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

adouglasmhor

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

The Conservatives in Scotland and England might both have to change the name of their respective parties in the event of a split. As the Conservative Party is officially the "Conservative and Unionist Party".

antrobus

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....

Nope. I'm simply pointing out that (for example) the proposal that an independent Scotland enter into a monetary union with the UK is precisely that; a proposal that would be subject to negotiation. So for one party to issue a document that says Scotland will do so is rather silly, because it might not happen.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

I beg to differ. I believe you to very confused. The Scottish referendum is purely a Scottish question that doesn't involve the rest of the UK. The Barsetshire County Council might decide to hold a referendum to ascertain the public's views on the level of council tax it should charge, fulfilling the manifesto pledge of the recently elected Barsetshire People's Party. The UK Westminster government might well be interested in ensuring that the referendum was fairly conducted, but the fact that a referendum was taking place would not impose any obligations on said Westminster government.

antrobus

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The Conservatives in Scotland and England might both have to change the name of their respective parties in the event of a split. As the Conservative Party is officially the "Conservative and Unionist Party".

Technically speaking, the Unionist bit in the title 'Conservative and Unionist Party' comes from the merger of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties back in 1912. The Union in question was that of 1801 not 1707, and the party's name has been quite unaffected by the events of 1916-1922.

adouglasmhor

antrobus wrote: »

Technically speaking, the Unionist bit in the title 'Conservative and Unionist Party' comes from the merger of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties back in 1912. The Union in question was that of 1801 not 1707, and the party's name has been quite unaffected by the events of 1916-1922.

Thanks I did not know that - so who were the Tories originaly as they were an Irish party originaly I heard?

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Yes, they can be changed over time.
You'll be surprised how many previous government decisions are held by the incoming government, until they can make any changes they desire

For example, in the budget of 2013, the government announced that they will freeze Inheritance Tax for three years from 2016.

We announced in February that we would freeze the IHT threshold for 3 years from 2016-17

This is after the 2015 election after which they may not be the formed government
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2013-policy-decisions-table/budget-2013-policy-decisions-table

Additionally: -

1. Additional funding for childcare will start in Autumn 2015.
2. Corporation tax: reduce main rate to 20% from 2015-16
3. Increasing capital spending plans by £3b per year from 2015-16
4. In 2015-16, the personal allowance will be uprated by CPI
5. We are extending the 100% first year allowance for companies investing in ULEVs for 3 years from 2015-16
6. reduced rates of company car tax for vehicles that emit 75g/km CO2 or less (ULEVs) from 2015/16 until at least 2019/20

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

It's the RoUK who have been repeatedly asking for clarity, which the SNP have tried to address within the current constraints.

One side is trying to open negotiations, the other is not.

CLAPTON wrote: »

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?)

You do have to wonder why the RoUK wants to keep a union or are unwilling to provide the British people with transparency.

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Calm down. grow up indeed.

I'm happy to make decisions based on the best available information.
There should be no issue asking for further clarification.
That's were debate improves understanding.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

Indeed, I use freesat myself.

However, that content is provided in that way, at will, by Sky. It's not tapping into the other channels which are not provided on that platform.

It seems to me that the argument is "you can't stop us". Not a very good argument going forward. As I say, I wouldn't be too impressed if we all had to pay more (due to the loss of licence fee from Scotland) and Scotland simply turns around and says "well we want it and you can't stop us from viewing it".

Forgetting the BBC for a minute, as that;s not the real issue, the fundamental "you cant stop us" argument is what grates. What else will that apply to going forward?

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed, I use freesat myself.

However, that content is provided in that way, at will, by Sky. It's not tapping into the other channels which are not provided on that platform.

It seems to me that the argument is "you can't stop us". Not a very good argument going forward. As I say, I wouldn't be too impressed if we all had to pay more (due to the loss of licence fee from Scotland) and Scotland simply turns around and says "well we want it and you can't stop us from viewing it".

Forgetting the BBC for a minute, as that;s not the real issue, the fundamental "you cant stop us" argument is what grates. What else will that apply to going forward?

An independent Scotland could do as she wished but would very quickly discover that so can everyone else. An independent Scotland that can't export because of huge tariffs and whose people can't go anywhere without visas would soon learn to wind her neck in.

Britain has some weight to chuck around. Scotland would not apart perhaps from some historical sympathies.

adouglasmhor

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed, I use freesat myself.

However, that content is provided in that way, at will, by Sky. It's not tapping into the other channels which are not provided on that platform.

It seems to me that the argument is "you can't stop us". Not a very good argument going forward. As I say, I wouldn't be too impressed if we all had to pay more (due to the loss of licence fee from Scotland) and Scotland simply turns around and says "well we want it and you can't stop us from viewing it".

Forgetting the BBC for a minute, as that;s not the real issue, the fundamental "you cant stop us" argument is what grates. What else will that apply to going forward?

Lots of things, you really are unclear on the concept aren't you. If Scotland ceases to be part of the UK, it's not subject to the UK any more.

adouglasmhor

Generali wrote: »

An independent Scotland could do as she wished but would very quickly discover that so can everyone else. An independent Scotland that can't export because of huge tariffs and whose people can't go anywhere without visas would soon learn to wind her neck in.

Britain has some weight to chuck around. Scotland would not apart perhaps from some historical sympathies.

Exactly. Summed up well.

Graham_Devon

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Lots of things, you really are unclear on the concept aren't you. If Scotland ceases to be part of the UK, it's not subject to the UK any more.

No, I am not unclear on the subject.

It's simply that I don't feel it's particularly constructive to be going into an independance debate, while wanting help from the UK, to be throwing lines around such as "we won't pay for it, but we want it, and you cannot stop us".

You may not be subject to the UK anymore, but that does not mean you can just "tap into" UK assets and services at your free will. I'm sure you wouldn't be best pleased if we turned this argument around and I suggested we want the oil and therefore, will take it as we please post independance, as we won't be subject to Scottish laws and if you don't like it, go do one.

That's just asking for a lot of fall out. I'm not even sure why you appear to assume the rest of the UK should just stand back and take it because you say so but on the other hand wanting the UK to handhold and negotiate on your behalf.