Post Yes Negotiations

[Uncle Psychosis]

If it happens, is anyone else a bit worried about the negotiations and how much Westminster will play hard-ball? It seems to me that we don't hold all that many bargaining chips and that its going to be in the political interests of Cameron (or whoever it is) to show that they'll stand up to those "uppity Scots". I genuinely think the starting point for negotiations will be "you're getting nothing" and then we'll have to go from there. People will mention walking away from the debt but surely nobody actually sees that as anything even approaching a credible option?

I haven't really paid too much attention to the negotiation stage up to now because frankly it didn't ever seem likely. How do you see it panning out, who will be involved on each side, do you think there will be any unforseen sticking points?

Cue lots of snidey answers saying "wait and see how hardball they get if you vote No" etc etc etc. Thats been done to death, lets try something different for a change.

[Granny Danger]

The key priority for a rUK government will to do everything in their power to minimise the impact on the economy of their country. We're just beginning to emerge from a fairly steep recession and pragmatism will prevail over rhetoric.

Lots of businesses in a England make money from trading in and with Scotland. They don't do it for altruistic reasons, they do it for profit. That is what will drive the negotiations, the mutual economic benefits not some post-election point scoring.

[The_Kincardine]

If it happens, is anyone else a bit worried about the negotiations and how much Westminster will play hard-ball? It seems to me that we don't hold all that many bargaining chips and that its going to be in the political interests of Cameron (or whoever it is) to show that they'll stand up to those "uppity Scots".

I am pleased that at least someone is thinking about the practicalities of a yes vote. I have banged on in my dullard way about this for weeks but have had no real traction from 'Aye' apart from the usual 'scaremongering' or 'It won't be a problem' shite.

There are 3 obstacles:

1. Negotiations with The Rump. I fully expect this to be tough and I hope whoever is leading rUK takes no prisoners and makes only those concessions acceptable to the continuing state.

2. EU negotiations. For sure iScotland will be part of the EU. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fanny. However, there is no certainties on what terms Scotland will be admitted. Don't expect France and Spain to tickle your tummy.

3. Setting up a new state. This is the recent bee in my bonnet.. The cost will be great but, more importantly, the effort will force Scotland to tread water for years - when the political and administrative efforts could well be spent elsewhere.

Quick summary? It will all be an enormous waste of time and resources.

[Anonapersona]

If it happens, is anyone else a bit worried about the negotiations and how much Westminster will play hard-ball? It seems to me that we don't hold all that many bargaining chips and that its going to be in the political interests of Cameron (or whoever it is) to show that they'll stand up to those "uppity Scots". I genuinely think the starting point for negotiations will be "you're getting nothing" and then we'll have to go from there. People will mention walking away from the debt but surely nobody actually sees that as anything even approaching a credible option?

I haven't really paid too much attention to the negotiation stage up to now because frankly it didn't ever seem likely. How do you see it panning out, who will be involved on each side, do you think there will be any unforseen sticking points?

Cue lots of snidey answers saying "wait and see how hardball they get if you vote No" etc etc etc. Thats been done to death, lets try something different for a change.

I don't think it's in the best interests for Scotland to be seen as demanding anything unreasonable. At the same time, the rUK should avoid being seen as a spiteful crybaby (like Jeremy Paxman, apparently).

[pandarilla]

I am pleased that at least someone is thinking about the practicalities of a yes vote. I have banged on in my dullard way about this for weeks but have had no real traction from 'Aye' apart from the usual 'scaremongering' or 'It won't be a problem' shite.

There are 3 obstacles:

1. Negotiations with The Rump. I fully expect this to be tough and I hope whoever is leading rUK takes no prisoners and makes only those concessions acceptable to the continuing state.

2. EU negotiations. For sure iScotland will be part of the EU. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fanny. However, there is no certainties on what terms Scotland will be admitted. Don't expect France and Spain to tickle your tummy.

3. Setting up a new state. This is the recent bee in my bonnet.. The cost will be great but, more importantly, the effort will force Scotland to tread water for years - when the political and administrative efforts could well be spent elsewhere.

Quick summary? It will all be an enormous waste of time and resources.

This is pretty much the only part I disagree with.

One thing that has annoyed me about the Yes campaign (although it is entirely understandable due to the nature of the opposition's tactics) is that there is no risk - and that uncertainties do not exist. This is fundamentally incorrect.

For me though, the difficulties of the next few years (but especially the 18 month period of negotiations) will be entirely worth it. Once the negotiations are done we will have a clean slate in political terms. New parties, political engagement, and hopefully a more fair society.

In terms of the negotiations we have the debt and we have trident. These are two pretty big chips - although I reckon WM have more at their disposal. We'll win some, we'll lose some. Its a divorce settlement - and so it will get a little messy. But the economics will win the day - and common sense will prevail.

[~~~]

I am pleased that at least someone is thinking about the practicalities of a yes vote. I have banged on in my dullard way about this for weeks but have had no real traction from 'Aye' apart from the usual 'scaremongering' or 'It won't be a problem' shite.

There are 3 obstacles:

1. Negotiations with The Rump. I fully expect this to be tough and I hope whoever is leading rUK takes no prisoners and makes only those concessions acceptable to the continuing state.

2. EU negotiations. For sure iScotland will be part of the EU. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fanny. However, there is no certainties on what terms Scotland will be admitted. Don't expect France and Spain to tickle your tummy.

3. Setting up a new state. This is the recent bee in my bonnet.. The cost will be great but, more importantly, the effort will force Scotland to tread water for years - when the political and administrative efforts could well be spent elsewhere.

Quick summary? It will all be an enormous waste of time and resources.

I can only hear Graeme Souness voice when i read that

[Uncle Psychosis]

I don't think it's in the best interests for Scotland to be seen as demanding anything unreasonable. At the same time, the rUK should avoid being seen as a spiteful crybaby (like Jeremy Paxman, apparently).

Why? Based on my travels in both real life and via the internet (eg other web forums) people down South will overwhelmingly support making the negotiations as difficult as possible and people outside of the UK won't give a toss about the terms of the split. I don't really see what downsides there are for Westminster in making things tough---delays will hurt us more than them, and even if they eventually cave to whatever it is we're asking for they're no worse off than they would have been had they just agreed, but now with the added bonus of playing to the gallery of "standing up" for the rUK.

I find it weird how many people I've met who will tell you about all the spiteful, dirty, underhand things BT and Westminster have done to Scotland over the years, who will waffle for hours about how if we vote No and stay in the UK that Westminster will utterly shaft us (despite us still being in the same country) but who think that rUK Gov will take part in nice friendly, cooperative amiable splits if we do go our separate ways.

[Casual Bystander]

I am pleased that at least someone is thinking about the practicalities of a yes vote.

I love how you can turn even a victory for Yes is a negative.

You really are in a very bitter mood tonight. What's up petal? Need a hug?

[Uncle Psychosis]

In terms of the negotiations we have the debt and we have trident. These are two pretty big chips - although I reckon WM have more at their disposal. We'll win some, we'll lose some. Its a divorce settlement - and so it will get a little messy. But the economics will win the day - and common sense will prevail.

I don't see the debt as anything other than the absolute nuclear option. Its the "we're going to shaft your economy but take our own down with you" option. If Swinney and Salmond aren't bluffing then they shouldn't be anywhere near the negotiating table.

Serious question: have any independent, credible economists suggested that walking away from the debt would be good for us, economically?

[Anonapersona]

Why? Based on my travels in both real life and via the internet (eg other web forums) people down South will overwhelmingly support making the negotiations as difficult as possible and people outside of the UK won't give a toss about the terms of the split. I don't really see what downsides there are for Westminster in making things tough---delays will hurt us more than them, and even if they eventually cave to whatever it is we're asking for they're no worse off than they would have been had they just agreed, but now with the added bonus of playing to the gallery of "standing up" for the rUK.

I find it weird how many people I've met who will tell you about all the spiteful, dirty, underhand things BT and Westminster have done to Scotland over the years, who will waffle for hours about how if we vote No and stay in the UK that Westminster will utterly shaft us (despite us still being in the same country) but who think that rUK Gov will take part in nice friendly, cooperative amiable splits if we do go our separate ways.

Can't say I've read anything about expecting the rUK gov to be in nice, friendly, cooperative amiable spirits.

[Anonapersona]

I don't see the debt as anything other than the absolute nuclear option. Its the "we're going to shaft your economy but take our own down with you" option. If Swinney and Salmond aren't bluffing then they shouldn't be anywhere near the negotiating table.

Serious question: have any independent, credible economists suggested that walking away from the debt would be good for us, economically?

Walking away from the debt would set a bad precedent for Scotland.

[Casual Bystander]

Yeah, there is no way we are defaulting on the debt. It's a great "f**k you" card to use, but it wouldn't be used.

Thing is in the event of a Yes you will have those who have campaigned for the No camp now negotiating for Scotland and these people know the way Westminster works as well as all the financial ins and outs. It won't be just a case of Salmond and Swinney on their own against the massed ranks of Wesminster.

[pandarilla]

I don't see the debt as anything other than the absolute nuclear option. Its the "we're going to shaft your economy but take our own down with you" option. If Swinney and Salmond aren't bluffing then they shouldn't be anywhere near the negotiating table.

Serious question: have any independent, credible economists suggested that walking away from the debt would be good for us, economically?

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't a nuclear option - I was just pointing out that we have it. I'm pretty certain a currency deal will be done that's technically not a CU - but effectively does the same job (I'm not an economist but I reckon there are enough complexities to allow a fudging of a deal to happen so that the politicians don't look like they've caved in).

[Uncle Psychosis]

Thing is in the event of a Yes you will have those who have campaigned for the No camp now negotiating for Scotland and these people know the way Westminster works as well as all the financial ins and outs. It won't be just a case of Salmond and Swinney on their own against the massed ranks of Wesminster.

That is slightly reassuring I agree but but who will it be? Brown? Darling? Brown is arguably even less popular than Salmond is in England, and thats going some!!

[dorlomin]

Serious question: have any independent, credible economists suggested that walking away from the debt would be good for us, economically?

The debt is owed by HM government in London to various parties. We have no debt to walk away from as London will insist that it remains the United Kingdom and all treaties and other legal relationships it entered into remain in force. We can accept a portion of the debt be transferred to the new state as part of the negotiation of assets and liabilities.

Voting yes will be quite risky.

Voting no will be less risky of a deep recession but much less hopeful reasonable growth in Scotland before the next banking crisis hammers the financial economies again.

There are no nice happy easy choices, you pick your risks and wait.

[Banterous]

Why? Based on my travels in both real life and via the internet (eg other web forums) people down South will overwhelmingly support making the negotiations as difficult as possible and people outside of the UK won't give a toss about the terms of the split. I don't really see what downsides there are for Westminster in making things tough---delays will hurt us more than them, and even if they eventually cave to whatever it is we're asking for they're no worse off than they would have been had they just agreed, but now with the added bonus of playing to the gallery of "standing up" for the rUK.

I find it weird how many people I've met who will tell you about all the spiteful, dirty, underhand things BT and Westminster have done to Scotland over the years, who will waffle for hours about how if we vote No and stay in the UK that Westminster will utterly shaft us (despite us still being in the same country) but who think that rUK Gov will take part in nice friendly, cooperative amiable splits if we do go our separate ways.

^^^

Best post I've read since joining the "debate"

[sparky88]

The 18 month negotiation period itself is as good an argument as any against Independence. We haven't a fucking Scooby what we are voting for re independence- its why I think the eu stuff was kinda missing the point.... Because we dont know anything about what independence will really mean. The Scottish gov/ others should have negotiated the package before we vote... Although it may not have been particularly politically expedient.

[Granny Danger]

Why? Based on my travels in both real life and via the internet (eg other web forums) people down South will overwhelmingly support making the negotiations as difficult as possible and people outside of the UK won't give a toss about the terms of the split. I don't really see what downsides there are for Westminster in making things tough---delays will hurt us more than them, and even if they eventually cave to whatever it is we're asking for they're no worse off than they would have been had they just agreed, but now with the added bonus of playing to the gallery of "standing up" for the rUK.

I find it weird how many people I've met who will tell you about all the spiteful, dirty, underhand things BT and Westminster have done to Scotland over the years, who will waffle for hours about how if we vote No and stay in the UK that Westminster will utterly shaft us (despite us still being in the same country) but who think that rUK Gov will take part in nice friendly, cooperative amiable splits if we do go our separate ways.

Yes they have been spiteful, dirty and underhanded and it's all been done because of perceived self interest.

In the event of a YES vote it will not be in the best interest, perceived or otherwise, of a rUK government to do anything that harms the Scottish economy. And yes we have the debt option, though the "nuclear" description is pejorative it is certainly a high risk, taking it to the wire option.

It's quite strange how some folk think it's wrong/impossible to use the pound, our pound, in the event of separation but that we should cheerfully meet our debt obligations.

[Ross.]

I think when it comes to it, the negotiations will be far simpler than many predict.

The main sticking points will probably be things few of us have considered, but the big points will be dealt with easily.

Oil revenue will majority go to Scotland, with some remaining with rUK to offset Scotlands part of the debt(ie - We'll take on £50b of debt and give you £2b a year worth of North Sea revenues). Trident will be moved, with the only talking point there being the timescale, which will be used to win concessions on other things. A formal currency union will be agreed, along with a timetable for Scotland to move to another currency or renegotiate, and as part of the commonwealth there will be free trade agreements and freedom of movement for EU citizens between both countries.

There will be plenty of grandstanding portrayed by the media and both sides will get enough that they can all justify that they done a good job, and that will be about it. It is in no ones interest to rip the arse out of it for either side.

[Ross.]

The 18 month negotiation period itself is as good an argument as any against Independence. We haven't a fucking Scooby what we are voting for re independence- its why I think the eu stuff was kinda missing the point.... Because we dont know anything about what independence will really mean. The Scottish gov/ others should have negotiated the package before we vote... Although it may not have been particularly politically expedient.

You haven't a fucking scooby what you'll get if you vote no either. A no vote is not a vote for you have now. Everyone is in agreement that things will be changing, one way or the other.