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

chewmylegoff

zagubov wrote: »

The rUK won't notice Scotland's left.

Not a very exciting scenario, but hey ho that's everyday life.

I suspect you are right. The flip side of this is that it seems likely that Scotland wouldn't really "notice" it had left either, apart from the sight for a couple of weeks of a very happy fat man wearing an especially bright yellow tie and waving a Saltire about the place a bit more frantically than normal. Is it really worth it?

If I was Scottish I'd probably just stay at home for the referendum...

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

....As regards NATO and the EU, that's not so important. Ireland's shown that NATO's not necessary. Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland don't need it either.....

You have to understand the politics.

53% of Scots would vote for the UK to remain part of the EU, with 34% opposed and 61% think an independent Scotland should be an EU member.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-scotland-and-the-eu-the-polling-evidence

In contrast to their English neighbours, the Scots are in favour of the EU. Thus, whilst signing up for EFTA might well be a perfectly reasonable plan it constitutes leaving the EU, and so the SNP/Yes campaign is at pains to come up with any kind of half convincing BS about 'automatic' membership of the EU, for fear that pro-EU Scots will othereise vote 'No' in order to preserve EU membership.

zagubov wrote: »

...The EU could be tempted to lay down difficult conditons for entry but would be aware that Scotland may join its North Sea neighbours in EFTA so I suspect that rather than lose Europe's biggest oilfields and a stack of fishing grounds they'll be reasonable about welcoming Scotland. Otherwise no big deal for either side if Scotland doesn't join. .....

"Europe's biggest oilfields"? According to the CIA, Norway has almost twice as much in terms of proven oil reserves as the UK, and not all the UK's reserves will be Scottish. (I don't know how much Russian oil is European.)

It doesn't seem to bother the EU much that Norway has stayed out, and I can't say that the 'loss' of the fishing grounds amounts to much. Scotland would need more than three protection vessels to keep the Spanish out anyway. More expense.:)

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

You have to understand the politics.

53% of Scots would vote for the UK to remain part of the EU, with 34% opposed and 61% think an independent Scotland should be an EU member.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-scotland-and-the-eu-the-polling-evidence

In contrast to their English neighbours, the Scots are in favour of the EU. Thus, whilst signing up for EFTA might well be a perfectly reasonable plan it constitutes leaving the EU, and so the SNP/Yes campaign is at pains to come up with any kind of half convincing BS about 'automatic' membership of the EU, for fear that pro-EU Scots will othereise vote 'No' in order to preserve EU membership.

"Europe's biggest oilfields"? According to the CIA, Norway has almost twice as much in terms of proven oil reserves as the UK, and not all the UK's reserves will be Scottish. (I don't know how much Russian oil is European.)

It doesn't seem to bother the EU much that Norway has stayed out, and I can't say that the 'loss' of the fishing grounds amounts to much. Scotland would need more than three protection vessels to keep the Spanish out anyway. More expense.:)

Apologies: Should have read the European Union's biggest oilfields. Even if Russian oil may be geographically european (I think it's more from central Asia) it's not something Germany wants to rely on too much.

Of course the EU's not bothered that Norway's not a member. It won't really be that bothered in the end if Scotland's not a member, as long as Scotland's in the EFTA or EEA so the EU still has access to the oil. In fact that could be a win-win for both parties.

Scots seem very aware that Norway's alternative -to-the -EU status is working very well. Wouldn't take much for that to usurp the EU's place in Scotland's affections.

As regards Scotland "leaving" the EU for EFTA, nobody's suggesting that. Of course the EU could if it insists on negotiations that stretch Scotland's patience, in which case the electorate will back the better plan.

It's all no big deal, and there's no drama.;)

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

Apologies: Should have read the European Union's biggest oilfields. Even if Russian oil may be geographically european (I think it's more from central Asia) it's not something Germany wants to rely on too much.

Of course the EU's not bothered that Norway's not a member. It won't really be that bothered in the end if Scotland's not a member, as long as Scotland's in the EFTA or EEA so the EU still has access to the oil. In fact that could be a win-win for both parties.

Scots seem very aware that Norway's alternative -to-the -EU status is working very well. Wouldn't take much for that to usurp the EU's place in Scotland's affections.

As regards Scotland "leaving" the EU for EFTA, nobody's suggesting that. Of course the EU could if it insists on negotiations that stretch Scotland's patience, in which case the electorate will back the better plan.

It's all no big deal, and there's no drama.;)

Access to oil isn't dependent on membership of anything. There's a global market.

I think you're missing the point about the 'politics'. EU membership does matter from the point of view of the Scottish referendum debate. Which is why the SNP/Yes campaign are at pains to convince people it will be 'automatic'.

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

Access to oil isn't dependent on membership of anything. There's a global market.

I think you're missing the point about the 'politics'. EU membership does matter from the point of view of the Scottish referendum debate. Which is why the SNP/Yes campaign are at pains to convince people it will be 'automatic'.

Some oil's easier to supply as its local. That's better in some ways.

I'm not missing the point. Maybe the EU matters to the electorate now.

After the referendum however when negotiations occur if needed, it won't matter the same way, especially when the SG points out how problematic the EU is making it. I doubt that the Scottish electorate would be interested in the Euro and Schengen. Then it'll be easier to demonstrate it's not worth it but alternatives working for Norway are available.

Not a big deal.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Some oil's easier to supply as its local. That's better in some ways.

I'm not missing the point. Maybe the EU matters to the electorate now.

After the referendum however when negotiations occur if needed, it won't matter the same way, especially when the SG points out how problematic the EU is making it. I doubt that the Scottish electorate would be interested in the Euro and Schengen. Then it'll be easier to demonstrate it's not worth it but alternatives working for Norway are available.

Not a big deal.

It may not be a big deal but it rather blows the SNP's plan for independence out of the water.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

It may not be a big deal but it rather blows the SNP's plan for independence out of the water.

Definitely not if a No vote involves
a) the tories looking like they'll get back in power again,
b) by a referendum where a euroskeptic UK drags Scotland out of the EU against its wishes.
:eek:

John_Pierpoint

If Salmon thinks he can sort all this out in the 18 months after the vote, he is completely off his trolley, BUT the Scots voters might not realise this fact of life.

The only real problem I can see is that the loss of Scotland, to become a client state of the EU, will make the any UK stance against further transfer of powers to big government will be weakened.

The only practical benefit could be getting England back on European time; let the Scots fiddle with their digital watches at Gretna Green.

zagubov

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If Salmon thinks he can sort all this out in the 18 months after the vote, he is completely off his trolley, BUT the Scots voters might not realise this fact of life.

The only real problem I can see is that the loss of Scotland, to become a client state of the EU, will make the any UK stance against further transfer of powers to big government will be weakened.

The only practical benefit could be getting England back on European time; let the Scots fiddle with their digital watches at Gretna Green.

He can't but thankfully he's not the brains of the team.

What could go wrong if the UK became more of a client state?
Being sent off for unwanted wars, and as a bonus making them a target for terrorism?
Having nuclear targets planted next to their population centres?

That's already happened to Scotland within the UK so it shouldn't be a burden for the rUK in Europe.


The clocks could have been sorted out already.

There's cities in the US where the suburbs are in a different time zone to the city centres, and commuters have to be aware of both times. No big deal, obviously. Except to us.:eek:

antrobus

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If Salmon thinks he can sort all this out in the 18 months after the vote, he is completely off his trolley, BUT the Scots voters might not realise this fact of life.....

Indeed. It will take at least 18 months to negotiate the terms on which the negotiations take place.

But that's not the point. The point is to get majority for the Yes vote.