Swampy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 they are kept going by the Barnett formula and the administration by the parliament of the monies disbursed to Scotland through that formula. It stands to reason that Westminster won't be giving us money beyond the period of the negotiations. It may be that we save a hefty chunk of money by ditching nuclear /shrinking the army to Irish army levels / not having to pay for Britain's laughable foreign policy hubris. But it won't save all the money required to maintain free prescriptions, free health care, help for old folk in winter, ongoing transport infrastructure costs, and free university education for domestic students. I can't see any way to parse this beyond "without Barnett we can't afford these". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm firmly in the Yes camp. The negativity of the no campaign and the concentration on peoples fears about jobs, the economy etc. will be hard to break down though. I have been discussing this with my sisters in law and their husbands, who all have pretty well paid public sector jobs, and they fear what will happen should we get independence. Here are a few points they made. The teachers particularly are less than happy with the curriculum for excellence that the SNP have introduced and use this to score points against them. An interesting point made was that they fear the calibre of politician Scotland would have post Indy. They agree that Eck is capable but who else of that calibre is around? They seem to be a mix of mainly labour and a couple of Tories. They were unimpressed by the Scottish parliament leaders of these parties yet, amazingly, seemed to find Cameron and Milliband acceptable, a bit of a cringe going on here. My brother in law (a doctor) dropped this one in that I still can't fathom out (he f'd off after telling me). He has a French mother and is arranging to get French passports for his 3 kids " just in case independence happens". He's always been a flapper but this shows the depths of fear that some people have out there. The Yes campaign needs to start scotching the myths of fear sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The teachers particularly are less than happy with the curriculum for excellence that the SNP Yes, my sisters are both teachers and despise the SNP. I believe the Scottish government have cunted the class size thing too, according to primary teachers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I can't see any way to parse this beyond "without Barnett we can't afford these".I'm a bit confused here as well - if we contribute more than we get back, those sums don't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm a bit confused here as well - if we contribute more than we get back, those sums don't add up. Not really. That presumes a constant expenditure versus the current one and the same level of income post-indy. Ad Lib explains it nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. My point is that any "domestic settlement" is pretty much going to be in line with what would be defined by current international convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Not really. That presumes a constant expenditure versus the current one and the same level of income post-indy. Ad Lib explains it nicely. We have a lower deficit (very slightly, but it is lower) than the rest of the UK. The other two points are completely irrelevant to Barnett. I don't know why Barnett was raised at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm firmly in the Yes camp. The negativity of the no campaign and the concentration on peoples fears about jobs, the economy etc. will be hard to break down though. The Yes campaign needs to start scotching the myths of fear sooner rather than later. The yes campaign shouldnt,and wont, allow the no campaign dictate the terms of the debate. there will always be those on both sides who wont change their minds on way or another. the no campaign want it to be focussed on fear of the unknown and how hards its going to be redefining maritime boundaries and not having access to the uks 5 billion treaties. the challenge for yes is to acknowledge we dont know what the future holds in the uk or out.however we have a clear yes or no choice. do we want to go down that road with scotland and scotlands people deciding that future or with the current set up. what do you think gives you the best chance of realising the scotland you want for the future. also for anyone voting yes-you are the yes campaign. the revolution will not be televised. you need to speak to friends and relatives and help clear away the no campaign obsfucation and scaremongering. this is a very simple choice - what way offers the best hope of the scotland you want to.see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountyFan Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Re: the question of why more people don't contribute to this thread, it could be because it is dominated by a few posters with condescending attitudes and who insist on running over the same ground while trying to point score? ETA- on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Re: the question of why more people don't contribute to this thread, it could be because it is dominated by a few posters with condescending attitudes and who insist on running over the same ground while trying to point score? That just sounds like laziness tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yes, my sisters are both teachers and despise the SNP. I believe the Scottish government have cunted the class size thing too, according to primary teachers anyway. we are not voting for a government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 My point is that any "domestic settlement" is pretty much going to be in line with what would be defined by current international convention. Right. So you have abandoned the whole "entitlement" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountyFan Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 That just sounds like laziness tbh. Yep. That must be it. A new voice pops up over the parapet ready to engage in an actual debate... Oh wait. Shot down already. Good work proving my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Re: the question of why more people don't contribute to this thread, it could be because it is dominated by a few posters with condescending attitudes and who insist on running over the same ground while trying to point score? ETA- on both sides. Sounds worryingly like tone trolling, which is absolutely the worst intervention to any thread. And that includes chuckles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Right. So you have abandoned the whole "entitlement" thing? In international law there IS an entitlement so unless that is given up during negotiations there will be an entitlement post-indy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 In international law there IS an entitlement No there ISN'T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Why would they need to- the re-drawing has already been done, in '99: We can fairly easily say that we were never consulted on this, and that we were never given any say. Its another example of why we are in a damn good negotiating position when it comes to the UK. If they object and try and claim their redrawn land, we can just patrol the area with our nuclear subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountyFan Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Sounds worryingly like tone trolling, which is absolutely the worst intervention to any thread. And that includes chuckles. What on earth is tone trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 In international law No there ISN'T. Are you saying that independent countries such as the UK have absolutely no entitlement to the waters surrounding them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If you are actually interested in learning about this Todders, then this is a decent starting point. Very very brief conclusion :- "The primary rule for maritime delimitation accepted both by conventional law and customary law is that the delimitation must be effected by agreement. Maritime boundaries between States, to be secure and stable, have to be settled by agreement between them. The negotiation process between States is very important for the achievement of positive results. The subject of maritime boundary, like the subject of land boundary, is a sensitive one and should be handled carefully and with understanding of the opposite viewpoints. Despite serious and meaningful negotiations if difficulties and disputes arise, the parties may resort to the third-party settlement procedures." http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/dundua_0607_georgia.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.