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

adouglasmhor

robmatic wrote: »

I doubt that any Scottish viewers north of the Borders would pick up much of a signal from English transmitters.

I think Glasgow is far closer to the border counties of England than any part of England is to Tralee. Also freesat which you can get on an old sky box is not going to stop suddenly.

IveSeenTheLight

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.

I understand there will need to be a negotiation, however you seem to be portraying that it is just the Scottish government that will be making any concessions as part of any negotiation.

antrobus wrote: »

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.

I'm not confused at all.
Indeed I am a realist.

Yes, it is down to the Scottish government to provide clarity, however where it is clear that the outcome will depend on a set of negotiations, in order to provide that clarity, the RoUK is being asked to enter pre-referendum negotiations.

You have to question that if the RoUK think these negotiations would strengthen their argument then they would be happy to get things out in the open and clear to the voters.

By failing to be willing to discuss, it's inferring that they believe that the negotiations would strengthen the Yes campaign.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understand there will need to be a negotiation, however you seem to be portraying that it is just the Scottish government that will be making any concessions as part of any negotiation.



I'm not confused at all.
Indeed I am a realist.

Yes, it is down to the Scottish government to provide clarity, however where it is clear that the outcome will depend on a set of negotiations, in order to provide that clarity, the RoUK is being asked to enter pre-referendum negotiations.

You have to question that if the RoUK think these negotiations would strengthen their argument then they would be happy to get things out in the open and clear to the voters.

By failing to be willing to discuss, it's inferring that they believe that the negotiations would strengthen the Yes campaign.

how can meaning negotiations take place?

between who and whom?


neither party may be in power in a couple of years time.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

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.

I wonder what the Finnish people think about their Independance now.

It's interesting when you consider the GNI per capita how the table lies
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

how can meaning negotiations take place?

between who and whom?


neither party may be in power in a couple of years time.

Governments are constantly held to policies implemented by previous governments.

For example, as the incumbent governments, the SNP would negotiate with the Con / Dems on whether a Monetary Union would be agreeable or not and under what terms.

At least then, the arguments of both the Yes and the No campaigns could understand on what the situation would be in this scenario

One campaign is willing to discuss and clarify, another is not.
You have to wonder why and whether they know deep down that by doing so it weakens their argument

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Governments are constantly held to policies implemented by previous governments.

For example, as the incumbent governments, the SNP would negotiate with the Con / Dems on whether a Monetary Union would be agreeable or not and under what terms.

At least then, the arguments of both the Yes and the No campaigns could understand on what the situation would be in this scenario

One campaign is willing to discuss and clarify, another is not.
You have to wonder why and whether they know deep down that by doing so it weakens their argument

Why do Scottish people assume they would be ruled by Salmon's lot forever? Arguably, he's as pinko as the Labour lot, but luckily all the raving socialist tendencies north of the border have often been tempered by a right wing UK government.

It is my theory that Scotland, on its own, would rapidly learn that there is no affluence ever going to come from a raving, left wing, pinko, almost marxist bunch of politicians - and would soon start voting for a "Conservative" government.

IveSeenTheLight

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Why do Scottish people assume they would be ruled by Salmon's lot forever? .

We don't.
An Independant Scotland would be free to vote SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, Monster Raving Looney Party or indeed, even the Conservatives

I even said similarly before

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If independence were to be achieved, the government would be formed by the people of Scotland's choice, be that SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens or even the conservatives.

vivatifosi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

They have far fewer consulates around the world.

zagubov wrote: »

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

The UK does this too. It saves money by sharing some embassies and consulates with Canada, or at least it should be underway. It was announced by the Tories last year. Australia and Canada also do it.

There's no reason an independent Scotland shouldn't join. But bear in mind these will often be peripheral locations. There will be some places they may want/need an independent presence. Plus of course Canada will also need to be asked for those others.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Governments are constantly held to policies implemented by previous governments.

For example, as the incumbent governments, the SNP would negotiate with the Con / Dems on whether a Monetary Union would be agreeable or not and under what terms.

At least then, the arguments of both the Yes and the No campaigns could understand on what the situation would be in this scenario

One campaign is willing to discuss and clarify, another is not.
You have to wonder why and whether they know deep down that by doing so it weakens their argument

The basis of democracy is that government are not held to previous government's decisions : and so they can be changed.

If Scotland goes it's own way then it's government will negotiate with whom it likes and make agreements in the best interest of Scotland as it sees fit at the time.


If the Scottish people are genuinely expecting clarity before the independence election then they are far too naive to be self governing.

It's not going to happen so you will be able to continue your mantra that this somehow 'proves' independence is a good thing; (surely this is in your interest?)

Grow up : living is risky and you will need to vote with imperfect knowledge just like the rest of us.

vivatifosi

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I am assuming the Union will stand after a no vote.
But why would they pay a licence fee, It would be no different from tapping in to any other foreign broadcast? Do you think anyone in the Low Countries or Ireland pays a BBC licence fee?

If no licence fee is involved, then it will receive the content, but it won't be tailored to a Scottish audience. That's the main difference. Ie the same as Tralee or Netherlands as you highlighted earlier.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would "tapping into" the BBC (bar World service channels) not be illegal? What you are essentially suggesting here is the same as tapping into Sky without paying for it.

When you watch the BBC overseas it carries advertising to be self funding, this is also an option, but bear in mind that the argument has always been that the BBC is so large that it would put other channels out of business if it competed by carrying adverts. In terms of Sky, you can already get limited Sky content free with Sky's version of freesat.