When will indyref2 happen?

[BawWatchin]

7 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Is Celtic park naw awash with those old traditionalist Yoon Labour types who advocate for a free Ireland and free Palestine but vote against Indy because the Scottish government was wanting to stop them singing offensive songs?

Nah. Cliftonhill is large enough to house them these days.

[Bluenortherner]

Falklands or Gib - who gets what?

[Dunfermline Don]

Falklands or Gib - who gets what?

As Gib was over 90% remain I think we should get it.

[John Lambies Doos]

Falklands or Gib - who gets what?

Falklands - Argentina
Gibraltar -. Spain

Hth

[ICTJohnboy]

Piers Morgan on GMB TV has just described Prince William as "The Future King Of England"

He must know more about Indyref2  than the rest of us.

I hope he's right about that all the same.

[strichener]

15 hours ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Obviously companies have received capital allowances as a result of decommissioning assets. That's how capital allowances work. Your claim was that the taxpayer has paid to decommission assets, which is something very different. Can you say which assets the taxpayer has paid to decommission and how much they've paid to do so?

I am not sure that it was obvious to you until I pointed it out.  I never claimed that the taxpayer paid to decommission assets, that is just your lack of understanding on corporate tax and allowances. 

It is undeniable that decommissioning projects undertaken in the North Sea has been an expense to the taxpayer.  If you had any idea what you were talking about you would see that your first sentence backs this up.

In terms of an independent Scotland not having a deal with rUK, these liabilities would be Scotlands.   There is no logical or legal alternative.

 

[Colkitto]

It's Keith Brown against Jackson Carlaw on  the indyref2 debate on Scotland Tonight 10:40pm.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Colkitto

[tirso]

On 23/06/2019 at 00:07, HTG said:

It's blindingly obvious there won't be a hard border. 

The UK Govt threatened that last time round but the process of leaving the EU has shown that their threats were utterly empty. 

The UK has stated it will never enforce a hard border on Ireland. The chances of cutting off their noses to spite their faces when Scotland leaves are zero. 

Scotland isn't interested in a hard border either and has no issue with freedom of movement. 

So, if there is no appetite on either side, there won't be a hard border. It would only arise as a result of sheer spite and only a shower of colonialist wankers would carry that level of spite. The UK will be pragmatic when it cuts to the chase. And if it isn't, should Scotland just cower? If that's what being a nation of equals really means then it can get to f**k. 

You are missing the point that it's not Scotland or England that would want a hard border.  

In the context of a hard brexit, the EU will demand a hard border.  

There will be negotiation with rest of the UK following independence.  I don't foresee huge difficulties there.  The problem occurs when Scotland joins the EU and has to abide by EU trade.

It's exactly the same issue as Ireland.  

End of the day, I agree there probably won't be a hard brexit.  But if it does happen, it makes Scottish independence much more difficult when some would think it makes the case.    We would be in a terrible situation where we would be placing barriers to our largest trading partner.  If England goes this mad, it makes Scotland's financial case for separating extremely wobbly whilst the moral one is cast iron.

 

 

[tirso]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

I am not sure that it was obvious to you until I pointed it out.  I never claimed that the taxpayer paid to decommission assets, that is just your lack of understanding on corporate tax and allowances. 

It is undeniable that decommissioning projects undertaken in the North Sea has been an expense to the taxpayer.  If you had any idea what you were talking about you would see that your first sentence backs this up.

In terms of an independent Scotland not having a deal with rUK, these liabilities would be Scotlands.   There is no logical or legal alternative.

 

Does it matter?  Surely overall it's still a benefit having the oil and the territorial waters?

Not sure what rabbit hole we're going down denying we'd have to pay for clean up (either by tax break or ultimate owner) of a vast asset that's undoubtedly in our seas.

[GTG_03]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

I am not sure that it was obvious to you until I pointed it out.  I never claimed that the taxpayer paid to decommission assets, that is just your lack of understanding on corporate tax and allowances. 

It is undeniable that decommissioning projects undertaken in the North Sea has been an expense to the taxpayer.  If you had any idea what you were talking about you would see that your first sentence backs this up.

In terms of an independent Scotland not having a deal with rUK, these liabilities would be Scotlands.   There is no logical or legal alternative.

 

Isn't it maritime law that who benefits has to pay the costs? That would make the UK government liable as Scotland has received no profits from the North Sea, it goes straight to the treasury. 

[strichener]

1 minute ago, GTG_03 said:

Isn't it maritime law that who benefits has to pay the costs? That would make the UK government liable as Scotland has received no profits from the North Sea, it goes straight to the treasury. 

This conversation all started on the basis of no-deal independence.  If there is no deal then Scotland will not be able to both claim the waters and simultaneously offload the liabilities to rUK.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, tirso said:

You are missing the point that it's not Scotland or England that would want a hard border.  

In the context of a hard brexit, the EU will demand a hard border.  

There will be negotiation with rest of the UK following independence.  I don't foresee huge difficulties there.  The problem occurs when Scotland joins the EU and has to abide by EU trade.

It's exactly the same issue as Ireland.  

End of the day, I agree there probably won't be a hard brexit.  But if it does happen, it makes Scottish independence much more difficult when some would think it makes the case.    We would be in a terrible situation where we would be placing barriers to our largest trading partner.  If England goes this mad, it makes Scotland's financial case for separating extremely wobbly whilst the moral one is cast iron.

If it's a hard brexit, then they will no longer be our largest trading partner anyway. What does England produce on it's own?

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

This conversation all started on the basis of no-deal independence.  If there is no deal then Scotland will not be able to both claim the waters and simultaneously offload the liabilities to rUK.

Why not? The waters are within our own boundaries. The UK can't force us to accept debt liability, they can only persuade us to.

[itzdrk]

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

Because we're not wanting independence in order to be an antagonistic neighbour.

That's just a bonus. 

[GTG_03]

29 minutes ago, strichener said:

This conversation all started on the basis of no-deal independence.  If there is no deal then Scotland will not be able to both claim the waters and simultaneously offload the liabilities to rUK.

The UK government won't want a no deal scenario with Scotland and vice versa. Having just left the EU and losing Scotland it makes no sense. Also the Scottish government will have the upper hand being in the EU or at least in the process of joining, Faslane is also a huge bargaining chip.

[strichener]

23 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Why not? The waters are within our own boundaries. The UK can't force us to accept debt liability, they can only persuade us to.

This wouldn't be a dispute between the UK government and the Scottish Government in the event of no-deal independence.  This would be between the offshore operators and the Scottish Government.  There is no way that the Scottish Government will seek a stand-off with the industry over decommissioning costs, it would be absolute madness to do so.

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, GTG_03 said:

The UK government won't want a no deal scenario with Scotland and vice versa. Having just left the EU and losing Scotland it makes no sense. Also the Scottish government will have the upper hand being in the EU or at least in the process of joining, Faslane is also a huge bargaining chip.

The rUK government will not be dictated to by Scotland in negotiations and won't be negotiating with a Scotland in the EU.  Anyone that thinks that Scotland will have the upper-hand or that Scotland will be in the EU quicker than it leaves the UK is certifiable.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

This wouldn't be a dispute between the UK government and the Scottish Government in the event of no-deal independence.  This would be between the offshore operators and the Scottish Government.  There is no way that the Scottish Government will seek a stand-off with the industry over decommissioning costs, it would be absolute madness to do so.

There won't be a standoff between the Scottish Government and the offshore operators. The Scottish Government will write the law and the offshore operators will comply with it. Decommissioning costs will be met by the industry as has always been the case.

1 hour ago, strichener said:

The rUK government will not be dictated to by Scotland in negotiations and won't be negotiating with a Scotland in the EU.  Anyone that thinks that Scotland will have the upper-hand or that Scotland will be in the EU quicker than it leaves the UK is certifiable.

Anyone who believes Scotland won't be in the EU on Independence Day is certifiable.

[tirso]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

The rUK government will not be dictated to by Scotland in negotiations and won't be negotiating with a Scotland in the EU.  Anyone that thinks that Scotland will have the upper-hand or that Scotland will be in the EU quicker than it leaves the UK is certifiable.

Scotland does have some cards to play too though.  No point throwing the nukes out with the bath water.  It wouldn't make any sense from either side to deviate an awful lot from whatever EU/UK deal is eventually negotiated for the interim.  As Scotland would be joining the EU in the short term.  Anyway this decommissioning is not a material issue.  Size of debt would be but there's only so many variations.

It all comes down to what kind of Brexit is in play.  A hard brexit kills indy for me until good answers can be spelled out.  I'd vote for it as  I believe Scotland shouldn't be economically bullied but it won't carry the electorate.  I say it again; the May deal was a gift to Scottish independence.  Could never be supported as it would wipe out the SNP without proper messaging though.  

[tirso]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

This wouldn't be a dispute between the UK government and the Scottish Government in the event of no-deal independence.  This would be between the offshore operators and the Scottish Government.  There is no way that the Scottish Government will seek a stand-off with the industry over decommissioning costs, it would be absolute madness to do so.

I think you've gone down a rabbit hole here and you know it.  The operators would have to comply with a tax setting government and the oil isn't going anywhere.  There would be a negotiation and some sort of balance found.  This is not an issue that will swing any voters to No, in my view.  People instinctively know having oil is better than not having it.