Hang on. Why get stuffed? Well apart from your obvious vile Scottish hatred of course?
Don't Ireland, America etc receive programs made in England? Ah wait, its because its Scotland isn't it!!
Only after they've bought the rights in an agreement that both parties have consented to after various negotiations and existing contractual obligations have been met...
The likes of the BBC don't just go up to a foreign broadcaster and say "here you go mate, show this", nor can a foreign broadcaster or government just say "we'll show this"
Even if the Westminster government said "sure you can continue receiving BBC content", the companies that supply the BBC with the content, the writers, actors, musicians etc who all have contracts that define where and when the content is to be available under the normal agreement* will have a say (and that say might be "it's an additional market, we require additional payments").
Nothing about it being Scotland, but a basic, very simple to find out understanding of contracts and rights in the entertainment business.
You can already see it with how STV deals with some of the ITV network content, where it opts out of some because either it's too costly to buy in (despite STV being the Scottish franchise for the C3 broadcast licence and having been in partnership with the other IT companies for years), or they have decided that it's cheaper to put up with people moaning and show some locally produced content.
*And if the agreements did not specify Scotland separately in the original contracts, then you can be fairly sure that when it comes to the content being allowed (legally) to be shown in an independent Scotland, there will be a need to renegotiate a lot of them. In the same way there has been a need to do it for satellite, +1 channels, and where the rights included video, they had to be redone for DVD and Blu-ray, and on demand (and why music for a show that was produced in say the UK may have to be changed for it be shown in the US because the cost of using it in that market may be much higher).
Apparently Salmond has already unilaterally decided that Scotland is going to carry on receiving the UK's television, despite there being absolutely no such agreement either with the UK government or the BBC. Such things reveal the sheer arrogance of the SNP position.
On that note, I'm hoping I'll be able to save a few quid by not bothering with a Scottish TV licence and will, instead, just be able to pick up "foreign" telly signals from across the border in England, a bit like Europeans do.
In any case, it's sure to be better than watching Gaelic-dubbed versions of "Rising Damp" and "Thomas the Tank Engine" on bleedin' BBC Alba, which seems to exist solely for the entertainment of the 16 people in Scotland who actually speak it.
Absolutely not, and this is coming from a Scottish person.
If we independent (please no) then we should have to completely cut ties with England. We actually have our bread buttered since we have free higher education and free prescriptions. So some idiots haven't considered that and will probably bitch and moan if we do get independence that they don't get that anymore and it's their human rights to get them free.
Alex Salmond is a pompous nutcase and while I have little faith in the UK government, I have no faith whatsoever in the SNP.
People mis-understand the legal tender thing. Basically there is nothing to stop a business accepting whatever cash currency it likes as payment for the service it provides, but it they have the law on thier side to refuse payment in anything other than the legal tender currencies.
Look at the local currencies springing up in England, for example the Brixton and Bristol pound. If I had a Bristol pound and went into a shop in Bristol, the shop have a legal right to refuse my Bristol pound, but if I produced a Pound Sterling coin, then they have to take it.
Proving your own point there! Shops don't have to accept anything.
On that note, I'm hoping I'll be able to save a few quid by not bothering with a Scottish TV licence and will, instead, just be able to pick up "foreign" telly signals from across the border in England, a bit like Europeans do.
In any case, it's sure to be better than watching Gaelic-dubbed versions of "Rising Damp" and "Thomas the Tank Engine" on bleedin' BBC Alba, which seems to exist solely for the entertainment of the 16 people in Scotland who actually speak it.
Alex Salmond is a pompous nutcase and while I have little faith in the UK government, I have no faith whatsoever in the SNP.
Why do people have this idea that the SNP would be running an independent Scotland? They only have a narrow majority as it is, and once their raison d'etre has been achieved, I can't see them retaining the same level of support.
This is the trouble with the "White Paper" they produced - large chunks of it are matters which would be decided by the first independent Scottish parliament (and could be ditched by later governments), not enshrined in the constitution immediately after the referendum. The Yes campaign can't guarantee what will happen.
Why do people have this idea that the SNP would be running an independent Scotland? They only have a narrow majority as it is, and once their raison d'etre has been achieved, I can't see them retaining the same level of support.
This is the trouble with the "White Paper" they produced - large chunks of it are matters which would be decided by the first independent Scottish parliament (and could be ditched by later governments), not enshrined in the constitution immediately after the referendum. The Yes campaign can't guarantee what will happen.
The issue is, they will be in power for the first 18 months as all the details of independence are being negotiated, so any currency, debt, welfare, health etc which has to be split with the rUK.
This is a terrifying thought, that Salmond and Sturgeon will have so much power.
Personally, I don't think we should keep the pound, the same as I wouldn't want Wales, N Ireland or England to keep it if they decided to break away. Salmond/Sturgeon are intent on this "UK Govt won't impose a tax on millions of rUK businesses" as their defence of why we wouldn't be left without the pound, but when the rUK will be 5 times the size of Scotland, something tells me it won't be rUK paying the price, it'll be the Scottish businesses having to make up for the increased costs and Scottish consumers who will be left to pay more for goods as they will cost more to import to Scotland, it won't simply be businesses paying more, and taking a hit on it. Salmond knows this full well, he comes across as dangerously stupid but he was an economist. Scotland will be the small country, possibly more at the mercy of rUK than Salmond claims we are currently.
I have faith we will do what is right and have an overwhelming No vote. Once the polls solidify at a strong No stance, I think the diehard Yes voters, the stupid ones (not the majority of Yes Voters, only some), basing their opinion on too much Braveheart and other trivial Scotland V England rivalries, will be put off voting as they will feel their vote won't be worth anything because the No vote is so strong, and the No vote will overall end up with almost 70% of the vote.
Fingers crossed anyway, otherwise I'll be taking myself elsewhere come May 6th 2016 after I've hopefully witnessed Salmond's removal from power in the election.
Would the BBC stop broadcasting in Scotland or would they still pay the licence fee? Would the Meteorological Office still give weather reports for Scotland or would they have to get their own.? and many other shared services would have to be split. What happened when Ireland became independent?they had their own pound, punt,which was closely tied to the pound.
I guess if Scotland became independent (bearing in mind that $almond has intimated there will be an SBC and I doubt Scots will want to pay 2 license fees) I guess Scotland would be treated the same as Eire on the BBC weather - the place that never gets mentioned, almost as though it didn't exist.
There's nothing to stop an independent Scotland from using the pound as its currency. It just can't print its own notes that are, and it would have not say in how interest rates are set.
The first point isn't really an issue, because almost no bugger south of the border would take a Scottish note. I remember one shop keeper calling the Police because I tried to pass off "illegal Jock currency".
The second point won't be an issue either, because let's face it, it's not as if the Bank Of England will massage interest rates just to screw over Scotland. Because doing so would also screw over England.
It's not as big a deal as people are making out. Just lots of bigotry going on, from both sides of the debate.
I hope that we end up with an independent Scotland. It's not just that Westminster doesn't understand the needs of Scotland, it tends to not understand the needs of any part of the country outside of the M25.
The issue is, they will be in power for the first 18 months as all the details of independence are being negotiated, so any currency, debt, welfare, health etc which has to be split with the rUK.
This is a terrifying thought, that Salmond and Sturgeon will have so much power.
Personally, I don't think we should keep the pound, the same as I wouldn't want Wales, N Ireland or England to keep it if they decided to break away. Salmond/Sturgeon are intent on this "UK Govt won't impose a tax on millions of rUK businesses" as their defence of why we wouldn't be left without the pound, but when the rUK will be 5 times the size of Scotland, something tells me it won't be rUK paying the price, it'll be the Scottish businesses having to make up for the increased costs and Scottish consumers who will be left to pay more for goods as they will cost more to import to Scotland, it won't simply be businesses paying more, and taking a hit on it. Salmond knows this full well, he comes across as dangerously stupid but he was an economist. Scotland will be the small country, possibly more at the mercy of rUK than Salmond claims we are currently.
I have faith we will do what is right and have an overwhelming No vote. Once the polls solidify at a strong No stance, I think the diehard Yes voters, the stupid ones (not the majority of Yes Voters, only some), basing their opinion on too much Braveheart and other trivial Scotland V England rivalries, will be put off voting as they will feel their vote won't be worth anything because the No vote is so strong, and the No vote will overall end up with almost 70% of the vote.
Fingers crossed anyway, otherwise I'll be taking myself elsewhere come May 6th 2016 after I've hopefully witnessed Salmond's removal from power in the election.
Salmonds problem is that the whole raison detre of the SNP is Independence now as the vote comes near people are starting to realise the down sides to it and that it might not be a utopia
I still think he wants to have a close vote eg 55/45 NO but to lose and he'll try for what he really wanted eg Devomax
if the vote is a big NO eg 70/30 then salmonds screwed
We can do whatever we like with the pound, it's as much ours as anyone elses. What's the worst that can happen, English shops don't take Scottish currency? Egads.
This entire spiel of Osborne's is, to use the divorce analogy, another way of saying "If you leave you'll never see the kids again." Pathetic scare tactics.
Meanwhile, "An independent Scotland would not need England’s permission to continue using the pound sterling, and in fact would be better off using the pound without such permission." From the Adam Smith Institute.
It's not cherry picking if you already own part of it.
Ah was stated earlier, there is nothing stopping the Scots from using the £, it's just that the Scottish Gov will have no influence over the currency.
As an aside, regarding Scots bank notes, there are many places down here now, that refuse them (illegally I know) because they struggle to get the public to accept them in change.
Split or don't split - You can't have "partial split" where you ditch the bits you don't like and keep the bits you do. In my eyes the SNP comes across as delusional with its instance that this is just a "Westminster scare tactic" and that they can obviously keep the pound.
Ireland didn't insist on keeping tied to the UK economy (or any other bits of the UK's rules and regs that they like the look of) when it went it's own way.
What happens if they get independence when people live on one side of the 'border' and work, or get paid by a company that is registered the other side?
Will there be two taxes to pay? Will you get paid in the currency by which you employer operates?
Alex Salmond and that lady who is his deputy make me chuckle-just what planet do they live on? Let them have their independence and throw their lot in with that bunch of no-hopers in Europe-let them give up the union-but DON`T expect us to save them when they end up in the same predicament as Spain,Italy,Greece........................
Ah was stated earlier, there is nothing stopping the Scots from using the £, it's just that the Scottish Gov will have no influence over the currency.
As an aside, regarding Scots bank notes, there are many places down here now, that refuse them (illegally I know) because they struggle to get the public to accept them in change.
They are legal currency but there is no legal reason that forces someone to accept them. Regarding Legal tender, only BoE issued notes have that distinction and legal tender is only applicable outside Scotland. In addition, legal tender is only applicable when paying off a debt and not within normal customer/shop transactions.
So in practice any shop, anywhere in the UK can refuse to accept Scottish notes or BoE notes. Its entirely up to them. The fact that they don't is entirely due to the faith people have in the banking system.
"...opt-out to Schengen's open borders would also be lost."
So (according to that), we'll need a passport to travel between borders, as the rest of the UK has not signed the Schengen Agreement. Even people going by train, car, coach, bus, lorry etc. between England and Scotland will have to go through border control and presumably all Scottish people will need to buy new Scottish passports, as UK ones won't be valid any more. Either that, or you get a free renewal. That's another large bill someone will have to pay.
Salmonds problem is that the whole raison detre of the SNP is Independence now as the vote comes near people are starting to realise the down sides to it and that it might not be a utopia
I still think he wants to have a close vote eg 55/45 NO but to lose and he'll try for what he really wanted eg Devomax
if the vote is a big NO eg 70/30 then salmonds screwed
There are quite a few people I know who are voting yes, and all these external parties positions, eg the EU, UK Govt etc are being met with "This just shows why we need to go it alone" and have been fully duped by the YesNP campaign to believe only the SNP and disregard anything that brings them into question as scaremongering, Scottish-hating or the standard for the diehard SNP supporters - "Typical Westminster picking on Scotland"
It angers me that Salmond and Sturgeon claim this is for the better of all of the UK, yet how much money is being taken from services to fund this charade of a referendum?
Today we see outrage that there are signs that if there is a Yes vote (God forbid), there is scope for rUK to not fully cut ties, IF negotiations can't reach a reasonable conclusion. It seems a fair point, Salmond can't go into negotiations claiming for everything, using "it's what the Scottish people want" as his excuse and expect to get his own way, his entire campaign is "our way or no way, what we say will happen, is going to happen, and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering" what this "leak" from Government is saying, is quite honest - we'll negotiate but if you're ridiculous, you'll ruin it for yourself. This seems a logical position to enter negotiations at, but it's been met with calls of corrupt Westminster, lying and "might as well tear up the Edinburgh Agreement". It seems the SNP aren't used to reasonable outcomes being suggested and just react in their same usual way.
How are the armed forces going to work? Is Scotland going to set up its own Air Force etc.? What will its Navy be - a bloke in a rowing-boat with a water pistol?
Presumably they will have to make their own arrangements for all armed forces, and will have to decide whether they want their own nuclear deterrent, as most likely the remainder of the UK will relocate the nuclear fleet from Clyde to another part of the remaining UK. Huge costs involved there, if that is the case.
Personally I don't see what the furore over these comments is.
Of course there has to be negotiations and it can't just be a Yes vote followed by 18 months of Salmond/Sturgeon announcing "We are taking the £, the BBC, some of the services etc etc, we are entitled to it, it's as much ours as it is rUK etc etc" and the rUK Govt just sitting in London accepting it all. That's ludicrous, it's what SNP would have many believe, their assertions and what will actually happen are going vary considerably.
It's just the UK Govt are willing to admit it, Salmond will try to convince the Yes voters that the White Paper will happen without question right up until polling day, then spend the first 18 months of independence continuing to berate the rUK, when the obvious happens and there are negotiations to take place.
Personally, I've no particular problem with Scotland going it alone, but the further you look into it, the more expensive and complex this becomes.
That's pretty much my thought on it.
It seems that every time a probable downside or opposing view is expressed about things like the costs of complexity of Scotland becoming independent the SNP start to go "you're scaremongering" or "of course they would say that".
It's like the Nuclear sub base in Scotland, the SNP has made a big thing about being nuke free and wanting rid of it, but AFAIK the SNP hasn't mentioned anything about how it'll affect the local (and if they become independent Scottish) economy, as typically any military base results in a lot of money entering the local economy, something like a nuclear sub base, with the attendant mix of both low and high tech supporting structure will likely be pumping huge amounts into the local economy (both directly via contracts to local companies, and indirectly via things like personal on the base buying stuff from town), if that base goes (and I suspect that Westminster will want it inside the UK), that's going to hurt the Scottish economy, at least on the local level for a fairly long time.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/tough-choices-scottish-independence
A couple of tidbits...
"as a new applicant to the EU, Scotland would not have an opt-out from the euro and would be obliged to join when it met economic conditions."
"...opt-out to Schengen's open borders would also be lost."
no you didn't.
Only after they've bought the rights in an agreement that both parties have consented to after various negotiations and existing contractual obligations have been met...
The likes of the BBC don't just go up to a foreign broadcaster and say "here you go mate, show this", nor can a foreign broadcaster or government just say "we'll show this"
Even if the Westminster government said "sure you can continue receiving BBC content", the companies that supply the BBC with the content, the writers, actors, musicians etc who all have contracts that define where and when the content is to be available under the normal agreement* will have a say (and that say might be "it's an additional market, we require additional payments").
Nothing about it being Scotland, but a basic, very simple to find out understanding of contracts and rights in the entertainment business.
You can already see it with how STV deals with some of the ITV network content, where it opts out of some because either it's too costly to buy in (despite STV being the Scottish franchise for the C3 broadcast licence and having been in partnership with the other IT companies for years), or they have decided that it's cheaper to put up with people moaning and show some locally produced content.
*And if the agreements did not specify Scotland separately in the original contracts, then you can be fairly sure that when it comes to the content being allowed (legally) to be shown in an independent Scotland, there will be a need to renegotiate a lot of them. In the same way there has been a need to do it for satellite, +1 channels, and where the rights included video, they had to be redone for DVD and Blu-ray, and on demand (and why music for a show that was produced in say the UK may have to be changed for it be shown in the US because the cost of using it in that market may be much higher).
On that note, I'm hoping I'll be able to save a few quid by not bothering with a Scottish TV licence and will, instead, just be able to pick up "foreign" telly signals from across the border in England, a bit like Europeans do.
In any case, it's sure to be better than watching Gaelic-dubbed versions of "Rising Damp" and "Thomas the Tank Engine" on bleedin' BBC Alba, which seems to exist solely for the entertainment of the 16 people in Scotland who actually speak it.
If we independent (please no) then we should have to completely cut ties with England. We actually have our bread buttered since we have free higher education and free prescriptions. So some idiots haven't considered that and will probably bitch and moan if we do get independence that they don't get that anymore and it's their human rights to get them free.
Alex Salmond is a pompous nutcase and while I have little faith in the UK government, I have no faith whatsoever in the SNP.
Proving your own point there!
I'm still scarred from watching the Gaelic version of Dangermousehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IZ8i2yYg5E
Why do people have this idea that the SNP would be running an independent Scotland? They only have a narrow majority as it is, and once their raison d'etre has been achieved, I can't see them retaining the same level of support.
This is the trouble with the "White Paper" they produced - large chunks of it are matters which would be decided by the first independent Scottish parliament (and could be ditched by later governments), not enshrined in the constitution immediately after the referendum. The Yes campaign can't guarantee what will happen.
I really can't stand him he seems to want Scottish independence just for his own personal gain and place in history
The issue is, they will be in power for the first 18 months as all the details of independence are being negotiated, so any currency, debt, welfare, health etc which has to be split with the rUK.
This is a terrifying thought, that Salmond and Sturgeon will have so much power.
Personally, I don't think we should keep the pound, the same as I wouldn't want Wales, N Ireland or England to keep it if they decided to break away. Salmond/Sturgeon are intent on this "UK Govt won't impose a tax on millions of rUK businesses" as their defence of why we wouldn't be left without the pound, but when the rUK will be 5 times the size of Scotland, something tells me it won't be rUK paying the price, it'll be the Scottish businesses having to make up for the increased costs and Scottish consumers who will be left to pay more for goods as they will cost more to import to Scotland, it won't simply be businesses paying more, and taking a hit on it. Salmond knows this full well, he comes across as dangerously stupid but he was an economist. Scotland will be the small country, possibly more at the mercy of rUK than Salmond claims we are currently.
I have faith we will do what is right and have an overwhelming No vote. Once the polls solidify at a strong No stance, I think the diehard Yes voters, the stupid ones (not the majority of Yes Voters, only some), basing their opinion on too much Braveheart and other trivial Scotland V England rivalries, will be put off voting as they will feel their vote won't be worth anything because the No vote is so strong, and the No vote will overall end up with almost 70% of the vote.
Fingers crossed anyway, otherwise I'll be taking myself elsewhere come May 6th 2016 after I've hopefully witnessed Salmond's removal from power in the election.
I guess if Scotland became independent (bearing in mind that $almond has intimated there will be an SBC and I doubt Scots will want to pay 2 license fees) I guess Scotland would be treated the same as Eire on the BBC weather - the place that never gets mentioned, almost as though it didn't exist.
The first point isn't really an issue, because almost no bugger south of the border would take a Scottish note. I remember one shop keeper calling the Police because I tried to pass off "illegal Jock currency".
The second point won't be an issue either, because let's face it, it's not as if the Bank Of England will massage interest rates just to screw over Scotland. Because doing so would also screw over England.
It's not as big a deal as people are making out. Just lots of bigotry going on, from both sides of the debate.
I hope that we end up with an independent Scotland. It's not just that Westminster doesn't understand the needs of Scotland, it tends to not understand the needs of any part of the country outside of the M25.
Salmonds problem is that the whole raison detre of the SNP is Independence now as the vote comes near people are starting to realise the down sides to it and that it might not be a utopia
I still think he wants to have a close vote eg 55/45 NO but to lose and he'll try for what he really wanted eg Devomax
if the vote is a big NO eg 70/30 then salmonds screwed
Ah was stated earlier, there is nothing stopping the Scots from using the £, it's just that the Scottish Gov will have no influence over the currency.
As an aside, regarding Scots bank notes, there are many places down here now, that refuse them (illegally I know) because they struggle to get the public to accept them in change.
Ireland didn't insist on keeping tied to the UK economy (or any other bits of the UK's rules and regs that they like the look of) when it went it's own way.
Will there be two taxes to pay? Will you get paid in the currency by which you employer operates?
They are legal currency but there is no legal reason that forces someone to accept them. Regarding Legal tender, only BoE issued notes have that distinction and legal tender is only applicable outside Scotland. In addition, legal tender is only applicable when paying off a debt and not within normal customer/shop transactions.
So in practice any shop, anywhere in the UK can refuse to accept Scottish notes or BoE notes. Its entirely up to them. The fact that they don't is entirely due to the faith people have in the banking system.
So (according to that), we'll need a passport to travel between borders, as the rest of the UK has not signed the Schengen Agreement. Even people going by train, car, coach, bus, lorry etc. between England and Scotland will have to go through border control and presumably all Scottish people will need to buy new Scottish passports, as UK ones won't be valid any more. Either that, or you get a free renewal. That's another large bill someone will have to pay.
There are quite a few people I know who are voting yes, and all these external parties positions, eg the EU, UK Govt etc are being met with "This just shows why we need to go it alone" and have been fully duped by the YesNP campaign to believe only the SNP and disregard anything that brings them into question as scaremongering, Scottish-hating or the standard for the diehard SNP supporters - "Typical Westminster picking on Scotland"
It angers me that Salmond and Sturgeon claim this is for the better of all of the UK, yet how much money is being taken from services to fund this charade of a referendum?
Today we see outrage that there are signs that if there is a Yes vote (God forbid), there is scope for rUK to not fully cut ties, IF negotiations can't reach a reasonable conclusion. It seems a fair point, Salmond can't go into negotiations claiming for everything, using "it's what the Scottish people want" as his excuse and expect to get his own way, his entire campaign is "our way or no way, what we say will happen, is going to happen, and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering" what this "leak" from Government is saying, is quite honest - we'll negotiate but if you're ridiculous, you'll ruin it for yourself. This seems a logical position to enter negotiations at, but it's been met with calls of corrupt Westminster, lying and "might as well tear up the Edinburgh Agreement". It seems the SNP aren't used to reasonable outcomes being suggested and just react in their same usual way.
Presumably they will have to make their own arrangements for all armed forces, and will have to decide whether they want their own nuclear deterrent, as most likely the remainder of the UK will relocate the nuclear fleet from Clyde to another part of the remaining UK. Huge costs involved there, if that is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Trident
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-does-not-mean-yes.23438016
Personally I don't see what the furore over these comments is.
Of course there has to be negotiations and it can't just be a Yes vote followed by 18 months of Salmond/Sturgeon announcing "We are taking the £, the BBC, some of the services etc etc, we are entitled to it, it's as much ours as it is rUK etc etc" and the rUK Govt just sitting in London accepting it all. That's ludicrous, it's what SNP would have many believe, their assertions and what will actually happen are going vary considerably.
It's just the UK Govt are willing to admit it, Salmond will try to convince the Yes voters that the White Paper will happen without question right up until polling day, then spend the first 18 months of independence continuing to berate the rUK, when the obvious happens and there are negotiations to take place.
That's pretty much my thought on it.
It seems that every time a probable downside or opposing view is expressed about things like the costs of complexity of Scotland becoming independent the SNP start to go "you're scaremongering" or "of course they would say that".
It's like the Nuclear sub base in Scotland, the SNP has made a big thing about being nuke free and wanting rid of it, but AFAIK the SNP hasn't mentioned anything about how it'll affect the local (and if they become independent Scottish) economy, as typically any military base results in a lot of money entering the local economy, something like a nuclear sub base, with the attendant mix of both low and high tech supporting structure will likely be pumping huge amounts into the local economy (both directly via contracts to local companies, and indirectly via things like personal on the base buying stuff from town), if that base goes (and I suspect that Westminster will want it inside the UK), that's going to hurt the Scottish economy, at least on the local level for a fairly long time.