Scottish Independence

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Chris Miles-Patrick Date

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
A thought just popped in to my head...
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?
I sincerely hope we patriotic.UK'ers don't tolerate any old foreign riff-raff using our beloved "70" code! ;-)

Only domestic riff-raff ? ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UIC_country_codes
http://www.blainestrains.org/pdfs/RIV.pdf
show a few spare spaces. The lists look like there is a vague
geographical basis, the next spare "European" number being 89.

mechanic

2014-09-10 10:03:42 UTC

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Chris Miles-Patrick Date

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
A thought just popped in to my head...
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?
I sincerely hope we patriotic.UK'ers don't tolerate any old
foreign riff-raff using our beloved "70" code! ;-)

We will have border checks at Carlisle and maybe change of train
(operators).

Graeme Wall

2014-09-10 10:09:13 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Chris Miles-Patrick Date

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
A thought just popped in to my head...
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?
I sincerely hope we patriotic.UK'ers don't tolerate any old
foreign riff-raff using our beloved "70" code! ;-)

We will have border checks at Carlisle and maybe change of train
(operators).

Does Carlisle have a north facing bay they can wire off for passport
control?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

ian batten

2014-09-10 12:53:01 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
Does Carlisle have a north facing bay they can wire off for passport
control?

It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be extremely entertaining.

ian

tim.....

2014-09-10 19:31:53 UTC

Post by ian batten

Post by Graeme Wall
Does Carlisle have a north facing bay they can wire off for passport
control?

It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be extremely entertaining.

No it's not

that's the one thing HMG would never allow

tim

Roland Perry

2014-09-10 19:57:49 UTC

Post by ian batten
It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be
extremely entertaining.

No it's not
that's the one thing HMG would never allow

I tend to agree, because all those jolly good chaps currently queuing at
camps near Calais to jump in the back of an HGV bound for the ferry
while no-one is looking, would[1] have free passage within Schengen to
Scotland, and thence either walk across the fields either side of
Hadrians Wall, or start jumping into the back of HGVs at Gretna Green.

[1] Both according to the Daily Mail, but also in practice.

--
Roland Perry

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-10 21:38:07 UTC

Post by ian batten
It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be
extremely entertaining.

No it's not
that's the one thing HMG would never allow

I tend to agree, because all those jolly good chaps currently queuing at
camps near Calais to jump in the back of an HGV bound for the ferry
while no-one is looking, would[1] have free passage within Schengen to
Scotland, and thence either walk across the fields either side of
Hadrians Wall, or start jumping into the back of HGVs at Gretna Green.
[1] Both according to the Daily Mail, but also in practice.

But surely in practice they would all stay in Scotland, because it will
be a welfare state paradise open to all, free from the penny-pinching
and bigotry of the Engli^H^H UK, and in Scotland they would be free to
walk into all the new jobs which true Scotsmen won't want or need to do?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Roland Perry

2014-09-11 08:38:58 UTC

In message <ppKdnRqCHoZZWY3JnZ2dnUVZ8u-***@brightview.co.uk>, at
22:38:07 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Arthur Figgis

Post by ian batten
It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be
extremely entertaining.

No it's not
that's the one thing HMG would never allow

I tend to agree, because all those jolly good chaps currently queuing at
camps near Calais to jump in the back of an HGV bound for the ferry
while no-one is looking, would[1] have free passage within Schengen to
Scotland, and thence either walk across the fields either side of
Hadrians Wall, or start jumping into the back of HGVs at Gretna Green.
[1] Both according to the Daily Mail, but also in practice.

Only if they can put up with the weather!

Incidentally, if Scotland is such a welfare state paradise, why did I
notice significant numbers of street people in Edinburgh on my recent
visit? Either sitting on the pavement begging, or shuffling along with
their eponymous carrier bags?

--
Roland Perry

mechanic

2014-09-11 10:17:41 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Incidentally, if Scotland is such a welfare state paradise, why
did I notice significant numbers of street people in Edinburgh on
my recent visit? Either sitting on the pavement begging, or
shuffling along with their eponymous carrier bags?

It's what they call the Edinburgh Fringe!

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:23:49 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
22:38:07 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Arthur Figgis

Post by ian batten
It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be
extremely entertaining.

No it's not
that's the one thing HMG would never allow

I tend to agree, because all those jolly good chaps currently queuing at
camps near Calais to jump in the back of an HGV bound for the ferry
while no-one is looking, would[1] have free passage within Schengen to
Scotland, and thence either walk across the fields either side of
Hadrians Wall, or start jumping into the back of HGVs at Gretna Green.
[1] Both according to the Daily Mail, but also in practice.

Only if they can put up with the weather!
Incidentally, if Scotland is such a welfare state paradise, why did I
notice significant numbers of street people in Edinburgh on my recent
visit? Either sitting on the pavement begging, or shuffling along with
their eponymous carrier bags?

Begging is not an offence in Scotland, you'll get a few along Union
Street in Aberdeen as well.

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:46:05 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Incidentally, if Scotland is such a welfare state paradise, why did I
notice significant numbers of street people in Edinburgh on my recent
visit? Either sitting on the pavement begging, or shuffling along with
their eponymous carrier bags?

Because the English have stolen all their money, of course. Everyone
will have designer bags after independence.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

tim.....

2014-09-11 18:40:21 UTC

Post by ian batten
It's potentially a Schengen/non-Schengen border, which would be
extremely entertaining.

No it's not
that's the one thing HMG would never allow

I tend to agree, because all those jolly good chaps currently queuing at
camps near Calais to jump in the back of an HGV bound for the ferry
while no-one is looking, would[1] have free passage within Schengen to
Scotland, and thence either walk across the fields either side of
Hadrians Wall, or start jumping into the back of HGVs at Gretna Green.
[1] Both according to the Daily Mail, but also in practice.

But surely in practice they would all stay in Scotland, because it will be
a welfare state paradise open to all, free from the penny-pinching and
bigotry of the Engli^H^H UK, and in Scotland they would be free to walk
into all the new jobs which true Scotsmen won't want or need to do?

Only if they can put up with the weather!
Incidentally, if Scotland is such a welfare state paradise, why did I
notice significant numbers of street people in Edinburgh on my recent
visit? Either sitting on the pavement begging, or shuffling along with
their eponymous carrier bags?

Beggars in Scotland have bags made with their name on? How quaint

(or perhaps they are all called McColl, or Menzies)

tim

Sam Wilson

2014-09-10 10:52:14 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Chris Miles-Patrick Date

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
A thought just popped in to my head...
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?
I sincerely hope we patriotic.UK'ers don't tolerate any old
foreign riff-raff using our beloved "70" code! ;-)

We will have border checks at Carlisle and maybe change of train
(operators).

Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Jeremy Double

2014-09-10 13:01:08 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

In this case, the Scotland-England border would become the Schengen border,
and there would have to be passport control on the Scottish side for people
entering or leaving Schengenland.

--
Jeremy Double

Graeme Wall

2014-09-10 13:15:09 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.
In this case, the Scotland-England border would become the Schengen border,
and there would have to be passport control on the Scottish side for people
entering or leaving Schengenland.

Come back Hadrian, all is forgiven!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Bailie McWheeble

2014-09-10 15:48:00 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.
In this case, the Scotland-England border would become the Schengen border,
and there would have to be passport control on the Scottish side for people
entering or leaving Schengenland.

Come back Hadrian, all is forgiven!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

If the Yes camp win the day a new UIC code will be the least of their
worries.

Think plummeting house prices, higher taxes, new currency (probably euro)
and exodus of large organisations with offices in Scotland, i.e higher
unemployment.

Vote NO laddies and lasses.

Bailie

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

j***@pyromancer.net

2014-09-10 16:27:11 UTC

Post by Bailie McWheeble
If the Yes camp win the day a new UIC code will be the least of their
worries.
Think plummeting house prices, higher taxes, new currency (probably euro)
and exodus of large organisations with offices in Scotland, i.e higher
unemployment.

That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.

Despite the arrant nonsense spouted by Westminster and the No camp,
it's clear to anyone who can count past ten that keeping Scotland's
oil in the Sterling zone is in everyone's best interests, hence
there will be a currency union. Taxes for the wealthy may rise
slightly, given Scotland's very long term history of voting for
left wing parties. But many people, including wealthy ones, will
consider that a price worth paying for a fairer and more prosperous
society where the poor aren't demonised and money flows into the
bottom of the economy to be spent, helping businesses and individuals
alike.

House prices are liable to rise as some ex-pats move back to become part
of the new nation. And long term they'll reflect the overall state of
the Scottish economy. It's a rich country with lots of resources and a
people with a history of hard work and enterprise, no reason to think
that will change.

And the threat of companies relocating en-masse is just silly and
typical of the kind of "toys out of the pram" approach some people
take to any change. When I was younger and still lived in Scotland,
the town council, in response to repeated complaints about vans parked
blocking a pavement outside a van hire garage, installed a double row
of posts along the pavement (a row each side) to stop vehicles being
able to encroach on it. The next day the local paper reported the
owner of the garage threatening to relocate his business and sack all
his employees because of it. Needless to say a year later the posts
were still there and the garage still very much in business.

And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England
border, that would be utter madness. When the dust settles and the
outcome of the vote is known, then sensible and pragmatic people on
all sides will work out sensible and pragmatic solutions to the issues
that come up. That's just how things work.

Lots and lots of people have woken up to just how badly broken British
democracy is. A Yes vote is the gateway to a much brighter and fairer
future for the people of Scotland, and by showing the way, eventually
for the people of England too as Westminster is forced to play catch-up.

Paul Stevenson

2014-09-10 16:33:55 UTC

Sensible stuff snipped

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
Lots and lots of people have woken up to just how badly broken British
democracy is. A Yes vote is the gateway to a much brighter and fairer
future for the people of Scotland, and by showing the way, eventually
for the people of England too as Westminster is forced to play catch-up.

Good points, well made!

Bevan Price

2014-09-10 18:00:03 UTC

Post by Paul Stevenson

Sensible stuff snipped

Good points, well made!

And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

Bevan

mcp

2014-09-10 22:58:25 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:00:03 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

It's a fantasy, none of the ~50 countries that have achieved
independence from the UK have come crawling back. Why should Scotland
be uniquely incapable of running it's own affairs?

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 07:16:43 UTC

Post by mcp
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:00:03 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

It's a fantasy, none of the ~50 countries that have achieved
independence from the UK have come crawling back. Why should Scotland
be uniquely incapable of running it's own affairs?

Some didn't want to go and did ask to come back. A couple are still
holding out against getting independence.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Michael R N Dolbear

2014-09-11 15:36:58 UTC

Post by mcp
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:00:03 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

It's a fantasy, none of the ~50 countries that have achieved

independence from the UK have come crawling back. Why should Scotland
be uniquely incapable of running it's own affairs?

Not so, at least in my world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguilla

The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather
independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British
colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980
Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become
a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).[3]

--
Mike D

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:54:53 UTC

Post by mcp
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:00:03 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

It's a fantasy, none of the ~50 countries that have achieved
independence from the UK have come crawling back. Why should Scotland
be uniquely incapable of running it's own affairs?

Newfoundland.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

mechanic

2014-09-11 10:12:57 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

ian batten

2014-09-11 10:21:36 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

The Act of Union was passed by both parliaments. Those parliaments were
elected according to the standards of the times. Measuring democratic
processes by the standards of 300 years ago isn't terribly useful.

ian

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 10:48:32 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

r***@gmail.com

2014-09-11 12:05:17 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

England and Scotland, in 1603, had the same relationship with one another as the UK and Australia do today.

Robin

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 12:19:33 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

England and Scotland, in 1603, had the same relationship with one another as the UK and Australia do today.

While I understand what you mean, I don't think the two situations are
comparable. The Monarch today is purely a figurehead, in 1603 the King
had real political powers and exercised them. A situation that
ultimately lead to the civil war.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:26:25 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:19:33 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

England and Scotland, in 1603, had the same relationship with one another as the UK and Australia do today.

Which one ?

bob

2014-09-11 17:44:35 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:19:33 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

England and Scotland, in 1603, had the same relationship with one
another as the UK and Australia do today.

Which one ?

I'm not aware of the current Monarch, and her lack of real political
power being a cause of any civil war, so I'd guess it's the other one.

Robin

a***@yahoo.com

2014-09-11 17:59:16 UTC

Post by bob
I'm not aware of the current Monarch, and her lack of real political
power being a cause of any civil war, so I'd guess it's the other one.
Robin

So the cause of the civil war was that the monarch had real power in 1603
but doesn't today?

So how did they know back then that the monarch would lose that power?

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 18:13:33 UTC

Post by bob

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:19:33 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Bevan Price
And when/if Salmond's dream proves to be a disastrous failure, will the
rest of UK be allowed to vote as to whether or not we wish to re-admit
Scotland to the UK Federation ?

You think there were votes when Scotland & England were joined in
1707?

Or even 1603?

England and Scotland, in 1603, had the same relationship with one
another as the UK and Australia do today.

Which one ?

I'm not aware of the current Monarch, and her lack of real political
power being a cause of any civil war, so I'd guess it's the other one.

Or one of the others.

G***@live.co.uk

2014-09-10 17:31:59 UTC

I could not agree less. What part of "No" from not only the political class but also the governor of the Bank of England don't you understand?

If - and it still is a big if - the pros win next week, by definition they have said to rUK "Get lost - we don't want to have anything to do with you". So what benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its sovereignty to a country that has just said it does not want to have anything to do with it? Having campaigned on the basis of "it's our oil", I cannot imagine an SNP-led Scotland wanting to share any of its benefits with rUK.

In effect, it's a huge bluff. Salmond believes that rUK will be forced to accept a currency union in the face of threats to default on Scotland's share of the UK national debt. That is an empty threat because if iScotland were to do that, the money markets would immediately mark down its bonds to junk status, making it much more expensive to raise money.

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England
border, that would be utter madness.

Why not? If iScotland joins the EU and is forced to join Schengen, there will have to be border controls. That assumes it does join the EU - all its existing members would have to ratify its accession and I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an application from iScotland.

When the dust settles and the

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
outcome of the vote is known, then sensible and pragmatic people on
all sides will work out sensible and pragmatic solutions to the issues
that come up. That's just how things work.

Hmmm... Unlikely. Salmond has imposed a very tight deadline for independence and by doing so has thrown away a negotiating hand. For all Westminster would need to do is simply keep saying "no" to any and all of Salmond's demands until a few days before independence, when he would have to give way to avoid losing face.

j***@pyromancer.net

2014-09-10 18:19:34 UTC

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.
Despite the arrant nonsense spouted by Westminster and the No camp,
it's clear to anyone who can count past ten that keeping Scotland's
oil in the Sterling zone is in everyone's best interests, hence
there will be a currency union.

I could not agree less. What part of "No" from not only the
political class but also the governor of the Bank of England
don't you understand?

It's all bluff from an establishment that has realised, way, way
too late, that people have realised independence is actually a
realistic option and not a pipe dream.

Basically the current Westminster elite have driven the train of
state merrily along at full thrash regardless of all warnings to
the contrary, and now, when they're less than 300 yards from the
missing bridge and doing 100+mph, they've suddenly thrown the
vacuum handle over to "Emergency". Oops, as some might say.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
If - and it still is a big if - the pros win next week, by definition
they have said to rUK "Get lost - we don't want to have anything to do
with you".

No-one (well, other than a few fanatics and they exist in both camps) is
saying anything of the kind. "We want to rule ourselves" is not in any
way telling anyone else to get lost.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
So what benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its sovereignty
to a country that has just said it does not want to have anything to do
with it?

There's no surrender of sovereignty involved, it's just keeping the oil in
the Sterling zone (rather than the Euro, or a new Scottish pound, or even
the US Dollar) and hence benefiting both countries. Scotland gets to trade
with rUK in a currency with no transaction costs (and vice versa) while
rUK's currency keeps the benefit of having North Sea Oil traded in pounds.

Other than anti-independence die-hards, no-one loses under this scenario.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Having campaigned on the basis of "it's our oil", I cannot imagine an
SNP-led Scotland wanting to share any of its benefits with rUK.

There's no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be SNP-led, it's
quite likely to be substantially Labour-voting. Long term there's even the
chance that the Scottish Tories, freed of the legacy of Thatcher and Major,
could actually rehabilitate themselves, though that will probably take a
while.

And it's the SNP who want to keep the pound, for the benefit of both nations.

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England
border, that would be utter madness.

Why not?

Because it would be bonkers, massively inconvenient, and utterly stupid.
No-one sane would introduce it. There aren't even passport controls on
the UK's existing land border with an entirely foreign country that uses
a different currency, the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, there will be
none with Scotland.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
If iScotland joins the EU and is forced to join Schengen, there will
have to be border controls. That assumes it does join the EU - all
its existing members would have to ratify its accession and I cannot
imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have separatist movements
of their own, encouraging them by supporting an application from iScotland.

Scotland will not be forced to join Schengen for a variety of reasons.
First off, having no land border with anywhere in the zone, it would be
pointless. That's the biggie. But on top of that as I said before, if
the vote goes Yes, then sensible and pragmatic people will make the relevant
decisions on such things - there's no reason for the EU not to have Scotland
as a member, and much to be gained by both sides if it is, so it will happen.

The people drawing up all these scare stories about this or that happening
as a result of a rigid reading of existing rules are entirely missing the
most important issue - people and institutions adapt to changing
circumstances. The rules about Schengen were drawn up on the assumption
that new members would have land borders with existing ones. Scotland is
an entirely different case.

Denis McMahon

2014-09-10 20:07:08 UTC

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
There's no surrender of sovereignty involved, it's just keeping the oil
in the Sterling zone (rather than the Euro, or a new Scottish pound, or
even the US Dollar) and hence benefiting both countries. Scotland gets
to trade with rUK in a currency with no transaction costs (and vice
versa) while rUK's currency keeps the benefit of having North Sea Oil
traded in pounds.

Just what would be the benefit to rUK's currency of this? I think you're
trying to sell us a fart in a wet paper bag and calling it a benefit.
North Sea Oil eg Brent Sweet Light Crude (currently US$98.20 / barrel see
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ ) is already traded in US Dollars, not
GB Pounds. In any case I don't believe there is a benefit to any currency
in having some specific product nominally traded in that currency.

--
Denis McMahon, ***@gmail.com

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 20:26:23 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon

It is traded on the _international_ market in USD but that does not
apply to local markets or to the assortment of expenses involved in
getting it out of the ground or later getting it to the local market.
Each conversion of currency is a potential reduction of profit in what
can often be a very narrow gain so ideally the oil companies might
like the whole world to use USD but that isn't going to happen. The
next best is to have the least possible number of currency changes in
the chain so it is to the advantage of RotUK companies involved to
have no change between Scotland and England; in turn that leaves more
money to be taxed by the governments on both sides of the border.

Denis McMahon

2014-09-11 12:46:53 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
There's no surrender of sovereignty involved, it's just keeping the
oil in the Sterling zone (rather than the Euro, or a new Scottish
pound, or even the US Dollar) and hence benefiting both countries.
Scotland gets to trade with rUK in a currency with no transaction
costs (and vice versa) while rUK's currency keeps the benefit of
having North Sea Oil traded in pounds.

Just what would be the benefit to rUK's currency of this? I think you're
trying to sell us a fart in a wet paper bag and calling it a benefit.
North Sea Oil eg Brent Sweet Light Crude (currently US$98.20 / barrel
see http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ ) is already traded in US Dollars,
not GB Pounds. In any case I don't believe there is a benefit to any
currency in having some specific product nominally traded in that
currency.

That's all irrelevant twaddle bullshit and I call it as such.

The fact that two parties, x and y, choose to trade in the currency of a
third party z has no benefit to z.

International trade is just numbers moving round on computers, it makes
little difference to anyone whether those numbers are expressed in
currency a, currency b, or currency c, because at each end of the
transaction the numbers get converted according to some local conversion
factor in to whatever the local currency is.

There's no benefit to any nation in having their national currency used
at some point in the process.

--
Denis McMahon, ***@gmail.com

ian batten

2014-09-11 13:23:56 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
There's no surrender of sovereignty involved, it's just keeping the
oil in the Sterling zone (rather than the Euro, or a new Scottish
pound, or even the US Dollar) and hence benefiting both countries.
Scotland gets to trade with rUK in a currency with no transaction
costs (and vice versa) while rUK's currency keeps the benefit of
having North Sea Oil traded in pounds.

Just what would be the benefit to rUK's currency of this? I think you're
trying to sell us a fart in a wet paper bag and calling it a benefit.
North Sea Oil eg Brent Sweet Light Crude (currently US$98.20 / barrel
see http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ ) is already traded in US Dollars,
not GB Pounds. In any case I don't believe there is a benefit to any
currency in having some specific product nominally traded in that
currency.

That's all irrelevant twaddle bullshit and I call it as such.
The fact that two parties, x and y, choose to trade in the currency of a
third party z has no benefit to z.
International trade is just numbers moving round on computers, it makes
little difference to anyone whether those numbers are expressed in
currency a, currency b, or currency c, because at each end of the
transaction the numbers get converted according to some local conversion
factor in to whatever the local currency is.
There's no benefit to any nation in having their national currency used
at some point in the process.

A lot of the discussions about the Euro in the 1990s made a huge song and
dance about the difficulties caused by having to change currencies, not
because of the forex rate risk (which is a real problem) but because of the
hassle of going to banks to buy currency X with wads of currency Y. Today,
it's a non-issue: you go to a cashpoint and that's the end of it, and in any
event you're mostly using a debit card anyway. The extra friction caused by
needing to use Euros when you're in Europe is approximately zero.

When the discussion comes to big transactions like buying a few million barrels of
oil, those obsessed with the need for currency unions appear to want us to
believe that Mr Shell has to go to a giant Thomas Cook and hand over a gazillion
pounds sterling to buy a gazillion dollars (or whatever). They don't. There's a
currency risk on forward contracts, which has to be hedged, so the overhead is the
price of the hedge (low, on average, because sometimes you make a profit on it)
and the on-cost of employing a competent currency department, or hiring one
in as a service. Most UK businesses that export or import at all are going to have
to deal in Euros, Dollars, Yuan and increasingly
the other three BRIC currencies as well. Whether or not we share a currency with
Scotland is neither here nor there: they'll still need to deal with currency risk, and
Scotland's a very small economy compared to the USA, the Eurozone and the BRIC
countries.

ian

j***@pyromancer.net

2014-09-10 21:10:21 UTC

Post by Denis McMahon
Just what would be the benefit to rUK's currency of this?

It affects the balance of trade, and the difference is massive.

bob

2014-09-10 21:30:22 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
So what benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its sovereignty
to a country that has just said it does not want to have anything to do
with it?

All of these arguments were made for the UK joining the Euro at the end
of the 1990s. For those nations that did follow this logic, they have
ended up having to submit to borrowing and spending limits set by the
EU/ECB, and, in the case of the rich countries, having to bail out the
profligate countries because if you share a currency with another
country, you take a hit if they borrow imprudently, and for the
profligate countries, unable to devalue and inflate their way out of
their problems as they did in pre-Euro days.

From the rUK perspective, should Scotland behave delinquently, it could
become a Greece to rUK's Germany. Should the rUK behave delinquently,
Scotland's economy would probably be too small, relatively speaking, to
dig it out of the hole, and get pulled down with it. Neither of these
consequences seems particularly desirable.

Robin

ian batten

2014-09-11 06:34:11 UTC

Post by bob

Post by G***@live.co.uk
So what benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its sovereignty
to a country that has just said it does not want to have anything to do
with it?

All of these arguments were made for the UK joining the Euro at the end
of the 1990s.

And are, if true, still true. Every argument that says that the rUK should join
a currency union with Scotland applies a fortiori to joining the Euro, with the
exception that the Eurozone is a much larger actual and potential market,
we wouldn't be the sole sizeable economy and the governance is relatively
well established. And the same arguments apply to an extent to the UK forming
a currency union with the USA, too. Either of those options offers the rUK more
than a currency union with Scotland.

ian

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-10 21:52:41 UTC

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
There's no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be SNP-led, it's
quite likely to be substantially Labour-voting. Long term there's even the
chance that the Scottish Tories, freed of the legacy of Thatcher and Major,
could actually rehabilitate themselves, though that will probably take a
while.

One thing that puzzles me is how many comments I've seen on t'interwebs
from Scots who really do seem to assume it will be a one-party SNP state
forever, with no party politics, no Tories, no Labour, just the SNP
implementing a policy of [all the things I want but until now the
English have conned the masses into wanting something else and they are
all wrong].

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Mizter T

2014-09-10 22:03:31 UTC

Though if there's a yes vote, I'd suggest the SNP would do well in the
first elections at least and so set the initial consensus and direction
of the new state.

Graham Murray

2014-09-11 09:26:44 UTC

Post by Mizter T
Though if there's a yes vote, I'd suggest the SNP would do well in the
first elections at least and so set the initial consensus and
direction of the new state.

Though not necessarily. If people who wanted independence temporarily
supported SNP just to obtain it, they may might revert back to their
'natural' Tory, labour or LibDem allegiance once the referendum is over.

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 18:25:31 UTC

I could not agree less. What part of "No" from not only the political class but also the governor of the Bank of England don't you understand?

The clue is in the word "political". As for the Governer of the BoE,
many are conveniently overlooking various things he is not saying.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
If - and it still is a big if - the pros win next week, by definition they have said to rUK
"Get lost - we don't want to have anything to do with you".

Oh !

Post by G***@live.co.uk
So what
benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its sovereignty to a
country that has just said it does not want to have anything to do
with it?

You seem to be living in the 1920s.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Having campaigned on the basis of "it's our oil",

Most of it is but oil is only one of many matters.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot
imagine an SNP-led Scotland wanting to share any of its benefits with
rUK.

Has your dictionary got the word "mutual" in it ?

Post by G***@live.co.uk
In effect, it's a huge bluff. Salmond believes that rUK will be
forced to accept a currency union in the face of threats to default
on Scotland's share of the UK national debt.

That is not what he has said. For reasons of its own, the UK
government has already accepted that the debt attaches to the UK so
legally none of it is Scotland's. Morally and practically, a relevant
proportion of the debt has to be involved in negotiations which will
include not just the debts but also the joint assets of the former UK.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
That is an empty threat
because if iScotland were to do that, the money markets would
immediately mark down its bonds to junk status, making it much more
expensive to raise money.

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England
border, that would be utter madness.

Why not? If iScotland joins the EU and is forced to join Schengen,
there will have to be border controls. That assumes it does join the
EU

Both Scotland and RotUK are already in; one might leave later and it
is unlikely to be Scotland. Claims that Scotland would have to "join"
or "re-apply" conveniently overlook that neither match the standard
scenario of a previously separate state joining the EU; changes
involving existing members (e.g. Denmark and Germany) have so far not
involved any form of re-joining/reapplying rather than adjusting the
relevant treaties, representation etc.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
- all its existing members would have to ratify its accession and
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

ITYF what is required in practice to mess things up is their active
objection to Scotland being in the EU; while those of a <country
code>IP tendency might be tempted to do so there could be consequences
on their relationships with other EU countries so a grudging
acceptance might be the worst that could happen. A lot has been said
by various politicians with no authority to speak on behalf of the EU
(and often, even their own countries) but less publicity has been
given to other politicians and EU officers who do not recognise that
the circumstances are comparable with the other more long-established
independence movements in Europe.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
When the dust settles and the

Hmmm... Unlikely. Salmond has imposed a very tight deadline for independence
and by doing so has thrown away a negotiating hand. For all
Westminster would need to do is simply keep saying "no" to any and
all of Salmond's demands until a few days before independence, when
he would have to give way to avoid losing face.

There is a difference between achieving independence and tieing up all
the loose ends; Ireland has still not cut every last link after 80+
years. 18 months is the target date between the vote and independence
day but Scotland has never been a fully integrated part of the UK so
there are things (e.g. the legal system and NHS Scotland) which do not
require "undoing" and others which have become Scottish-only matters
since the creation of the Scottish Office in the 19th century. As for
keeping on saying "No", that tactic has turned out to be ultimately
ineffective resulting in the Three Stooges rushing north to lecture
the natives again.

tim.....

2014-09-10 19:52:44 UTC

I could not agree less. What part of "No" from not only the political
class but also the governor of the Bank of England don't you understand?
If - and it still is a big if - the pros win next week, by definition they
have said to rUK "Get lost - we don't want to have anything to do with
you". So what benefit would rUK get from surrendering part of its
sovereignty to a country that has just said it does not want to have
anything to do with it? Having campaigned on the basis of "it's our oil",
I cannot imagine an SNP-led Scotland wanting to share any of its benefits
with rUK.
In effect, it's a huge bluff. Salmond believes that rUK will be forced to
accept a currency union in the face of threats to default on Scotland's
share of the UK national debt. That is an empty threat because if
iScotland were to do that, the money markets would immediately mark down
its bonds to junk status, making it much more expensive to raise money.

and in any case there are joint assets that they want their share of.

As HMG have absolutely no interest whosoever in requiring a nice "easy"
negotiation, as soon as Salmond says "we ain't goona take our share of the
debt", HMG will respond with "well we're not going to give you your share of
whatever, then"

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England
border, that would be utter madness.

Why not? If iScotland joins the EU and is forced to join Schengen,

It wont be. It is not in the RUK interests for this to happen, they would
veto it in any EU negotiation that followed (and once the rest of Europe get
over all of the other hurdles to Scotland rejoining, they aren't going to
make this a deal breaker)

Post by G***@live.co.uk
there will have to be border controls. That assumes it does join the EU -
all its existing members would have to
ratify its accession and I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of
which have separatist movements of their
own, encouraging them by supporting an application from iScotland.

Agreed, but I'm not close enough to these countries to know if it is all
bluster. Spain in particular wants access to Scotland's fishing grounds,
they may just bite their tongue and get on with it

Post by G***@live.co.uk
When the dust settles and the

Hmmm... Unlikely. Salmond has imposed a very tight deadline for
independence and by doing so has thrown away a negotiating hand. For all
Westminster would need to do is simply keep saying "no" to any and all of
Salmond's demands until a few days before independence, when he would have
to give way to avoid losing face.

Yup

tim

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-10 21:46:44 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?

Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 07:13:33 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

It's not just the Basques, the Catalonians are advancing the same sort
of arguments as the Scots about getting rid of the dead hand of Madrid.

There is a Breton independence movement but I don't know how popular it
is. Then of course, there is Belgium. As for Italy, the Northern
League would love to ditch everything south of Rome.

And we don't mention the Schleswig-Holstein question!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:09:04 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

It's not just the Basques, the Catalonians are advancing the same sort
of arguments as the Scots about getting rid of the dead hand of Madrid.

But that's in Spain, not France.

Post by Graeme Wall
There is a Breton independence movement but I don't know how popular it
is.

Taking a sample of, erm, some things I read in nationalist-themed beer
pubs in Brest and Paimpol, it seemed to be more about cutural identity
and regional boundaries than politicial separation; free morris dancing
and misspelled Welsh on signposts, rather than passport checks on the
frontier with Normandy.

Post by Graeme Wall
Then of course, there is Belgium.

That's already independent :)

Post by Graeme Wall
As for Italy, the Northern
League would love to ditch everything south of Rome.

For broadly similar reasons to some English people wanting ditch
everything north of Watfo^H^H Berwick.

Post by Graeme Wall
And we don't mention the Schleswig-Holstein question!

Isn't that basically as dead as the three people who once understood it?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 18:41:48 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

It's not just the Basques, the Catalonians are advancing the same sort
of arguments as the Scots about getting rid of the dead hand of Madrid.

But that's in Spain, not France.

The Catalonian tribal area (for want of a better description) spreads
into Southern France.

Post by Graeme Wall
There is a Breton independence movement but I don't know how popular it
is.

Tat's what they want you to think :-)

Post by Graeme Wall
Then of course, there is Belgium.

That's already independent :)

Tell that to the Flemings, or possibly Wallooons.

Post by Graeme Wall
As for Italy, the Northern
League would love to ditch everything south of Rome.

For broadly similar reasons to some English people wanting ditch
everything north of Watfo^H^H Berwick.

Post by Graeme Wall
And we don't mention the Schleswig-Holstein question!

Isn't that basically as dead as the three people who once understood it?

I told you not to mention it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:30:29 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:13:33 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

It's not just the Basques, the Catalonians are advancing the same sort
of arguments as the Scots about getting rid of the dead hand of Madrid.
There is a Breton independence movement but I don't know how popular it
is. Then of course, there is Belgium. As for Italy, the Northern
League would love to ditch everything south of Rome.
And we don't mention the Schleswig-Holstein question!

I'd forgotten about that one. ;-)

bob

2014-09-11 18:01:48 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

It's not just the Basques, the Catalonians are advancing the same sort
of arguments as the Scots about getting rid of the dead hand of Madrid.

The Scots object to His ex-Majesty Juan Carlos I?

Robin

LumpHammer

2014-09-11 17:09:04 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
I cannot imagine Spain, France and Italy, all of which have
separatist movements of their own, encouraging them by supporting an
application from iScotland.

Realistically, are they going to say no to a share in the oil revenues
and fish, and presumably no rebates on contributions towards paying for
French farmers?
Does France have any serious separatist movements? I thought the Bretons
didn't want independence as such, the Basques were less bothered than in
Spain, the Germans and Italians have given up on Alsace and Nice, and
the Corsicans hated each other more than they hate the mainland.

I've just finished watching the DVD box-set of "Mafiosa - le clan". If
that's to be believed, the Corsican nationalists spend most of their
time fighting the Corsican mafia.

mcp

2014-09-10 23:03:05 UTC

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Hmmm... Unlikely. Salmond has imposed a very tight deadline for independence and by doing so has thrown away a negotiating hand. For all Westminster would need to do is simply keep saying "no" to any and all of Salmond's demands until a few days before independence, when he would have to give way to avoid losing face.

It's an extremely relaxed deadline for independence, the process only
took a few months for most countries.

A.Lee

2014-09-10 17:43:59 UTC

Is our Democracy really that bad if they have allowed a referendum
that will hurt the rest of the UK if there is a Yes vote?

Do you think any Scottish Govm. will allow a vote in 5 years time to see
if people want the Union back?
I'd wager they would never allow that to happen, even if there was a
strong call for it by the electorate.

--
Alan
To reply by mail, change '+' to 'plus'

tim.....

2014-09-10 19:44:33 UTC

That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.

what do you think that they could have done differently to avoid that
scenario (given that all of the scaremongering is, in fact, probably
entirely true)

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
Despite the arrant nonsense spouted by Westminster and the No camp,
it's clear to anyone who can count past ten that keeping Scotland's
oil in the Sterling zone is in everyone's best interests,

No it's not. If Scotland were to remain in the "pound" zone without UK
treasury oversight, the rest of the world would worry that Scotland will
rack up huge debts that the RUK would have to pay off. This would push up
RUK interest rates by at least 1, and possibly 2, percentage points.

It is most definitely not in the interests of the remaining 50 odd million
people that this happens, and if it did, would cost them 100 times more
than all the other piddly expenses put together

OTOH Scotland could use the pound but remain locked into treasury rules for
oversight. This wouldn't be no more independent that they are now

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
hence
there will be a currency union.

Oh no there wont be

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
Taxes for the wealthy may rise
slightly, given Scotland's very long term history of voting for
left wing parties. But many people, including wealthy ones, will
consider that a price worth paying for a fairer and more prosperous
society where the poor aren't demonised and money flows into the
bottom of the economy to be spent, helping businesses and individuals
alike.

agreed, but it doesn't affect me.

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
House prices are liable to rise as some ex-pats move back to become part
of the new nation. And long term they'll reflect the overall state of
the Scottish economy. It's a rich country with lots of resources and a
people with a history of hard work and enterprise, no reason to think
that will change.
And the threat of companies relocating en-masse is just silly

As soon as Scotland gives up the pound all of the finance houses will have
absolutely no choice in the matter

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
and
typical of the kind of "toys out of the pram" approach some people
take to any change. When I was younger and still lived in Scotland,
the town council, in response to repeated complaints about vans parked
blocking a pavement outside a van hire garage, installed a double row
of posts along the pavement (a row each side) to stop vehicles being
able to encroach on it. The next day the local paper reported the
owner of the garage threatening to relocate his business and sack all
his employees because of it. Needless to say a year later the posts
were still there and the garage still very much in business.
And there won't be any passport controls on the Scotland / England

agreed, that is just pointless nonsense

You forgot to mention the claim that you wont be allowed back into the EU in
double quick time

(I think you're fooling yourself on this one as well)

tim

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 20:38:14 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:44:33 +0100, "tim....."

That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.

what do you think that they could have done differently to avoid that
scenario

They could have waited until Scotland actually was a burden rather
than an asset. Then they could have been stuck with Scotland;
currently it is a matter of damage reduction by arguing what now
belongs to each side and any competent negotiator will be avoiding
giving away too much of their own assets.

Post by tim.....
(given that all of the scaremongering is, in fact, probably
entirely true)

Compare what was being claimed 18mths ago with now and you'll find a
lot of "No" claims have been quietly dropped such as e.g. "tearing"
Scotland's already separate NHS out of the non-existent British NHS.

No it's not. If Scotland were to remain in the "pound" zone without UK
treasury oversight, the rest of the world would worry that Scotland will
rack up huge debts that the RUK would have to pay off. This would push up
RUK interest rates by at least 1, and possibly 2, percentage points.
It is most definitely not in the interests of the remaining 50 odd million
people that this happens, and if it did, would cost them 100 times more
than all the other piddly expenses put together
OTOH Scotland could use the pound but remain locked into treasury rules for
oversight. This wouldn't be no more independent that they are now

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
hence
there will be a currency union.

Oh no there wont be

agreed, but it doesn't affect me.

As soon as Scotland gives up the pound all of the finance houses will have
absolutely no choice in the matter

agreed, that is just pointless nonsense
You forgot to mention the claim that you wont be allowed back into the EU in
double quick time
(I think you're fooling yourself on this one as well)
tim

Bailie McWheeble

2014-09-10 22:00:29 UTC

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:44:33 +0100, "tim....."

That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.

what do you think that they could have done differently to avoid that
scenario

Post by tim.....
(given that all of the scaremongering is, in fact, probably
entirely true)

No it's not. If Scotland were to remain in the "pound" zone without UK
treasury oversight, the rest of the world would worry that Scotland will
rack up huge debts that the RUK would have to pay off. This would push up
RUK interest rates by at least 1, and possibly 2, percentage points.
It is most definitely not in the interests of the remaining 50 odd million
people that this happens, and if it did, would cost them 100 times more
than all the other piddly expenses put together
OTOH Scotland could use the pound but remain locked into treasury rules for
oversight. This wouldn't be no more independent that they are now

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
hence
there will be a currency union.

Oh no there wont be

agreed, but it doesn't affect me.

As soon as Scotland gives up the pound all of the finance houses will have
absolutely no choice in the matter

agreed, that is just pointless nonsense
You forgot to mention the claim that you wont be allowed back into the EU in
double quick time
(I think you're fooling yourself on this one as well)
tim

Light blue touchpaper and retire.........(From the warning printed on a box
of fireworks)

Vote early, vote often, vote NO.

Bailie
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

tim.....

2014-09-11 18:37:01 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:44:33 +0100, "tim....."

That sounds just like the scaremongering which has characterised the
entire No campaign, and which is hopefully about to bite them hard on
the arse when a resounding victory for Yes is declared.

what do you think that they could have done differently to avoid that
scenario

They could have waited until Scotland actually was a burden rather
than an asset.

Eh? The timing of the vote was entirely out of "our" hands (unless we
wanted to act like a schoolboy bully)

Given that, how do you think that we should have defended the union in time
for someone else's choice of voting day?

tim

Graham Murray

2014-09-11 09:44:06 UTC

Post by tim.....
No it's not. If Scotland were to remain in the "pound" zone without
UK treasury oversight, the rest of the world would worry that Scotland
will rack up huge debts that the RUK would have to pay off. This
would push up RUK interest rates by at least 1, and possibly 2,
percentage points.

Why? If Scotland were in the pound zone without treasury oversight then
every pound in the Scottish economy would have had to have originated[1] in
a withdrawal of a pound from a UK bank. Just like a UK company or
individual the Scottish economy would not be able to create currency it
would have to obtain it as payment for exports or by borrowing, and if
it defaulted on its repayments why would the UK government be any more
obligated to pay it off then they would if a UK citizen or company
defaulted on a load?

[1] Either directly or indirectly in the form of credit from a source
which ultimately derives from a UK bank.

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 17:32:52 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

Scotland won't be a new member. Along with RotUK, Scotland would be an
existing EU component undergoing a physical and political change. As
demonstrated with Germany and Denmark, the EU does not have the "one
size fits all" membership policy alleged by anti-EU proponents. The
matter to be dealt with would be the change in circumstances of one
existing member becoming two, with the danger of being followed by one
leaving.

Post by Jeremy Double
In this case, the Scotland-England border would become the Schengen border,
and there would have to be passport control on the Scottish side for people
entering or leaving Schengenland.

... if people don't simply walk/swim across the border.

bob

2014-09-10 18:40:42 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

As it stands, nobody know what will happen to Scotland and the EU
because nothing like Scottish independence has happened within the EU
before and the EU has resolutely refused to make any statement of any
kind about the outcome. Previous changes of extent of the EU due to
changes in borders of member states where the number of EU member
states before and after the changes has not changed. As a lot of EU
institutions involve a 1 representative per member state, changes to
the number of member states in the EU are likely to be significantly
more contentious than simply changing the extent of existing members.

Robin

tim.....

2014-09-10 19:33:05 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

I'd bet my life that an exception to this "likelihood" would be found.

It's of benefit to absolutely nobody

tim

Mizter T

2014-09-10 21:12:49 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
Yep, it'll be exactly like they do at the border between the UK and the
RoI. It stops all the illegal immigrants arriving from the bogs (or
hiding in the bogs).

The difference from Ireland is that if an independent Scotland is allowed
to join the EU, then the likelihood is that like any new EU member they
would have to sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

Welcome to the world of realpolitik, where nerdy arguments about what
the EU supposedly requires melt under the harsh light of reality. If
Scotland goes for independence, the EU will (eventually) come to an
arrangement to admit them, sans Schengen requirement and quite possibly
sans central bank requirement too.

There is zero chance of that happening.

Joyce Whitchurch

2014-09-10 20:26:35 UTC

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.

Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.

And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Graeme Wall

2014-09-10 20:34:05 UTC

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 21:02:27 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:05 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom

In practice, the subject matter extends without objection to all of
the British Isles and Channel Islands irrespective of political
boundaries.

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 06:57:35 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:05 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom…

In practice, the subject matter extends without objection to all of
the British Isles and Channel Islands irrespective of political
boundaries.

Woosh!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:36:37 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:57:35 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:05 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom

In practice, the subject matter extends without objection to all of
the British Isles and Channel Islands irrespective of political
boundaries.

Woosh!

Oh, you were being naughty ! ;-)

This way round might have been better :-

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

In practice, the subject matter extends without objection to all of
the British Isles and Channel Islands irrespective of political
boundaries.

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom

mcp

2014-09-10 22:53:41 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:05 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I gather one option is to refer to the Former United Kingdom

So this group will be renamed fuk.railway?

Roland Perry

2014-09-10 20:49:35 UTC

In message <2f04bfc0-c066-4604-b24d-***@googlegroups.com>, at
13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though.
Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and
views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets between
England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater latitude for
missed connections).

--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 21:12:07 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own UIC country code?

Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh traffic though.
Over on the mainland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed do Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
See UIC fiche 920-14 at <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group but news and
views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets between
England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater latitude for
missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The EU
acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vorstellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf]
so that route of "inheritance" would also apply as long as either
party was in the EU.

David D S

2014-09-11 01:59:42 UTC

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date

at 13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own

UIC country code?

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations). It
(probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or Scotch-Welsh
traffic though. Over on the mainland, the countries of the
former Yugoslavia have their own individual codes now, as indeed
do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See UIC fiche 920-14 at
<http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country
code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the
Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of
uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK
group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they
help us to understand the UK scene better".

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets
between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater
latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The EU
acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor
stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of
"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in the EU.

If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/9/11 9:57:19

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 03:22:57 UTC

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date

at 13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own

UIC country code?

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets
between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater
latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The EU
acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor
stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of
"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in the EU.

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate exclusion
to the general rules for successor states. In any case the relevant
specified member in article 23 of the UN Charter is the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which would no longer
exist although the UN has made previous changes to the Security
Council's membership without amending article 23. I doubt if a future
Scottish government would have the same delusions of grandeur as RotUK
so the seat will probably stay with them.

David D S

2014-09-11 04:09:18 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:49:35 +0100, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
In message

13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch >>
leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own >> UIC country
code? >> > >

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations).

It >> > > (probably) wouldn't matter for Anglo-Scottish or
Scotch-Welsh >> > > traffic though. Over on the mainland, the
countries of the >> > > former Yugoslavia have their own individual
codes now, as indeed >> > > do Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See
UIC fiche 920-14 at >> > > <http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>.

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its country
code for domain names? SC has already been taken by the
Seychelles.
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of
uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK
group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome if they
help us to understand the UK scene better".

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets
between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a

greater >> > latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The

EU >> acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor

stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of >>

"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in the EU.

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it
being done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to
say that it should have a permanent place on that UN security
council, along with rUK?

What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/9/11 12:08:26

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 05:00:11 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:49:35 +0100, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
In message

13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch >>
leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own >> UIC country
code? >> > >

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat reservations).

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets
between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a

greater >> > latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The

EU >> acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor

stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of >>

"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in the EU.

What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

The UN carried on with Russia in the chair but AIUI without formally
changing the rules rather than acknowledging Russia as being a
successor although that succession seems not to be the direct result
of an existing treaty (when a successor state would naturally
"inherit") but more by common consent. Something similar seems to have
happened with China where the original Security Council member was the
pre-revolution China until 1971 when by resolution the chair was
passed to the PRC.

David D S

2014-09-11 05:14:07 UTC

On 11 Sep 2014 01:59:42 GMT, "David D S"

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:49:35 +0100, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
In message

13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch >>
leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own >> UIC country
code? >> > >

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat

reservations). >> It >> > > (probably) wouldn't matter for
Anglo-Scottish or >> Scotch-Welsh >> > > traffic though. Over on the
mainland, the >> countries of the >> > > former Yugoslavia have their
own individual >> codes now, as indeed >> > > do Slovakia and the
Czech Republic. See >> UIC fiche 920-14 at >> > >
<http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article312>. >> >> > >

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its

country >> >> > > code for domain names? SC has already been taken by
the >> >> > > Seychelles.

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of
uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an

UK >> >> > > group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome
if they >> >> > > help us to understand the UK scene better".

Post by Roland Perry
I think we are missing a much more important issue: will

tickets >> >> > between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in
effect a >> greater >> > latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the

rules >> >> would be inherited by both as successors to existing
treaties. The >> EU >> acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor

stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of
"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in

the EU. >> > >> > If it is interpreted as two successor states, then
I can't see it >> > being done consistently, because then, wouldn't
Scotland be able to >> > say that it should have a permanent place on
that UN security >> > council, along with rUK?

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate

exclusion >> to the general rules for successor states. In any case
the relevant >> specified member in article 23 of the UN Charter is
the "United >> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which
would no longer >> exist although the UN has made previous changes to
the Security >> Council's membership without amending article 23. I
doubt if a future >> Scottish government would have the same
delusions of grandeur as RotUK >> so the seat will probably stay with
them.

Post by David D S
What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

Ok. So it could occur with little problem. That's a bit of a pity,
because, agreeing
with your previously written idea of the rUK having delusions of
grandeur, it
would have been an appropriate point to step down from the permament
position it has. This would be one part of its process of accepting
that it is
no longer a big world power, but a middling country with a more
important
past than its present. I think that is a key think the UK needs to do
in order
to stop implicitly relying too much on past glory. Once it has accepted
that,
then it can start working properly for its future.

--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/9/11 13:09:33

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 05:45:55 UTC

On 11 Sep 2014 01:59:42 GMT, "David D S"

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:49:35 +0100, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
In message

13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch >>
leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own >> UIC country
code? >> > >

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Yes, if they want to use UIC systems (e.g. seat

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Meanwhile, what will an independent Scotland use as its

country >> >> > > code for domain names? SC has already been taken by
the >> >> > > Seychelles.

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of
uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an

UK >> >> > > group but news and views from foreign parts are welcome
if they >> >> > > help us to understand the UK scene better".

Post by Roland Perry
I think we are missing a much more important issue: will

tickets >> >> > between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in
effect a >> greater >> > latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the

rules >> >> would be inherited by both as successors to existing
treaties. The >> EU >> acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor

stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of
"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate

Post by David D S
What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

A few TV and newspaper commentators have more or less claimed that
being bumped off the Security Council could be a consequence of
Scotland being removed from the UK. Perhaps this explains the apparent
panic that some Unionist politicians seem to be suffering from ?

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:37:12 UTC

Post by David D S
What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

AIUI, the USSR didn't transform itself into anything. All its member
states left, including what is now called the Russian Federation (= what
we usually just call Russia), and thus there was nothing remaining to be
the USSR, so it ceased to exist.

The USSR was not really comparable to the UK (even if a few Scottish
nationalists like to think the UK is a federation, rather than, erm, a
united kingdom). It would be more like a situation where a future
English devolved parliament and its counterparts in Scotland, Wales and
NI all declared independence from the UK at about the same time, leaving
the UK prime minister of the day sat in Chequers on his own with nothing
to run.

Russia inherited the power and influence because it was biggest,
stongest, had the nukes and was unlikely to collapse. The Baltic States
consider their incorporation into the USSR to have been an illegal
occupation (comparable to Poland's incorporation into Germany) so wanted
out, and no-one would consider it a good idea to give the Caucasus or
the *stans access to the big red buttons.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 18:18:50 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:37:12 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by David D S
What happened when te USSR transformed itself into what it is today?

The general comparison is that both were countries in one union rather
than one country formed from ex-countries which had ceased to exist.

Post by Arthur Figgis
It would be more like a situation where a future
English devolved parliament and its counterparts in Scotland, Wales and
NI all declared independence from the UK at about the same time, leaving
the UK prime minister of the day sat in Chequers on his own with nothing
to run.
Russia inherited the power and influence because it was biggest,
stongest, had the nukes and was unlikely to collapse. The Baltic States
consider their incorporation into the USSR to have been an illegal
occupation (comparable to Poland's incorporation into Germany) so wanted
out, and no-one would consider it a good idea to give the Caucasus or
the *stans access to the big red buttons.

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 06:59:05 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
I doubt if a future
Scottish government would have the same delusions of grandeur as RotUK
so the seat will probably stay with them.

You've not listened to Master Salmond then?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:38:24 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:59:05 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
I doubt if a future
Scottish government would have the same delusions of grandeur as RotUK
so the seat will probably stay with them.

You've not listened to Master Salmond then?

You have managed to find anything about Scotland joining the Security
Council ?

Optimist

2014-09-11 07:06:54 UTC

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date

at 13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Chris Miles-Patrick Date
If Scotland leaves the UK union, will they have to get their own

UIC country code?

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets
between England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater
latitude for missed connections).

If the eventual result is two successor states then IMU the rules
would be inherited by both as successors to existing treaties. The EU
acceded to the uniform system in 2011
[http://www.otif.org/fileadmin/user_upload/otif_verlinkte_files/01_vor
stellung/01_allg_info/OTIF_Info_09_2013_e.pdf] so that route of
"inheritance" would also apply as long as either party was in the EU.

RotUK? It would still be the UK - the "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 07:30:36 UTC

Post by Optimist
RotUK? It would still be the UK - the "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

Slight problem, only England is a Kingdom.

If proposals for further devolution come about then it could be the
United Kingdom of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Yorkshire and Kernow,
with Wales. Northern Ireland can join Scotland.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:38:22 UTC

Post by Optimist
RotUK? It would still be the UK - the "United Kingdom of England,
Wales and Northern Ireland".

Slight problem, only England is a Kingdom.

Not since it was meged with a neighbouring kingdom to form a single
united kingdom... that's the point!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:41:42 UTC

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:30:36 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Optimist
RotUK? It would still be the UK - the "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

Slight problem, only England is a Kingdom.
If proposals for further devolution come about then it could be the
United Kingdom of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Yorkshire and Kernow,
with Wales. Northern Ireland can join Scotland.

No thanks.

John Levine

2014-09-11 15:25:25 UTC

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate exclusion
to the general rules for successor states.

They seem to have transferred the Soviet Union's seat to Russia
without also putting Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Uzbekistan on the
security council.

There are real issues in Scottish independence, but this is not one of
them.

By the way, the biggest disadvantages to a country not controlling its
own currency is that it doesn't have a central bank to finance its
debt. and they can't adjust exchange rates when purchasing power
parity gets out of whack. Compare UK gilts to Greek or Spanish bonds
for the details.

--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

bob

2014-09-11 16:46:18 UTC

Post by John Levine

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate exclusion
to the general rules for successor states.

They seem to have transferred the Soviet Union's seat to Russia
without also putting Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Uzbekistan on the
security council.

France remained one of the five when Algeria split off and France
reconstituted itself as the fifth republic.

Robin

Charles Ellson

2014-09-11 17:49:27 UTC

Post by John Levine

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate exclusion
to the general rules for successor states.

They seem to have transferred the Soviet Union's seat to Russia
without also putting Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Uzbekistan on the
security council.

1- As I implied, the UN seems to be making some of the rules on the
hoof.
2- Have any of those other countries complained ?

The status of "successor state" is subject to various factors
including e.g. the manner of division of the original state and
agreements/permissions between the new states. One original state that
splits could produce one successor state or two depending on the
arrangements and agreements arrived at.

Post by John Levine
There are real issues in Scottish independence, but this is not one of
them.
By the way, the biggest disadvantages to a country not controlling its
own currency is that it doesn't have a central bank to finance its
debt. and they can't adjust exchange rates when purchasing power
parity gets out of whack. Compare UK gilts to Greek or Spanish bonds
for the details.

bob

2014-09-11 18:25:35 UTC

Post by John Levine

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

That would assume that the UN does not have an appropriate exclusion
to the general rules for successor states.

They seem to have transferred the Soviet Union's seat to Russia
without also putting Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Uzbekistan on the
security council.

1- As I implied, the UN seems to be making some of the rules on the
hoof.
2- Have any of those other countries complained ?
The status of "successor state" is subject to various factors
including e.g. the manner of division of the original state and
agreements/permissions between the new states. One original state that
splits could produce one successor state or two depending on the
arrangements and agreements arrived at.

Or, indeed, zero. Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia both stated
that they were new states and not "successor states" to Czechoslovakia.

Robin

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-11 17:13:46 UTC

Post by David D S
If it is interpreted as two successor states, then I can't see it being
done consistently, because then, wouldn't Scotland be able to say
that it should have a permanent place on that UN security council,
along with rUK?

A nationalist I know (and his mates on social media...) seem to see the
UK being on the security council as a bad thing and one of the
objections to being part of the UK.

I've no idea how widespread it all is, but isolationism does seem to be
part of the nationalist cause.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis

2014-09-10 22:01:30 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
13:26:35 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
And most importantly, will we want to revise the Charter of
uk.railway? It currently states that "This is primarily an UK group
but news and
views from foreign parts are welcome if they help us to understand the UK scene better".

I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets between
England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater latitude for
missed connections).

And how viable are the curent cross-border services, if and when
Scotland joins the EU and so presumably open access is mandated and
subsidy might not be permitted (I've see this claimed as the reason some
cross-border links on the Continent are missing, but I've never felt
inspired to read the legislation to check how true it is).

I assume the sleepers will get killed off, and they will serve no
important purpose once Scottish politicians and the media don't need to
use them, and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Charles Ellson

2014-09-10 22:14:40 UTC

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:01:30 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<***@example.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Arthur Figgis
and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

The foul-mouthed ones seen on Channel 4 ?

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 07:15:00 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:01:30 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<snip>

Post by Arthur Figgis
and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

The foul-mouthed ones seen on Channel 4 ?

He did say hard-working.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 07:31:21 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:01:30 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<snip>

Post by Arthur Figgis
and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

The foul-mouthed ones seen on Channel 4 ?

He did say hard-working.

Err, no he didn't :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Bailie McWheeble

2014-09-11 09:19:35 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:01:30 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<snip>

Post by Arthur Figgis
and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

The foul-mouthed ones seen on Channel 4 ?

He did say hard-working.

Err, no he didn't :-)
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

He said hard wording, a Freudian slip perhaps?

Bailie

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

Mizter T

2014-09-10 22:20:36 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
[...]
I think we are missing a much more important issue: will tickets between
England and Scotland acquire CIV rules (in effect a greater latitude for
missed connections).

Of course, it's not as simple as some make out!

See the explanatory memorandum of the EU's third railway package,
specifically section 2 - "Need for coordination with the community
legislation on public service contracts" - in relatively plain English:

<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=?uri=CELEX:52004PC0139>

Post by Arthur Figgis
I assume the sleepers will get killed off, and they will serve no
important purpose once Scottish politicians and the media don't need to
use them, and the UK's money could be better spent on hard wording
English, Welsh and Northern Irish families.

One day the families of Northern Ireland might have finished with
expelling their hard words.

r***@gmail.com

2014-09-11 12:06:42 UTC

Post by Mizter T

Post by Arthur Figgis
And how viable are the curent cross-border services, if and when
Scotland joins the EU and so presumably open access is mandated and
subsidy might not be permitted (I've see this claimed as the reason some
cross-border links on the Continent are missing, but I've never felt
inspired to read the legislation to check how true it is).

Of course, it's not as simple as some make out!
See the explanatory memorandum of the EU's third railway package

Does that only apply south of the Thames?

Robin

Graeme Wall

2014-09-11 12:20:34 UTC