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

vivatifosi

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have watched the BBC in Dublin, Cork and Tralee many times. I think they gained independence in the 1920s and they are certainly not British.

I have friends in the Netherlands who watch the BBC too.

I guess that the issue is that if you are relatively close to the UK you can get a signal. There's no point in blocking it, and clearly the SNP isn't going to go all North Korea and block it their side.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I have friends in the Netherlands who watch the BBC too.

I guess that the issue is that if you are relatively close to the UK you can get a signal. There's no point in blocking it, and clearly the SNP isn't going to go all North Korea and block it their side.

It would probably make sense for the Scots to make the BBC an offer where the licence fee stays in place and the BBC continues to make some Scottish programs for Scottish people (news, sport etc).

Again, however, this would have to be by negotiation. The SNP can't insist that the BBC produces programs for them and the 'English' Government could insist that they desist.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

It would probably make sense for the Scots to make the BBC an offer where the licence fee stays in place and the BBC continues to make some Scottish programs for Scottish people (news, sport etc).

Again, however, this would have to be by negotiation. The SNP can't insist that the BBC produces programs for them and the 'English' Government could insist that they desist.

I agree, this is easy to solve, they'd come up with something.

I think the BBC is a side issue and find it hard to believe that availability of TV channels is one of the big concerns of independence. William Wallace would surely be turning in his grave at the thought of such shallow issues being big constraints.

For me the big issue is how other large member states with secessionist movements will react, given that they are a prominent part of the axis of power within the EU. Rajoy is clearly planning to throw a spanner in the works.

vivatifosi

BobQ wrote: »

The enclosed is a fairly balanced explanation of the minefield into which Scottish independence would lead and the problems it could cause RoUK and the rest of the EU.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/64306.htm#a2

An interesting read. Thanks Bob. I'd not thought of issues such as NATO and UN membership.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

An interesting read. Thanks Bob. I'd not thought of issues such as NATO and UN membership.

No .co.uk any more, presumably. .com.sc perhaps? They'd have to negotiate that with ICANN.

Another interesting point in the document is that one way of Scotland seceding is effectively to make it so the last 300 odd years of treaty signing by the UK on behalf of Scotland had never happened.

That would end up with lots of great trivia quiz questions. Remember how Gretna Green was at war with Russia until about 2004? IIRC they were a named part of the UK in the declaration of war but not included in the peace treaty. Something like that anyway. Scotland would quite possibly and suddenly find herself with unexpected allies.

sharnad

zagubov wrote: »

Well keep believing that, and put some special effort into it.

I'm trying really hard to disbelieve it because Scotland will be so much better off outside the EU but no matter how hard I try I just don't see that happening or at least not as easily and automatically as I'd like.


The minute a country starts suggesting that areas/ regions/ subdivisions could just wander off is the same minute that everything is going to go under the microscope and the fissile members are going to get the hairdryer treatment.

Scotland's about as likely to stumble out of the EU as Scooby's likely to find a real ghost intead of a janitor in a ghost costume

They won't be stumbling outside of the eu, they wil be know long leaving it if they gain independence. How difficult it will be for them to get back in if they decide to do so is another matter

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree, this is easy to solve, they'd come up with something.

I think the BBC is a side issue and find it hard to believe that availability of TV channels is one of the big concerns of independence. William Wallace would surely be turning in his grave at the thought of such shallow issues being big constraints.

For me the big issue is how other large member states with secessionist movements will react, given that they are a prominent part of the axis of power within the EU. Rajoy is clearly planning to throw a spanner in the works.

Can I just make the point here that I wasn't making out it's a big issu. Just one issue that hits real people on the ground. It's something they can tune in with in terms of how independance effects their everyday life.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can I just make the point here that I wasn't making out it's a big issu. Just one issue that hits real people on the ground. It's something they can tune in with in terms of how independance effects their everyday life.

I didn't think you had Dev. It was something I'd heard on the radio a lot in recent weeks and also a bit on the TV news. I can't understand why in the devolution debate the BBC was being mentioned as much as currency and EU status and more than, say, NATO membership.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

I didn't think you had Dev. It was something I'd heard on the radio a lot in recent weeks and also a bit on the TV news. I can't understand why in the devolution debate the BBC was being mentioned as much as currency and EU status and more than, say, NATO membership.

Seems to me that these smaller issues could see many potential yes votes lost.

These are the issues that a lot of people care the most about. They care little about the EU stuff....but whether they can watch strictly come dancing is often the difference between a yes or no vote.

The broadcasters are probably just airing the issues your normal run of the mill people are genuinely confronted with.

zagubov

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have watched the BBC in Dublin, Cork and Tralee many times. I think they gained independence in the 1920s and they are certainly not British.

vivatifosi wrote: »

I have friends in the Netherlands who watch the BBC too.

I guess that the issue is that if you are relatively close to the UK you can get a signal. There's no point in blocking it, and clearly the SNP isn't going to go all North Korea and block it their side.

The Channel Islands and Isle of Man get the beeb and the cable networks in Belgium and the Netherlands carry the BBC (and many other nations TV as well) and presumably the cost is not onerous. It's unimaginable that a similar deal would be unavailable to Scotland and that Scotland's broadcasting output would not be available to each country's cross-border diaspora.

BBC Scotland's not fit for purpose. Its assets can be put to better use.

Generali wrote: »

No .co.uk any more, presumably. .com.sc perhaps? They'd have to negotiate that with ICANN.

Another interesting point in the document is that one way of Scotland seceding is effectively to make it so the last 300 odd years of treaty signing by the UK on behalf of Scotland had never happened.

That would end up with lots of great trivia quiz questions. Remember how Gretna Green was at war with Russia until about 2004? IIRC they were a named part of the UK in the declaration of war but not included in the peace treaty. Something like that anyway. Scotland would quite possibly and suddenly find herself with unexpected allies.

Sounds like you're thinking of Berwick which was incorprated into England the same times as Wales. Bit of a bizarre one that with a country town ina separte legal jurisdiction , etc from its county.

Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent while still negotiating for years afterwards. Not a deal-breaker. Shared a currency for a while. Didn't bother with a referendum.

Sent a letter to the UN stating they'd conisder themselves bound by al pre-existing treaties. Why on earth do they have to make things look so simple when it's obviously better to make it difficult?