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

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

They have far fewer consulates around the world.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Only this morning Osborne is in the Telegraph saying that the UK 'cannot afford the welfare state'. That's scary stuff for someone who is perhaps disabled, recently been laid off or already struggling with their rent to hear. Labour are likely to say the same, but slightly 'watered down' as usual. Independence offers a chance of a different way of doing things. And a lot of what the SNP has in it's white paper seems very reassuring to ordinary people who are constantly being buffeted with cuts, reforms and rocketing fuel bills. All hitting hard. The 'lifeboat' option, as I've heard it being called, may be a yes vote.

I'm neutral as far as the debate goes. However as soon as I hear a politician promise the earth I become extremely cynical. Easy to make unfunded promises. Far harder to make them financially viable.

So the yes/no vote is only the beginning.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Quite.

Back in the day, we were promised that a referendum would be held to decide the issue of whether or not the UK would join the Euro, i.e. enter into a monetary union with Europe. I see no reason why we should not similarly require a referendum to decide whether or not the UK should enter into a monetary union with Scotland.

The will of the British people is paramount. Or at least as important as the will of the Scottish people.:)

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

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.



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 wrote: »

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.

Nope, it's the Westminster government's duty to serve its people.

They claim to represnet Scotland, right? Only they can ask the questions of the EU. And until independence day, they are required to put thier money where their mouth is and help them get information.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

They have far fewer consulates around the world.

They share them too, to save money. A good example. to all others

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Nope, it's the Westminster government's duty to serve its people.

They claim to represnet Scotland, right? Only they can ask the questions of the EU. And until independence day, they are required to put thier money where their mouth is and help them get information.

I see no realist way that Westminster can negotiate with the EU about a country that doesn't exist yet and if it does one day, it would not be bound by any result between Westminster and EU

Graham_Devon

zagubov wrote: »

Nope, it's the Westminster government's duty to serve its people.

They claim to represnet Scotland, right?

Right. And we don't know whether setting up deals for independence is the right thing for Scotland yet.

System

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Finland used to be a union with Sweden, less than 100 years ago.

Finland separated from Sweden in 1809, and was annexed by Russia, becoming a supposedly-independent Grand Duchy.

Finland achieved independence from Russia in 1917. It wasn't an amicable separation, it was as a result of a bloody civil war between red and white factions. Russia seized parts of Finland at the start of WW2, and again in the settlement at the end of the war.

It's hardly a good analogy for the proposed separation of Scotland and the RUK.

adouglasmhor

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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....

As explained you can't pull the transmitions, it's not possible.

Graham_Devon

adouglasmhor wrote: »

As explained you can't pull the transmitions, it's not possible.

So would Scot's pay a licence fee?

Or are you assuming you will tap into this for nothing?

It's this sort of stuff that will cause friction between nations.

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

Nope, it's the Westminster government's duty to serve its people.

They claim to represnet Scotland, right? Only they can ask the questions of the EU. And until independence day, they are required to put thier money where their mouth is and help them get information.
....

You are persisting in the error of thinking that the question of Scottish independence is some kind of dispute between Scotland and the UK. It isn't. It's purely a matter for Scotland.