CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"The EU is the most interesting facet - absolutely no-one at all knows if Scotland will get straight back in."
Yes, but
Assuming there is a "yes" that doesn't mean that Scotland is out of the UK or EU the next day.
Years (various guesses) of negotiation - esp over all things WC mentions.
The biggest political failure in all this is that the question that most people agree with won't be on the ballot - 'more devolution/extra powers'.
@WC, given your profession I'd have expected a more sceptical approach to the claims being bandied about by those in favour of the status quo.
If, as a number of people have claimed, rUK would be the successor state and Scotland a "new" state (which appears to run contrary to the Act of Union, but never mind), then yes, the "new" Scotland would have to apply, negotiate, etc. those memberships/treaties it was interested in sustaining. Bit of a hassle.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out recently, as the successor state rUK would be liable for the UK's current and historical debts and burdens, whereas as a "new" state, Scotland would be debt free.
They can't have it both ways: either Scotland is a historical state that entered an equal partnership (the Union) which, when dissolved, will create two successor states; or it is a "new" entity which inherits none of the successor state's obligations, whether treaties, tax agreements, or debts.
As to territorial waters, there's an international treaty on how to resolve boundaries. The sly redrawing of the boundary between English and Scottish waters in the 1998 Scotland Act (they were shifted further north to increase England's share of fossil fuel reserves and fisheries) would not necessarily hold up to scrutiny in any future negotiations.
Who told you Scotland would remain in the British Army? That seems highly unlikely in the event of independence.
As to higher costs/taxes following independence, that depends on the policies of an independent Scottish government. However, the money saved by not paying for nukes, wars on foreign soil, a string of 'dependent territories', etc. should pay for a few things.
But yes, if it did get in there's absolutely no chance that it would be on the favourable UK terms.
Legally, the far more interesting question is: would the UK get to keep its favourable terms. The signatory to the treaty no longer exists, I'm quite sure Brussels would be more than happy to use that to beat Westminster about the head.
To return what Dave was originally going on about
IF there is independence there far from any certainty that the SNP would run the country.
Slightly dubious analogy - Churchill 'won the war' but the voters wanted a change.
Assuming Scotland stays in/rejoins the EU, some chance that it would take a more 'European view' on things like cycling(?)
Despite the eminent titles of the people speculating on Scotland's constitutional future, they don't really know any more than we do. The answer to almost any question about the future, if there is a yes vote, is:
"Its depends, it's all down to what is negotiated at the time."
Unionists want to up the "uncertainty" rhetoric, while nationalists want to up the "certainty" rhetoric as each side sees this as helping their cause.
It is clear that Scotland would have to negotiate EU entry though, even the Scottish Government admits that.
Regarding treaties, etc. an independent Scotland could just do what Slovakia, and Slovenia did: send a letter to the UN: treaties.un.org/Pages/HistoricalInfo.aspx?# "Slovakia"
I think the one certain thing is uncertainty whichever way the vote goes. e.g. In or out of the EU? Uncertain - if we vote yes we may have to negotiate re-entry, if we vote no we may well be negotiating exit.
On costs of independence, Scotland can absolutely afford it on day 1; our pensioners die on average 4 years sooner than those in rUK. The problem only comes about if an independent Scottish state makes the difference that the SNP argue it can make. Given the wholesale move to preventative spending in government, if cycling can show its benefits (which it can) then it will get funding. The problem is much more that there appears to be no votes in it, and a vociferous car lobby that portrays any spend on bikes as moeny removed from new roads. (And at least jobs created through building roads are cheaper than those for building and maintaining weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde...) </politics>
mgj - interstingly, Trident could be a moneyspinner for an independent Scotland. The UK Government may well find it cheaper to lease the Clyde bases on a long term basis than build a new base in England. Such an arrangement would still allow the SNP to meet its commitment to removing Trident at some point - as far as I am aware it has never said when this would happen.
We could lease the Clyde to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Norniron as Crown Territory. Then the SNP can proudly claim there's no Trident on Scottish soil.
@Morningsider; I dont thing the FM could hold his party together if he made a deal like that. He just about got away with it over NATO membership.
On EU accession/membership, there are no rules written down, so it will be down to negotiations, and I remember well that although the Highlands and Islands of Scotland didnt meet the criteria, we secured Objective 1 status for them at the Edinburgh summit in 1992, a result that surprised (and wrongfooted) the opposition in Scotland at the time. It was great to not have to answer any more questions on that from the Ewings.
"...given your profession I'd have expected a more sceptical approach to the claims being bandied about by those in favour of the status quo"
I'm sceptical of both camps, but to me, and the reading I've done, the items mentioned above seem to make sense.
"as the successor state rUK would be liable for the UK's current and historical debts and burdens, whereas as a "new" state, Scotland would be debt free"
It would be interesting to see if that would stand up in any break-up talks and agreements. Though (again just from what I've read) there is, as Steveo mentions, doubt over whether rUK is actually a successor state - it may actually have to re-apply for EU membership etc as well (which must tug at the dogma of Tories who want the UK to remain intact, but would love the easy 'get out of Europe' card).
"The sly redrawing of the boundary between English and Scottish waters in the 1998 Scotland Act (they were shifted further north to increase England's share of fossil fuel reserves and fisheries) would not necessarily hold up to scrutiny in any future negotiations"
Though depends entirely on bargaining powers, what's important to each, role of the EU, etc etc. Not to mention (though this has nothing to do with territorial waters I guess) what the oil companies may do if faced with higher taxation (there was a report recently on that proposed increase in Whisky duty that mentioned whisky is worth more to the Scottish economy than oil - weird that the SNP knocked that idea back and still plunders the line that oil is Scotland's economic saviour).
"As to higher costs/taxes following independence, that depends on the policies of an independent Scottish government. However, the money saved by not paying for nukes, wars on foreign soil, a string of 'dependent territories', etc. should pay for a few things"
SNP chap round my door years ago used Denmark as the model that Scotland should aim for. Do they have nukes? (I honestly don't know the answer to that). They do have soldiers in Afghanistan and the rest (though not as much as Scotland?). Very few dependant territories. But one of the highest tax burdens in the world.
On the army thing it was from the lips of Salmond himself - but looking online now I can't find the exact words, and I'm wondering if there was an edit of him for the radio show. I'll keep digging.
To be honest I think Morningsider has nailed it:
"Despite the eminent titles of the people speculating on Scotland's constitutional future, they don't really know any more than we do. The answer to almost any question about the future, if there is a yes vote, is:
"Its depends, it's all down to what is negotiated at the time.""
When it comes down to it, I don't trust the yes vote. And I don't trust the no vote. Or rather, I don't trust politicians in general, and I hate party politics (and, yes this is a vote on the nation's future, but in reality most people are deciding whether they want Salmond with more power or not).
Salmond is an immensely charismatic figure, more so than any of the other political leaders in Scotland or the UK. I'm always actually very impressed with him when I see him speaking and he's so on the ball answering questions it's frightening. I also think he's a bit of an egotist on a personal mission (though anyone in power I think has to be).
Independence is such a HUGELY emotive subject, anyone who is strongly in one camp is quite simply never going to be swayed by any argument, to the point I do wonder if there's any merit at all in debating it (whether as Joe Bloggs down the pub, or as a politician in the media). I do think 90% of people will have already made up their mind (my own personal view? Morally, historically, for it; practically, pragmatically, personal opinion of the impacts and effects and pros and cons, against it).
Everyone's entitled to their opinion - if it differs from mine, fine. As mentioned before, all I ask is that people do it in as considered a manner as possible.
(and save for trying to find this damnable army quote I'll probably be done with this thread :) )
I do like the idea of Scotland being like NewCo Rangers though, starting afresh with no debt, and getting to keep all our silverware... ;)
SNP chap round my door years ago used Denmark as the model that Scotland should aim for. Do they have nukes?
I doubt it, they're around average for sensible Europe with military expenses being around 1.5% of GDP. The UK, France and Norway have relatively huge military budgets.
I also have my doubts as to weather its worth while waiting for the vote, I'm optimistic there are enough people undecided, I'm less convinced the Union bloc will be able to turn down the negativity and find a positive message for keeping the UK.
One for thing's for sure about independence: it would be a bugger's muddle, a professional politician's dream and a dripping roast for lawyers and accountants. It would take decades to wade through all the crap that needs to be resolved, and I don't think that would be to the benefit of most. And then we'd end up with most of the populace resenting the politicians/lawyers/bankers who were running the country from their feathered nests in the capital (sounds familiar? ;-) )
One thing I've been wondering, if Scotland gains independence does rUK retain the name GB ?
Yes, Denmark sent troops to Afghanistan. Far fewer than Scotland did, however. We sent disproportionately more relative to our population.
As the Army web site itself proclaims: "There are always Jocks on the front line in Afghanistan".
Then there was Iraq...
Do they have nukes?
They've not been mentioned on Borgen, so I'd say "no". ;-)
One thing I've been wondering, if Scotland gains independence does rUK retain the name GB ?
Thats the thing, the Legal entry on the documents is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales. Theoretically GB would cease to exist as it was formed by the Union which the SNP are seeking to dissolve, therefore the UK would also cease to be a legal entity. Great time to be a lawyer. :D
There is the opposing argument that England absorbed Scotland and the union would not be dissolved but a new country (NewCO) would be created in what is currently the Scots region of England. I'm not sure they want to publicise this argument too loudly though as it would virtually guarantee independence.
Have to hold my hands up here - Salmond does not want the Scottish regiments to remain within the British Army.
There are doubts over the plans to move control to Scotland of the Scottish regiments (voiced by military folk) but that could well be self-interest coming to the fore.
One thing I've been wondering, if Scotland gains independence does rUK retain the name GB ?
I don't see why not. Who's going to stop them? Greece got nowhere in trying to stop Macedonia calling itself Macedonia.
One thing I've been wondering, if Scotland gains independence does rUK retain the name GB
I'd imagine not, GB refers to the island of Britain and its offshore islands only (but not the IoM or Channel Isles). So the remaining country would no longer be the United Kingdom of GB & NI, but the UK of E, W & NI. So it could still be the UK, GB would become meaningless.
Its already badly used anyway, TeamGB for instance at Olympics is really Team GB & NI & Channel Islands and IOM, but that's a bit of a mouthful.
Theoretically GB would cease to exist
GB is a geographical term for the largest of the "British Isles", so GB would still exist, unless the plan is to dispose of the nukes by way of a large fireworks display in a line along the border...
Robert
GB is a geographical term for the largest of the "British Isles"
Sure? I thought "Britain" was the name of the island, whilst "Great Britain" was the political name of union of countries residing on the island. Might be wrong mind.
Edit:
Nope I'm wrong Roibeard is quite right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_%28placename%29
I apparently mean to the Kingdom of Great Britain is the political name whilst the geographical name for the largest island is Great Britain... Every day a school day.
Wiki seems to be in doubt:
Britain may refer to:
The United Kingdom, a sovereign state in western Europe
The kingdom of Great Britain, a sovereign state from 1707 to 1801
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a sovereign state from 1801 to 1922
Great Britain, the largest island in the British Isles and the largest island in Europe
Britain can also mean England plus Scotland plus Wales...
(and of course England can mean any of those things too!)
You have to worry when Alex Massie can write Swinney's 'Secret' paper should be welcomed by Tories.
(and, yes this is a vote on the nation's future, but in reality most people are deciding whether they want Salmond with more power or not).
Yes, this.
(and, yes this is a vote on the nation's future, but in reality most people are deciding whether they want Salmond with more power or not).
Yes, this.
It would be very unfortunate if the outcome of an event with the same significance as the Declaration of Arbroath turned on the perception of the SNP's 2014 transport policy.
I'm currently basing my opinion on the quality of typography used in the annoying pro and anti pics my friends keep sharing on facebook.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts