H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 In particular, if HB and Ad Lib could point out, as they so often do, that the sea borders are apparently meaningless and can be renegotiated. It's not that the sea borders are meaningless - it's that they are currently a matter for UK domestic attribution. Upon Independence "New Scotland" would of course have the opportunity to seek a redraw of the existing line and pursue that claim in negotiation, then if not satisfied, by tribunal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 What are all these Barriers the failed football club owner is imagining? maybe he means when the tories take the the remainder of the UK out of the EU in 2017????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'll be honest, maybe its because I'm just a humble wee clown, but I'm having trouble with what Ivo is saying. He has accused me of putting words in his mouth, but it appears that he is saying that without the Barnet Formula, we will have a Barnet Formula sized hole in our finances. Am I reading him right? Unlike all those economists, business leaders, and politicians (including Unionists) who say we would be perfectly okay, Ivo has claimed we would need tax rises to cover the gap left by the Barnet formula. This isn't the first time I've had problems figuring out his posts, and Ivo I'm not having a go at you here, but your post seems unrealistically pessimistic. It reads like the sort of thing that Michael Moore and Ian Davidson would reject for negativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 He definitely seems to be suggesting that Scotland will not be able to afford the current level of spending post Independence without tax rises. That seems speculative to me, but probably true given the current borrowing levels of the UK government and flaccid economic growth, unless they borrowed at the same rate the UK government currently is. To be honest, no one has the first idea what Scotland's finances will look like post-Independence. There's so many imponderables. Income, Expenditure, Personal Taxation levels and receipts, Corporation Tax, Cost of Borrowing etc. It would be great if we could trun Scotland into Sweden, but that would involve taking most of the population offshore and drowning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 It's not that the sea borders are meaningless - it's that they are currently a matter for UK domestic attribution. Upon Independence "New Scotland" would of course have the opportunity to seek a redraw of the existing line and pursue that claim in negotiation, then if not satisfied, by tribunal. The ICJ not, of course, being binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The ICJ not, of course, being binding. Indeed. It would have to be a reliance on shaming rUK into playing nice, which is a reasonable supposition. Mind you Nicaragua thought that when they took America there. Not that it would get that far anyway - it would be sorted out in the earlier negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'll be honest, maybe its because I'm just a humble wee clown, but I'm having trouble with what Ivo is saying. He has accused me of putting words in his mouth, but it appears that he is saying that without the Barnet Formula, we will have a Barnet Formula sized hole in our finances. Am I reading him right? Unlike all those economists, business leaders, and politicians (including Unionists) who say we would be perfectly okay, Ivo has claimed we would need tax rises to cover the gap left by the Barnet formula. This isn't the first time I've had problems figuring out his posts, and Ivo I'm not having a go at you here, but your post seems unrealistically pessimistic. It reads like the sort of thing that Michael Moore and Ian Davidson would reject for negativity. Why when I have explicitly said that I'm not saying there will be a 'Barnett Formula' sized hole in public expenditure, do you persist with the claim that I am, and invite other users to help you understand what I've written? It's typical of the kind of deliberately skewed, deliberately obtuse passive-aggressive shite you pebbledash these forums with, to be honest. It's perfectly possible for business leaders, politicians and economists to claim 'we will be OK' because, well, those classes will, regardless of the system of government or the state name on the passport. Whether it is true for everyone else remains to be seen. I agree that it would be better off we went down the Scandinavian route post-independence but that would require a fairly radical shift in attitudes towards tolerating higher taxation in return for visibly better public services and living standards. The bigger question is why a man who, self confessedly, understands virtually nothing about economics, constitutional law, fiscal policy etc.- three pretty fundamental questions in politics- spends so much of his waking time on politics threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm pretty sure even the rUK would not have the nerve to try and redraw internationally defined borders in their favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm pretty sure even the rUK would not have the nerve to try and redraw internationally defined borders in their favour. We don't have any "internationally defined" sea borders between Scotland and rUK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Why would they need to- the re-drawing has already been done, in '99: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If anyone else would like to deal with Ivo's formula, that: Increased Revenue + Lower Costs = Less Available Money There are a number of reasons that Scotland might have to have higher taxes to provide the same level of spending it does now. Firstly, it is actually running a significant structural deficit in absolute terms (that it's a net contributor to the UK isn't much help when the UK as a whole of which it is a part is a net taker from everyone else). Secondly, larger countries with fairly strong global reserve currencies emanating from their own central banks tend to be able to sustain bigger national debts without high interest rates (see why Greece has to have apeshit austerity and has bonds in the umpteen percent and why the UK or USA doesn't). Thirdly, there are demographic problems across the UK which will in future place a much bigger burden on our states if we are to maintain the same level of public provision *anyway* and those characteristics may be marginally more acute in Scotland than elsewhere. Now of course this is off-set by potentially having a higher share of the oil reserves, lower necessary defence spending (though this would be partially offset by a reduction in global military spending in our shipyards), not paying for Trident etc. But with the exception of the oil, virtually all of these things ultimately come down to policy decisions based on a world we simply cannot know much about just now. There is greater certainty in the UK, insofar as we know for the most part its starting point in the world in considerable detail which we can't say for Scotland (yet) and we can't yet tell in any great detail what the balance of fiscal and monetary considerations will be, but it is entirely plausible and perfectly reasonable to say that an independent Scotland could have to levy higher taxes to provide the same level of public services as Scotland enjoys just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 We don't have any "internationally defined" sea borders between Scotland and rUK. If Scotland becomes independent then their will be. Scotland would be under no obligation to accept any less that the area it would be entitled to under international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Why would they need to- the re-drawing has already been done, in '99: Yes, but that was a domestic matter for the UK. Not done under the auspices of international law, between two international law persons. Scotland had no standing to complain. It would have post-secession. That's not to say the line wouldn't stay exactly where it is of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If Scotland becomes independent then their will be. Scotland would be under no obligation to accept any less that the area it would be entitled to under international law. Uh huh. You don't know much about this do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 sure. Interesting that it was done, though, at a busy legislative time for the then UK govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Uh huh. You don't know much about this do you? Could you point out where I am wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I don't understand why a lot of seemingly intelligent people fail to grasp the difference between domestic and international legal matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 sure. Interesting that it was done, though, at a busy legislative time for the then UK govt. Yes, having that as a starting point certainly doesn't hurt negotiations wise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Could you point out where I am wrong? Perhaps you could help by pointing out who grants this "entitlement" and what area this "entitlement" covers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Could you point out where I am wrong? Scotland doesn't get independence without a domestic settlement, which only Westminster can legislate to deliver. Thus the current maritime boundary will be part of the domestic negotiations for independence, and the settlement is very unlikely to be agreed to unless that is resolved or uncontested in those negotiations. So until Scotland is independent, it can do nothing as a matter of international law to set any maritime boundary on terms it perceives to be more equitable, and after it has become independent, that matter will almost certainly have been settled by negotiation between it and the UK. In the unlikely event that isn't resolved, the question goes to ICJ arbitration, but they can only offer an advisory opinion which the UK can reject if it doesn't like it. Then you have fishing wars in trawlers and trade wars over the ownership of oil fields, which should be great fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.