The tangled web
The only way never to be caught out, it’s said, is to always tell the truth, because then you never have to worry about remembering which lies you told to who. And since we’d be lying if we told you that we weren’t enjoying watching the No campaign’s catalogue of falsehood beginning to turn in on itself, as one lie attacks another, we won’t bother.
The UK government’s dramatic debt announcement this week may have marked the opening of the floodgates. Because, to complete this appalling car-crash of mixed metaphors, the whole rotten edifice is starting to crumble down about their ears.
The latest attempted scare story is the curious one regarding English students at Scottish universities. And for once, there’s at least a small grain of truth somewhere in it. The Scottish Government’s position that it would be able to keep charging English students tuition fees in an independent Scotland, in apparent contravention of EU law (which we only currently dodge due to a loophole because England and Scotland are both in the UK), does seem a rather shaky one.
Therefore, runs the argument, Scottish universities would be swamped by English students taking advantage of a free education, Scottish students would be deprived of places, and the universities would lose millions of pounds. Bad news all round, right?
Except, wait a minute. Isn’t “Better Together” always telling us that Scotland wouldn’t just waltz into the EU? Aren’t they constantly insisting that Scotland would go to the “back of the queue” for membership and take years, perhaps decades, to be accepted under goodness knows what terms? In which case, as non-EU members, the EU’s laws about tuition fees wouldn’t apply to Scotland and Scottish universities could charge English students whatever they liked.
Of course, those warnings are empty fearmongering rubbish. Scotland would be in the EU. But would England? By 2017, it looks increasingly inevitable that the UK (or rUK) will be holding a referendum on EU membership, and every single poll shows that such a referendum would result in a vote to leave. So if Scotland was independent, it would be in the EU, but England wouldn’t, and once again EU law would be irrelevant.
It’s a measure of the dishonesty – and the incompetence – of the No campaign that it tries to make these blatantly incompatible lies stick at the same time. “Scotland will be thrown out of the EU – but, er, still subject to EU laws” is an embarrassingly fatuous and transparently stupid line to have to try to push, but a compliant media ensures that they’re almost never made to face up to the contradiction.
And that, readers, is why we only get to sleep for four hours a night. But as events this week have shown, as the referendum gets nearer and Scots start to scrutinise the arguments more closely, there’s only so long “Better Together” can keep papering over the cracks before their lies start to pull each other apart.
…and juyou wrote that withough even mentioning all the Jim Gallacher stuff…
Of course, the biggest example of this is that we would simultaneously be thrown out of the EU AND have to adopt the Euro.
Even if the rUK decides to remain in the EU, it doesn’t mean Scotland can’t do anything to restrict the numbers of English students studying in Scotland.
We might not be able to charge them tuition fees, but we can alter the university admission system to make it harder for them to get in here, and we can possibly give grants to Scottish residents only (that could then cancel out universal tuition fees).
I wrote a blog post setting this out in more detail last night.
I think the moment I realised the No campaign were a pack of lies as opposed to simply the other side of an argument is when, on one hand, they claimed Scotland would be out of the EU… but in the same breath, they would be forced to adopt the Euro. The person who made the list didn’t seem to understand the glaring incompatibility of those two things.
“we only get to sleep for four hours a night”
You are Margaret Thatcher, I claim my £5 milk token!
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Sounds like their web of lies are tangling around there necks.
Telling lies and half-truths is not only very risky. Requiring complete concentration to maintain the deception and avoid the obvious tangles is also an extremely exhausting activity. I am convinced that some of the unionist spokespersons are approaching burn-out. BT is already a spent force, and the real battle has only just begun.
No complacency, however. We need to keep the pressure on until the fat lady sings!
Thomas – some interesting ideas on your blog post there. I particularly like the idea of Scotland leading the way to get the EU to encourage England to drop its fees on the basis of restricting freedom of movement for students. After all, if we have freedom of movement for workers, why not for students?
I had a good chuckle just now looking at this list of tuition fees in Europe – everyone is either no fees or low fees, until you get to “UK”…
They’re just on a completely different planet from the rest of Europe. No wonder they’re wanting out. They should join NAFTA or something.
Except, wait a minute. Isn’t “Better Together” always telling us that Scotland wouldn’t just waltz into the EU? Aren’t they constantly insisting that Scotland would go to the “back of the queue” for membership and take years, perhaps decades…
Mind we’re going to be forced to use the Euro* and into Schengen too.
*While the BoE / a foriegn country sets our interest rates which will force political union between Scotland and the rUK even though independence is forever / there’s no going back.
Just to make sure everything’s clear.
Good god is Jackie Baillie going to sing. OK Surrender, mercy!
“The Scottish Government’s position that it would be able to keep charging English students tuition fees in an independent Scotland, in apparent contravention of EU law (which we only currently dodge due to a loophole because England and Scotland are both in the UK), does seem a rather shaky one.”
I’m not sure it’s entirely shaky. It looks that way at first, until you look the rest of the EU and how it works for other EU students.
Basically, the EU has a very similar education ethos to Scotland, and study is either free or very cheap for all EU students in all EU counties. You can see an interesting comparison here:
http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees
England is now very much out of step with the this ethos, and in being that way, is also out of step with the spirit of the EU. Why should students from England be able to effectively sponge on the taxpayers of other EU countries while not providing the reciprocal benefit that the free travel area is all about?
Of course it’s not black and white – it may be that many more EU students were heading for the UK than those going in the other direction and England had to do that. But I’ve never seen that argued, and ultimately countries benefit from students who come in to study in a huge variety of ways.
If a newly independent Scotland was under pressure to raise fees to the English level for all EU students, in order to stop a massive influx of people coming to take advantage of our tax funded system, the EU would have to balance whether its basic ethos on education and free movement was more or less important than that one rule, which now effectively doesn’t work because England is out of step.
I suspect, given that, a way would be found around that rule.
Keeping up all of those lies will eventually get like one of those guys that spin plates on the end of sticks. You have to be very good at it or they will all come crashing down and Better Together are not good at much are they?
Two points.
First, Universities Scotland have a solicitors note from Anderson Strathern (it’s not actually an opinion) as regards iScotland’s position vis-a-vis fees and the EU, which suggests that there is good reason to believe that we can argue for the policy’s retention (albeit excluding all Non-Scottish domiciled students and not just those from the rUK).
http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/uploads/briefings/Note%20for%20Universities%20Scotland(8025053_v4)%20DOC(8033180_3).pdf
Second, as regards an in/out EU vote, without Scottish votes rUK is much more likely to vote to leave the EU which very much strengthens the point that you make.
“until the fat lady sings”
But who’s going to play her?
Which of the SNP ladies has the best singing voice?
Westminster will demand to know the answer, and they’ll call the cost of finding out an “unacceptable waste of taxpayers money!”
/sarcasmAnd now I have in image of Nicola Sturgeon chopping off Cameron’s head while dressed as a valkyrie stuck in my head. If only I was a cartoon artist…
The Treasury’s announcement that it would honour all UK debt isn’t the most stunning of revelations. But the claimed reason for the announcement was a big, fat lie.
Darling finger pointed at Alex Salmond & said that he threatened to default on Scotland’s sovereign debt which made the financial markets very nervous, hence the Treasury’s announcement. Of course, if this were true, the markets would rightfully be concerned. But this was a complete fabrication & a bare faced lie. Why did he do this?
Well, the UK economy is being crushed under the weight of its debt, currently standing at £1.4 trillion. Despite austerity, Osborne will add another £111 billion to that before this fiscal year is over, then £96 billion & another £79 billion if he’s still in power by end of 2015.
According to Osborne’s own forecast, by then, the Treaty debt ratio (Gross public debt) will have reached an eye watering 95% of GDP in 2015/2016. (Source: UK Autumn Statement available at http://tinyurl.com/ps6t3ru , which will save you 45 quid by not having a paper copy, by the way).
That’s about the same as Iceland, the small country that Better Together often cites as a basket case. If interest rates start to rise by 2015, the UK economy will suffer disastrous consequences because it would simply be unable to honour its debt.
And since the current debt is getting worse due to a structural deficit, it just seems unlikely that things can get better for the foreseeable future.
Scotland however has been running a fiscal surplus (including oil) since at least 1980. This surplus, although relatively small, helps reduce the amount of borrowing the UK government has to make.
Losing this surplus will only make the financial situation of the remaining UK more fragile & more likely to default. It is sad but not surprising that the British will do almost anything now, to prevent Scotland’s return to full sovereign independence.
Speaking of unionist spokespersons. I note that the latest talent to appear defending the Treasury was Alan Reid LibDum MP for Argyll. Way out of his depth and absolutely no match for Stewart Hosie who completely demolished Reid’s analysis. I predict you wont see him on telly again soon.
Doug Daniel
Back in ’94 I studied in England, Ireland and France under the Erasmus Funding so EU doing their bit to help movement of students, least they did back then.
Smiled at this in BBC regards Govt Paper launch today…
It is the first UK government analysis to be published since the launch of the Scottish government’s White Paper in November.
It will focus on the UK’s diplomatic network and how businesses based in Scotland, and other parts of the UK, can be protected.
It is expected to highlight the work of the UK government to help industries such as Scotch whisky
How much is it to use an Embassy again?
This really has been the most bizarre week of the self-styled Project Fear’s indyref campaign so far. Have they not sobered up after the festive season yet?
The Daily record keeps the bizarreness going with an alleged admission from the FM that we may not be using Sterling that is, unsurprisingly, total tosh.
http://logicsrock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/welcome-to-project-fear-twilight-zone.html
[Could someone point me at how to format URLs on the new comments platform?]
@Thomas Widmann
You are probably aware of the legal advice to Universities Scotland on charging rUK students after independence. If not, it’s well worth a read:
http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/uploads/briefings/Note%20for%20Universities%20Scotland%288025053_v4%29%20DOC%288033180_3%29.pdf
Am I not right in thinking there’s already a system whereby uni places can be reserved for Scottish students – as opposed to EU ones – (up to a limit)? If so, I’d assume it would just continue.
Of course the other option is to charge fees equivalent to the English system… you see you cant discriminate on the grounds of nationality…
So if we cant stop them lets join them…
and instead of giving fee free education lets charge fees and give every student resident in Scotland for 2 years before starting UNI a government grant equivalent to the fees.
That would allow all Scottish students to get their education paid for, while not discriminating against anyone based on nationality…
The qualifying criteria would be residency.
Roddy – seems you just leave them as text, and if they’re a URL the editor will do it for you. My comment got put in the spam box, seemingly because I’d used <a> tags to format the URL!
I noted last night on Severin’s piece on the Guardian about this, where he failed to point out that his story was generated by Academics Together, that the UK is already in a lather about benefits tourists and is looking for changes/loopholes to prevent this. What would chasing off to Scotland to obtain free tuition be if not benefit tourism? Something Westminster abhors does it not? The Daily Fail certainly does.
Just got a weasel answer from Europe Direct about my question on EU Citizenship, absolute waffle.
Thank you for your messages and apologies for the delay in replying.
The European Commission cannot speculate on future events.
Please kindly note that according to primary EU law (Article 20 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall automatically be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. Citizenship of the Union thus does not exist independently from citizenship of a State that is an EU Member State.
We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if you have other questions.
Thanks, Doug.
Contradictory lies reminds me of this post on Scot Goes Pop a while ago:
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-omniscare.html
@Malc
For clarity, may I ask what was your question?
What beggers belief in the fees argument is the bolt on “too stupid” argument. Despite the fact that Scottish universities would not be able to charge fees the universities would nonetheless be compelled to fill all the places with students outwith SCotland because presumably the Scottish students would be too stupid to obtain places.
What if the majority of places went to Scottish students and only a relatively small number of places were offered to the brightest and best of the EU applicants. Applicants from outside the EU pay fees anyway. Would it then matter greatly if the Scottish Government had to fund these places? The cost would not be onerous and the Scottish universities would still attract some of the best students the EU has to offer. This would keep the Scottish universities at the forfront of R&D and encourage academic excellence.
This is much less of a problem than BT are making it out to be. Of course if rUK leaves the EU or we, in the end, do not join then it isn’t an issue at all.
What happens with Northern Irish students if they want to study in Ireland?
Apologies for being ignorant and lazy, but there is a good amount of knowledge on here….
It’s rotten right enough.A fraudster,convicted and jailed for swindling the tax payer,currently sits in government over us.its time for us to move on.
@Doug, absolutely! Scotland would be a typical EU country in so many regards, and it’s quite clear it’s England (or perhaps rather Greater London) that doesn’t fit in at all.
@kininvie: The legal advice is from April last year, and I fear it might already be outdated. For instance, Denmark had to change its rules around the same time as a result of C-46/12.
I should say I am still against joining the EU at any cost or in a rush. If the EU changes its tune and wants to talk fair enough but there is no need to look needy. If they want to pander to Cameron and play hard to get I am all for telling them to sling their hook. We have the oil, fish and beef and the water and it is a hungry world. I am content for Scotland to be a full and active member of the EU but not if Rompuy, Rajoy and Barroso want to play petty politics. In short if they don’t want us enough to play straight then they don’t desere to have us.
David McCann at 10.47
Alan Reid (or “Bunty” as he is known around here)is out of his depth in a paddling pool.
@HandAndShrimp:
I seriously doubt that the EU will actually try to be petty about Scotland.
Spain is talking big because of Catalonia, but most of Spain’s fishing fleet is in Scottish waters.
Cameron wants out anyway.
They’ll play things as straight as any politician ever does.
and it’s quite clear it’s England (or perhaps rather Greater London) that doesn’t fit in at all.
Britain also stands out like a sore thumb when it comes to worrying about those immigrant foreigners.
http://tinyurl.com/p7jwjmo
With 43% stressing over them, Britain is well out in front; the next in the list is Belgium at 26% with < 2/10 concerned about the issue in the majority of European countries.
Furthermore, if you look at immigrant levels, Britain has far lower numbers than many EU countries.
http://tinyurl.com/nabnjac
So it would seem to be more than just an innocent concern over ability to accommodate in terms of infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc. Maybe more to do with preserving 'culture' as Farage put it?
@kininvie, apart from C-46/12 mentioned above, there’s also C-523/11 from July, which according to Danish newspapers caused Denmark a lot of problems.
As I have said many times, and the longer this referendum campaign runs the surer I am
rUK needs Scotland! – Scotland does NOT need rUK but it would make things easier for both.
Also worth noting on the Universities Scotland page is this one which clarifies where funding comes from for Scottish universities. I’ve heard Acqdemic Together gripe that iScotland would be cut off from rUK Research council funding – here’s the proof it won’t be:
http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/uploads/briefings/how%20is%20higher%20education%20funded.pdf
Rev,I hope I dont incure your rath, & get ma heid stoved in wie that jagged rock,(btw). Ailsa Craig day a nice line in heavy coloured wans,/gray,s/blue,s.It tain me awe day yesterday tae catch up, on the stories/posts, 3am ah goat tae me bed,so I hope this post on your new, format doesent send you into a rage,( ah only know how tae type ( somewhat).
#Roddy Macdonald,the last time ah looked at a map, the URLs were in Russia,lol
I was also under the impression that there is a rule in EU law that intimates if a member state in an established region (like britain the land mass) has a law which is inherently different and affects another member state in a negative fashion, then it is possible to basically alter the arrangements in relation to that member state…..therefore, as England is charging their own students a fortune, so as to avoid a negative impact on Scotland, we could continue to charge them until Westminster changes its tune.
The difference, as silly as it sounds, between us and the rest of europe, is the fact we are an island and the tuition fees for us and rUK are massively different.
I’ll try and find the exact wording though
BBC article on marginal seats which could decide 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25726270
Aside from the fact a Yes result is completely ignored, and the fact that there’s a hell of a lot more marginals in Scotland based on polls showing the SNP way out in front…
Just 2 out of the 49 shown are in Scotland, i.e. 4%.
Great to have such a powerful say in the UK government.
@The Penman
We covered that here:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-soot-covered-cockerel/
At this rate we’re gonna need border points to stop all these benefit tourists from the south!
O/T, RBS bonuses, Sky news this morning & the,Financial Sector mouthpiece saying,if UK banker,s dont get bonuses they will go elsewhere in the World,ah thinks there will be no shortage of EU banker,s moveing to London, for increase in salery,s. Put a GUN tae their Fekin heid,s, or they move out post haste,how many time,s are we to be threatened.
Another blatant contradiction is that many unionists have claimed we wouldn’t be able to afford free tuition for ANYONE in an independent Scotland, and would have to start charging fees… now they seem to be admitting that we could afford it, but it would mostly go to English students because of EU law (the EU that we supposedly won’t be in). They can’t keep their stories straight at all. It’s not just that their various scare stories contradict one other, each of them also seems to contain an internal contradiction of it’s own. Crazy.
@Scott Minto
Indeed you did, and wonderfully comprehensively so. Merely providing the straight link in case people have friends (like mine) who prefer “neutral” sources rather than these terrible cybernats at Wings…!
Westminster also seems to have forgotten that part of the EU referendum pre-negotiations (I know!) that they seek is that individual member states should have the power to veto EU rules such as these.
now they seem to be admitting that we could afford it
Yes, there seems to be a shift in this direction in general.
Probably behind the recent move towards begging Scotland to ‘share and pool it’s resources’ with London.
Excellent article on NNS by George Kerevan.
The UK debt estimated to be circa £1.3tn consists of £375bn owned by the Bank of England as a consequence of printing money and purchasing gilts on the open market.
An independent Scotland would be entitled to e.g.8.4% of that amount as a shared asset. Hence the jitters by the market.
rUK needs Scotland – Scotland doesn’t need rUK
This is a true statement becoming more obvious by the day. When the rUK leaves the EU how will this impact on the London financial market.
As the far East financial markets (especially China) grow how will this impact on the London fiancial market.
As rUK face their growing shortfall in energy and water they will be faced with nuclear or shale oil options for enegy and more infrastructure to pipe water from Wales (already close to limit).
However it would have been nice to part on good terms. Give support to each other via a currency union. To have maintained good trading bonds. Unfortunately the parting may now be painful and on a more confrontational basis.
I regret this but the fault lies fully with the Westminster/Whitehall elite.
Papadocx says
Yes, I agree, for the moment anyway!
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this, but in terms of Science and Technology identifiable public expediture, the latest regional breakdown Treasury figures show Scotland last year received £282m of the UK total of £3.318bn. That’s 8.5%, just a bawhair above our population share and a good bit less than or GDP share, so not exactly the massive Science/Tech subsidy that BT frequently crow about.
“latest regional breakdown Treasury figures show Scotland last year received £282m of the UK total of £3.318bn. That’s 8.5%, just a bawhair above our population share and a good bit less than or GDP share”
Link?
My pleasure:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264287/Country_and_Regional_Analysis_2013_Tables.xlsx
Table A.8b
BTW Table A.21 of the same spread sheet indicates that £1.57bn of ‘Scotland’s Expenditure’ is actually spent by UK central government in departments the functions of which are fully devolved.
Don’t you love paying twice for stuff ??
This ties in nicely with the myth that Scotland is over reliant on state employment.
The most recent figures show that Scotland has 373,400 of the 4,657,000 (full time equivalent) public sector workers in the UK.
That’s 8.02%, compared to 8.35% population share.
An equal population share of public sector workers in Scotland would require an increase of 15,460 (full time equivalent) jobs.
Compound this with public sector earnings in Scotland being 3.16% below UK average, means we could afford a 3.16% higher staff headcount, equating to a further 11,340 (full time equivalent) jobs.
Overall this means Scotland can currently afford a potential 26,800 additional (full time equivalent) public sector jobs.
That’s based on current on our on-shore tax take being roughly in line with UK average (which it is) and therefore completely excludes North Sea revenues.
@MochaChoca
Very interesting. Any idea what the £143m spent by Central Govt in Scotland on ‘Public Order and Safety’ might be? The MI5 budget perhaps?
I’d suspect intelligence agencies to come under ‘non-identifiable’ expenditure.
I’m not an economist, but the other thing that strikes me about the debt announcement is that when Scotland becomes independent, then rUK’s debt-to-earnings ratio jumps about 10% overnight. Is that a factor in any of this?
Non-identifiable expenditure last year was £94.8bn (or 16.4% of total expenditure).
This includes £36.3bn in defence spending and is apportioned on an population share basis between the regions / devolved countries.
The question is what percentage of that £94.8bn is actually spent IN Scotland rather than just attributed to us.
@MochaChoca: There are very few “fully devolved” departments. Health isn’t. Transport isn’t. Public order isn’t. And so on. The Scotland Act has quite a lot of reserved powers listed, nearly all of which involve some government expenditure.
I have always maintained that the sensible solution to the Scottish cultural requirement of free further education would have been reimbursement of Scottish students by means of a S.G. awarded bursary.
That, while a pain in the arse to set up, would avoid all the legal/ethical/pragmatic problems.
And it is little different from the educational bursaries which used to be allocated to students by local authorities, although that was means tested and post-code variable, so denying the S.G. that right would be reducing its powers to LESS than those once wielded by local councils.
“I’m not an economist, but the other thing that strikes me about the debt announcement is that when Scotland becomes independent, then rUK’s debt-to-earnings ratio jumps about 10% overnight. Is that a factor in any of this?”
Yes, it is.
The ultimate irony being that it takes the Web to untangle the lies of the dependency tendency.
But, not the first time a web has been influential in Scotland’s need for political independence from its neighbour.
Slightly O/T.
Not sure if anyone else has been looking at both the Yes Scotland and Better Together pages on Facebook lately.
If you had, you will notice that in terms of ‘likes’ YES Scotland is pulling away
and has a 8 percentage point lead over Better Together.
That in itself doesn’t prove much, apart from YES Scotland being more popular.
I’ve been tracking both since October 22nd, when the lead was only 4 percentage points.
The gap did narrow around mid-November, but since then has picked up and seems to be on a widening path.
The other bit from the Facebook pages is the ‘People Talking’ figures.
Again YES Scotland are ahead on a regular basis, especially within the last few weeks with YES Scotland having about 10,000 lead.
‘People talking about us’ is a rough measure of contributions http://www.insidefacebook.com/2012/01/10/people-talking-about-this-defined/
Ok it’s not all scientific it terms of proper polling, but does serve as an indication of where this train is going. Yes, Facebook is open to everyone, not just Scots living in Scotland, but logically if you were to extrapolate those who don’t have a vote from both pages, you should end up with the same percentages.
This referendum, is really like no other as it does connect with the people with the aid of the social network medium (Facebook/Blogs/Forums/Twitter etc.). I read somewhere that currently the number of pro-independence websites/blogs outstrip those that support the union.
BUT and it’s an important BUT, we must never ever believe that it’s going to happen for Independence, until, as someone here mentioned, when the ‘fat lady sings’ (why a fat lady , I’m not sure). We are nowhere near the point when the ‘Fat lady’ practices her singing, we haven’t even got the ‘fat lady’ yet!. The coming months will be interesting as more ‘proper’ polls come out and we can see the trend take shape
That’s the problem with devolution for some parts, but not others.
There is bound to be some overlap, but does that overlap benefit Scotland? I very much doubt it.
The question is could our devolved departments function fully autonomously (like they do in other independent countries) or is there some inherent benefit in part of that funding being spent in a city 400miles away?
I’d argue that if all funding attributed to Scotland’s devolved departments was spent here then our services would improve at no net cost.
Edward, are you sure it’s just 8%, I was on both pages last night and I’m sure BT had about 102,000 to YES’s 120,000 !
Thanks Rev. I posed the question just before I read the other thread with the readers’ letters in the Herald, that helps to explain it.
What is clearer by the day is that Salmond has been playing a blinder. The unionists have been asleep at the wheel, they didn’t see this coming, and now that it’s suddenly becoming apparent, maybe because of the new guy in the Treasury who isn’t blinded by the dogma and rhetoric, they’re being forced to make up even more ridiculous arguments. I guess Salmond & co. have known this all along and has been keeping their powder dry.
How long before discussions start on a Sterling zone? Or have they started already? Can’t wait to see how the unionists are going to spin that one.
The YES campaign should make much more of the whole Slab/Condem tuition fees issue because it says so much about what kind of country we want Scotland to be. Academics Together for example represent a tiny minority in Scots uni’s and colleges yet they get blanket coverage. Funny that.
Probably behind the recent move towards begging Scotland to ‘share and pool it’s resources’ with London.
I think you’re giving them too much credit for joined-up thinking.
We keep being told that our share of National debt is approx £130 billion pounds. Is that with the assets that are ours taken off or have the assets still to be subtracted from that total. This would reduce this £130billion total by a cosiderable amount.
Do we have an approx total for Scottish assets. Would be grateful for some kind of idiot proof answer.
Cheers.
Hi MochaChoca
Figures this morning are
YES Scotland 120357
Better Together 102534
So Total 222891
That gives YES Scotland 54% of the total
and Better Together 46% of the total
so a 8% point gap or a difference of 17,823
Trust this clarifies
Edward
Better Together nicks likes from Facebook pages it complains about and has closed down. Not all of their likes are even genuine. Those of us who were members of the Better Together St Kilda page were puffin with anoyance to find we were suddenly likers of the main BT page. These are seriously untrustworthy people.
caz-m
UK assets are about £1.3t (reserves, debtors, military equipment, property etc.,) and debt is £1.4t Our share of the debt on a headcount basis is about £120m. However, if the rUK is unable or unwilling to relinquish some of those assets then horse trading will ensue.
The actual debt will never be ours as the Treasury will retain it. What we will enter into is a direct service charge with the rUK to cover a fair share of the rUK’s repayments. Our agreement will be solely with the rUK.
Just wanted to add to earlier comments about joining the E.U.
I also would not be overly heart-broken if an independent Scotland was not part of the E.U. I think that we could trust an iScotGov to enshrine some of the good things about the E.U. into any constitution we might create (like Human Rights etc). (I hope).
However, I would be utterly against the U.K. leaving the E.U. as Westminster has form for wanting to abolish, ignore or find loop-holes to some of the socially just policies that the E.U. has forced us to comply with. I can’t emphasise enough how scary a prospect Westminster “off the leash” is to me.
I cannot for the life of me understand a people who aspire to be independent either in the UK or Scotland. That think being part of a “united states of europe” and having 75% of policy made in Brussels is independence. Regardless of where one wants to study.
@HandandShrimp
So our share of the debt could come down even further once we agree what Scotland’s share of any assets are.?
And that, readers, is why we only get to sleep for four hours a night.
Stu, that’s ridiculous. Yes there’s a huge amount of work to be done, but you also have a huge number of readers. Next month’s fundraiser should be able to raise quite a bit.
Wings works extraordinarily well as a one-man-band. It’s understandable you don’t want to relinquish even a little bit of control. But come on!
Isn’t there someone who is sufficiently on your wavelength and who might be available even for part-time work for the last six months or so?
@morgan mc
The independence comes from being able to choose our negotiating stances for ourselves, and not have them chosen for us by others with some very different interests.
THE new official adviser to the pro-Union Better Together campaign has admitted an independent Scotland would keep key EU opt-outs, contradicting a central message of the No camp.
http://archive.is/AKaAL
Herald.
Edward, Yes, sorry that makes sense.
Aagh.. I see in the last sentence (see above)Prog Gallagher appears to have come under some pressure to modify his words, Spain and all that. Well they all have to be in the same tent looking out.
Mocha Choca said: “BTW Table A.21 of the same spread sheet indicates that £1.57bn of ‘Scotland’s Expenditure’ is actually spent by UK central government in departments the functions of which are fully devolved.
Don’t you love paying twice for stuff ??”
Technically we pay twice-and-a-bit-more, because when the Scottish government pays public sector wages out of the block grant, those wages are taxed, and a decent percentage of our block grant money thus disappears straight back to the Treasury in London. The Union really is a magnificent scam once you start looking at it.
caz-m
It will depend on the skills of the negotiators and Westminster will most likely try to put a silly price tag on moving Trident (although I wouldn’t even entertain including those in the horse trading) but yes our share of the debt will rise or fall depending on what slice of the assets we get.
We want 2 frigates with the intent to build 4 new ones. rUK plans to get rid of all the type 23s so they might try and palm 4 off on us in exchange for something and so on. It should be a huge amount of fun for whoever gets to do this (although maybe my idea of fun is skewed :/ )
Call me Dave
Yes he does look like he has been pressurised. “People have said stuff” is not exactly a very convincing rebuttal of his own work. I suspect he wasn’t pleased about being pressurised.
HandShrimp
Just back from Bateman Blog. He has commented on the same thing.
Cheers HandandShrimp
Squarehaggis, question below.
I am extremely concerned given the positions of Mr Barrosa and Mr Van Rumpuy have outlined regarding what will happen if Scotland vote YES for independence. I have been an EU citizen all my life and would like some clarity on what will happen to my rights as an EU citizen in the event of a YES vote, given the inference from Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rumpuy that all my rights will be removed. This is of extreme concern to me and I would like to have some clarity on the actual rules and regulations on this matter to try and understand how politicians are able to remove my rights as a citizen after I have been a citizen for over 40 years.
http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/une-ecosse-independante-a-french-legal-view/alc
Might find some recent info here:
Negotiate away by all means but when the SNP say that 100% of decisions affecting Scotland. Will be made in Scotland. I look forward to the repatriation of full powers from Brussels aswell as Westminster as the baseline for negotiation,and not that which has been surrendered already.
So that means Trade, Energy, agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs.Bilateral arrangements between states are the norm.Not submitting and accepting one way legislation from one high contacting party whose gameplan is an EU superstate. This was outed by EU Commissioner Redding last week.
@malc
This link gives some details on possible scenarios, not sure of the credibility of the author but the implication is we need a yes vote in Sept.
http://www.scottishtimes.com/scottish_independence_human_rights_edinburgh_agreement
Spot on again Rev. Thanks to you and your colleagues, we, the average voter, are able to see through the pack of lies that this most undemocratic bunch continues to spin day after day, hour after hour. Independence is in the post and Better Together know it!
Mocha Choca at 1.09
That in fact is the most important question, the answer to which would demolish the “Scotland gets more spending per head than England” stuff
Are you seriously suggesting that if we will still be in the EU, independence from Westminster is utterly pointless? That we would have gained no significant benefit from removing Westminster’s cack-handed, self-serving, bloodyminded control over us?
If your issue is with membership of the EU, that’s a different battle altogether, one that we are certainly not fighting today. If we vote Yes, the Scottish government negotiating team will do their damnedest to maintain our membership of the EU, because the SNP government simply has no mandate whatsoever to take Scotland out.
I’m no fan of much of the EU’s machinations myself and I think it has serious issues with the way it treats democracy and accountability, but there’s a lot to like, too. It’s a different kettle of fish from Westminster and a much less immediate threat. Let’s win the iVote first.
Xaracen
The No camp and the Yes camp of the SNP have made the EU part of the Independence debate. Given that the ECB,IMF and EU Commission decide fiscal policy for those in the Eurozone. Who I may add have to pledge allegiance to the Currency, Flag and Anthem of the EU as directed by the Lisbon Treaty.
I have to ask if the EU dictates policy over energy, agriculture and fisheries, business, health amongst others.I wonder as to why people think its independence when our parliaments must implement directive’s instead of making them.
Scott,
I think discrimination on the grounds of residence is also illegal.
You cannot charge an EU resident visiting Scotland a fee or a higher fee than is the fee applicable to a Scottish resident to visit a museum for example.
In principle, there would be no straight forward way out.
Perhaps an innovative independent Scotland could fund a savings account for every child starting from P1 to be used for education and life long learning only starting anytime from the age of 16 onwards.
This would be in line with a Scotland that is fair to all.