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....We are not as yet separated and Westminster has an obligation to help provide the clarity.

If anything, it should be as part of the No campaign to be clear to the people they are reaching out to.

Is there a reason why Westminster is not willing to discuss this?
Is it because deep down, they are in agreement with the SNP proposals on these issues?

I believe that you are confused. The question being asked is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" It is perfectly clear what is meant by an ' independent country'. If you are any doubt as to what this means you should consult the recent experience of Ireland or any other comparatively new nation.

When and if Scotland becomes an independent country, the UK will remain an independent country. If one independent country wants to get something from another independent country it can ask very nicely and be prepared to negotiate, but it might not get exactly what it wants, and it might have to pay a price to get even that.

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Sorry, you're missing the point I was making about taxation. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it'll cost more and that cost will be carried by the taxpayer. This cost can either be covered by reducing costs elsewhere or by increasing taxation.

That's such a minor point in my opinion when considering all aspects which need to be budgetted for.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

If one independent country wants to get something from another independent country it can ask very nicely and be prepared to negotiate, but it might not get exactly what it wants, and it might have to pay a price to get even that.

Is it your belief that this is a one way negotiation.
There are benefits for both sides that need to be discussed and as such BOTH need to sit down and discuss.

Why is it that one side are reluctant to go into pre-discussions.

Your portraying that the SNP must come up with the answers without allowing them to enter discussions to clarify said points.

This is what the no campaign are doing to create smoke and mirrors to confuse the electorate and scare them into accepting a "better the devil you know" approach.

If they truly believed that it was not in the interest of the RoUK, then they would come to the table and get that clear so it bolstered the No campaign.

As it is, it's effectively saying " your right, but we don;t want to admit it or give you the opportunity to prove it"

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That's such a minor point in my opinion when considering all aspects which need to be budgetted for.

A(nother) rise in the cost of living might not be an issue to you, but it might be to other Scots (perhaps you need to re-read my initial post as the context of my point above seems to have been lost, as the Embassy discussion was just an example of the extra expenditure that needs to be budgeted for, it wasn't the whole expenditure).

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

A(nother) rise in the cost of living might not be an issue to you, but it might be to other Scots (perhaps you need to re-read my initial post as the context of my point above seems to have been lost, as the Embassy discussion was just an example of the extra expenditure that needs to be budgeted for, it wasn't the whole expenditure).

In relation to your points on Scottish Embassies: -

How would an independent Scotland’s diplomatic interests be represented in the period before it established its own diplomatic missions?
The existing Scottish Development International (SDI) network
of 27 overseas offices provides a firm foundation for
independent Scottish international representation. Over the past
five years SDI has increased Scotland’s presence in emerging
markets in the Middle East and Asia. The current Scottish
Government proposes that the existing SDI network remains
following independence, co-locating with the new diplomatic
and consular services. Where SDI is currently located in a
country but not in its capital city, a Scottish embassy or political
mission would be established to supplement and complement
the work of the trade offices.

Under Scottish Government proposals to allow dual nationality, would people living in Scotland claiming dual Scottish/British nationality be allowed to call on the support of British embassies and consulates abroad?

As EU citizens, Scots would have the right to request consular
assistance from all other member states, including the UK. If
travelling on their British passport, people with dual nationality
would be entitled to call on the support of the British embassy
or consulate, just as a person with dual Scottish and Irish
citizenship could choose to travel on their Irish passport and
request assistance from the Irish embassy or consulate.

Loughton_Monkey

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I didn't say that they wouldn't manage, I just stated a fact that if you have 300 embassies & Consulates (or whatever number there are), it's cheaper if they are paid for by 38M taxpayers than just 2.6M tax payers. Surely?

Indeed I would look forward to a proportionate saving in costs by slashing the staff/salaries of all RoUK embassies to reflect the smaller scope of their job.

If the Scottish wish us to represent them, then of course the charge would be double. Can't miss an opportunity to make money. It would still be cheaper than the Scots to set up their own.

Same with GCHQ, MI5, MI6 etc. The only difference here is a small "cost plus" for RoUK as we would now have an extra foreign country to spy on. And in view of its proximity, we would need to throw a lot of resources at it. Alternatively, we could scale down our spying activities on France and Germany.

angrypirate

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Again, what is different to other similar sized nations i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc

Have you seen the levels of taxation in the Scandinavian countries? How do you fancy paying £8 a pint down your local?

MFW_ASAP

angrypirate wrote: »

Have you seen the levels of taxation in the Scandinavian countries? How do you fancy paying £8 a pint down your local?

They have a real problem in Norway keeping hold of I.T. consultants because once you've been in-country for 6 months you have to pay their tax, and it's eye watering! Virtually every one of us left before we were liable.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is it your belief that this is a one way negotiation...

That is exactly what I have been saying all along. Negotiation isn't one way. If you want something you have to negotiate for it. That means offering something in return, and an acceptance of the fact that sometimes you can't get what you want.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....
There are benefits for both sides that need to be discussed and as such BOTH need to sit down and discuss.

Why is it that one side are reluctant to go into pre-discussions.

Your portraying that the SNP must come up with the answers without allowing them to enter discussions to clarify said points.

This is what the no campaign are doing to create smoke and mirrors to confuse the electorate and scare them into accepting a "better the devil you know" approach.

If they truly believed that it was not in the interest of the RoUK, then they would come to the table and get that clear so it bolstered the No campaign.

As it is, it's effectively saying " your right, but we don;t want to admit it or give you the opportunity to prove it"

You still appear to be very confused. The Scottish Referendum is a purely Scottish question. What the respective 'No' and 'Yes' campaigns have to say is entirely their responsibility. It's nothing to with the rest of us.

Or to put it another way; it's not down to the UK government to 'clarify', 'negotiate' or 'discuss' anything; it's down to the Scottish government, it's people, and it's politicians to do so. The fact that it appears to be a struggle for them to do so, doesn't bode well for any hypothetical independent Scotland.

CLAPTON

It would seem to me that RoUK could only provide answers to post Scottish independence questions (clarity) once they had consulted the RoUK people.

At the moment no provision has been made for such a vote and so it's democratic for RoUK to reserve it's position until it has made such consultation with it's constituents.



It many ways the details should not really matter: a vote for independence is for 'ever' so shouldn't be determined on minor matters like BBC, embassies etc.