Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?

greg66_tri_v2.0

suzyb wrote:

Stick it on the border, half in Scotland, half in England. Job Done!

And in the spirit of co-operation, stick a wall down the middle and call it New Berlin, or New Hadrian!

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that.

Plus you would have a third layer of government: local government, national government, federal government. More public servants to pay. It would be worse than the EU.

But broadly speaking, that is the situation in Scotland already.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

\

Nice choice.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

Behave. A Federal Govt could only be in London. It's bleedin' obvious, innit?

suzyb

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

I always thought Berwick was in Scotland :shock:

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

I wonder about Scotland's ability to stand on its feet. A quick google reveals that it has a population of 5 million or so. That's not going to generate a lot of income tax. Nor is it going to support a huge amount of retail sales tax revenue. I also wonder how many companies would base themselves there absent subsidies from Westminster designed to spread business across the country.

But then they only have a small population to support.
Re subsidies - There is no clear definative explatation that I can find to say whether Scotland is a net contributor or debtor. Plenty of conflicting reports mind you.

greg66_tri_v2.0

daviesee wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I wonder about Scotland's ability to stand on its feet. A quick google reveals that it has a population of 5 million or so. That's not going to generate a lot of income tax. Nor is it going to support a huge amount of retail sales tax revenue. I also wonder how many companies would base themselves there absent subsidies from Westminster designed to spread business across the country.

But then they only have a small population to support.
Re subsidies - There is no clear definative explatation that I can find to say whether Scotland is a net contributor or debtor. Plenty of conflicting reports mind you.

Yes, but it's the infrastructure that goes with a geographical area that is relatively (to England and its population) large. Eg roads, bridges, ferries, public transport, just thinking about transport.

On the other point, the data does seem curiously hard to find. But even if businesses in Scotland contribute more to the national economy in tax than the cost of any subsidies to get them to relocate to Scotland, that's not the point. Independent Scotland would want to keep them there. How does it do so with a much smaller population from which to raise the required financial incentive to stay? Or does it simply promise huge tax rebates?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I wonder about Scotland's ability to stand on its feet. A quick google reveals that it has a population of 5 million or so. That's not going to generate a lot of income tax. Nor is it going to support a huge amount of retail sales tax revenue. I also wonder how many companies would base themselves there absent subsidies from Westminster designed to spread business across the country.

But then they only have a small population to support.
Re subsidies - There is no clear definative explatation that I can find to say whether Scotland is a net contributor or debtor. Plenty of conflicting reports mind you.

Yes, but it's the infrastructure that goes with a geographical area that is relatively (to England and its population) large. Eg roads, bridges, ferries, public transport, just thinking about transport.

On the other point, the data does seem curiously hard to find. But even if businesses in Scotland contribute more to the national economy in tax than the cost of any subsidies to get them to relocate to Scotland, that's not the point. Independent Scotland would want to keep them there. How does it do so with a much smaller population from which to raise the required financial incentive to stay? Or does it simply promise huge tax rebates?

I don't buy your logic.

a) Scandinavia does fine, and they're comparable sizes to Scotland. Why should size matter?

b) In reality, independence or not, Scotland will be part of a single market with Britain and Europe, so why would businesses suddenly leave because of independence?

The net gain or net loss re-tax seems to hinge on the north sea oil argument, as I understand it.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

Behave. A Federal Govt could only be in London. It's bleedin' obvious, innit?

Based on other federal states, it would have to be some relatively minor regional town or city. Any suggestions?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

Behave. A Federal Govt could only be in London. It's bleedin' obvious, innit?

Based on other federal states, it would have to be some relatively minor regional town or city. Any suggestions?

Greg's house. Not the garden.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

On the other point, the data does seem curiously hard to find. But even if businesses in Scotland contribute more to the national economy in tax than the cost of any subsidies to get them to relocate to Scotland, that's not the point. Independent Scotland would want to keep them there. How does it do so with a much smaller population from which to raise the required financial incentive to stay? Or does it simply promise huge tax rebates?

You are losing me there.
I have worked in many companies in Scotland and have had the pleasure of working with people from many worldwide Countries. It wouldn't be a closed border even if it did happen.
Edit:- If by financial incentives to stay, you mean the workers then simply not being London is reason enough for me. Money is not the key decider.

cjcp

Ok, can someone tell me what the SNP's objection is to holding a vote sooner rather than later? Is it because it doesn't want to run a country in the present economic climate, or am I being a bit too cynical?

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

Ok, can someone tell me what the SNP's objection is to holding a vote sooner rather than later? Is it because it doesn't want to run a country in the present economic climate, or am I being a bit too cynical?

It's a twofold thing.

#1They see independence as a big deal rather than a nuisance, so they want to lay the foundations and make sure it all goes well so they get the best result possible. They see that hapepning in a few years. In short - they want to decide when the referendum is held.

#2 - Cameron's trying to stop them offering a Devo-Max option (which is kinda independence light I guess), and make it a binary choice. That matter since polls say a good majority are in favour of Devo-Max, but not full blown independence.

SNP will lose a lot of their political momentum if they totally lose a referendum.

daviesee

cjcp wrote:

Ok, can someone tell me what the SNP's objection is to holding a vote sooner rather than later? Is it because it doesn't want to run a country in the present economic climate, or am I being a bit too cynical?

Nope. You are not being cycnical. If everything in Euroland was rosie, then it would be the SNP pushing to get this through ASAP. It will be a hard sell in the current economic climate.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

England wouldn't countenance the seat of the Federal Govt being anywhere other than England and Scotland wouldn't accept that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

Behave. A Federal Govt could only be in London. It's bleedin' obvious, innit?

Based on other federal states, it would have to be some relatively minor regional town or city. Any suggestions?

Greg's house. Not the garden.

Ahem. He said "minor".

And the garden would always be the subject of separate negotiation.

cjcp

Cheers. So, the SNP playing to its own agenda, rather than that of the Scottish people? (I know, to think that policitians are doing otherwise would be a bit naive of me.)

Next question: what do you chaps/chapesses north of the border think? A vote now or in a couple of years' time? Or do you even want independence?

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

Cheers. So, the SNP playing to its own agenda, rather than that of the Scottish people? (I know, to think that policitians are doing otherwise would be a bit naive of me.)

It's a little more nuanced then that. They're a separatist party and want to give themselves the best chance.

Given that they got elected, they have some say in doing that.

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Cheers. So, the SNP playing to its own agenda, rather than that of the Scottish people? (I know, to think that policitians are doing otherwise would be a bit naive of me.)

It's a little more nuanced then that. They're a separatist party and want to give themselves the best chance.

Given that they got elected, they have some say in doing that.

Exactly. Not nuanced. They're suiting themselves. Come on, Rick: they're politicians

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Cheers. So, the SNP playing to its own agenda, rather than that of the Scottish people? (I know, to think that policitians are doing otherwise would be a bit naive of me.)

It's a little more nuanced then that. They're a separatist party and want to give themselves the best chance.

Given that they got elected, they have some say in doing that.

Exactly. Not nuanced. They're suiting themselves. Come on, Rick: they're politicians

Fine fine Mr Lawyer, they're giving the politics they believe in the best chance (in this instance)... :P

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Cheers. So, the SNP playing to its own agenda, rather than that of the Scottish people? (I know, to think that policitians are doing otherwise would be a bit naive of me.)

It's a little more nuanced then that. They're a separatist party and want to give themselves the best chance.

Given that they got elected, they have some say in doing that.

Exactly. Not nuanced. They're suiting themselves. Come on, Rick: they're politicians

Fine fine Mr Lawyer, they're giving the politics they believe in the best chance (in this instance)... :P

Yeah, but they're kind of spinning it out, aren't they? To prolong their grip on the reins of power.

I mean, if you were a one issue party - say "End crime", and someone said "do this, and crime will cease to exist by next Monday", you might just pause for a moment to wonder what you were going to do with yourself next Tuesday. And the day after. And the day after.

Though I suppose Salmond's next party trick might be to declare Scotland a Republic and appoint himself President for Life.

rick_chasey

If I were campaigning for separatism, separate from the SNP, I'd be doing what the SNP are planning to do, judging by the polls.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fine fine Mr Lawyer, they're giving the politics they believe in the best chance (in this instance)... :P

Exactly. At least they are doing as promised. More than can be said for most.

As for how we feel up here? From what I've read, around 35% for independance.
What is not clear from that is what percentage actively oppose it, or what the undecided will do on the big day.
I can't even decide myself :oops:
What is needed is a clear question, and it has to be the right question for the Country.
Then we need more information/propoganda from both sides as to what will happen it the event of a yes vote.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

Yeah, but they're kind of spinning it out, aren't they? To prolong their grip on the reins of power.

I mean, if you were a one issue party - say "End crime", and someone said "do this, and crime will cease to exist by next Monday", you might just pause for a moment to wonder what you were going to do with yourself next Tuesday. And the day after. And the day after.

But they are doing it correctly. This is a huge issue which has all sorts of complications that need to be resolved before putting it to the electorate. That will take time.

It is too simplistic to call the SNP a one issue party. Independance may be their objective but they were re-elected on the strength of their policies. Independance was way down the list as far as the electorate were concerned.

UndercoverElephant

cjcp wrote:

Next question: what do you chaps/chapesses north of the border think? A vote now or in a couple of years' time? Or do you even want independence?

Actually, at the last election, independence was ranked the 20th most important issue to Scottish voters. There's actually a lot more to the SNP than independence - I'm warming to them, they've been doing a fine job.

As for whether I want it, broadly no, but I guess it depends on a lot of things:

1) Oil revenue: our waters, our oil, right?
2) Can we keep the rest of the BBC? I couldn't stand just having River City all the time.
3) Can you keep hold of Glasgow?

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

As for whether I want it, broadly no, but I guess it depends on a lot of things:

1) Oil revenue: our waters, our oil, right?
2) Can we keep the rest of the BBC? I couldn't stand just having River City all the time.
3) Can you keep hold of Glasgow?

1) Sure. As long as your Navy can protect it. Oh, didn't you get any ships when you decided to leave? Oh dear. :twisted:
2) No. It will become the EBC. You can start your own national broadcaster. Or adopt Sky. Or Skye, as you will probably rebrand it. :P
3) Errr, no. <shudder>

Whatcha going to do about an airline, btw?

UndercoverElephant

Greg66 wrote:

Whatcha going to do about an airline, btw?

We have orange-faced people up here as well you know.

cjcp

UndercoverElephant wrote:

3) Can you keep hold of Glasgow?

No. Not unless you take Birmingham.

Actually, no.

cjcp

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Whatcha going to do about an airline, btw?

We have orange-faced people up here as well you know.

Of course!! Irn-Bru exports will count for something.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

1) Sure. As long as your Navy can protect it. Oh, didn't you get any ships when you decided to leave? Oh dear. :twisted:
2) No. It will become the EBC. You can start your own national broadcaster. Or adopt Sky. Or Skye, as you will probably rebrand it. :P
3) Errr, no. <shudder>

Whatcha going to do about an airline, btw?

1) Good point. You can take all the nuclear subs down to Davenport and we'll take up sailing at Faslane when it is cleaned up. By the way, just how many ships does the RN have these days? The general populous would be astounded at how little there are in operation at one point in time.
2) The boss of Sky lives in Scotland.
3) Nobody said it would be perfect

Who needs a national airline that is nearly bankrupt?