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

System

antrobus wrote: »

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.

So a Yes vote is only a vote to commence negotiations?
It wouldn't be a "pull out at any cost" vote? Do the people of Scotland realise that?

Loughton_Monkey

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So a Yes vote is only a vote to commence negotiations?
It wouldn't be a "pull out at any cost" vote? Do the people of Scotland realise that?

Reminds me a bit like our own referendum to join the "Common Market".

Rightly or wrongly, we voted "yes" to a free trade and standardisation regime with our European 'friends'.

What did we get? A virtual "United States of Europe" in which we only need to give it a few more years before the UK's ability to decide its overall governance is equivalent to, say, that of Alabama in the USA. In other words, we will decide on our speed limit, and the size of local property/sales taxes. [But strangely enough, not the ability to decide on the re-introduction of hanging].

I wonder if Brussels will allow us to continue driving on the left?

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Everyone's vote will count 11 fold more...except for all the people who vote for a party which doesn't achieve an overall majority whose votes will count for nothing.

You don;t seem to understand how the Mixed Member Proportional Representation works in Scotland

The Scottish Parliament is elected according to a form of proportional representation known as the Additional Member System (AMS). This is intended to ensure that the share of seats each party receives reflects as closely as possible its level of support among voters, but it also allows each constituency to have its own representative in the Parliament.

Each voter at a Scottish Parliament election has two votes. The first vote is cast for a constituency member who will be the candidate winning the largest number of votes in a constituency (a total of 73).

The second vote is for a political party (who will provide a list of nominations), or for a candidate standing as an individual, within a larger electoral area called a Scottish Parliament region.

There are eight regions, each covering a group of constituencies: Highlands and Islands, North East Scotland, Mid Scotland and Fife, West of Scotland, Glasgow, Central Scotland, Lothians, South of Scotland.

Each region has seven seats in the Parliament (a total of 56). Members elected to these additional seats are known as "regional members".

All members of the Parliament, however they are elected, have the same rights and responsibilities.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

Apathy is a problem in all public engagement with the politicians.
The right to vote is your opportunity to voice your opinion.

If you (not directed to you in person , but the general you) are Apathetic to voting, then you (in my opinion) really have no right to opinion or complain about the government / electoral system / union you get.

antrobus

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So a Yes vote is only a vote to commence negotiations?
It wouldn't be a "pull out at any cost" vote? Do the people of Scotland realise that?

The question is this; "Should Scotland be an independent country?" It's entirely up to the Scottish people how they answer that question. If sufficient of them say 'yes', negotiations on independence will take place. It will entirely up to the Scottish people to decide whether or not those negotiations reach a satisfactory conclusion.

System

antrobus wrote: »

It will entirely up to the Scottish people to decide whether or not those negotiations reach a satisfactory conclusion.

So ultimately it will depend on agreement between the Scots and UK, not just the Scottish people?

That's not quite what Alex Salmond has been saying - he makes it sound like a mandate for UDI on Scotland's terms alone.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So ultimately it will depend on agreement between the Scots and UK, not just the Scottish people?

That's not quite what Alex Salmond has been saying - he makes it sound like a mandate for UDI on Scotland's terms alone.

Have you guys read the White Paper?

Are you aware of the "Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland" which sets out the basis of the referendum?

Certainly if you read the White paper and hear the debates going on, the Scottish government talk about a Yes vote being a next step towards Scotlands Journey towards Independence.


It's certainly not a "mandate for UDI on Scotland's terms alone"

antrobus

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So ultimately it will depend on agreement between the Scots and UK, not just the Scottish people?

Ultimately it will depend on agreement between the Scots, the UK, the EU, and maybe some other people as well.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

....That's not quite what Alex Salmond has been saying - he makes it sound like a mandate for UDI on Scotland's terms alone.

Well, Mr Salmond wants people to vote 'yes', so he has no incentive to draw attention to any practical difficulties that might arise as a result.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Have you guys read the White Paper?

Yes. It's a stange mixture of naivety and stupidity. But that doesn't matter one little bit, I don't have a say in the matter.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...Are you aware of the "Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland" which sets out the basis of the referendum?

Yes. It doesn't really say a lot.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00404789.pdf

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...It's certainly not a "mandate for UDI on Scotland's terms alone"

So the thermonucleur option has been ruled out?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Yes. It doesn't really say a lot.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00404789.pdf

It's says quite a bit actually within the constrains of not being able to pre negotiate for clarity

antrobus wrote: »

So the thermonucleur option has been ruled out?

Well done, nice of you to throw confusion into the subject.
There is no Thermonuclear mention in the White paper.
Indeed, the discussions surrounding Nuclear is about getting rid of Trident and saving a substantial amount of money.

To labour on your Thermonuclear point, is it any different to various sub regions that may wish to leave the RoUK I mentioned earlier.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What about the position of the Isle of Wight, who have as I understand seeked independance?

What about Guernsey, who also have previously expressed a desire to be independent?

Does the same apply to Jersey or the Isle of Man?

What about the overseas territories that the UK presides over: -
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar (status disputed by Spain)
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
British Antarctic Territory

What if they sought complete independence?

I think you can agree this "Thermonuclear" discussion is a mute point.

adouglasmhor

It's moot point not mute point. Sorry great sage equal to heaven, but that is one thing that rubs me the wrong way.