Scotland Debate

[Foxholer]

I've no idea, hence the question Scotlands claim on UK assets such as the pound, EU membership etc.

These are somewhat intangible - like goodwill in a business - when actually coming to value total assets.

Why has no one asked Salmond the question that if iScotland has claim on these assets then by definition should rUK have claim on assets within Scotlands borders?

With the assumption, possibly not a valid one, that whatever is physically in either entity now is that entity's share and will stay with the entity. Like Rail and Road networks (and NSOG!).

 

[Val]

With the assumption, possibly not a valid one, that whatever is physically in either entity now is that entity's share and will stay with the entity. Like Rail and Road networks (and NSOG!).

If you are assuming that entity's share stay's with the entity then we go back to why you have to include NSOG revenue in proportion to GDP per head in Scotland.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I've no idea, hence the question Scotlands claim on UK assets such as the pound, EU membership etc.

Why has no one asked Salmond the question that if iScotland has claim on these assets then by definition should rUK have claim on assets within Scotlands borders?

Using this logic we're due 10% of The City?Or 10% of Crossrail?10% of Judy Dench?

 

[Val]

Using this logic we're due 10% of The City?Or 10% of Crossrail?10% of Judy Dench?

Thats the question though, if rUK has a claim on Scotlands assets then by assumption the same logic should be applied in reverse so technically yes.

BUT, did you have to use Judy Dench?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Thats the question though, if rUK has a claim on Scotlands assets then by assumption the same logic should be applied in reverse so technically yes.

BUT, did you have to use Judy Dench?

I'd love 10% of Dench.

But seriously, I used the City as an extreme example of something entirely in England that Scotland has zero right to, just like our excise on whisky and Oil, The R&A and Irn Bru would be exclusive assets of Scotland.

 

[Val]

I'd love 10% of Dench.

But seriously, I used the City as an extreme example of something entirely in England that Scotland has zero right to, just like our excise on whisky and Oil, The R&A and Irn Bru would be exclusive assets of Scotland.

Absolutely, 100% spot on IMO.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I can't think of a more ludicrous reason to vote Yes than being afraid of the reaction from down south if you vote No.

What's the plan, ban Tartan again?

I am not suggesting it is a reason to vote YES - all I am saying is that there is some resentment in England about what are perceived as unfair inequalities between countries in a United Kingdom.

If I were undecided then I might well want to understand and take into consideration what changes are possible from the status quo post a NO vote. And changes to funding through the Barnett formula are one possible change.

 

[Foxholer]

Using this logic we're due 10% of The City?Or 10% of Crossrail?10% of Judy Dench?

And (only) 10% of NSOG.

Welcome to 10% of the water covering bits of Surrey that it wouldn't normally.

Another Barnet formula required? He suggested a review was require years ago anyway!

It doesn't just stop there. The major beneficiary of the M6 from above the Midlands is Scotland. So should Scotland be responsible for that maintenance? What about subsidies on Rail lines to Scotland? Lucky HS2 is purely rUK

Of course, the obvious way to 'claim' the 10% is with a 'No' vote! A 'Yes' vote means some sort of division of assets and a 'fresh start' - albeit with existing, and proposed, policies.

 

[Val]

I am not suggesting it is a reason to vote YES - all I am saying is that there is some resentment in England about what are perceived as unfair inequalities between countries in a United Kingdom.

If I were undecided then I might well want to understand and take into consideration what changes are possible from the status quo post a NO vote. And changes to funding through the Barnett formula are one possible change.

Who has said there would be any change post NO?

 

[ger147]

I am not suggesting it is a reason to vote YES - all I am saying is that there is some resentment in England about what are perceived as unfair inequalities between countries in a United Kingdom.

If I were undecided then I might well want to understand and take into consideration what changes are possible from the status quo post a NO vote. And changes to funding through the Barnett formula are one possible change.

There will be no change to the status quo i.e. there will still be a devolved parliament in Scotland and a parliament in London.

The Barnett formula is no more part of the status quo than are current tax rates etc. Scotland and England have been joined for over 300 years and the Barnett formula only came into being in the late 1970's. It has already been revised downwards once, reducing Scotland's % and as it is based on population split, if it needs to be revised again it should be. It is part of the normal business of government and is a complete red herring IMO in the Independence or not for Scotland.

 

[Val]

And (only) 10% of NSOG.

Welcome to 10% of the water covering bits of Surrey that it wouldn't normally.

Another Barnet formula required? He suggested a review was require years ago anyway!

It doesn't just stop there. The major beneficiary of the M6 from above the Midlands is Scotland. So should Scotland be responsible for that maintenance? What about subsidies on Rail lines to Scotland? Lucky HS2 is purely rUK

Of course, the obvious way to 'claim' the 10% is with a 'No' vote! A 'Yes' vote means some sort of division of assets and a 'fresh start' - albeit with existing, and proposed, policies.

We have enough water thank you, Surrey can keep theirs.

As to your comment on the M6, I think you will find that finishes in Cumbria. If you think Scotland are the major beneficiary of the M6 you are alienating yourself from NW England, in particular Manchester and Liverpool who have a combined population of more than half of Scotland (according to Wikipedia)

 

[Foxholer]

If you are assuming that entity's share stay's with the entity then we go back to why you have to include NSOG revenue in proportion to GDP per head in Scotland.

I'm not assuming anything!

I stated 'the assumption' and noted 'possibly not a valid one'.

I believe what assets, real or intangible, are to be allocated to each entity, and in what proportion, would be part of post 'Yes' vote negotiation. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get to the level of detail about which gets which bits of Dame Judi though!

 

[Imurg]

Lucky HS2 is purely rUK

But it's not is it...well HS2 is but HS4...?

Eventually, it's due to roll into Scotland, linking both extreme ends of Europe by HS rail......

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Can Scotland negotiate Rangers and Celtic for Durham City, Blyth Spartans, Preston North End and Carlisle United .

 

[Adi2Dassler]

And (only) 10% of NSOG.

Welcome to 10% of the water covering bits of Surrey that it wouldn't normally.

Another Barnet formula required? He suggested a review was require years ago anyway!

It doesn't just stop there. The major beneficiary of the M6 from above the Midlands is Scotland. So should Scotland be responsible for that maintenance? What about subsidies on Rail lines to Scotland? Lucky HS2 is purely rUK

Of course, the obvious way to 'claim' the 10% is with a 'No' vote! A 'Yes' vote means some sort of division of assets and a 'fresh start' - albeit with existing, and proposed, policies.

I've read this a few times now and it makes less sense each time, so I'll stop trying.

 

[Foxholer]

We have enough water thank you, Surrey can keep theirs.

As to your comment on the M6, I think you will find that finishes in Cumbria. If you think Scotland are the major beneficiary of the M6 you are alienating yourself from NW England, in particular Manchester and Liverpool who have a combined population of more than half of Scotland (according to Wikipedia)

Oops. I keep thinking of them as 'Midlands'. I apologise to both areas!

Past about Preston/M55 was the point I meant.

 

[Val]

I'm not assuming anything!

I stated 'the assumption' and noted 'possibly not a valid one'.

I believe what assets, real or intangible, are to be allocated to each entity, and in what proportion, would be part of post 'Yes' vote negotiation. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get to the level of detail about which gets which bits of Dame Judi though!

Ok, would it be fair to assume, your belief is the same as an assumption?

I wasnt suggest it was you personally making the assumption just referencing your post.

 

[Val]

Oops. I keep thinking of them as 'Midlands'. I apologise to both areas!

Past about Preston/M55 was the point I meant.

Tut tut.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get to the level of detail about which gets which bits of Dame Judi though!

It seems a tad inhumane to dissect our greatest actresses though. I propose a compromise. You can keep Dame Judi..... and we'll have Helen Mirren!

:whoo:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Who has said there would be any change post NO?

Quite - but who has said there won't be? That's rather important if you are voting FOR the status quo if the status quo is going to change but you don't know how and to what extent.