[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Well I'm not an expert on early 20th century accounting practices, but from what I can see. Scotland contributed 11% of revenue and spent 11% locally and contributed 11% to Imperial funds. England contributed 84% spent 77% locally and contributed 86% Imperially. What is this trying to show?

What is this trying to show?

They don't like paying for debt?

@scotroutes
You have obviously been keeping score 😀

That the majority of money generated in Scotland is spent in Scotland and that Scots are owed maybe 1% of UK assets.

You are spot on whimbrel.

Its the best opportunity we have for genuine change in a generation.
And we need a change.

Didn't realise Scotroutes was THAT old.......

International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland's oil Molgrips

I've seen this quoted several times already on this thread and elsewhere but never seen it substantiated and I can't find anything which would indicate that it's set in stone. Do you have a link to the actual law?

For example the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" says;

"In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole."

Which seems to indicate that it would be up for negotiation.

There aren't half a bunch of nasty trolls on this thread. Here is my response to the trolls - oh look you don't have a vote - suck it up sweet cheeks.

"In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone...

So why do you think the Convention would not attribute the oil to the state within the EEZ - i.e. Scotland? Is there any other situation in the world where oil resources in one country's EEZ are attributed or shared with another country?

Postal vote away.

18 days, 22hrs to go.

An honest question - why did you get a postal vote? There's a very large number of postal votes issued for the referendum, and I'm wondering why that is.

I'm away to Sheffield for a wedding.

I'm taking my Passport just in case. 😀

Edit, wedding actually on the Sunday. But I've friends down there so it's good to spend some time rather than an overnighter.

😀

There can't be 600,000 people all going to weddings, though...

Girlfriend is postal voting too, but she's away to Rome for work.

She's postal voted for the last couple of years, as the job involves a LOT of international travel.

There can't be 600,000 people all going to weddings, though...

No, it is interesting though. I'd have probably postal voted regardless. And I'm far more likely to vote in future elections with a postal vote as it's far more convenient. There's a post box in the work place car park. Couldn't be simpler without voting online.

Besides, Thursdays nights. Are hill running nights with the local running club.

I chose to postal vote because I am working away from home. Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations, and the friendly glare to remind you where your cross should go.

athgray - Member
...Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations...

Don't worry, they are as rare a commodity as grass-roots No supporters.

wanmankylung - Member
There aren't half a bunch of nasty trolls on this thread. Here is my response to the trolls - oh look you don't have a vote - suck it up sweet cheeks.

I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies. There was a sense of outrage and disbelief from the colonial upper crust that those unprintable natives could run their own country, accompanied by supercilious and contemptuous commentary. It's deja vu.

18 days to the party.

There is no place for violence , intimidation or prejudice from either side in this referendum. What happened to Jim Murphy was cowardly and unacceptable . However to suggest that morons and thugs are only found on one side is pathetic.

I applied for a postal vote a few years ago for an election I knew I would be out of the country for, it might have been the 2010 general election. I have received postal ballots ever since.

The high number of postal votes for the referendum is a good thing. It means voter turnout will be very high

Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations, and the friendly glare to remind you where your cross should go.

I assume you're joking.

The Jim Murphy thing is amazing. Sure, throwing an egg at someone is rude and shouldn't be condoned - but should it really attract more comment from the Prime Minister than, say, the shelling of civilians in Gaza? Should it really get more media coverage than actual death threats to Alex Salmond and Jim Sillars?

If I was really, really paranoid I'd be wondering about it, wondering why there happened to be several cameras there on that day (not usual for Murphy's speeches), wondering why the egg thrower just walked away instead of legging it, wondering if in fact it was a stunt to get media coverage for someone who hadn't been getting much, and wondering if it was an attempt to move the message back to "nasty nats" after a terrible week for Better Together.

And you can criticise John Prescott for lots of things, but he didn't go crying to the police and cancel a speaking tour because of an egg.

So why do you think the Convention would not attribute the oil to the state within the EEZ - i.e. Scotland?

I’m not saying it won’t – but the convention does not define the “jurisdiction” and the equidistance principle has not always been considered appropriate, so at the moment the 90% claim is just a negotiating position, it’s not a given.

Is there any other situation in the world where oil resources in one country's EEZ are attributed or shared with another country?

See above – I’m not arguing that the UK would have any rights to Scotlands EEZ, just that Scotlands EEZ has not yet been negotiated.

Scotland's EEZ would be the UK's EEZ, with a border between Scotland and England (or NI) as defined by international law - which is perpendicular to the coastline I believe. Handy, as that's how the sectors are defined at the moment.

It's not negotiation unless you think the oil fields can be moved, any more than Cumbria being in England is up for negotiation.

Though I'd be happy to swap the oil for Cumbria 😉

Scotland's EEZ would be the UK's EEZ, with a border between Scotland and England (or NI) as defined by international law - which is perpendicular to the coastline I believe. Handy, as that's how the sectors are defined at the moment.

Which goes back to my original question, “Do you have a link to the actual law?”

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says (my bold);
“The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be [b]effected by agreement[/b] on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.”

Article 38 says;

“1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes
as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states ;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations ;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination
of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bond, if the parties agree thereto.”

Good - we already have a demarcation line agreed, it's used in the GERS reports, for fishery demarcation, and things like that. It's defined in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order. It has the same legal status as the land boundary between Scotland and England.

It's defined in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order

Doesn't that define the territorial waters not the EEZ?

Regardless, it is a UK document - the UK 'rules' won't apply to an iScotland will they?

I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies.

Girlfriend is postal voting too, but she's away to Rome for work.
She's postal voted for the last couple of years, as the job involves a LOT of international travel.

Regardless, it is a UK document - the UK 'rules' won't apply to an iScotland will they?

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too? That's defined in a UK document.

It does sound a bit strange that its people living in Scotland who get to vote rather than people who are Scottish.

Yes you may have lived there for ages and feel Scottish, but what happens to passports/nationality if things separate?

Scotland get independence but not EU membership.

Person A: Born in Scotland, lives there and participated in the vote
Person B: Born in rUK, lives in Scotland and voted
Person C: Born in Scotland, but now lives rUK

People A&C may not be able to work in the EU if Scotland wasnt accepted?
One had a say in it, the other didnt.

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too? That's defined in a UK document.

Are you sure about that?

I was under the fairly strong understanding it was defined in a series of treaties between the English and Scottish Crowns, that predated the existence of the United Kingdom by a couple of hundred years...

Those treaties became part of the laws of the UK, and define the limits of Scots law vs English law, just as the SAWBO does for the marine boundary.

It does sound a bit strange that its people living in Scotland who get to vote rather than people who are Scottish.

Define "Scottish". I was born here, but my parents were not. My partner wasn't born here, but has lived here most of her life. What about people with two Scottish parents, who were born outside Scotland?

It's impossible to come up with a sensible definition. And, more than that, it's unfair. The referendum is about what happens to Scotland, so it should be up to the people who live in Scotland.

Oh, and in your scenarios, all those people would retain British citizenship so would be able to work wherever they liked.

Define "Scottish"

So everyone born before independence would be British, those post would be split into rUK & Scottish nationals?

Or would that come at passport renewal time. When your passport comes up for renewal would you have to apply to the new Scottish passport agency, or could you renew via the rUK passport agency?

The former if you're a citizen of iScotland and the latter if you're a citizen of rUK . It seems like the most prosaic of all questions posed on this thread so far.

It seems fair that only people who live in Scotland should have a vote. I buggered off ages ago, why should I stick my oar in about what healthcare, education and tax look like when it's not really going to affect me?

Though I'd be happy to swap the oil for Cumbria

Oi, hands off - you already get most of the interesting bits.

Actually how about we let you have the currency union Sir BS is so keen on in return for an equitable share of the interesting bits? You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest.

British citizens resident in Scotland would become Scottish citizens, as would Scottish-born people living abroad. Others would also be able to apply, showing citizenship by descent or other reasons.

The UK government has said it's likely people would be able to retain both British and Scottish citizenship, becoming dual-nationals like lots of people already are (me, for example).

Scottish citizens could apply for Scottish passports. If they retained British citizenship presumably they could also apply for British passports or renew them. I have British and American passports, no problem renewing either.

It's possible the rUK government might want to strip Scots of their British citizenship - they've given no indication of wanting to do that, but it's theoretically possible, though it might be contrary to EU law.

You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest.

Deal. Most Scottish mountains are 90% squelchy bog, you can have those bits 😉

Ben, technically I think you'll find that according to the Maastricht treaty, any national of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. (article 8 ) and that nationality is to be defined purely by reference to the law of the member state.

at the moment, anyone with British Citizenship is automatically a British National for EU citizenship purposes - but it doesn't follow that that would automatically be the case after independence or into the future!

Yup, I don't think it's been tested in international law yet - and it also depends on whether Scotland and/or the rUK leaves the EU.

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too?

I’m assuming that your attempts to straw man your way around the whole subject means that the answer to the question;
“Do you have a link to the actual law?” which states that “International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland's oil”, is No.

International laws define the EEZ, according to the equidistance principle. Under UNCLOS III states are supposed to reach a sensible solution, but when there have been disputes it's been the equidistance principle that's been used to settle the dispute.

If Scotland does go independent there are going to be a lot of lawyers getting very,very rich, I can see some of these arguments going on for years, and it will be the Scottish tax payer and British tax payer who will be paying. What a waste of money and time!

What a waste of money and time!

The once in a life time chance to move away from the morally corrupt boys club of Westminster politics and start something new and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society. You're right total waste of time.

bencooper - Member
"You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest."
Deal. Most Scottish mountains are 90% squelchy bog, you can have those bits

No way - don't give away the bits I ride on. 🙂

But just think, if the North of England comes to us, you can have our access laws too. No toffs with shotguns telling you that you can't ride here. Will we be hearing Cumbrian cries of FREEDOM!..... 🙂

konabunny - Member
"I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies."
Which one?

Tanganyika.

.....chance to move away from the morally corrupt boys club of Westminster politics and start something new and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society.

I agree with the sentiment, but your view seems rather narrow. Is independence the right/best/only solution to the problem.
If there are other/better options, or independence eventually delivers more of the same [Scotland's very own morally corrupt boys and girls club], kjcc25 may be right.

This posted previously seems to sum it up:

something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.

PS: I don't know the answer to the problem 🙂

No guarantees of anything, but it will be what we make it. Certainly no chance of Scotland being able change Westminster politics.

Let's assume (or hope) there's no Currency Union, and Scotland simply uses the £ ie [url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-panama-principle/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-panama-principle ]The Panama solution[/url].

That sounds good to me.

I wonder how mortgage rates in Panama compare to those in the USA?

Looks like they are ~2% higher than in the US, and harder to obtain (bigger deposit needed).

If Scotland goes the same way, that's quite a price hike.

The cost of a mortgage also depends on how much you pay for property. What's the average house price in Panama compared with the US?

but when there have been disputes it's been the equidistance principle that's been used to settle the dispute.

Always? Maybe someone should tell the Dutch, the Germans have taken some of their territory.

I'd love mortgage rates to soar by 2% and be harder to get - it would finally cause a price correction which has been a bubble fuelled by low boe rates this last decade.

and the opportunity to move towards a fairer society.

With a foreign country with an in-built right-wing majority in control of your currency? Good luck with that.

If the interest rates and income tax soar then there will be an exodus of exactly the sort of people they need to tax more to fund this. I know of many people from work who already have a plan B sorted to relocate to London.

With a foreign country with an in-built right-wing majority in control of your currency? Good luck with that.

So, what we'll get with a no vote then?

Is independence the right/best/only solution to the problem.

No, but the problem is the ballot isn't about the best way to run Scotland. It would be better with three or four options on it. Why aren't there more options? Because it's a nationalistic principle not a pragmatic one.

With 3 or 4 options how would you decide which "won"? Go with the one option that had the highest number of votes even if that was only 25.1%?

In any case, wasn't it David Cameron that ruled out a third option?

Why aren't there more options?

You can blame that on David Cameron. No Devo Max on the ballot paper was his decision.... Oh how funny it will be when that backfires.

Would either of you have liked devo max on the ballot paper?

Did Salmond want devo max on the ballot paper?

[quote=athgray ]Would either of you have liked devo max on the ballot paper?I wouldn't have chosen it, but I think it would have been the most popular choice. However, its irrelevant. The sort of "Devo Max" that most folk want(ed) isn't possible under the current structure of the UK. It would have demanded a fully federal solution, requiring a UK-wide referendum, and I don't think the majority of voters in England would have wanted it, nor seen the point of it.

[quote=athgray ]Did Salmond want devo max on the ballot paper?
There's a lot of folk think that he did. I rather think he didn't and actually painted Cameron into a bit of a corner in a way that [i]he[/i] had to refuse to offer it.

I too think that it would have been the clear winner by a long way. I still would not have voted for that option, but i'd have been satisfied with it.

No Devo Max on the ballot paper was his decision....

But the SNP's mandate, as per the 2011 manifesto, was for an independence referendum, not one on further devolution.

You remember that word? Mandate?

Mandate, mandate, mandate, mandate!

Alex is so keen on using it currently that its a shame to forget what he went to the polls offering you in order to get elected...

😆

. I rather think he didn't and actually painted Cameron into a bit of a corner in a way that he had to refuse to offer it.

So not really Cameron's fault then?

.... Oh how funny it will be when that backfires.

I fail to see anything funny about the result however it goes.

Mandate, mandate, mandate, mandate!

No mandate didn't seem to stop the tories now did it?

I think the Bettertogether side rejected the second question/ Devo max option as they believe that would require a second referendum in England Wales and Northern Ireland

[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28996005 ]http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28996005[/url]

For a bit of light relief, I did find this funny. Puns come thick and fast. Shakespeare would be proud.

athgray - Member
Would either of you have liked devo max on the ballot paper?

Can't speak for them, but I would have preferred something along those lines.

I think the UK needs restructured with the removal of the top layer and more decentralised power. From what I can see the North of England is in a similar position to Scotland.

Not an option offered though, so we'll take what we can get and work from there.

Hopefully the ripples caused by an independent Scotland will invigorate democracy in the rest of the UK, but how you handle that is up to you lot.

At least you will have learnt how the establishment uses the tools of a controlled media with breathtaking dishonesty, and the benefits of using social media to counter it - that's if they don't find a way to censor the internet citing paedophilia or terrorist concerns.

If Scotland wins the Referendum, it's FaceBook we have to thank...

more decentralised power

Serious question here

Given the revelations over the indifference shown by locally elected officials over a long period in Rotherham that have hit the headlines this week (and apparently SOS are due to reveal a similar story in Glasgow in tomorrows paper) do you think that further decentralisation is perhaps not just a panacea, but a thoroughly dangerous move? (I make this comment not just referring to Scotland, but the wider context too)

ninfan - Member
...do you think that further decentralisation is perhaps not just a panacea, but a thoroughly dangerous move?

Democracy is an imperfect tool.

Rotherham looks to me like a failure of administration, showing the lack of a powerful and objective independent audit process happening as a matter of routine.

There should be no hiding place for corruption, and entrenched maladministration is a form of corruption. (That's IMO, of course)

Can't speak for them, but I would have preferred something along those lines.

You have previously talked about the neverending cause for independence. Excuse me for saying I don't believe you.

If Scotland wins the Referendum

Not quite sure what you mean by this????

citing paedophilia

The only person that has been citing paedophilia is you. You described Westminster as a collection of slimebuckets previously harbouring paedophiles, currently harbouring paedophiles, and will continue to harbour paedophiles unless Scotland gets independence.

it's FaceBook we have to thank..

I prefer to put my faith in more than social media.

So, what we'll get with a no vote then?

Not at all. With a no vote Scotland gets a say in decisions which affect the currency and their interests have to be taken into account. Not the case if you vote yes.

Epicyclo - yes, however it certainly opens serious questions about the system of local government and locally elected officials having oversight over, for example, child protection issues and police funding - the figures coming back like Lancashire having in the order of 100 recent prosecutions and South Yorkshire having none, say that something must be wrong with the system as it is.

That type of devolved power isn't doing anyone any good!

Given the whole farce of the Dame Butler Sloss inquiry into the alleged paedophile ring at Westminster decentralisation of power doesnt seem any more dangerous than the current situation, and could be a whole lot better with more people feeling their vote matters, their opinions are listened to and people taking clear responsibility for what happens in their area.

athgray - Member
You have previously talked about the neverending cause for independence. Excuse me for saying I don't believe you.

That's fine, but if you care to look through my previous posts, you'll see that I have several times stated a preference for a federated UK, in which each part had its powers fixed and not removable by the federation, ie the Federation derives its powers from its constituent parts and not the other way round.

I also think Scotland is quite capable of going it alone, in or out of the EU, NATO etc, and it is quite an exciting prospect, and more attractive the closer it gets.

With a no vote Scotland gets a say in decisions which affect the currency and their interests have to be taken into account.

You do know that the festival is over in Edinburgh. Just the fireworks to come....

Democracy is an imperfect tool.

Trouble, it usually comes on two legs.

I prefer to put my faith in more than social media.

Agreed. Although there's no denying the power of social media in spreading ideas, truth, and unfortunately lies. That's not just a reference to the referendum. The number of people I see popping up on my newsfeed that believe any old tripe and don't bother trying verifying it, is frankly worrying.

As good as social media is for spreading ideas and movements, it's still deeply flawed. The argument for traditional news media is that they act as gatekeepers, verifying before publishing. That falls down of course when news providers are in favour on one goal or another.

Although I can't see Scotland turning out like some of the other examples of political change from the past couple of years which have been at least in part, fuelled by social media.

That's the big problem, though - we don't have an impartial and balanced mainstream media. Social media has big flaws, but it is fantastic at telling the stories the mainstream media don't want to tell.

For example an official No campaign person was arrested yesterday for assaulting a female Yes supporter - no mainstream sources have covered it yet. It was a kick to the stomach, obviously less serious than an egg.

I trust social media far more than I trust mainstream media. Far fewer vested interests.

.....if Scotland wins the Referendum

If Scotland is the only country voting, how can it lose?
I thought it was "yes" Scots vs "no" Scots, not Scotland vs the other 3 countries in the Union.

I thought it was "yes" Scots vs "no" Scots

Well, and the Labour activists bussed up from down south and paid £25 per day to knock on doors for Better Together 😉