Brit telcos warn Scots that voting Yes could lead to hefty bills BT and other British network operators have followed in the footsteps of knickers model David Beckham by urging Scotland not to quit the Union. The companies, including the former state monopoly, EE, O2 and Vodafone, have written an open letter to Scots in which they are warned of the wallet-hitting drawbacks of voting for …
...can't the UK just invade (point at Trident as a potential weapon of mass destruction - what the hey, bring back Tony to say it all again) and repossess them legally?
If they get upset, offer them another independence referendum in 300 years.
My coat? It's the one over there with the copy of war and peace in the pocket. Yes, peace has been crossed out....
"whiskey obviously!" The majority of Scotch is not Scottish owned (London-based Diageo being the biggest player, IIRC). And, despite the furious activities of the Scotch Whisky Ass., it doesn't have to be made in Scotland (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scot).
There's a few ways to incorporate another territory into yours. I believe this isn't the first referendum in 300 years. There was one in 1979 iirc which got a majority yes but not enough people voted or something like that. I'm sure Prince Phillip could give some reasons why the turnout was low and simultaneously ensure a 95% yes vote this time.
The goalposts were changed in the 79 referendum. The change meant that there needed to be a 40% turnout, which btw is a damned site higher than most general elections!
That referendum was for devolution, not independence.
This time round it's too close to call at the moment.
I am definitely in the YES camp and stuff like this .. ie more costs is a load of bullshit... the reason???
The plan is to LOWER corporate tax to below the UK's current level as an incentive to bring business here so why would it be more expensive if their costs are lowered?
It's purely a case of London-centric business getting involved and trying to bully the electorate with more FEAR FEAR FEAR... that has been the staple of the NO campaign.
ie more costs is a load of bullshit... the reason???
Not true in this case. Mobile network coverage is part of the licence and universal coverage benefits significantly from scale. Networks already complain about having to provide service in sparsely populated areas but can partly offset the additional costs by also serving densely populated areas. Apart from the Clyde/Forth corridor, Scotland is very sparsely populated and this will significantly affect any services to aspire to universal coverage. So the postal service will also be affected. It's also to see how the cost of groceries will rise as rUK distribution is reorganised. Any such changes will provide new opportunities, but it's naive to think they will not be disruptive.
Of course, the Scandinavian countries demonstrate that some services can be provided despite low population density and tricky terrain but they operate significantly different models with notably higher tax rates to fund the necessary financial transfers.
Can't bail out what you don't have (given the banks seem to be heading to England in the event of a yes vote). If they have any sense they would ensure any future banking system was regulated more in line with Canada's rather than the US/UK model of light regulation and lots of nose candy.
It might all work out, assuming they don't attempt any more South American holiday home ventures.
"You do know one of the worst offenders was a Scottish bank, as was one of the lesser ones?
erm.. They haven't been Scottish except ijn name and where the HQ building are for quite some time..
The Rpoyal bank of Scotland is owned by KLLoyds TSB and the Bank of Scotland is HBOS.. H for Halifax.
Also as for the bailouts... here's the thing....
For example Barclays with registered offices in anerica benefited GREATLY from US bailouts... why? it was based there as were RBOS,HBOS and others.
The companies try to compartmentalise by having an LLC in each country it operates in..
Thus RBOS and HBOS both having companies registered and trading in London would have got bailouts just the same.
which means that in Scotland the bailouts would have been affordable to the Scottish govt
But remember, under EU law a financial institution must be based in the country in which it does the most of its business.
Following a Yes vote, RBS (and most others) would remain a UK bank, not a Scottish bank. I think the Clydesdale bank would probably be the only Scottish bank left.
Give the Irish credit, we were more reckless than anyone else with perhaps the exception of Greece. We are till paying for it and unfortunately so will our children.However I think the Scots have a better chance of being financially prudent as there is culturally a more responsible attitude to money.
Its all a bit Monty Python as in "what did the Romans do for us?"
What ever the Scots do decide I hope there isn't any bitterness afterwards.
For any operator that currently covers the whole of the UK in any industry there would be costs of independence and telecoms would be no different. There would be new costs to be met; for example a cross border call might not be ocal rate any more, so billing systems would need to change. Plus if the rump UK and Scotland move to different currencies further billing changes would be needed. Plus, national level infrastructure would presumably need to be duplicated.
In addition to new costs, cost apportionment would change. Universal Service Obligation costs are high for industries operating in Scotland, for example. So it might be that that pushes up prices.
Of course costs can go down as well as up: salary costs may be lower in Scotland.
Unfortunately, most companies can only say "our costs might change" - they can't say whether the change would be material or indeed in which direction because most of them don't know. With such uncertainty, of course, the politicians on both sides tend to read it however supports their case.
I don't envy Scottish voters making such a choice.
"Scotland is very sparsely populated and this will significantly affect any services to aspire to universal coverage."
Strange. Operators in Germany, France, etc seem to be quite capable of providing a good continued service even in the rural areas. On my home broadband I have 2mbit (with a line just shy of 5km). Step out the door and into a field, Speedtest on my phone pegs the average rate at 2.6mbit.
So what's so hard about Scotland? There are some places that perhaps don't even have electricity yet, however this doesn't describe the entire country. For the places that have a reasonable population level to make mobile phones worthwhile, aren't the transmitter towers around them already in place? I'm not certain if there is great benefit to "universal coverage" where few people ever go. To that end, I am also wondering why a separation will automatically result in a jump in prices, asides from scaremongering... It may, infrastructure changes etc, but given the number of variables, I am surprised that such easy predictions can be made at the point. Maybe the costs would go down? Oh, silly me, that never happens, does it?
To be fair we are aiming they actually want towers everywhere. They may decide to reuse some vacated mod spectrum lower down the dial to allow for a lower speed but greater range service (they'd need to petition for a band to be created but that's not all that hard), they might even make some money leasing out the spectrum. They could also increase transmit power. They could use fixed directional antenna on houses with mimo to deliver fairly high speed wireless broadband over crazy distances.
Bottom line is they would have flexibility there and importantly it would be their choice. The border would be fun however, the usa, Canada and Mexico have a lot of fun with spectrum at the borders. Its not even a case of it will be fine if you use directional antenna and point them away as you get reflections.
".....The border would be fun however, the usa, Canada and Mexico have a lot of fun with spectrum at the borders....." I used to visit an office in Northern Ireland which was a few miles from the border with Eire. If you had a Vodafone mobile and wandered down to the southern end of their offices you would suddenly flip to Vodafone Ireland and get charged for roaming. It was quite fun explaining to Finance that, no, we hadn't gone on a jolly south of the border, no matter what our phone bills said.
Of course there are technical solutions and there could well be opportunities for the telcos using the lower frequencies currently in use.
In rural areas of Scotland at present I have virtually 100% coverage in my car even when my phone on its own has no signal at all -- the very-powerful car receiver system links to my mobile by bluetooth. Other solutions exist for domestic and office settings.
"Strange. Operators in Germany, France, etc seem to be quite capable of providing a good continued service even in the rural areas. On my home broadband I have 2mbit (with a line just shy of 5km). Step out the door and into a field, Speedtest on my phone pegs the average rate at 2.6mbit."
Pfft! A rubbish analogy. Germany has 80 million people and 4 times the population density of Scotland, France has , what 50 million people and double the population density of Scotland. Both have lots of densely populated urban centres that cross subsidise the rural areas. Scotland has the central belt and lots of very challenging geography. Costing more? I can easily see at least one of the networks shutting shop in Scotland - which do you reckon will sell up - three or O2?
Add to that the cost of splitting the networks in two (even if its just a virtual split), the costs of data centres being moved, new network kit, all the customer comms to sort out the billing, figuring out where all the pre-paid customers are to assign them to the right cost centre, new SIM cards if they go down that route , legal bills for all the due diligence, testing, contract negotiations with the outsource partners etc.
You want to call basic economics scare-mongering ? Go ahead. To me that's a big fat opportunity. I've got some mobile experience. If it is a "yes" it will be a bonanza for contractors, and the likes of IBM, Accenture and so on are likely to be praying for a yes as they will make serious amounts of money.
"To that end, I am also wondering why a separation will automatically result in a jump in prices,"
Largely down to the way prices are set. BT has a universal service obligation (USO). In effect, it's mandated to charge all telephone customers the same for line rental - so the total cost is divided by the number of lines.
Scotland has a smaller, less dense population that is more expensive to serve than England - vastly more so in the case of the highlands, Shetland, Orkney and so on. Today those lines are subsidised by the cheaper lines in the densley populated south east of England. Everyone pays the same, regardless of actual cost.
In the event of a breakup, why would UK customers want to pay higher line rental to subsidise another country? They almost certainly wouldn't, and if Ofcom has no jurisdiction in Scotland there's no-one to impose or enforce such a rule anyway. Line rental would increase.
The same is true for the mobile companies - today everyone pays the same, give or take, and Scotland is in effect subsidised.
All things being equal, line rental costs - fixed or mobile - would drop in the UK and increase in Scotland after a split.
Like you say, the "Central Belt" is relatively densely populated, and far easier to serve than most of England, so I call BS on this - the reality is that BT know that an independent Scotland wouldn't let them get away with the shenanigans that Westminster let them get away, with, due to the "Old School" network.
"Like you say, the "Central Belt" is relatively densely populated, and far easier to serve than most of England, so I call BS on this - the reality is that BT know that an independent Scotland wouldn't let them get away with the shenanigans that Westminster let them get away, with, due to the "Old School" network."
Sigh, it isn't BS. Take for example EE. It will need two accounting systems not one as any revenue in iScotland will be taxable at the rates assigned under Scotland's rules. Two sets of accountants. Two sets of audits. Don't get me started on the calling scenarios. God only knows how you figure out how to assign revenue from prepay topups (especially VAT). The hardware for Scotland will be charged to Scotland and it is unlikely to be 8% of the cost of rUK hardware. But carry on in your bubble if you wish because come Friday if it is a yes vote then it will be Scotland's problem.
Yep, lower corporation tax, while spending more on welfare, while funding free tuition fees, oh and while Alex Salmond is at it, set up a Sovereign Wealth fund as well as cutting Corporation tax. The Yes campaign IS bullshit from start to finish. They want to spend Scotland's money in 3 different ways at the same time, any 5 year old could do the Maths and tell you it doesn't add up.
Oh, and the cutting the of corporation tax will do absolutely nothing to attract businesses, unless Scotland is going to go toe to toe with Ireland and cut it below 12%. Why would a business set up in Scotland, when they can set up in Ireland at an even lower cost?
As for the cost of things being different, OF COURSE they will be, I am absolutely shocked that this is not obvious to most people. If Scotland becomes independent it's going to be like going from France to Germany and expecting the costs to be the same, of course there will be differences, and in a lot of cases the costs will be higher because Scotland purely by its geography is harder to ship to (in case noone's looked at a map Scotland has a hell of a lot of hills, lochs and valleys).
".....We would have to think of an environmentally responsible way to dispose of the surplus....." We could be really evil and tell the Scots that one of our conditions for removing Trident from Faslane is they to have to take our excess politicians. And that colossal waste of oxygen George Galloway, naturally, because as a Scot he would be ineligible to stand for an English seat in Parliament. Ooh, it's worth telling the Scots to vote yes just to get rid of that loon.
They tried a similar move in Ireland years ago offering tax incentives, one off subsidies and all sorts and it worked well for a while. The reality is though that at some point those tax levels need to normalise and that is largely going to depend the the cost of running Scotland v's the amount of other government revenue streams.
In Ireland, once the tax breaks broke, so did a lot of the industrial and corporate investment.
This isn't a case of fear, fear, fear. There are a huge number of factors to take into account over and above "We're Scottish and we currently hate the English". Banking, currency, investments, corporations, services, funding; all these things will be effected. Telco is just one, what about water, gas and electricity. The cost to businesses will be huge if they operate and/or provide services on both sides of the border and it is my opinion that any costs related to resolving their operating and regulatory requirements one BOTH sides of the border should be born by Scotland alone.
Equally dissolving the Union isn't just a case of applying a bit of tipex over Scotland's entry. By dissolving the union we will be effectively creating not one new country but two. There will be the new Scotland and the the New United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland neither of which will technically be members of the EU. Will the UK therefore lose its position as a founding member and the veto rights that we currently hold. Will Scotland even qualify to join? Will they be a contributor or a beneficiary? I for one would not want them to be a beneficiary as they would be in a situation of their own choosing.
Would the UK even choose to rejoin the EU. Maybe a no vote should prompt us to get around to the whole EU referendum we have been talking about for so long.
Equally, also worth bearing in mind that just because the vote may be in favour of leaving the Union that doesn't mean it will happen.
Anyway, that's my two cents
And if the UK Government refuses to accept Salmond's undoubtedly preposterous demands? I understand that a 'Yes' in this mockery of a referendum will lead to negotiation between Scotland and the UK with a view to the granting of independence, not the automatic gaining of it.
The wording of the question is interesting, too. It says "Should Scotland be an independent country?", not "Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?" I can see many loyal but intelligent Scots saying 'Yes' to the first dream but 'No' to the second reality. There seems to be considerable scope for a massive fudge here, designed to just shut the Scots up.
Perhaps Scotland will become an independent country that amicably and sensibly shares all aspects of its infrastructure and governance with its larger neighbour, thus effectively preserving the status quo and keeping the EU handouts coming, while deluding the woad and sporran brigade into believing they are finally free of the hated English.
Salmond can boldly strut to the front of the stage and announce that he has, bravely and singlehandedly, saved tens of thousands of jobs and many millions of pounds by ordering the English to move their submarines half a mile down the loch instead of all the way to Portsmouth. And so on.
Then Hollywood can rush out Braveheart 2 in time for Christmas, telling the Scots how the Scots won the Great Battle to drive out the English and gain Independence. And the Scots will all live happily ever after.
PS: and if a single deciding vote comes from a witless 16 year-old glue-sniffer on the Benefit, then Salmond's new voting age will doubtless be lauded a success.
It's the arrogance that 'We're Scottish and currently hate the English' that sticks in the craw, I don't think anyone in Scotland is remotely interested in what the English people are thinking about the fact that a large amount of Scottish people would quite like the country to be ran by Scottish people, with Scottish votes counting towards what we want.
That has nothing to do with England, not everything is about England. I'm a Yes, I want Scottish people to make real decisions on Scotland's future. Not anyone else.
It's nothing to do with 'hating English' and to try to make it out as some sort of hate campaign is not beneficial in the slightest. Their has been a real grassroots movement up here, everybody is interested in how the country should be handled, it's amazing to watch and it's not about England or English people, it is purely about Scotland and Scottish people.
Pax681
"No it isn't. Stop making things up."
read it and weep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979"
I think he was possibly referring to your assertion that the 40% turnout requirement was higher than for most General Elections. The last two have had turnouts over 60%. 2001 was 59% and every General Election before that as far back as 1922 was over 70%, with a couple of elections in the 1950s tipping the odds at >80% turnout.
So yes. Stop making things up. 40% for a decision as important as secession and independence is not at all high. It should damn well have a turnout well over 50%. Either people care enough to vote or you're pandering to a vocal minority, which is no basis for rule.
Moreover, your claim of a 40% turnout quorum was wrong! The requirement in 1979 was for 40% OF THE ELECTORATE TO VOTE YES.
Although 48% of voters voted yes, that only equated to 32.9% of the electorate as the turnout was only 63%. Do you actually read the articles you post to...?
dogged -- The 1979 referendum was stitched up with a requirement of 40% of the total electorate had to vote yes, which is a bigger share than Cameron got at the general election. This 40% did not take into accout error in the voters role. My uncle had two entries in the voters role 1 for the front door and one for the back lane, but of course voting twice would be illegal. Like I said a stichup.
The goalposts weren't moved in the 1979 referendum: they said "40% of the electorate" from the get-go, and the final result didn't get anywhere near that.
I believe the previous cavil was (rightly) calling bullshit on the claim that general elections don't get as high as 40% turnout, when they routinely score 60% or more (more like 75% in the 1970s). In fact, turnout in the referendum was significantly lower than in any general election before 2001.
"trying to bully the electorate"
How Alex Salmond like of you. Any negative aspect of a yes vote is to be described as bullying not only allowing it to be written off without argument but making it out as something that needs to be fought against. When it comes to dishonest slimeball politicians Salmond is a match for anything Westminster can offer.
As an Englishman I can't decide which way I would like the vote to go. Should I care if the Scots want to screw themselves over based on fantasies that Scotland would be so much better if it were governed completely by their own pack of wankers in Hollyrood instead of partially by the packs of wankers in Hollyrood and Westminster?
Huge disruption and expense to change which pack of wankers make some decisions, decisions that are so constrained by reality and the rest of the world that who makes them makes little difference.
The phrase "Don't vote it only encourages them" comes to mind.
It's purely a case of London-centric business getting involved and trying to bully the electorate with more FEAR FEAR FEAR... that has been the staple of the NO campaign.
But why would the rUK want to bully Scotland into staying? Even if Scotland is a net contributor to the UK---and that seems to depend on who's doing the counting and what's counted---it's not a huge sum (as a percentage of GDP), is subject to the fluctuations in oil price and is set to decline as the population ages. So what does the rUK get out of keeping Scotland? You've definitely made a fair contribution to the union and I wouldn't kick you out, but the rUK is not going to be noticeably worse off without you. So why would we bully you? What have you got that we need to hang on to?
No, not North Sea oil. They get most of that money back in extra spending. They may not get it all but, arguably, the surplus goes to Wales and Northern Ireland. Anyway, the loss of the majority of the oil (the rUK gets to keep ~10%) won't be catastrophic, even if revenues hold up.
And not Faslane either. It's nice to have and it will be "inconvenient" to relocate our subs. (And for that reason I'm sure we will get an extended lease as part of the negotiations.)
And other than that, what?
As I said, the rUK may well be worse off. But not significantly. And not to the extent that we need to bully the Scots.
The 40% rule in the 1979 referendum has further to be viewed against the background of a Voter's Roll fatally-flawed in more than one way and grossly inaccurate and out of date. My late mother found herself on two different electoral registers because she owned a derelict cottage which generated an entry on the Electoral Register -- she voted once -- for devolution -- and because she was on the second Electoral Register -- but wasn't allowed to vote in relation to that entry -- she was deemed to be a NO voter.
after YES, because of all the subsidies from rUK ?
Has anyone got the calculations of the rebate the rUK will get per capita, if there is a YES vote ? You know. All that extra money you told us you were spending in Scotland you are now not ?
Or is it all bullshit ?
As far as I can tell, both the Yes and No campaigns are both lying as much and as often as possible.
The only thing you can tell for sure at this point, is that half of Scotland is going to be really pissed off on Friday morning. I'm just not sure which half.
I'm hoping for a decisive vote either way, the polling companies are hopefully more inaccurate than normal having never had to predict this sort of result in this political climate within the UK.
All of the anti scot / anti english stuff aside, the Scots have 100% of the UKs Pandas, that's what we should be campaigning for.
I'm hoping for a decisive vote either way, the polling companies are hopefully more inaccurate than normal having never had to predict this sort of result in this political climate within the UK.
I think your wish may be granted. The Economist ran a piece on how difficult referenda are to predict.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21616996-referendums-are-hard-predict-polls-taxed
A close vote is also likely to be subject to legal challenge because non-native residents can vote whereas Scottish ex-pats can't.
If the vote is for, how long before Orkney and Shetland ask for their own?
Half of us will be pissed off, and the other half just pissed.
I was on the phone to my Dad yesterday, and he said he was getting a wee bit weary with the referendum coverage, I told him he was merely getting the edited highlights, and living here it was far, far, far worse.
I may not get to vote in the actual referendum as I currently want to beat the brains out any twat who knocks at my front door when I have a (polite) notice to tell them all to leave me the hell alone...
The long and short of it is that no-one knows really what the financial implications are, but you can bet your arse that every single company will seek any way to maximise profitability after the votes are cast, none of which will be of benefit to anyone either side of the border, other than their shareholders.
"after YES, because of all the subsidies from rUK ?"
It's not necessarily about subsidies, particularly in this case. It's about loss of synergy, so I'd expect costs to be going up in the remainder of the UK too, though not necessarily by the same percentage.
But in terms of subsidies, the Scottish populace is more sparsly distributed than the rest of the UK and as such would cost more to manage if it were to be separate.
The best analysis I heard was on the BBC More or Less on Radio 4 which suggested the economic argument was about even.
The reality is
a) it is exceedingly difficult to unpick and clearly understand the results. How much tax flows to London that would be captured in Scotland.
b) Many better off/worse off arguments rely on crystal balls, How long will North Sea Oil revenue last. Will Scotland grow faster or slower.
c) Lying and and dissembling from both sides doesn't help. I suppose England might stop protecting Whisky duty but a major chunk of whisky revenue is premium, no one is going to stop paying £25 plus for a single malt because of a 10p rise in duty. Will it really make a dent in the industry?
and d) None of this unpicking and economic guesswork will be relevant in 50 years because too much else will have changed. We'll be having equally sterile arguments around would one or other country have been better off if we hadn't split. (Think Magicthighs and Broomfondle ponitification on Deep Thought's answer)
So it seems to me it should about identity, if I was a Scot I'd be asking do I feel Scottish or British? Do I feel I am less Scottish because I am part of the UK, will I gain identity by being independent?
The whole thing has been an absolute disaster in terms of actual intelligence.
On the one hand, you have "Better Together", a bunch of failed idiot politicians who did nothing but make rich people richer at the expense of everybody, not just Scotland saying "Don't leave, we want to fuck you over some more!"
And then you have the Yes campaign sticking to the message that everyone should vote for independence because independence is a lovely lovely thing that makes things lovely. Obviously, you don't need to worry about practicalities like jobs or money or your phone working or anything at all because all of that will be independent and therefore as lovely as a very, very lovely thing. Also oil, which is currently horrible but will be lovely when independent and even George Monbiot thinks so.
I've seen more in-depth debates on CBeebies and we should round up everyone involved and drown them. In oil.
You really need to worry about practicalities in case of Plan A - keep the pound. That has so many unresolved practicalities that it is not even funny. Considering that Plan A is a no Go, we go to Plan B (the one noone dares mention).
If Plan A is denied however, there comes Plan B with 3 simple points:
* UK exits Eu more or less automatically as the referendum is pre-won and the Tories who have painted themselves into a corner with a promise to offer will have to offer it.
* Scotland assumes the UK membership and (potentially) joins the Euro. There is _NO_ legal grounds for the Eu to refuse the Scots to take over it if UK exits.
* Scotland does a "dumping" on rates for corporation tax compared to Ireland. Again - nothing to stop them.
This plan is something _NO_ politico dares to mention and every multinational company around the UK has been preparing for.
You can start with Google who tore apart their Eu headquarters plans as "insufficiently bold" which is frankly "insufficiently bollocks". What do they think - that we are all idiots and cannot see that the reason is that they do not want to invest into an Eu HQ in a country that will not be in the Eu by the time the HQ is bult? We can continue with nearly every multinational who had a UK entity and did a re-registration under different terms within the last one year. Every one is now 100% ready to divource the UK and Scotland entities and move the business to the more profitable (giving the Irish a tax finger in the process as well).
>The whole thing has been an absolute disaster in terms of actual intelligence.
Do you mean politics in general or just the Scots Independance referendum.
I have always taken it as a given that most politicians don't actually know where they are going or how they are going to get there. This is why someone invented "rhetoric", it is a means by which one can actually answer questions theoretically rather than realistically.
Well, here's the solution...Scotland votes "yes" and stays in the EU and England et al can do what they want and leave the EU. If Scotland votes "No" the "UK" will be leaving the EU at the upcoming English lead referendum anyway, so all Scotland will be doing is voting to stay in the Eu for about 2 years
Well, here's the solution...Scotland votes "yes" and stays in the EU and England et al can do what they want and leave the EU.
There is fairly compelling political logic for thinking that Scotland, as a new country, will have to apply to join the EU: France, Spain and Italy will be loathe for the secession to set a precedent and everyone else has other things on their mind (recession, Russian belligerence). Some kind of fudge (free trade agreement but no financial transfers) will no doubt be available but an independent Scotland should not expect many sympathetic ears.
It's not clear whether the Commission's view on the matter (new application required) is subject to legal challenge and if so, by whom.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Euro Commission oppose Scottish independence because they know it would increase the chances of the rUK voting to leave the EU - no doubt after the English papers currently lauding the wisdom of business leaders warning against a "Yes" vote pour vitriol on the same people when they use the same points to argue for staying in the EU.
Given that there is no legally set period between the Scottish referendum date and actual independence (voters I've spoken to are talking of 3 or 4 years, with 'interim' agreements for issues such as Faslane covering 10 years after that - during which time the SNP would cease to exist), one interesting question is when the next UK government would schedule a in/out vote; before or after the Scots leave ?
All hypothetical I suspect; my prediction is 60:40 to the No side, who will later discover they won the vote but lost the argument.
Scotland can't "stay" in the EU as it's a new country and will have to be admitted as such. As for the UK leaving the EU, that's predicated on the Conservatives getting an overall majority (looking unlikely) and getting a "yes" to leave after the results of any renegotiating.
nb. one benefit to the Scots in not being a member of the EU is that they would have full control of their fishing waters. The Norwegians do a rather better job of administering theirs than the EU does of a what they view as, in effect, a common asset.
"If Scotland votes "No" the "UK" will be leaving the EU at the upcoming English lead referendum anyway"
That pre-supposes that all those people ending their comments on message boards with "Vote UKIP" accurately represent the rest. In the case of the Scottish referendum you have the choice between Scottish politicians with plans for the future of Scotland on their own, or jointly with those representing the other 3 nations. With UKIP you've got a lot who - as far as I can tell - can't see beyond a referendum, and have to sketch out policies to fill up the other pages of the manifesto.
> can I say that a YES vote wouldn't actually mean the person hates the English
Maybe not, but what does it mean? It seems to me that the issue is dissatisfaction with the major political parties, which is fine, that's universal. It ain't just Scotland, everyone hates every one of those shitbags.
The problem with that is that your displacement activity is a one-issue party with no concern outside Scotland. The Scots as a whole (no individuals need be named or shamed) have wasted their dislike of the centre-right corporate-owned political consensus by pissing away their votes on a nationalist party instead of producing something better for everyone. That lack of interest in and support for the rest of the UK has hampered everyone's desire for real representation.
If I were a Scot, I'd be ashamed my country ever let this get so bad.
<blockquote>If I were a Scot, I'd be ashamed my country ever let this get so bad.</blockquote>
LOL are you serious? WESTMINSTER let it get this bad and that's an undeniable fact.
Mind you to be fair it's getting better since the SNP got in and that's another fact.
We have free education, free prescriptions, free healthcare and all the while the English and Welsh NHS march ever onwards towards privatisation.... vigrin Healthcare are making a fucking packet out of it.
Saying that the SNP are a one issue party with no interest in anything outside their cuntry... i am afraid you are getting mixed up buddy.
There's a difference between CIVIC nationalism and ethnic nationalism.. the SNP is the former
To quote a famous Socialist who latterly came to the SNP Jimmy Reid. "to be a good nationalist , first you must be a good internationalist"
Who currently charge landline calls from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland at the same rate as regular national calls.
Call me cynical, but these companies might be just a bit concerned that an independent Scottish comms regulator might just be given some teeth...
Alright cynical. May be it's more that there's a complete lack of information on how an independent Scotland will work at first? Will they, for instance:
- Have to buy new licences for radio spectrum they currently use? If so will they get a rebate from the UK for their reduced size? And will that be landmass, population, coverage or usage based?
- What laws regarding data retention, or data protection for that mater, will they have to follow?
- Will there be a Universal Service Provision? If so what will it be - and will it just be voice or minimum data speeds?
- What will the accounting procedures be? Will there be VAT? What level will it be at? What currency will it be in?
There will be lots of questions for any industry, even if they only require time and consultation to resolve that will still cost money. Prices will go up to recoup that money, or perhaps you think an independent Scotland will have lower taxes?
I've read that White Paper, and I don't think you have. It's 650 (670 inc. contents) pages long for a start.
It is full of vague promises of sunshine and happiness, most of which cannot possibly be met and will therefore be slowly stripped down and discarded one by one as the dust settles after the referendum.
Many of the promises come with astronomical costs, and there is a repeated explicit assumption that "England, Wales and NI will pay for this". That won't happen.
Much of it is implausible, some is impossible and the rest is very expensive. It's clear that very little attempt has been made to figure out how much it would cost - or be paid for.
I could write a white paper promising that I'll make it rain donuts on demand if I win. You'd laugh at me, and rightly so!
Here's what it says about telecommunications:
In telecommunications policy, our approach will give greater priority to improving geographic coverage, particularly in remote rural areasThis is indeed a laudable goal.
However, it will be very expensive. Either BT (or ST?) will have to be given a massive chunk of public money, both up-front and as a running subsidy or BT/ST will have to significantly increase prices. Probably both, because they won't have any reason to offset the high cost & low revenue of Scottish highlands against the low costs & high revenue of places like Manchester and London.
There is no mention whatsoever of how this could be paid for - the only budget mentioned is one that will vanish on independence because most of it's coming from the Westminster central government (via the UK's Department of Fun and the block grant), and the rest from the ERDF, which you won't be eligible for until Spain lets you join the EU. On top of that, 30% of the figure they state is 'probable' investment from a private company that would have to rethink its infrastructure investments - remember that they expect to make a profit!
On this and many other points (Network Rail, National Grid and others) the SNP simply assume that the rest of the UK will continue to subsidise the additional demands on them that comes with a rugged land with low population density.
As an example, section 440 "What will the transmission charging regime be in an independent Scotland?"
This section quite literally says "the rest of the UK will pay for Scotland's new infrastructure".
If you want to go it alone, that's fine. We'll respect your decision.
But the other side of independence is that you'll have to pay for your dreams yourselves.
Glossing over the fact that all of the aforementioned companies all work across borders already (apart from possibly talktalk) none of those problems are insurmountable and will be subject to debate in the case of a Yes vote.
As for prices, if they really were skewed so much by the cost of providing universal service to outlying regions of Scotland/Wales/NI/England then I'm looking forward to my reduced Licence fee/line rental/Mobile costs*
*reduction delivered by flying pig
What's happens with the charter for the Royal mail. They have always had to service all postal address for a fixed cost regardless of distance?
That's always been the big argument about rising costs, whilst delivering mail in cities is cheap and easy, it's the services to the more inaccessible areas that are costly.
Can rapidly see a Scottish Mail service that won't deliver to anywhere outside the major towns and cities, unless the sender pay a massive postal cost.
Hmmm...since our beloved Westminster Government sold the formerly-Royal Mail to their chums in the city for peanuts, I can rapidly see an English (or UK) mail service that won't deliver to anywhere outside the major towns and cities, unless the sender pays a massive postal cost.
"......The plan is to renationalise the Scottish postal serviced...." That 'plan', along with a lot of other SNP plans and policies, seems to be very light on how they actually and realistically plan to fund such a venture. To make the maths quite simple, the current postal service in Scotland is subsidised as it benefits from the scale of the UK. Given the lower overall population and lower population density of Scotland compared to the rUK, after independence the average Scot will have to pay more to retain the same service. That is simple maths. Same goes for telecoms, and that's before you need to take into account that the majority of the infrastructure that runs those services is south of the border, meaning the average Scot will have to fork out additional tax money to cover the cost of building the new Scottish postal service, phone companies, etc. But, what is a little extra taxation compared to that 'freedom', right? Enjoy! Now, don't forget your coat when you leave.
Obviously, ScotMail will continue to deliver at a universal-service level at the same price within Scotland, and recoup the expense by a surcharge on mail addressed to England, Wales and NI.
I'm making this up as I go along, but to me that seems so natural that you'd be hard-pressed to convince me now that it's not the official plan. Give or take some window dressing.
The mobile Telcos.
It's entirely up to them if they decide to charge massive (but rapidly shrinking) roaming costs.
Look at the situation in Ireland - special plans available to minimise the costs for people caught out with inadvertant roaming charges. Why would Scotland be any different?
In fact, many of the scary 'unanswered questions' raised by the No campaign can be answered by looking at Ireland. Do they have customs posts on the NI border? No. Do they have to use passports to cross the border? No. Do thay have armed border guards at every crossing? No. Is it impossible for locals to live on one side of the border and work on the other? No. Can people live on one side of the border and shop on the other, even with (gasp!) different currencies? No again...
I don't live in Scotland, but if I did, I'd be inclined to vote for certainty. The certainty that in an independent Scotland the government would be chosen by and work for the Scottish people - much better than the uncertainty of staying in the UK - do the No campaign guarantee that the UK will stay in Europe? Do they guarantee that the NHS will be safe under a Westminster government? Do they guarantee that there will never again be a Tory or Labour government in Westminster? There is no certainty in life - whether the Scots vote yes or no.
Let's face it, there are times when a marriage ends in divorce - it can be friendly or it can be hostile, but it doesn't need the consent of both parties. When it's time to go, it's time to go.
</rant>
Indeed, the Irish situation does give some ideas for how an Independent Scotland will develop
e.g. Currently BT (and its Irish counterpart) count calls from NI to the Republic and vice versa as national, rather than international calls.
IMO the interesting bits will be in the borderlands areas. Currently TV, Radio, Phone, Electriciy, Gas and Water are all supplied as though there were no border (e.g. the Caldbeck TV mast near Carlisle transmits both English and Scottish channels). How will these be divvied up?
"I don't live in Scotland, but if I did, I'd be inclined to vote for certainty. The certainty that in an independent Scotland the government would be chosen by and work for the Scottish people - much better than the uncertainty of staying in the UK - do the No campaign guarantee that the UK will stay in Europe? Do they guarantee that the NHS will be safe under a Westminster government? Do they guarantee that there will never again be a Tory or Labour government in Westminster? There is no certainty in life - whether the Scots vote yes or no."
You could make the same argument for Glasgow going independent from Scotland. And then Sauchiehall Street going independent from Glasgow. But in answer to your questions:
* No - it would be open to a democratic vote, but the Yes camp don't have a clue what their EU status would be anyway.
* Yes - NHS policy and funding is already devolved to the Scottish government who are actually cutting funding there, but funnily enough the Yes camp are keeping that bit quiet by pretending they don't have control of the NHS
* No - but if you want to live in a country where they can call the election result before any votes are counted, I can direct you towards Cuba and North Korea.
Annihilator
again i call bullshit
"Yes - NHS policy and funding is already devolved to the Scottish government who are actually cutting funding there, but funnily enough the Yes camp are keeping that bit quiet by pretending they don't have control of the NHS"
The funding has gone up in real terms and the only problem foreseen with NHS funding is with a no vote as due to the Barnett fomrula when the NHS in england cuts funding the Barnett consequentials kick in and Scotland gets less funding.
BTW Scotlands pays in much more to the UK than it gets out.. we are not subsidised at all.
"Do they have customs posts on the NI border? No. Do they have to use passports to cross the border? No. Do thay have armed border guards at every crossing? No. Is it impossible for locals to live on one side of the border and work on the other? No. Can people live on one side of the border and shop on the other, even with (gasp!) different currencies? No again..."
The difference with the Irish situation is that both countries are in the EU. If Scotland votes Yes, the rUK, French and Spanish will all block the Scottish application for EU membership. This is enough to deny the application. So there could be customs posts; you might need a passport to cross the border, and not only that but a visa too. You might require an International Driving Licence to drive a car on a rUK licence in Scotland and/or a car on a Scottish licence (presumably they will have to introduce their own driving test) in rUK. The DVLA could rescind all number plates for vehicles registerd in Scotland and reuse the numbers; this would mean every Scottish motorist would be forced to reregister their vehicle with an SDVLA (or whatever they call it) and change their vehicle plates; even if the SDVLA reused the number the plate style (especially modern cars with the built-in GB on the plate) would have to change to avoid confusion If the Scottish pound (or whatever it becomes) goes the way the No camp is predicting then rUK shops will probably not accept Scottish currency, whilst rUK£ will command the same sort of authority in Scotland as $US in Soviet Russia.
I hope the vote is no, I really do, but if it's yes the rUK government has a duty to ensure that all the Scots lie in the bed they have made for themselves, however uncomfortable it might be.
The difference with the Irish situation is that both countries are in the EU. If Scotland votes Yes, the rUK, French and Spanish will all block the Scottish application for EU membership. This is enough to deny the application. So there could be customs posts; you might need a passport to cross the border, and not only that but a visa too. You might require an International Driving Licence to drive a car on a rUK licence in Scotland and/or a car on a Scottish licence (presumably they will have to introduce their own driving test) in rUK. The DVLA could rescind all number plates for vehicles registerd in Scotland and reuse the numbers; this would mean every Scottish motorist would be forced to reregister their vehicle with an SDVLA (or whatever they call it) and change their vehicle plates; even if the SDVLA reused the number the plate style (especially modern cars with the built-in GB on the plate) would have to change to avoid confusion If the Scottish pound (or whatever it becomes) goes the way the No camp is predicting then rUK shops will probably not accept Scottish currency, whilst rUK£ will command the same sort of authority in Scotland as $US in Soviet Russia.
You seem to forget the Act of Union was between Scotland and England. The United Kingdom is not the UK without Scotland, so who says you will be allowed to stay on the EU.
Also like a divorce the assets will need to be split. We'll take the DVLC and lease the number plates to you.
Scottish notes are sometimes rejected in English shops and have been for years and even where accepted it is not £1 for £1.
You seem to forget the Act of Union was between Scotland and England. The United Kingdom is not the UK without Scotland, so who says you will be allowed to stay on the EU.
The mere fact that Scotland is voting to leave. England and Wales don't have a vote. This is known as secession so the the international treaties signed by Her Majesties Government will remain in force.
Dead easy. It doesn't matter what the country is called, but the Scots will be legally leaving the UK. It's also well established in International law that were a relatively small part (in population) of a state gains independence, the "continuing state" effectively remains signatory of international treaties.
Not one single politician of any note that I've heard of, whether UK or EU has questioned that principle.
@ Steven Jones
They may not challenge the principle, but politics deals with practice. In practice I believe that this would be the first time that an EU member state split. Alex Salmond has said himself that there would need to be a negotiation with the EU about Scottish membership. It is unlikely that the EU states who have independence minded regions of their own will wish to give encouragement by making that an easy process.
This would be the first time an EU member state split, but there is still a relevant precedent: the reunification of Germany in 1990. There, after some negotiation, the merged state inherited the EU status of West Germany, lock, stock and beer barrel.
This is the same thing in reverse, and there is absolutely no plausible, principled or practical reason why "the bit that's voting to leave" should get any special treatment from the EU.
@ veti
So let's analyse that analogy of West germany incorporating East Germany and getting the thumbs up.
Let's say from the Spanish perspective. Ask a spanish polititcian whether they think the Spanish parliament would be in favour of a precedent that let's them take over Gibraltar. Then ask them if they would favour a precedent that would make it easier for catalonia to become independent.
My money says that the answers will be different.
Politics and diplomacy is about reality and state interests, not principles. Though the voters like politicians to dress it up in principles clothes.
Well, the question is really about whether redrawing the borders of a country, means automatically redrawing the borders of the EU as well.
The German precedent says Yes. The Spanish would also want to say Yes, they'd certainly want to exclude an independent Catalonia from the EU, and although I'm pretty out of touch, I suspect the Belgians would feel the same way. The Cypriots would also vote Yes to that, because they'd like to do a Germany themselves. The case of Spain taking over Gibraltar - if Britain remains in the EU then the question-as-framed doesn't arise, and if Britain left the EU then Spain would certainly want its repatriated rock to be part of it - so that's another Yes vote.
So happily, the principle lines up nicely with state interests.
"Well, the question is really about whether redrawing the borders of a country, means automatically redrawing the borders of the EU as well."
I'm fairly sure that the individual states won't give a hoot about the borders of the EU. It'll be "If my state might get bigger because of it I'll support the precendent, if it gets smaller I'll oppose it". i.e. real politics, not the icing that's put on top to make it look good.
dmck, the difference with the Irish situation is not the EU, but rather the CTA. If Scotland votes yes and needs to apply as a new EU member, it would need to implement Schengen unless it were granted an opt-out, so that it could remain in the CTA. Alternatively, it could follow Sweden’s example with the euro and purposely never meet at least one of the Schengen prerequisites, if the rest of the EU were willing to turn a blind eye towards that.
I cannot imagine that the the UK (which has a veto) would agree to Scotland the EU unless it had a Schengen opt-out. I also expect that will be agreed as part of any independence negotiations as part of the agreement to have an open border with Scotland. Ireland is, after all, not part of the Schengen agreement. It may, or may not cause accession problems into the EU. Just one of those unknowns.
"You seem to forget the Act of Union was between Scotland and England. The United Kingdom is not the UK without Scotland,"
I don't recall wee Alex claiming that an independent Scotland would be a republic. The "crowns" will still be united unless you know something the rest of us don't.
@Vinyl-Junkie - ". If Scotland votes Yes, the rUK, French and Spanish will all block the Scottish application for EU membership. "
On what basis are you making that assertion?
Whilst I don't want Scotland to vote "yes" , and I would certainly be against any form of currency union, there's no way I'd want the rUK to veto them from joining the EU. Of course , us supporting them does rather rely on us voting to stay in the EU ourselves come the referendum in 2017.
"It's entirely up to them if they decide to charge massive (but rapidly shrinking) roaming costs."
It's not the roaming costs that will rise, its all calls and line rentals for running the underlying infrastructure.
A UK license means they need to cover 80% of 243,610 km² which is where 97% of the people live. An equivalent Scottish license would need to cover 97% of 78,387 km² to reach 97% of the people, substantially more infrastructure investment across fewer customers. And I'm pretty sure the parent companies in England or Spain aren't going to subsidise that.
um... I think you'll fidn that they get EU money for infracstucture expansion and the coverage, even out in the sticks isn't bad at all.
In fact 45 millions in EU money was given by BT to get fast broadband out into the sticks and Edinburgh city council gave them another 1.5 millions to hasten the deployment of fibre in the city.
if you think these companies always pay out of their own pocket you are living in a dreamworld.
"Do they have customs posts on the NI border? No. Do they have to use passports to cross the border? No. Do thay have armed border guards at every crossing? No. Is it impossible for locals to live on one side of the border and work on the other? No. Can people live on one side of the border and shop on the other, even with (gasp!) different currencies? No again.."
Is Ireland or the UK a member of the Schengen Area? No, hence why there is free travel between the two but you still need your passport* for travel to the rest of Europe.
Is it a requirement that all new member states must accept the Schengen agreement? Yes. There's a strong arguement for Scotland to be given an opt-out to Schengen, but that's just another thing that would need to be added to the negotiations, and ever increasing list of things "Scotland" wants to balance against keeping nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
Oh, what's that? rUK can't keep the nuclear weapons on the Clyde either? Oh, fine then, you're not getting a currency union or membership of the EU.
As both an English and Scottish (and Irish, so basically a white mongrel) I welcome the vote. I think it's about time we made an attempt to sort it out. If the majority of Scots want independence they should have it. I think it won't be as rosy add some envision it, especially when the Shetland and Orkney Islands decide to return to Norway (or possibly Denmark) with their oil and gas reserves. I would like to think that Scotland would be able to benefit from not being in the same country as South East England and that perhaps there might be some progress on social issues.
If nothing else it will end the problem of Scottish mp's voting in Westminster on English issues which always seemed odd and unfair. I do think we are stronger together, that a split will hurt both countries in the short term but that England will recover quicker.
It will be very interesting to see the reaction around the world if they get independence, the Catalan region, Tibet, even Hawai'i could see independence or at least an attempt. I honestly thought after 79 we wouldn't see it again in Scotland, devolution yes but full independence no.
The West Lothian Question (asked 1977 in Westminster by a Scottish MP) has been left to rot for far too long by the main political parties at Westminster. It certainly needs addressing and I think the tories could use it to their advantage by closing that loophole.
Remember Shetland and Orkney can only have a referendum if an independent Scottish government were to permit it and legally they wouldn't keep "all the oil", but we're forgetting there's oil to be had near Faslane on the West coast.
Sorry that was sloppy wording on my part re oil, I meant their share which would be a fair chunk. Iirc both groups of islands are fiercely against an independent Scotland. Technically there are some limited means for peaceful independence but I think Scotland would be exceptionally two faced not to grant them their own referendum after finally getting a second shot themselves.
"it will end the problem of Scottish mp's voting in Westminster on English issues which always seemed odd and unfair".
As an outsider and a bad joker, does English mp's never vote in Westminster on Scottish issues. Are you not revealing that you do not consider Scotland as an equal in GB. Perhaps the whole issue is there.
Having read all these comments, and if there is a YES, I propose plan C. England joins Scotland and there is Great Scottland (and the rest). Westminster is scrapped for Edinburgh and everybody lives happily in the past as before.
@Lars - you are forgiven for being an outsider. As far as I know (I'm a software developer not a constitutional expert) lots of stuff - the biggest being Health and Education - are devolved to the parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So yes an example would be that a Scottish MP can vote on the running of the NHS in England , whereas an English MP has no say in the running of the NHS in Scotland - that is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
SNP MP's do not vote on matters that are purely to do with English affairs as a point of principla and that's their answer to the West Lothian Question Tam Dalyell asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tam_Dalyell
The same cannot be said of Labour, the tories or the lib-dems
As an Independent Scotland would not be part of the EU (at least not from day 1), that would mean the mobile telco's can charge what they like for roaming and are not subject to the EU directive capping the data charges to 16p per megabyte per day.
I'm surprised they haven't been whole heartedly backing the Yes vote to ensure this additional revenue stream.
Yes, nowhere else in the world has this problem, it's completely unique to the England-Scotland border.
Christ, try living somewhere like Basel, on the French/German/Swiss border. If their mobile networks can cope, I'm sure the Scots can too.
Not a fair comparison. The Swiss and Germans (and the French, sort of) have been making stuff work since after WWII.
English telcos take pride in overcharging and making stuff not work.
What I'm wondering is whether a Yes vote means we could have a referendum in England declaring our own independence from Westminster.
Do the Scottish people hate being in the same country as the English, Welsh (and Northern Irish) enough to sacrifice their economic well-being for the next umpteen decades? If the answer is yes then they must go it alone, and strive for the socialist utopia most of the Yes campaign appear to hunger for.
Anyone who looks at the figures can see that the SNPs proposals are built on a litany of assumptions and wishful thinking, and I get the impression Salmond will say anything to secure the vote.
The only issue I have with the No campaign is being on the same side as Gorgeous George, another one in the Salmond mould (tureen?).
"Do the Scottish people hate being in the same country as the English, Welsh (and Northern Irish) enough to sacrifice their economic well-being for the next umpteen decades?"
Actually the data is fairly clear, that Scotland's economy has consistently grown more slowly than the rest of the UK, or than comparable EU or EEA countries. Not by huge amounts, but from memory Scotland's GDP has grown half a per cent less than the rest of the UK for the past thirty years, and that adds up. With a workforce that is productive, and an excellent education system, Scotland should be doing much better than it is. Continuing to be governed from Westminster, and allowing your country to remain a public sector theme park is not a good option.
I'm not Scottish, the effect on me is minimal, but I think we can dismiss many of the arguments on both Yes and No sides. But an independent Scotland would (after a few difficult years) be in much the same economic basket as similarly sized and developed economies such as Denmark or Sweden. The Danes use somebody else's currency, the Swedes have their own, so either option is feasible, and neither really threatens the long term prosperity of Scotland.
I don't think much of Salmond and his cronies, but I would suggest that a more equal partnership of an independent Scotland and the rUK would be a better outcome for both countries, and that berk Cameron should have played this with far more neutrality, instead of the childish "you can't use the pound" and all the other rampant fear-mongering.
From a South of the border perspective, I want a Yes vote because it will help in the continuing bust up of the traditional two party cartel running Westminster. Letting the Scots run their own affairs and sending their MP's home is bad news for the traditional Westminster left, just as Frage is piddling on the Westminster right's chips. More, please!
"From a South of the border perspective, I want a Yes vote because it will help in the continuing bust up of the traditional two party cartel running Westminster. Letting the Scots run their own affairs and sending their MP's home is bad news for the traditional Westminster left, just as Frage is piddling on the Westminster right's chips. More, please!"
Losing 59 Scottish seats will likely result in a change of the traditional two party model to a one party model unless the Lib Dems discover a backbone or UKIP manage to expand beyond being a single issue party.
"because it will help in the continuing bust up of the traditional two party cartel running Westminster"
I would like that also. Labour would finally realise it is dead and clear the way for some other competition with the Tories (who are only brain dead). High price to pay for political change though isn't it.
Listen to the yes campaigners in Scotland about how it will be a land of milk and honey, motherhood and apple pie, fair, just, richer, and more successful in the world. The only thing holding back this miraculous transformation is? The rest of the UK gets a say in who governs all of us.
Yes the UK could be a better place if we got rid of half the useless wankers in Westminster, but only a bit and look at who the Scots chose to partially govern them so far. When it comes to useless wankers Hollyrood is easily a match for Westminster.
"and look at who the Scots chose to partially govern them so far. When it comes to useless wankers Hollyrood is easily a match for Westminster."
Absolutely agree. But with nobody to bail them out, the SNP would only be able to indulge themselves in fairytale socialism and political graft for a couple of years, and they'd then find the hard way that if they want sustained economic growth then they would have to sort things out with less regulation, lower taxation and lower public spending.
At the risk of raining on your parade......
The Scots could only nationalise the parts of BT that are in Scotland. However, that might not add up to a complete service. It would all depend on which bits of needed and important infrastructure are located. I would not be surprised that services in Scotland currently depend on servers located in England.
The SNP like to portray the independence process as being a nice civilised discussion of equals, sitting round a table with some tea and biscuits, dividing up the assets in an equitable manner to keep everyone happy.
The reality is that this is going to be an messy and, very probably, acrimoniously nasty divorce, with illegal hand bagging and blood letting occurring at least twice every hour.
I totally agree very messy indeed blood all over the floor just like any bitter divorce. When the other side in any divorce says you not getting this or that is going to cost you, just makes that divorce more likely and bitter. I do not think any one on the YES side thinks it is going to be tea and biscuits far from it.
As for dependency would that be the BT call centre in India I talked to last year you can keep it, your welcome to it as a parting gift.
Indeed. The Scots could only nationalise the assets (for which they'd have to pay compensation or be an international pariah). However, their real problem will be trying to separate off what is a tightly integrated national company with common IT systems (most of them split on functional, not regional basis). All the IPRs for those systems will reside with the original company (registered in the UK) and you can bet that every single software and hardware vendor will require a renegotiation of their licences and support contracts for what will be a new organisation.
However, the big problem will be splitting all those IT systems into separate, national ones. That's, to put it mildly, a huge logistical problem fraught with difficulties and costs.Of course they could decide to just nationalise the assets covered by Openreach and, maybe, BT Wholesale. I'm sure such issues could be fixed, eventually, but it would come at a considerable cost.
Another little interesting issue is who would, in the event of such a renationalisation, be responsible for that part of the pension deficit attributable to BT pensioners (current and future). The employment contracts will have been variously made with the GPO, The Post Office and BT and so I would expect some form of split of responsibility.
So plenty of work for the lawyers, accountants and software people.
nb. a side-effect of the Ofcom/BT resettlement into three separate entities is that it would be operationally much easier to split along the OR/BTW/BTR boundaries than on regional lines. The latter formed no part of Ofcom's considerations.
There, fixed that for you all.
Nationalization of certain "industries" might be in the best interests of the Scottish people. Remind me again whose economic wellbeing is at risk here?
Any company who wants to play games with Scotland will risk a lot.
Presumably this "nationalization" would take place when the Americans invade and insist we use their language?
Much as I prefer the "s" spelling myself the "z" spelling is known as the Oxford spelling because its used by the OED, though I think the reasons are different: the Oxford spelling is for classicists; the American is phonetic.
Unfortunately I believe Grammatic Pedantry has little to no place in an internet forum Charlie. Perhaps in actual journalism but let us not accuse El Reg commentards of that activity.
The deepest roots of my family tree are from Scotland (1670's) when my Cameron ancestor came over as an indentured servant. I am for the "Yes" camp as I feel Scotland should be as independent as it's people and it's a long time coming.
When the telcos threaten to charge even more for the lousy service they provide (everywhere) because of the excuse of independence, then the threat of nationalization of their assets is what they should face, not unlike the fate the postal service is threatened with in Scotland. Same thing should apply to uncooperative anti-independence businesses elsewhere.
Then Scotland could LEASE the rights to use the existing lines to multiple companies and retain the infrastructure. This way they might establish minimum service requirements for the providers and grow the infrastructure to it's greatest extent.
Go ahead. Nationalise the assets. You'll make lots of lawyers very rich and you'll find that you get no inward investment.
p.s what's the business with the family tree? Is there a pissing contest over who is more Scottish?
No, Mr. Zaccone; it seems reading comprehension is a lost art. Please re-read both my earlier posts. BT deserves much worse for all it's threats. The words "Could" and "Might" denote possibility, not probability.
BTW, For your edification, I'm a Damn Yankee albeit of Scots/German/Irish heritage. That makes me a Crochety Old Bastard, slighty greater than 50% of the way to being a Scotsman.
At my age, the only pissing contest I'm in is the one where you make it to the pisser in time.
".....then the threat of nationalization of their assets is what they should face, not unlike the fate the postal service is threatened with in Scotland. Same thing should apply to uncooperative anti-independence businesses elsewhere....." Ah, the Mugabe Economic Theorem, well-known (NOT!) for its attractiveness to foreign investors.
In the UK BT are, as the now corporate owner of state installed infrastructure, under certain legal obligations to support and maintain the cabling and ducting that is in place.
I realise they probably wouldn't even if they could, but would they be able to simply abandon the Scottish infrastructure claiming that is now in a foreign country and not their concern?
Also, would First Minister Alex "I can do whatever I want" Salmond decide that Scotland being dependent on British Telecom for their telecoms infrastructure and try and force BT to give it up?
Again, not saying this would happen, but I wouldn't be totally shocked.
Scotland would, like any independent state, be legally able to nationalise any asset on their land. However, they'd have to pay compensation or face enormous international consequences (especially if they were a member of the EU).
So the nationalisation of the assets (money aside) is not really the issue. The problem is untangling a highly integrated organisation and, especially, the IT systems which are largely split on functional, not regional grounds. Also the IPRs would remain with the registered company (in the UK) as would any licencing deals. So, plenty of work for lawyers, accountants and IT people...
It's interesting that the actual source document is a well written perfectly logical message that states pretty much what we all already know - and has no scare mongering in it at all -
but The Register replaced the word "could" with the word "would" instantly changing the message of the document from "this could happen" to "this will definitely happen and you will all lose your houses trying to pay for access to essential services, the loch ness monster will crawl out of the loch and eat small children in the night and Nigel Farage will invade and impose his UKIP ways on everyone"
I guess The Register is run by the BBC these days :/
If you really must weigh on the independence debate - maybe you might like to highlight the fact that all these new powers that Scotland was promised in the event of a NO vote - will (according to the House of Lords in 1997) be subject to a UK wide referendum.... .
Maybe you might like to postulate on what will happen to Telco prices and roaming charges once the UK votes to leave the EU?
For what it's worth to some of those commentators above -
I was born in England, I lived in England until 2006 - I still consider myself to be English but I now live in Scotland. I've done my own research, it's surprisingly easy to find real facts and figures with this wonderful tool called Google. I'm voting YES.
From an IT angle though (as that's what the site is about) - social media has proved invaluable for this campaign, if it wasn't for Facebook, Twitter and Google+ it would have been very easy to believe the BBC this last 6 months - like the other day when they showed a picture of 17 people holding up YES signs in Glasgow, and hundreds holding up NO signs elsewhere.... but they didn't show the 10's of thousands of people in Glasgow. Or even yesterday when they reported that there were around 300 people outside Glasgow HQ protesting about "alleged" bias from the BBC - but the photos and livestream showed several thousand people there. Funny really - you would think - since this was the 5th such protest - the BBC might think they ought to be careful - but then maybe they don't really need the £300million a year from the Scottish people for license fees.
Oh - and before I forget -
Passports - love this one.....
UK - it's an acronym -
we are voting to leave the UK not the landmass called "Great Britain"
the UK is - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and we will still be physically attached to the landmass of Great Britain thus we are still part of Great Britain thus the passport is valid.... next.....
"the no campaign are all threats ,scare tactics and basically FUD"
At least they saved the best until last, with the OECD claiming that Scottish independence could trigger a global recession. Funny how a tiddly proto-nation with tiny oil reserves can threaten global stability just by virtue of not being ruled by the inept clowns of Westminster, yet you can knock out the oil and gas production of Iraq and Libya with no ill effects whatsoever.
Could it be that the OECD is a French poodle, and the Frogs, like the Spanish are deeply concerned about the threat posed by the spread of democracy and home rule? Surely not.
"Funny how a tiddly proto-nation with tiny oil reserve"
Erm.. Scotland has the largest oil reserves in Europe(with just North Sea oil)... it's not just in the North Sea either.
There is oil and gas off the West coast and the claim at Rockall too.
;)
".....Scotland has the largest oil reserves in Europe(with just North Sea oil)... it's not just in the North Sea either......" The distribution of North Sea oil fields depends on an act of UK Parliament that decided, as an act of generosity, that the sea boundary between England and Scotland would be along the 55th parallel (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/contents/made). This was a Labour bribe because they knew that without Scottish Labour MPs they cannot control enough seats in the UK a Parliament. This gives Scotland the majority of existing oil fields in production, a fudge that saved Scottish blushes and allows them to repeat tripe about not being a net drain on UK resources. However, the UK Parliament can rescind that act any time they like (such as just before Scottish independence), whereupon the sea boundary would revert to the UN's conventions, which dictate that the boundary would project into the North Sea at an angle matching that of the border, which then gives England the majority of the existing fields. That is important because only the developed fields are guaranteed and immediate income.
".....There is oil and gas off the West coast and the claim at Rockall too." The sea off the West Coast is subject to claim from Northern Ireland, which would be able to grab a chunk as part of the UK's exclusive zone. As for Rockall, it is British territory and could be removed from Scottish control and given to Northern Ireland before Scottish independence. The 1972 Rockall Act put it under Invernesshire but it is 230 miles from the nearest bit of Scotland and so could be split off and retained as part of the rUK by a new Act. At which point you can kiss goodbye to the oil and gas below Helen's Reef. Indeed, should the UK go far enough as to build a permanent building on Rockall, say a lighthouse with one member of staff, and then the UK can extend the economic exclusion zone from the current 12 miles out to 200 miles to the north-east and south-west, and to a midpoint 115 miles south-east towards Scotland, at which point you can kiss goodbye to even more oil and gas. A lot of Salmond's fudged figures depend not only on the most unrealistic of outcomes from any negotiations but also on some very unrealistic returns on oil development.
Well no... not really....
All very interesting arguments - but the UN Law of the Sea 1982 & 1994 makes it pretty clear who the continental shelf belongs to......
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.
the UK is - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and we will still be physically attached to the landmass of Great Britain thus we are still part of Great Britain thus the passport is valid.... next.....
"You're voting to leave the UK, and hence the UK passport is still valid..."? Seriously, is this what passes for logic from the much-vaunted Scottish education system?
The UK passport is issued and backed by the government of the United Kingdom. If the government of the United Kingdom says it will no longer endorse a particular passport, then it's null and void. It would, in theory, be relatively easy for the UK passport office to simply cancel the passports of everyone who lives in Scotland. (Just ask Edward Snowden how that works.)
Then the Scottish government would really have no choice but to issue its own passports of some sort.
The mobile bosses will be impatiently waiting of the wonderful roaming charges they will introduce. As Ecosse will not be in the EU the EU wide agreements will ne null and void. Walking over the border (passport and customes inspection permitting) could lead you with a £1.00 a minute roaming charge.
The same will apply for the Scotts coming south to escape the Utopia that Salmont trying to create.
It will cost everyone in the Current UK a packet if there is a Yes vote. The charge will only be a bit less if they vote no.
Win-win anyone?
"especially when the Shetland and Orkney Islands decide to return to Norway (or possibly Denmark) with their oil and gas reserves."
LOL then you'd be wrong in that assumption.
you see there isn't a movement to do so except one english guy on the Orkneys whose boat got wrecked and he stayed.. he's known locally as a bit of a nutbar...
BUT the main point is this.. is they DID want to go back to those countries they would be classed as "Enclaves2 under international law and only have 12 miles of territorial water and no continental shelf entitlement , that would be Scottish.
This was pointed out by the European Journal of International Law last year and they'd know better than either of us.
In their scenario they went with England but same outcome either way... they would get ZERO oil feilds
@pax681
Nice to see you showing some love for the islands… oh no, you're not. You're telling us you couldn't really give a shit about the. That'll be a good start.
Shetland (and, historically large parts of the Highlands) looked to Norway. It'll be a whole different court case should they decide they want to join Norway because of the promise of North Sea oil, free education and free healthcare. Did you see what I did there?
All those asking "how hard can it be" to sort out cross border roaming issues are conveniently forgetting that whilst continental countries do indeed have these issues, they have separate number ranges which makes it trivial to figure out whether a SIM is roaming or not.
Scotland doesn't have a separate number range.
There may be solutions that don't necessitate a whole new number range, but the standard solution would be a new MCC (Google 'IMSI') for Scotland and 5 million or so new SIMs. Once down that road you'd also allocate a new CC (i.e. dump +44).
All clearly costing money.
It can be done of course, UK geographic numbers have changed structure a few times in recent years with associated cost and inconvenience.
@Andrew Jones 2
'the UK is - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and we will still be physically attached to the landmass of Great Britain thus we are still part of Great Britain thus the passport is valid.... next.....'
Passports are issued by a government not by a land mass, and the passport has to be recognised by other governments to be useful. Passports and citizenships can and have been removed before and can again. Your comment is ill informed and vitrolic, drink less of the Kool-Aid (Iron-Bru) and think more. Other countries do already recognise a difference between England and Scotland and don't recognise the UK as a country of birth(never realized this before I got my Canadian passport, UK is not recognised as a country of birth by passport Canada).
If Scotland wants a better future then their best option is to actually stay in the UK, and keep using the threat of devolution to get more freedom and benefits from Westminister. It works for Quebec so should work for Scotland.
Either way tbh I think it can be guaranteed by Westminster that the people in England will suffer the most if Scotland stay or if they go.
... The Velvet Divorce, and the bloodless independence by referendum of Montenegro from Serbia, as examples of how these matters can be handled. Now that a referendum on a 308 year old treaty and Acts of Paliaments have been held, please can we have our long overdue referendum on a treaty signed a mere seven years ago in Lisbon.
"Actually, there is....." To be more exact, there is no sovereign Scottish bank, managed by the Scottish government, with the legal ability to print money or set Scottish national interest rates. Should the post-independence ascots carry on using Pounds Sterling then they will be beholden to the Bank of England, and if they use Euros the they will be beholden to the EU.
I can understand why any company would rather deal with one regulatory/legal framework than two, but the idea that there is going to be some kind of immediate impact on things like previously auctioned spectrum is a farce. For one thing, even the most anti-BT Scots are not going to want to tear up existing spectrum allocations, because tomorrow they would have their cellphone-using neighbors camped out on their doorsteps, wanting to politely express a certain level of frustration over why their cell service is no longer working.
Maybe BT hired Edward Longshanks as their Exec VP of Scottish Customer Relations??
Especially the arguments that Scotland will struggle on its own.
Australia is doing quite nicely without England.
Canada is doing quite nicely without England.
Éire is doing quite nicely without England.
India is doing quite nicely without England.
New Zealand is doing quite nicely without England.
Still, it's not my battle. *fetches popcorn*
I think the biggest issue is the diversification of the infrastructure tbh, and that for most people they didn't realise that Scotland wasn't always part of England; because its the same landmass people don't realise its a different country. For most people a different country is characterized by people who speak a different language and they have to show their passport to get into the country. Scotland isn't seen as 'foreign'.
On the plus side it will be fun to see how the bureaucrats will mess it all up.
All true enough and no doubt Scotland will do nicely enough. The issue is perhaps that, with the exception of Eire, those countries were not as enmeshed as Scotland is within the UK, so the parting shot may be greater. Plus Scotland seem to only want to be partly independent - e.g. they want the Bank of England behind their currency.
I'd just point out that Ireland's recent economic blip was down to an insane property bubble and banks that went completely bonkers on the international derivatives market and were being given way to much credit. It had very little to do with independence or the Irish non-speculative real economy.
The underlying Irish economy, once you scrape away all the bubble banking "industry" and construction sector excesses , is actually very strong. It's running a major trade surplus etc etc vs the UK and France etc running a huge trade deficit.
The problems arose due to a disproportionate construction sector that caused an economic shock when it collapsed, inflated asset prices and then socialising the banking sector's vast gambling losses.
However, the other aspects of the Irish economy are anything but weak!
So BT think that the prices they charge in a Brand New Country will be higher, I have to agree on the basis that they will own no assets in this new country.
There are no rules that say anybody owns anything because there are no rules, no trade agreements, no memberships of mutually beneficial/exclusive clubs, nothing.
The allocation of assets in a newly independent Scotland will be an issue for the people of Scotland alone (unless they are conquered by someone else).
I think that BT et al meant to say that prices for existing customers outside of Scotland will surely rise because the debt to asset ration of said companies will rise and so will interest rates and margin calls.
Right. So, what you're saying is that unless the people of Scotland decide that companies can continue to own the assets of their businesses they currently own then those assets will be allocated elsewhere? Would that apply to all foreign owned businesses? How about Scottish businesses too. While you're at it, throw in private ownership of asstes as well. After all, ownership is theft
I haven't read the independence manifesto, but assume that state seizure of all assets is not in it.
What I find fascinating, is not all that political bullshit (after all, it's in no-ones best interest for part of the British Isles to go down the pan) but that nobody South of the border seems to understand why perfectly reasonable people (yes we are, if you disagree, then I call prejudice) would want to take such a huge step into the unknown.
If the Scots truly felt like valued members of the community, and if they didn't feel like a test bed for trying out policies that might be unpopular (Poll Tax, anyone?) then they might not feel that separation is a solution. The idea of gaining independence and having to make our way by ourselves, knowing that our Southern neighbours are just waiting for a misstep, is such a scary thing that no-one would undertake it unless they felt the alternative was untenable.
But what do I know, I'm just a naive IT guy.
John 110
"The idea of gaining independence and having to make our way by ourselves, knowing that our Southern neighbours are just waiting for a misstep"
I call prejudice myself there. If Scotland decide to go it alone; I, for one, won't be waiting with 'bated breath' for them to fail. I think there are pros and cons for both sides of the border in both scenarios.
I know a number of 'perfectly reasonable people' who just happen to be Scots. Some of them are eligble to vote in the referendum and some are not (by virtue of the fact of living in England, despite still being recognisably Scots and identifying themselves as Scottish, *not* English).
I have yet to hear one of them express a single positive opinion of, or thought for Salmond and his crew; and to a man/woman they are all opposed to this rhetoric fuelled, ill thought attempt to split from the <rhetoric> Big Bad English </rhetoric> although they might be of a different opinion if it wasn't being done in such a manner.
You're absolutely right, I consider myself chastised (curse this damn shoulder-chip!!)
I think most people see Salmond's job as the achievement (or at least, the promotion) of the SNP ideal of Scottish independence. I don't think many foresee him lasting long in post-referendum government....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
