How the rest of the UK would have to negotiate with Scotland

If the Yes campaign does succeed in winning the referendum  the following issues amongst others have to be sorted out.

 

The rest of the UK should make clear in the negotiations with Scotland that

1. Scotland cannot remain part of the pound sterling nor have a stake in the Bank of England

2. Scottish banks that have needed UK financial support will in future be the responsibility of Scotland unless they choose to move their headquarters and registration. The rest of the UK will expect its share of the  money back for past rescues.

3, Scotland will be expected to take her share of the collected public debts. The rest of the UK will of course guarantee the whole debt, but Scotland will owe us her share of the interest and repayments.

4. Scotland will no longer be part of the BBC, the NHS, and the other major UK wide public bodies. Her parts of these will be split off and will be for her to manage.

5. It will be for Scotland to negotiate with the EU over a possible membership of that body for the new state.

6. All state property in Scotland will be awarded to Scotland, and all state property in the rest of the UK will be left with the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK will need to buy an Edinburgh property for an Embassy, and Scotland will need to buy a London property for an Embassy.

7. The rest of the UK will sit down immediately and seek to negotiate a new relationship with the EU which better reflects our dissatisfaction with the current relationship. Just as the EU will wish to alter the treaties to reflect the new country, so we will regard this is a good opportunity to renegotiate the whole thing. We want a relationship based on trade and political co-operation, not part of the Euro and centralising state and treaties.

8. Scotland will take financial responsibility for paying all unfunded public sector pensions in Scotland and the state retirement pension promised to her citizens by successive UK Parliaments.

9. The rest of the UK will make alternative arrangements for our nuclear submarines with Scotland allowing our use of the facilities for a transitional period. Scotland will cease to be defended by the rest of the UK., unless they pay for some new arrangement by agreement.

10. Public bodies in Scotland that have benefitted from Private Finance Contracts in the past will take responsiblity for those contracts and borrowings.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

246 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    11. All the above to be put before, and agreed by, the people of the rUK via a national referendum.

    If 4 million people, plus immigrants can decide their future, I do not see why I should be denied the same.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Indeed and on what authority are Cameron, Clegg and Miliband now offering them virtual independence if they vote no? With the uk still underwriting them? Certainly not English voters.

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:02 am | Permalink

        In a Telegraph article today despite some common sense opinions Farage also says Cameron should have offered Salmond dev max, with no consideration of the English position;

        “To make matters worse, the PM himself precluded “devo max”. The Scots have no way of keeping a UK link while extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I believe this option would have won the day but thanks to Mr Cameron, it is not on offer. “

        So it’s a full set of scoundrels then.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

          It’s an article about a referendum in Scotland, which Cameron not agreed should be held but insisted must offer only the two options of being part of the UK or not being part of the UK.

          It is not an article about the unjust treatment of England tolerated year after year by all of the main UK parties.

          Moreover as Farage points out in another part of the article:

          “The Scots’ rejection of the way in which Westminster operates is not unique to them. The English and Welsh feel it, too. Millions of voters are rejecting the entire British political class. Next May, at the general election, these people have a wonderful opportunity to express their discontent.”

          How any of this makes Farage a scoundrel is beyond me.

          • David Price
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

            Because he was advocating a solution that made the disparity of treatment between the Scots and the rest worse merely to blame Cameron for something that was engineered by others.

            Farage could so easily have advocated an approach that addressed the disparity but didn’t.

            Cmmpare and contrast his position with that of John Redwood on Newsnight on Tuesday.

            It sounds like Mr Farage cannot decide between supporting the UK or England or even just equitable treatment, it does seem he is not popular in Scotland so it’s a bit of a conundrum.

    • Sue Jameson
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      For sure. If the Scottish can have an in/out referendum.We demand one too. It’s long overdue and our relationship with the EU is too stifling and regulatory. We want our country back and a dedicated English Parliament.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      You know No 11 would not be allowed – our govt sees us as purely workers/taxpayers -with no rights -we are classed as worthless. we will be TOLD what we want and like, like mass immigration and the EU. Our host knows it is destroying us yet Cameron is hell bent on being one of the EU elite, selling this whole nation and country down the river for personal gain.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:24 am | Permalink

        Neil – There is a Westminster/media clique which has utter contempt for the English.

        It should now be evident that those of us who have been saying this for years were right.

        Thanks to our host for his recent broadcasts.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        And he won’t be the first one to do that Neil, not even the first Tory to do it!

        Tad

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Tooo true especially if and when it goes belly up and they made need bailing out

  2. Mark W
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    I very much regret, now the vote is close, not registering myself to a rental address in Scotland so I could vote “Yes”

  3. Richard1
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    In the case of 2) above where the UK govt is a major shareholder the govt should require those banks to move their HQs to London. We can’t be on the hook for and exposed to a foreign bank. There will also need to be a process of asking eg members of the armed forces to choose which of the 2 states they wish to work for. It should be out of the question for established units of British forces simply to be handed over. There needs to be a fair division of oil and gas reserves and it must be clear that the UK will not continue to subsidize Scottish wind power.

    • David Price
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      If a bank which owes money to the UK rehomes from Scotland to England wouldn’t England have then taken on it’s liabilities under the FCSC or whatever guarantee applies?

      Surely we want any bank which owes money to the government to say domiciled in Scotland so they continue to carry the debt they generated.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      The majority of the oil reserves are in international waters. If somebody comes up with an idea to store it at sea and transfer to super tankers, then that oil becomes the tax beneficiary to wherever it is unloaded.

      The EU has already made a judgement that one country cannot be held accountable for the subsidies paid by another for renewable energy.

      Most Scottish soldiers joined up for security and action. Being part of a coastal defence force doesn’t really give the same buzz.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 11:47 am | Permalink

        Almost all the oil reserves are in waters recognised as being Scottish.

  4. Mark B
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    Oh, and following on from yesterday’s comments.

    If people were as angry with our Politicians for giving powers away to another part of our own country, as they were with giving powers too the EU, then we would not be in such a mess as we now find ourselves.

    Worth remembering the next time you visit a ballot box.

    • APL
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Mark B: “If people were as angry with our Politicians for giving powers away to another part of our own country,”

      Mark, it all plays into the English sense of ‘fair play’, everyone is disadvantaged equally by being subject to the European Union.

      With some powers being surrendered to Scotland but not England, ‘that’s not fair’.

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    What a huge mess will have been created in either outcome. Will the foolish decision to give 16 year old’s the vote and the biased “yes” & “no” question choice have made all the difference? Was Cameron not a fan of the Nudge book? Perhaps he should have read it more and thought & acted upon it?

    Let us hope Scotland do leave the EU (as was threatened by the EU) and do not ever rejoin why would they want to.

    I cannot see that the rest of the UK should be trusting Scotland to repay any debt to the UK. I would have thought they would think on any ruse/trick they could to avoid paying the English anything.

    I see that the Governor of the bank of England has said that sharing a currency is incompatible with sovereignty. So why did John Major & so many in the appalling Major government want to destroy UK sovereignty with the ERM & aiming to force the UK into the EURO?

    Once again the EU is largely responsible for this split it could also spread to Ireland, Wales, across the EU to Italy & Spanish regions and elsewhere.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:23 am | Permalink

      It also seems we may well face blackouts this winter due the Cameron/Ed Davey green crap religion. One part of any settlement with Scotland should be that the UK will pay only the true market rate for all the electricity we buy, not any silly far higher green rates, of many times the true value.

      • turbo terrier
        Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        Futher to a previous reply

        There should be no agreements or shared power infrastructure. That way we the rest of us should benefit from over produced power from their turbines when the wind is strong and they do not want to pay out on constarint payments. Like the Denmark Norway scenairio.

        If the three stooges do anything even in the event of a no vote, it is to state the Scottish Parliament takes on FULL responsibilities for its renewable energy madness that has impacted and destroyed so many lives and areas of Scotland.

  6. alan jutson
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Whilst I agree that all of the major points you list will need renegotiation, (the very point I made on this site when this referendum was originally agreed), why have the better together group not publicised this before now, as I suggested at the time.

    Rather than arguing these points months ago, our Government (and the opposition) is now giving away millions, perhaps billions in a vain attempt at trying to claw back some votes after postal voting has already started !

    What all of the traditional Parties do not understand, is that the SNP, (like UKIP in the UK), are gaining huge traction, because people are prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face, because they are so absolutely fed up to the back teeth with those traditional parties and the double talk of past decades.

    Like him or loath him, Mr Salmon is showing some passion for his Country, and is fighting for his cause.
    In complete contrast, we have the so called wishy washy better together lot, who have nothing really to offer other than more give-aways, and could not fight their way out of a paper bag.

    Our lot suggest they will Re negotiate our position with the EU, Don’t make me laugh.
    Is it any wonder DC is simply not believed, he cannot even put a sensible case to keep Scotland !

    We now have three Party leaders grovelling to Scotland with some vain hope that with bribery of our money, it will make some difference.

    What a disgusting scenario !

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      At last some very large businesses are actually spelling out the scenario if Scotland does vote yes.

      It will be these large employers and the financial institutions that will perhaps move opinion in the end.

      Can understand why they perhaps did not speak out some time ago, better late than never I suppose, but shame it was after postal voting started.

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    The largest problem is that any carve up of the UK and democracy will, thanks to Tory & Cameron’s unpopularity, be largely organised by Miliband and the Labour party. Doubtless they will find some ways to ensure it helps Labour politically and restricts English democracy to a veneer.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      Yes. It’s called Balkanization, and it is part of an EU Plan. Go and read Peter Hitchen’s blog for more.

  8. Peter van Leeuwen
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    I cannot help but having a premonition of the 2017 referendum:
    A strict Mr Juncker laying out the tough negotiation red-lines for a likely exciting UK, while all the EU heads of state travel (a bit late) to the UK in a huge declaration of love for Britain. 🙂

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      Peter

      Go and read Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. I would love it, just love it* if your Little Emperor tried that. As for the others, they will be welcomed, offered a cup of tea, and then asked to leave – politely, as we have always done.

      We just want to be good friends, neigbours, and trading partners.

      * Copyright Kevin Keegan – ex-Newcastle United Manager.

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        @Mark B: I know article 50. It proves that this is all your national decision, even no referendum required.

        • David Price
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

          A referendum may not be required but in a democracy some method must be used to determine what the view of the demos is. Otherwise a government would risk being dictatorial and autocratic especially if it was clear that many in that demos have a specifically counter view.

          In a democracy the government should reflect and follow the views of the demos, not the other way round otherwise it isn’t a democracy no matter how much you dick around with voting schemes and fine points of regulations and the law.

    • Alte Fritz
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

      Well, yes. The EU chaps, like our own establishment, would fail to imagine the unimaginable.

      This week’s performance is serious, but, in truth, more than anything, it is a national embarrassment.

    • English Pensioner
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      The EU will spend billions of money on propaganda and give lots of false promises which they have no intention of keeping. They can’t afford to lose us as they wouldn’t have any other country to boss around as none of the others would be such fools.

  9. JoeSoap
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Point 2.
    I don’t think we should take on any banks or financial institutions in this country with any outstanding liabilities which aren’t themselves covered with bona fide assets. The Scots will need to keep these institutions with whichever guarantees they might be able to raise, unless they can come up with assets to cover those liabilities unless or until they are covered. Would we, for example, take on Anglo Irish in a similar way?

    • David Price
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      Agreed (just commented similar above then read you post).

  10. Amanda
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Quite frankly, I hope Scotland votes yes .

    • Mark W
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      I think alot of us think that a “Yes” vote is highly desirable now. For many years I saw myself as British and dismissed the term English as I’d always been pro union. Now with all the sweeties and goodies being promised to Scotland on the back of English, Welsh and Northern Irish backs I wish them to leave.

      Viva the United Kingdom of South Britain and Northern Ireland (Sudan managed a “South”)

    • Christine Constable
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Well done John, that is certainly a start.

      I would like to see a really tough deal for Scotland, no favours and the full burden of their decision shouldered in full.

      You must start that process of getting English MPs to start standing up for English interests. There is a huge concern that rLabour and rLibDem will try and rip England off and take what they can to line the electoral pockets of the Socialist Peoples Republic of Scotland so the Tories as the largest English supported party had better stand for election on the ticket of doing the deal with Scotland in England’s favour otherwise they won’t stand a chance in hell of ever getting elected and a betrayal of the English in any negotiations will finish Conservatives for ever.

      Personally I think you should stand as PM John, I think we could really get England into shape and start a new proud future having shed the cheats and charlatans of Scotland.

      Making Wales stand on its own two feet and also Northern Ireland would also be a good job while we are doing the cleaning.

      Personally I am looking forward to seeing the flag of St George flying over Westminster – many of us will never bother to look north of the Border again and after this pantomime and disgusting exhibition the Scots as a country will be dead to many in England. Good luck with their economy they are going to need it!

  11. JoeSoap
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Point 5
    I would have thought the fracture of a state into 2 states will trigger the EU to argue that both states need to re-apply for membership, and given that this would very likely give rise to a transfer of powers would signal a referendum on whether each new state accepts the outcome?

    • Mark W
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Oh I do hope so, a referendum after a period of being quite secure in the position of “out” would be wonderful. It won’t happen though

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      The governments of the other EU member states would decide whether to accept that the somewhat diminished UK was still essentially the same party with which they had made the original contract, so there could just be a few adjustments, eg to voting weights, made by secondary legislation without any need to change the treaties. So far there has been no indication that any of them would take the view that the continuing UK had become such a different country from before that the present treaties were no longer valid. In contrast there is no way that Scotland could become a new EU member state without amending the EU treaties.

  12. JoolsB
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    By the rest of the UK John, do you mean Wales, NI and well, the rest of the UK? Seeing as all three parties have gone out of their way to make sure England alone in this (dis) United Kingdom has no voice, who speaks for England? No-one that’s who. Not one of the UK MPs currently squatting in English seats can be trusted to look out for England’s interests when negotiations take place. We only have to look at their record so far to know that England will get shafted as usual.

    • Chris S
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      You only had to watch Newsnight last night to see that there is one MP that stands up for England

      A certain John Redwood !

      • APL
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29138482

        JR: “Why should you intervene? You’re Welsh”

        Actually the discredited Hain is of South African origin, he should go back there and screw up their democracy and economy. If he’d be permitted *ANY* role in South African politics at all!

        Reply He lives in Wales and represents a Welsh constituency.

        • APL
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

          Hain: “…that was on a floored model, people thought they were being sold a pup and they were .”

          Missed a trick there Mr Redwood,

          The obvious retort would be, ” then why did you support trying to deceive the English people?”

          • APL
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

            last post,

            “a floored model” – a flawed model.

        • APL
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          JR: “He lives in Wales and represents a Welsh constituency.”

          But he is not Welsh.

          I lived in Wales, because my mother was English had an English accent. Not many Welsh people considered me Welsh.

          This is the new world that Alex Salmond has brought about!

          • David Price
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

            It should not matter where you were born as long as you have thrown in your lot. If Mr Hain has given up South African citzenship then why shouldn’t he represent his adopted country.

            If he hasn’t well I wouldn’t vote for him.

          • APL
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

            JR: “He lives in Wales and represents a Welsh constituency.”

            From Wiki:

            “He contested Putney in the 1983 and 1987 general elections but was defeated on both occasions by Conservative David Mellor ”

            Suppose he’d have won in Putney, would that have made him a Londoner?

            Reply Yes, an MP has to be strongly identified with the area they represent, either by birth or by adoption.
            I am English by birth and my mother came from Reading, very close to where I now represent.

          • APL
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

            “would that have made him a Londoner?”

            Rather, I mean, would that have made him English?

          • APL
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

            JR: “Yes, an MP has to be strongly identified with the area they represent, either by birth or by adoption.”

            So in this case, Hain didn’t much care where he clambered on board the gravy train. If it were Putney in 1983 he’d now be claiming to be English, or as it turned out he was foisted on Neath. PRESTO!! he’s Welsh.

          • APL
            Posted September 12, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

            David Price: “It should not matter where you were born as long as you have thrown in your lot.”

            To an extent, I’d agree. But the motives for abandoning your native country can reasonably be scrutinised.

            So an imaginary person, who opposed Apartheid might have *gone to* South Africa to oppose the iniquitous regime in the belly of the beast.

            But no, our hero leaves South Africa, where opposing the regime might have landed him in prison, exposed him to beating by the police, or had he really been a irritant to the regime he might have risked being ‘disappeared’.

            Instead, our hero would rather demonstrate in England where he might be locked up for 24 hours for drunk and disorderly.

            I posit that he is an unscrupulous opportunist, with no principles and as much backbone.

            Now his children if any, born her – they could reasonably be called British, and they should be permitted to stand for election to Parliament where their decisions affect other British people.

            First generation opportunists? Not so much.

          • APL
            Posted September 12, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            Apologies Mr Redwood: I’d like to add some corrections to my earlier post. Publish as usual at your discretion.

            “Now his children if any, born her ”
            Now his children if any, born here

            and

            “First generation opportunists? Not so much.”

            Immigrant opportunists? Not so much.

            It boils down to how much we think being British* is actually worth.

            The fact that anybody may wash up here and immediately be assigned the full privileges of British birthright tends to suggest our political class don’t think much of it.

            * In the context of my post, British is equivalent to English or Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish. A quality that is valuable which should be conferred on an individual of good character as a privilege not a matter of convenience.

    • William Gruff
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

      Here, here. I have been saying precisely that since 1997, when the Scotch and Welsh were given the opportunity to change the constitutional structure of the ‘U’K, and begin the process of its dissolution, while the people of England, at least 84% of the total, were completely ignored. The British government has always put the interests of the little nations of the ‘union’ before those of England and few can doubt that in any dissolution negotiations that may follow the impending referendum we in England will be ignored again.

      How many English citizens can trust their MPs to put England’s interests first in any independence talks with Scotland? I’m not at all sure that I can.

      • cosmic
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:14 am | Permalink

        There was an element of feeding the chick making the most noise and with the 1997 settlement, a manipulation designed for electoral advantage – which has backfired.

        I share your fears that the UK government would be weak and useless in any negotiation with an independent Scotland and attempt to be reasonable with unreasonable people. The recent caperings and panicky inclusion of Devo Max do nothing to suggest otherwise.

  13. Mr Smith
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    And in the event of a yes vote who will negotiate these points from the English perspective? I read somewhere else that the intention is that Scotland would sit around the table with representatives of the UK, Welsh and NI governments. No voice for the most populous nation. Its absurd.
    In many ways of more concern is what happens in the event of a no vote given the obscene bribes now being offered to the Scottish voters on top of the already heavily biased Barnet formula. Who will be expected to pay for this largesse? The people with no voice at the table. Where are all the English MPs and why aren’t they vociferously standing up for their country and constituents? I have never despised Westminster more than I do today.

    • Mark W
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Exactly, the bribes are obscene and not theirs to offer. It is high time that Westminster had a sitting of English MPs only. (We don’t need some toytown parliament for another bunch of party sycophants to occupy).

      I’m no fan of Cameron but he has no business resigning following a “Yes” vote. There’ll be more important business than a Conservative Party leadership election.

      Although I think a General Election should come swiftly on the back of a “Yes” vote without the scottish constituencies returning and some temporary situation for the Scottish toytown parliament to communicate like other UK protectorates such as Bermunda until it is ready to be fully independent.

      Maybe to be fair some thought should be open that the Scots wouldn’t want independence once they see the negociated deal and would want a referendum for back in. I think to be fair that would need to be back to a pre 1999 situation.

    • DaveM
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Mr Smith, just to expand on your very valid point:

      “the obscene bribes now being offered to the Scottish voters BY SCOTTISH LABOUR BACKBENCHERS!!!! (who were in opposition last time I checked)”

      “Where are all the SPINELESS English MPs and why aren’t they vociferously standing up for their country and constituents?” – ANSWER: difficult to be vociferous with your head in the sand or with duct tape placed on your mouth by your pro-Scottish anti-English pro-EU neo-socialist leader.

      Be careful how you use the “E” word Mr Smith. In the HoC the use of the words England and English (and any other derivatives thereof) is, I believe, considered – at best – to be seriously offensive, and at worst can lead to….who knows what. With the ultra-intrusive laws now in existence, we may have to find a code word to describe our green and pleasant land. Which, incidentally, was once considered to be the birthplace of modern democracy.

      I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!

    • JoolsB
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      There are no English MPs, only UK MPs elected to a UK Parliament pretending to ‘represent ‘ English constituencies, that’s the problem. Like you say, unlike Scotland, Wales & NI, we the people of England have no voice and therefore no-one to represent us or stand up for our interests or demand an end to the blatant discrimination against our young, our sick and our elderly by successive anti-English UK Governments, this Tory led one included. As we see all too often, our spineless self serving politicians with English seats put the interests of the rest of the ‘UK’ first and foremost every time. England comes a very poor last. They have done absolutely nothing to demand a fairer deal for England since Labour’s gerrymandered lopsided devolution act and unfortunately what’s in the best interests of their English constituents doesn’t come into the equation as we will see whichever way Scotland vote.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      Hear hear Mr Smith

      Totally agree.

      Chickens will be coming home to roost. This has been one almighty cock up & Cameron is dead and the Conservative Party is dead whichever way this vote goes. A no vote & all the extra promises made to Scotland will not go down at all well in England. I think you will find that the English Tory majority in the shires may well find another party to vote for.

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

        Many of these extra promises were originally made by the Labour party a while back. In any event I haven’t heard “another” party making any statements in support of a wholely English representation, parliament or otherwise.

        If anything, according to Mr Farage’s article in the Telegraph he doesn’t thisk Mr Cameron went far enough and should have offered devo max.

        It is difficult to know who you really can trust at the moment.

        • libertarian
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

          David Price

          Its not about what any political party promises any longer. We’ve learned that ALL of them are a bunch of talentless wasters. Its now about the voters teaching them painful lessons within the awful undemocratic system we are foisted with. I’m predicting protest voting to teach Cameron and his useless MP’s a lesson

          • David Price
            Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

            I tend to agree that no-one is trustworthy now. It may be that people lodge a protest vote or simply disengage and don’t vote.

            Regardless, the British establishment needs an enema

  14. JoeSoap
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Point 8
    There might be trouble here. Most people reckon they contribute to their own state pension through NI. I know your theory is that this is actually part of a government Ponzi scheme which needs new members to keep it going, but I doubt many north of the border will see it that way.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      It might serve voters well to discover such things before they vote.

      But Mr Salmond is only asking for a “mandate to negotiate” is he not? Otherwise a concrete vision of the future and how it would be paid for would have been issued.

      The outcomes of this vote should have been framed before the process began.

      • alan jutson
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

        N S

        “The outcome of this vote should have been framed before the process began”

        Absolutely agree, as the vast majority I am sure do not have a clue as to the way very many services are funded at the moment.

        Given that Pensions are a pay this week for receipt next week, Scotland should need fund all State pensions in Scotland from the day of independence.

        Thus the same for healthcare, Benefits, tax credits, housing benefit, Job seeker allowance. etc etc.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

        “But Mr Salmond is only asking for a “mandate to negotiate” is he not?”

        Apparently not, apparently he wants instant independence the day after polling day if there is just one more vote for “yes” than for “no”.

        At least, that would be the position of the UK government according to what we read here; there would be no going back and asking the Scots whether they were sure that was what they wanted once it had become clear that the SNP had been telling them a pack of lies.

        Even though yesterday the Prime Minister was saying that this should not be regarded as like a normal election where people are making a decision for just the next five years, say, it would be for centuries.

        Reply Mr Salmond is asking for independence and that is what he will get if he wins.

  15. stred
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Don’t worry. None of this will happen after the three clots have visited and explained everything about the extra goodies the Former UK (United Provisionally) will be offering. At least HM the Q had the sense to stay out of it.

  16. Old Albion
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    You may be correct in all you say. You are better placed than me to know.
    Among the many other issues that will need addressing are;
    The design of a new flag to replace the (by then) out of date Union flag.
    But most importantly, the re-designing of the rUK constitutiuon to reflect political equality for the three remaining nations. This will require Westminster to actually recognise England exists.
    Mind you, in the event of Scotland seceding. How long do you think it will be before the clamour for independence from Wales becomes irresistable?

    • Monty
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      “The design of a new flag to replace the (by then) out of date Union flag.”

      No way do we need to change our flag. Nobody else can make us change our flag, we have every right to leave it as it is, and that’s exactly what we should do.

    • The PrangWizard
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      And by the way – Monmouthshire must be returned to England. As far as I understand it, about half a dozen Welsh MPs stole it by adding the name to the list of Welsh counties late at night just before a vote. A trick in other words. Monmouthshire is an English county.

      • Philip from Monmouth
        Posted September 19, 2014 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        Actually Monmouthshire is not an English county, we have always been Welsh. The myth (don’t think I should say lie) that we were an English county is one made by an English nationalist party. We can not be returned to England because we were never an English county.

  17. Richard1
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    If the Orkney & Shetland Islands vote by a clear majority to remain in the UK they should be given an immediate referendum allowing them to choose whether they will be part of Scotland or England in the future.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Why ? If Tower Hamlets voted in Bangladeshi Councillors and MP’s, would that automatically afford them the right to secede and join Bangladesh or India ?

      There is only so far you can go with this.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        No its quite different. The Orkney and Shetlands are a separately identifiable entity, handed to Scotland by Denmark as part of a royal marriage settlement in the late medieval period. No reason at all they shouldn’t get their own referendum just as Scotland has.

        • libertarian
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

          Richard 1

          Well using that logic the referendum would have to be to stay with an Independent Scotland or revert to being part of Denmark. Nothing to do with England

    • English Pensioner
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

      I thought they wanted to be part of one of the Scandinavian countries. After all, they are nearer to Bergen than to London.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        Well let’s ask them

  18. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    “5. It will be for Scotland to negotiate with the EU over a possible membership of that body for the new state.”

    As I’ve said before, ad nauseam, Cameron would prefer Scotland to make a seamless transition from being in the EU just as part of a member state to being in the EU as a new member state in its own sovereign right, and so not long after a “yes” vote he would probably be in Brussels, with Salmond in tow, trying to get the necessary changes to the EU treaties through Article 48 TEU on revision of the treaties.

    It would have to be Cameron who formally proposed the treaty changes, because under that article Salmond would have no standing to do so:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2010.083.01.0001.01.ENG#C_2010083EN.01001301

    “2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties.”

    Not the First Minister in the devolved government of part of a member state.

    The other governments might all agree to take Scotland along that Article 48 fast track to EU membership, but there can be no doubt that some would demand concessions such as Scotland pledging itself to join the euro; and it is entirely possible that at least one of them would refuse to allow Article 48 to be used and would insist that Scotland should apply to become a new member state through the normal Article 49 accession process, which would of course mean that Scotland spent some time outside the EU, and when it did join then like all new member states it would join with a binding legal obligation to adopt the euro at the earliest opportunity.

    Then the negotiations would have to centre on how to preserve uninterrupted and unimpeded trade between the EU member states, including the rest of the UK, and the new third country outside the EU, Scotland; and once again it is likely that concessions would be demanded in exchange for agreeing the new interim trade arrangements to apply while Scotland remained outside the EU.

  19. Narrow shoulders
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Teaching grannies to suck eggs.

    Who genuinely believes that our current rulers will get these without capitulating?

    I have no quarrel with the Scottish inhabitants (including sundry transient residents) voting for independence but I do fear how much of the separation I will be called to pay for.

    I particularly can not see Mr Cameron and clique using the opportunity to renegotiate our EU membership. It is more likely as Dennis Cooper suggests that the EU will take this chance to extract concessions from the smaller UK.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      Can we clarify that “renegotiation with the EU” actually means Cameron on his knees in Brussels saying “I’ve kept them in so now you can carry on with more plans to totally wipe out England, just remember my promised job Sir”. – -The only way for us to have control of our country is to be out – something which Cameron clearly has NO intention of doing.

  20. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    The border between Scotland and England will no longer be free passage as it will become an international border; especially important when rumpUK leaves the EU.

    If the Trident boats have to leave Scotland, then so will all the other nuclear power boats – they have to be co-located.

    Scotland will be responsible for its own defence.

    THERE WILL BE A REFERENDUM IN rumpUK TO APPROVE THE TERMS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT. One of Cameron’s best cards would be to say that the final decision rests with the people; some of whom already think the rest of us would be better off without the Scots in any event, and those of us who support the Union will be in no mood to look favourably on the Scots who have broken it.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      We already have people who would not be allowed entry into the UK at our ports and airports flying into Dublin. Crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, then coming to England on a ferry from Northern Ireland with no passport check. With Scotland as a foreign country this influx will get much larger.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

      Salmond having gained absolute power in Scotland, if the people here are stupid enough to vote for it, would probably charge England an exorbitant rent for the submarine bases rather than see them go. The country will be skint and need every penny or groat that it can get. My guess is that he would have the loony-tunes anti-nuke brigade locked up if they caused any trouble.

  21. Simon
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    I couldn’t agree more. However, I think that somehow the system will allow Scottish independence with a currency union, defence guarantee, funding for the NHS in Scotland and seats in Westminster ignoring the West Lothian question. Seemingly there has been absolutely no planning for Scottish independence. Cameron has been blindsided on each and every point to do with the referendum, so that everything is skewed to a yes vote. Brown’s intervention two days ago was nothing more than an invitation to the eligible voters in Scotland to vote yes. I suppose the one advantage of a yes vote is that Brown will be a big fish in an ever decreasing pond, never to darken our doorsteps in England again!

  22. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    What will be the nationality of the “Scots” currently living in the UK but outside Scotland?

    What will be the nationality of the “non-Scots” currently living in Scotland and entitled to vote in the referendum?

    • Old Albion
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Point 1. Quite obviously they will be Scots. Just as a Frenchman living in rUK will still be a Frenchman.

      Point 2. They will remain “non-Scots” who happen to live in Scotland and as a result were granted a vote.

      It’s very simple …………

    • fedupsouthener
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      I am English living in Scotland and I and other English people are saying that we will still be English no matter what Salmond thinks. What about Scots living in England then? Will they be expected to call themselves English?

      Nothing can change what or who you are – no matter how powerful the ‘president’ of Scotland thinks he is.

    • Bob Falfa
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

      “What will be the nationality of the “Scots” currently living in the UK but outside Scotland?”,,,,,,Scots

      “What will be the nationality of the “non-Scots” currently living in Scotland and entitled to vote in the referendum?”,,,,,,,,Your nationality would not change ,remember that there are English for Indy voters, I would expect that you are English ,I would be happy that you remain so ,and proud to be English as opposed to being British

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      I expect you wanted answers about legal status, which would not be “very simple” as one person has suggested.

  23. Margaret Brandreth-J
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Do you think that they will realise this or agree with it or will there be much argument ?

  24. APL
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    JR: “8. Scotland will take financial responsibility for paying all unfunded public sector pensions in Scotland and the state retirement pension promised to her citizens by successive UK Parliaments.”

    Can you estimate what these would be for Scotland?

    It was put about that Scotland could just default its debt obligations. But if these include the significant fraction of its public sector pension liabilities, I can see rioting in Edinburgh with in weeks.

    All those comfortable Morningside pensioners, suddenly penniless, wouldn’t go down very well.

  25. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    If Scotland chooses to use the pound, but is not in a currency union with rumpUK, then their “Scottish” pounds with which they have been familiar for many years will no longer be valid. They will have to use the same notes as the rest of us.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      If this happens, I would campaign to have Edward I on every note and coin. Just to remind them whose money they are using to pay their bills.

      • APL
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

        Mark B: “If this happens, I would campaign to have Edward I on every note and coin.”

        Chuckle

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      If The Royal Bank of Scotland re-located to London and continues to be largely state owned anyway I can’t see why ‘Scottish’ notes could not continue to be issued, in theory.

    • Bob Falfa
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

      With respect, nonsense
      The Scottish pound is underwritten by what is now the Bank of England, But the original set up was I believe under the Treaty of Union in 1706

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Well, at present the Scottish banks which issue banknotes are required to back them with deposits of sterling at the Bank of England, partly in the form of very large denomination paper banknotes, “giants” and “titans”. Whether or not that arrangement could continue must be a moot point.

  26. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    “7. The rest of the UK will sit down immediately and seek to negotiate a new relationship with the EU which better reflects our dissatisfaction with the current relationship. Just as the EU will wish to alter the treaties to reflect the new country, so we will regard this is a good opportunity to renegotiate the whole thing. We want a relationship based on trade and political co-operation, not part of the Euro and centralising state and treaties.”

    As you constantly remind us, JR, this is a coalition government and your chosen LibDem partners would not permit the UK government to pursue that policy even if the leaders of your party wished to do so.

    There has never been any legal reason to seek an “opportunity” to renegotiate, as under Article 48 TEU Cameron could put in proposals for treaty changes at any time he liked; he doesn’t have to wait for some other government to put in a proposal and then react to that, and he certainly doesn’t have to wait until our country is breaking up.

    As for the politics, Cameron would be in a very weak position to try to negotiate treaty changes to repatriate powers to the UK when he was essentially a supplicant begging for treaty changes just to cope with the impending break up of the UK.

    If you recall back in 2010 there was a good opportunity for Cameron to demand treaty changes in return for his agreement to the treaty change being demanded by Merkel to provide a legal basis for the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism, and he chose not to have make any use of it; so the idea that he would attempt this renegotiation when he was in a position of weakness rather than strength is fanciful.

  27. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Salmon says the Queen will continue as Queen of Scotland. But is that his call? What if the people of rumpUK do not like that idea?

    Who will own the buildings of the royal estate in Scotland?

    • Sebastian Weetabix
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Due to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 she is the Queen of Scotland irrespective of Mr Salmond’s opinion, or indeed yours.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        No, the UK Parliament has decided that.

    • Bryan
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      If the Scots continue as a Monarchy then the Queen will continue as Elizabeth 1st of Scotland.

      The Scots used to blow up letter boxes because they had ER11 on them.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      I think you need to go back to James the 1st and 6th for an answer to that question.

    • Bob Falfa
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

      She was crowned Queen of Scotland after the 1953 coronation in Edinburgh shortly after the London coronation, a very low key event the Queen wearing what I believe similar to when she goes walkabout
      The property would be owed by who ever owns them just now, I believe it would be Crown Estates in the case of the Palace of Holyrood and Balmoral is privately owned

  28. forthurst
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    If Scotland wishes to remain in the Commonwealth and acknowledge HM the Queen as Head of State, they need to appoint a Governor-General and provide him with a residence; if they do not wish to remain in the Commonwealth, then they will need to appoint their own Head of State. Having the Queen as Head of State is undesirable since because of our mutual proximity and the bad blood that has been inculcated in the Scots by the SNP, military conflict is conceivable.

    • Jeremy Hummerstone
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      Also: we should be represented in each other’s countries, not by ambassadors but by high commissioners.

  29. Andyvan
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    All excellent and reasonable ideas. Therefore I can categorically state that most will never be agreed. Scotland is so used to being subsidised and protected from the consequences of it’s actions that all those points will terrify their government. Responsibility, owe, paying back- all things that just don’t appear in socialists vocabulary, especially the Scots socialist version.
    That’s the reason they won’t vote for independence, much as I wish they would.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      There are a great many younger people in Glasgow who have no experience and no conception of the consequences of their actions. They have never known anything but plenty. That is the danger.

    • zorro
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      As you say, all sensible ideas hardly any of which Cameron would consider…. If there was a ‘yes’ vote, it will encourage factionalism. Personall, I suspect that ‘no’ will get more votes, and we will be faced with more subsidies and continued pushing for more ‘independence’ while clinging the financial apron strings…

      zorro

  30. Nick
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Scotland will take financial responsibility for paying all unfunded public sector pensions in Scotland and the state retirement pension promised to her citizens by successive UK Parliaments.

    ==========

    And how much would that be? You’re still not telling us.

    Meanwhile, how to profit from a yes vote.

    1. Open an account in Barclay’s in Berwick, over the border.
    2. Wait.
    3. Scottish Pund gets put in place, 1 to 1 with the Pound.
    4. Scottish Pund devalues.
    5. Convert Pounds to Punds and make a profit.

    You know a yes vote makes sense.

    • David Price
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      And what will have happened to the GBP exchange rate with the other countries we trade with?

      Neither of us will come out better for this, especially given the behaviour of many politicians and government on all sides.

  31. Brian Taylor
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    This should concentrate the minds of Cuvil Servants, and may make the referendum in 2017 redundant ‘!!!!!!!!!

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      I do not know if that was a typo Brian, but I like it.

      😉

    • David Price
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      Why? In divorces and bankruptcies the only people who benefit are the lawyers and accountants …

      This situation will merely give civil servants more to do, likely they will relish the situation and the senior types will see it as an opportunity to wield power and embellish their CVs to boost their future careers. Academics will have a field day as they get to play with theories and learned debates.

      Meanwhile, those who drive the economy will lose much for no benefit.

  32. John Chaytor
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    I am really concerned about the panic negotiations that are being rushed through to try and keep the Scots in the UK.

    If they vote No and get lots of new powers that have not been thought though it will be a disaster for the rest of the UK.

    I’ve been irked by the West Lothian question and the unfair Labour advantage with the current boundaries but if this goes ahead I will find in unacceptable to no have an English parliament.

    As shown on Newsnight last night, it will be in Labour’s interest to leave the English without its own parliament. Peter Hain’s suggestion that English matters would be dealt with by an English only committee but voted on by the entire house (with the built in Scottish Labour block) was outrageous.

    I can see the arguments already if there is a no result and an implementation of devo max.

    – We can’t complicate matters further – let’s leave things to settle down.
    – This is a Westminster only “inside the beltway” discussion – no-one down the dog and duck it talking about this.
    – The English have no appetite for devolution. Look at the regional assemblies, mayoral referenda results.

    I worry that we English are going to get stuffed again and I’m starting to get really angry about this.

    If the Scots vote No, I for one will accept nothing less than an English parliament.

    • John Chaytor
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      I forgot to add.

      I’ve never really thought myself as English during most of my life. I’ve always thought of myself as being British.

      Being from the North East I regarded English as equivalent to the Home counties – a bit like John Major’s cricket and village greens etc. English to me was the bottom half of the country.

      I suppose I am proof that this process over the last 20 years has triggered a resurgence of English nationalism!

      • Hysteria
        Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        Exactly my thoughts. I am English by birth and always identified as British. Have lived in Scotland for 23 years (and had planned to retire there ) . This whole fiasco has led to the likelihood that I will sell my house and move back to England – I have already started to move cash funds from Scottish to English financial institutions.

        The one good thing is that this referendum debate will force a more democratic and responsive government. And for what it’s worth – I don’t wish the Yes voters well !

        • fedupsouthener
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:13 am | Permalink

          I feel the same way Hysteria. I consider myself to be English but always put British on any official forms. I am proud of my British passport. I don’t know what will happen to that as I am living in Scotland.

          I was always told that many Scots did not like the English but thought it must be an exaggeration. When we first moved here we were sitting in a ‘beaters’ wagon on a shoot and every man inside said they would rather support Australia in the Rugby or anyone but England. That is when I realised the full extent of the way many Scots despise the English. Thankfully there are many who don’t feel like this but this referendum has done nothing to make me feel any more comfortable here. I do feel the anti English feelings are more robust the further north you travel. I just hope it doesn’t escalate after the referendum results.

      • Richard Hobbs
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        Well, I am from the West Country and my views follow very much your own. Like many others, I feel that the UK should now move to a federation with England getting it’s own parliament. I certainly don’t think anyone should take notice of anything Mr. Hain has to say! I am also getting more than fed up with all the anti-English rhetoric.

  33. Iain Gill
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Its not that simple. For instance we have the nuclear submarine bases, the missile storage facilities, the nuclear sites with long term decommissioning problems which need English skills, and so on.
    There are only a limited number of things which can be done with the trident boats, and missiles, while keeping them safe, there is no easy way to move them to England in the short term.

    • backofanenvelope
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      I feel sure that there are lots of things at Faslane that are not needed; installations will have grown like barnacles on a rock.

      Move the warheads to Aldermaston and the warhead/missile mating and loading facility to Portsmouth. Move the subs to Plymouth and the refits to Barrow in Furness. The whole thing could be slimmed down. While we were at it, tow HMS Gordon Brown 1 & 2 to Teeside for final fitting out and the warship contracts recently awarded to Govan move to Portsmouth.

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:37 am | Permalink

        Why couldn’t you move the missiles in the boats designed to carry them?

        If Barrow has suitable water then move the facilities there, move the investment and funding to Northern England instead of Scotland as well as relocate some of the shipbuilding back to Portsmouth.

    • zorro
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

      If they did vote ‘yes’, they will do a Hong Kong with the bases and lease them from the Scots….. And John, what is no.9….?

      zorro

    • Iain Gill
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      Indeed there are a number of decommissioned nuclear submarines, with reactors needing expensive long term decommissioning approaches, which would be very hard to move, docked in Scotland. I don’t think either Scotland or England wants to risk nuclear leaks from these, so we need to figure out the joint restofUK/Scotland approach to such issues.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      The boats are the least of our problems. If the present government had thought the process through our boats and their missiles would be now in the USA being refitted and serviced. After all it is an American system.

      Why cannot people understand just how many nuclear armed boats of all nations are within a 100 mile radius of our shores at any one time.

  34. Mike Hogmanay Stalla
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Excellent!

    Shame none of this will happen because our mealy mouthed government will go for Devo Max where the Scots simply deploy all our money to Ralf C Nesbitt etc ed.

    Me? I shall most certainly be applying for Scottish Citizenship. Although I have not (to my knowledge) a drop of Scottish blood in my noble Sassenach veins, I shall be very glad to receive free welfare, College Fees, Prescriptions all totally free from Privatization.

    Hoots mon outa my weigh! Hoo dya think ye arrrrrre? Now, where is my copy of William Topaz McGonagall?

  35. NickW
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    Where it is going to go wrong in a horrible fashion is that Salmond’s Venezuelan economic ambitions are going to hit a brick wall with predictable results.

    Salmond will blame the English and whip up a nationalist fervour which will result in (even more) attacks on the English and their outright persecution. Relations between the two countries will deteriorate to the point of war, which is probably Salmond’s ambition.

    I don’t see any way to avoid that outcome.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      If there is any war it will be within Scotland. There will be a huge backlash. It may start at the count. This will be a referendum like no other!

  36. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Send this to Salmond.

  37. Iain Moore
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood my I say well done on Newsnight. You really put Hain in his place. Loved it. Of the 650 MPs at long last we had a politician unequivocally speak up for England.

    Unfortunately it is not just the English hating Labour party who need to be slapped down , but Cameron and Osborne who are seeking to unpick England from within, with their city fiefdoms, and I gather, rather than seeking to respond properly to what is taking place in Scotland with all the constitutional goodies they are bestowing on them, Cameron along with Clegg is seeking to fob English people off with enhanced renationalisation, which we have already shown we don’t want.

    PS Hain tried the two classes of MP argument, that too needs to be slapped down, for devolution already created two classes of MPs, those who are elected in England, who are accountable for the policies they vote for, and a mercenary class of MP who come from Scotland Wales and NI, who aren’t accountable for the polices they vote for.

  38. Robert Taggart
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Well done Johnny – last night on Newsnight – vis-à-vis the ambush – Allegra Stratton and Peter Hain.
    The most important thing in the event of a YES vote ? – the unity of England – which be very much against the interests of Liebore – hence the line taken by that creepy individual Hain.
    A Federal British structure would only need a British Foreign, Defence, and Macro Economic Ministries – would it not ? No need (as you rightly pointed out) for a British Education Ministry.
    Cannot help but think that ‘Auntie Beeb’ be an added complication in any future settlement – if only because she will carp and criticise – from the sidelines !

    • Robert Taggart
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Nice one Johnny – first ‘crack of the whip’ at Prime Ministers Questions – just now !
      Alas, your ‘fifteen seconds of fame’ was followed by the expected / usual prevarication – for different reasons the three main parties fear an all England Legislature – with good reason !
      Keep up the good fight.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Robert

      I agree. But it is not those outside England we need to concern ourselves with, it is those on the inside. Those like our London Mayor, seem rather keen on Independent City States, answerable ONLY too the EU.

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        That could change – once BoJo enters Parliament and Government (?) again – assuming he does not see the Mayor of Lundun as his ‘fall back’ option !

    • David Price
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      Just saw the Newsnight programme and agree, well done keeping the focus on England rather than the disembowelling that Hain and others advocate. The cities & regions argument is solely for the benefit of Scotland and Wales and international socialism.

      If it were such an advantageous thing then why hasn’t regional assemblies ben offered to Scotland?

      I agree there should now be a federal structure for the UK as should have been worked through as part of devolution. but as a Welsh MP Hain and the others simply have no business interfering in the business of England.

  39. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I see the Telegraph is running a story headlined:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11086063/Labour-could-win-next-election-but-only-if-Scotland-votes-No.html

    “Labour could win next election – but only if Scotland votes No”

    “New poll predicts Labour victory in 2015 election but if Scottish MPs are excluded, there would be a hung parliament, with Labour three seats short of a majority”

    What the fools don’t seem to realise is that Cameron and his party preside over the break up of our country against the wishes of a substantial majority of people in England then their support in England will be damaged, and the damage will be the greater the more it is believed that the Tories have sought to engineer the end of the United Kingdom for their own narrow party advantage, a suspicion which already exists and is strengthened with every article setting out crude calculations of how the Tories would benefit from the people in Scotland no longer being involved in general elections.

    As I pointed out yesterday, those unpatriotic English Tories who assume that the rest of us in England share their desire to dump Scotland and the Scots because too few of them are now prepared to vote Tory are deluding themselves:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8958

    “English and Welsh people now oppose Scottish independence by 61% to 17%.”

    I’ve no doubt that the loss of the Union would play through into the voting patterns in the rest of the UK to a greater or lesser degree; having successfully rid themselves of all the enemies they’d carelessly made in Scotland over the decades, the Tories would then find that by doing that they had made a fresh lot of enemies in the rest of the UK.

    Reply Your understandable emotional attachment to the Union is distorting badly your normal forensic analysis. The Conservative party is trying to save the Union and is not thinking of narrow short term electoral advantage from Scotland leaving. All 3 main Westminster parties will seek to implement the wishes of the Scottish people – either way.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      I do have an emotional attachment to the United Kingdom, the same emotional attachment that Cameron claims to have. However I have a greater emotional attachment to England, which Cameron certainly does not share, and it is my longstanding view that it would be potentially disastrous for England to have a foreign, possibly unfriendly, government in control of the northernmost third of the home island. The supposed benefits to England from Scotland reverting to the status of an independent sovereign state are almost entirely illusory while the disbenefits are potentially huge. I have been following this for years and again and again I have seen Tory supporters coming out with their calculations of the potential electoral benefits to their party, not to England, in their comments on articles including on this blog. Once again they are deluding themselves; far from being their hoped-for perpetual Tory government in the absence of MPs elected in Scotland it is more likely that Cameron and the Tories would be blamed for losing the Union and that would further damage their electoral prospects.

      • a-tracy
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

        I can see where you are coming from Denis, however, what I’m hearing at work and from family is all the anti-English sentiment is beginning to grate on our nerves, we had a ten year Labour government with 40% of the cabinet Scottish even now with the Scots disposed ‘Tory South’ 5 of 22 members of the cabinet are Scottish. If the conservative English MPs are the only ones offering us England Devo Max and an offer to save costs by using the same MPs to vote on our English devolved issues then that’s more of a problem for the Scots, Welsh and N Irish funding two layers of government where we’re happy with one.

        • a-tracy
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

          Despised not disposed sorry

  40. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    JR: “The rest of the UK will sit down immediately and seek to negotiate a new relationship with the EU which better reflects our dissatisfaction with the current relationship.”
    Haven’t you being telling us continually that this is not possible because your party is in coalition and your leader’s partners of choice won’t let you?

    Reply If the Scottish MPs drop out of the numbers at Westminster the arithmetic changes!

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      But they won’t drop out ‘immediately’ and the arithmetic will not change ‘immediately’ so my question remains to be answered.

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:19 am | Permalink

        If the Scottish MPs are involved in the deliberations and decisions on the side opposing the Scottish government it won’t be a negiotiation at all but something completely different.

        BTW have you seen Mr Farage declaring the Cameron should have offered devo max but not one word about English parliament or devolution?

        Who can you ever really trust…

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

          We know who we can never trust.

  41. Bert Young
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Indeed , these are but a few of the conditions that would follow a “Yes” vote . We should not grovel or offer particular incentives at this stage of the game . I consider the visit to Scotland of the 3 political leaders hypocritical and smacking of panic ; Cameron certainly should keep his nose out of it – any further gaffs on his part will have an enormous result . I don’t wish to punish the Scots but I do want them to honour all debts and responsibilities of the past .

  42. Chris S
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    All very sensible as far as it goes but, as you say, there are many other areas not covered on your list.

    One of the most important is the future of our armed forces.

    The population of the UK in 2014 is 64.1 million and that of Scotland, 5.8 million.

    By population, Scotland would be entitled to take 8.51% of the UK armed forces, both manpower and equipment. As the SNP don’t want any nuclear component, I would suggest that they should not be given anything else in lieu.

    We have plenty of spare Challenger tanks in storage in Germany and far too many Euro fighter / Typhoons so they can have more than their fair share of those.

    As for the Royal Navy, the surface fleet has been cut back far too far and we need more fighting ships, not less : we will need to provide a proper defensive screen for the new carriers as well as carry out our traditional role of representing our country properly around the world.

    Scotland’s armed forces will be no more than a glorified Oil Platform Defence Force so they
    don’t need our kind of sophisticated Frigates and Destroyers. It will save face for the SNP if they stave off redundancies on the Clyde for a few years by building some suitable new little gunboats when we move all UK naval shipbuilding to Portsmouth and Plymouth.

    The moving of our Nuclear Submarine Force to Plymouth will be a great boost to the South West. ( Perhaps we could at the same time build a much-needed motorway between the end of the M27 and Plymouth ? )

    However, which country a serviceman chooses to fight for, is a highly personal matter and our servicemen must be given a free choice as to whether they stay with the Royal Air Force, The Royal Navy or the British Army or move to Scotland.

    I am quite certain that a very large proportion of Scots-born servicemen will want to remain within their existing UK units which will continue to operate on the world stage rather than become part of the Scottish Oil Platform Defence Force. They must be given the choice.

    Because we need to reverse the cuts in recent years, we will need more rather than less servicemen, particularly in the Army where the reserve strategy is proving to be an abject failure.

  43. Qubus
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    An excellent analysis of the situation.

  44. Iain Moore
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    The first thing that needs to be sorted out is who negotiates for us.

    Cameron in all the time as leader of the opposition never raised the West Lothian Question, even when he was confronting the embodiment of it in Gordon Brown. In fact Cameron has never had a good word for us, when he should have been incensed at the injustice of Labour’s constitutional dogs breakfast he went off to Glasgow to call us ‘Sour faced little Englanders’ . So the motivation to negotiate us a good deal isn’t there.

    As we have seen with Cameron’s premiership, he loves nothing better than showering foreigners with Aid money, while taking pleasure in wielding the big stick against people who he is supposed to think are his own people. The Conservative backbenches should know this for he attacked them on many an occasion as well as Conservative core support. So there isn’t just a lack of motivation within Cameron , but a twisted self loathing, which in negotiations would identify with Salmond’s point of view rather than ours.

    And finally Cameron is a PR man, he isn’t a negotiator.

    We need someone to negotiate for us who has a background in science, so isn’t bored by detail as Cameron is. Someone who has an MBA so understands costings and asset prices. Someone who has experience in industry as a negotiator. Before any negotiating points are listed, we need to get the right person to negotiate for us, we will need to get rid of Cameron and get David Davis in there.

    • William Long
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      I think JR would do a better job.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      You’re correct; the people involved need to be appointed fairly and quickly by the English Welsh and Northern Irish, by referendum of those people from a list of nominees .

      The current Parliament was elected to carry out the business of the Union, and this negotiation will relate to the business of England Wales and Northern Ireland only, so this invalidates the current political set up in the negotiations.

      A good team of 5 might be

      Home, Business – David Davis
      NHS, Media – Karren Brady
      Finance, Banking – John Redwood
      EU matters – Dan Hannan
      Chair – Nigel Farage

      Any other suggestions?

  45. Max Dunbar
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    This shambles will go on for years costing us billions and my guess would be that events will eclipse all these idiotic negotiations anyway.

    • cosmic
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      I’d say that was a fair assessment, because there appear to be unrealistic expectations raised by the yes campaign and it’s bound to be acrimonious with accusations on both sides of things being done through spite, rather than for any genuine advantage.

      I suspect that when this has been going on for a time, and the realities are fully appreciated, both sides will heartily wish it would just go away, but wheels will have been set in motion which can’t be stopped.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      I fear you may be right. The EU, for example, has not sorted out its inherent flaws and, provoking one its main trading partners is unwise to say the least.

  46. Antisthenes
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    On the bright side if Scotland secedes Labour will find it very difficult to gain enough MPs in the rest of the UK to form a government. Surely that alone is incentive for us on the right to wish for a resounding yes vote. That is not the only benefit for the rest us but I am convinced that the Scots will not bite off the hand that feeds them and they will not vote no.

    • David Price
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:24 am | Permalink

      It won’t be this simple. If the UK government and politicians wake up and acknowldege how badly they have treated the areas outside London, even in the South East, med their ways and actually do something about it then maybe.

      You have to obviate the need to vote Labour as the usual complacency will find other expression – a rise in LibDems for example…

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        PS – they must do this regardless of the outcome of the referendum

      • CdBrux
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        Quite right. Although a south east person (Bedfordshire) by birth and upbringing I went to university then lived for 10 years in Manchester. Much of the discontent felt by the Scots seems to be directed, in political terms, at the ‘Westminster elite’ who mostly look pretty similar from a distance. This is also felt outside of London and parts of the south-east and is a part of the reason why UKIP are on the rise and is certainly exploited by Farage and in particular UKIPpers on various forums. My experience shows that whenever Londoners come north of the Watford Gap they express huge surprise that life is so much cheaper (it is, but actually it’s London that is so much more expensive and London that is unrepresentative of the country as a whole) and can often accompany this observation with some condescending comment or two. Decision makers in Westminster & Whitehall are percieved as being so remote from most people outside the south east and to be fairly clueless about what happens outside the south east, I suspect this is a view held by many northern Tories and most crucially northerners (and South Westerners, East Anglians, etc…) that the Tories need to vote for them at the next election, after all getting a Tory majority requires these people to vote Tory when they didn’t last time!

        There is / will be a perception that simply creating an English parliament, in Westminster, will do nothing at all to change this. Some decision making and accountability needs to be transferred away from Whitehall and MP’s to local councils or grouping of councils such as the OneNorth grouping or a similar body grouping together local councils to form a joined up body for their area. I do not believe there is the appetite for more politicians (e.g. regional assemblies) as has been shown already. We have loads of city, county, town councillors and organisations already, let’s use them and transfer at least some power a little more to them alongside a transfer of resources away from Whitehall. This doesn’t have to be anywhere near as far as even for the current Welsh assembly – I would suggest local public transport is a good place to start as is already beginning to happen, but it needs to be much more noticeable than today.

  47. bluedog
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Looking good until 3). Salmond is a financial wizard and has already ensured that his North British Democratic Republic will start off debt free by repudiating Scotland’s share of the UK’s debt. He makes it all look so easy.

    On the other hand there has been recent speculation about Scotland’s credit rating, with Ireland’s A- in Standard and Poor’s terminology seeming reasonable. Now that Salmond intends to set a dangerous precedent by reneging on Scotland’s debt, your correspondent foresees a rating of B-, with interest rates that fully reflect the risks in both the sovereign debt and inter-bank markets. Indeed, the capital markets may simply shut Scotland out, although presumably Russia, Iran and North Korean might have a whip round on Salmond’s behalf.

    But these musings avoid the real issue. If UK debt rises by a notional 8% as a result of an 8% contraction in GDP, what do we do?

    Well, we’ve still got a navy.

    • Simon
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Yes, most of it is still being built in Scotland!

    • APL
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      bluedog: “Salmond is a financial wizard and has already ensured that his North British Democratic Republic will start off debt free by repudiating Scotland’s share of the UK’s debt.”

      Would you cite a source for this, please?

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      Only just. More by luck than judgement

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

      As has been repeatedly pointed out they’re not voting for Mr Salmond, an independent Scotland will probably have a completely different line up as current Westminster MPs jockey for more powerful positions in their own Fiefdom.

  48. formula57
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    A decent enough list to start with but it does omit all the many outrageous concessions and indulgences that will cost, otherwise disadvantage and serve to hamper future reform in the rest of the UK for decades if not in perpetuity.

    I remain confident that the soft, decadent home political establishment, eager to minimize through concessions and indulgences the effect of the dis-union and wholly unable from the outset to regard Scotland as a foreign power and treat it accordingly, will deliver such a deal.

  49. Ian wragg
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    But of course none of this will happen as your boss and the 2 other stooges will cave in and saddle the English taxpayers with underwriting Salmonds profligacy. Seeing as all 3 parties are anti England, we expect no better. Ukip will have a bonanza

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      UKIP support a “No” vote as far as I am aware. I have no idea why.

  50. Ian Hall
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    While initially reluctant to see our country break apart in such a haphazard fashion, I now don’t mind if Scotland wants to choose it’s own path. Given the divergence in political sentiment between us, it would allow the political landscape in the rest of the UK to be reset in a significant fashion, and make possible many outcomes such as (but not limited to) a speedier departure from the EU.

    However, independence must be full independence, not a pick-and-mix. Any idiot can wrap himself in either flag and proclaim visions, but there appears to have been very little time spent in the debate looking at the mundane realities that politics needs to address.

    Following on from this, your list should include:
    All sterling banknotes issued by Scottish banks cease to be legal tender in the UK on the date of independence.

    The removal of the deposit guarantee for banks located in Scotland.

    In the event of an independent Scotland refusing to accept it’s share of the existing national debt, the UK government must veto any attempt by Scotland to join the EU. No financial assistance to be rendered to a Scotland attempting to renege on debt sharing.

    All Scots citizens to be disbarred from voting in either House of Parliament.

    However, the largest elephant in the room is nationality. Do Scots believe that they can hold some sort of dual nationality, with unrestricted access to the UK when they see fit? Surely independence must force a choice.

    Logically:
    All existing UK citizens must be offered choice of Scots or UK citizenship.

    The current administration in Scotland must immediately begin issuing of passports to all prospective citizens. All passports registered to UK citizens in Scotland to become invalid for UK entry on the date of independence.

    Suitable border controls to be implemented on the English border.

    Scots citizens then have the same rights on entry as any other non-EU national.

    Why is none of this stuff talked about? The alternative is unrestricted free movement and rights to settle. Does either side propose/want this? Are the rest of the UK expected to just go along with this?

  51. formula57
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    On two points on your list: –

    Re 1. – Under the right conditions, there is ever prospect of Scotland keeping the £ surely? Either it does so through its own decision alone and thus has no arrangements with the Bank of England (as some countries use the USD now) or it negotiates a formal arrangement that would necessarily have to recognize Scotland would operate under various standard restrictions commonly proposed in such deals that might prove onerous for a proud, independent sovereign.

    Re 3. – The Scottish share of the national debt (including PFI obligations and other “off balance sheet” schemes etc.) need not remain owing to the UK for very long as Scotland should be encouraged to refinance itself in the public debt markets. Its debut issue as a sovereign could be an early demonstration of its newly-acquired status as a real country.

  52. Bill
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Agree. Of course what Scotland actually accepts after independence is going to be disputed. Already Salmond is saying that if he cannot have the pound, he will repudiate his share of the national debt. I am assuming he will continue to act in an utterly selfish and nationalistic way.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      Salmond is not a nationalist. He is a Salmondist.

  53. Corin Vestey
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Furthermore, as part of a negotiated settlement regarding air, land and sea defence Scotland will cede Faslane, Coulport and their land and sea approaches to the UK. Compensation will be paid to any Scottish citizen who no longer wishes to live in the area once it becomes part of England.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      At least this barmy idea is novel and makes a change from the tired old barmy idea that England should cede to Scotland all territory north of Hadrian’s Wall, including half of Newcastle.

  54. oldtimer
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    I agree with that list as a starting point. Here are other issues that will need to be determined, either through negotiation or simple decision.

    Mobile defence assets such as submarines, aircraft, ships, military vehicles and their relevant munitions if located in Scotland.

    Defence agreement including protection of seaways and airspace.

    Relocation of rUK related public service activities presently located in Scotland to rUK, such NS&I (in Glasgow) and others (DWP? HMRC? and others).

    Border controls and passport/ID agreement, necessary because of enhanced risk of illegal migration.

    Outside the public sector there are UK wide businesses, organisations and societies presently headquartered in Scotland. These will need to consider whether or not they should relocate to rUK; I imagine that in some instances they and their shareholders/members/clients will wish to do so. I understand that RBS is already asking clients whether they want their bank account to be based in Scotland or the rUK.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      From one old timer to another.

      What no mention of the outrageous subsidies we have to pay for all of Scotlands turbines, solar and bio mass installations which indirectly fuel poverty.

      Salmond has allowed 100s of turbines to be installed or planned for with no suitable connection to the grid and still they get all the constraint payments and subsidies.

      No sharing of national grid or any other facilities.

      Scotland like Denmark will end up selling its over production at give away prices rather than payout the constraint payments when the wind is strong.

      Very good for the rest of us I think

      • oldtimer
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink

        They will be his problem not ours.

        I do not know the status of interconnectors for wind farms between Scotland and England but it would make no sense to build any – any more than it makes sense to build them in a united country.

  55. mick
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    I see number 10 was flying the Scottish flag yesterday, wrong colour it should have been a white one because the three main party`s have surrendered to the Scots, all these promises that they will be given at the expense of the good people of England, its beginning to show that so far half of Scotland don’t like the English so lets build that wall back up and let the Scottish have there independence.

    • Sir Graphus
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      Correct. Gordon and the 3 stooges have gone nuts. What a mess.

      Salmond is campaigning for YES, in which he insists he’ll have a currency union with rUK, when in fact he won’t.

      Meanwhile, NO no longer means staying as things are; Scotland have been promised effective home rule, which amounts to YES with a currency union.

      So Salmond is now campaigning against the thing he wants, while the NO campaign can no longer campaign for NO at all.

      So, if “NO” wins, Scotland and the rest of us will have a new relationship, and only Scotland will have been asked if this is OK.

  56. Martyn G
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    A very succinct and fair summary of the potential situation, John. With which I of courses entirely agree.

    On the other hand, living as I do near an operational RAF airfield, I detect a squadron of pigs all pre-flighted, fuelled and about to take off on runway 27……

  57. a-tracy
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    The majority of our baseline security checks for the UK are done in Scotland at Disclosure Scotland. The Scottish nationals talk about bringing their driving licence checks from Swansea north so in effect creating two separate entities all of this will have additional costs for everyone as splitting Cheshire in half did to our local region.

    We must agree before the vote that a vote ‘Yes’ will mean that Scottish MPs cannot vote on any devolved issues in Westminster with immediate effect from the date of the vote, in return for all these freebies give aways we are currently awarding Scotland.

    Could this decision actually have a fabulous benefit for the North East and North West of England as the Conservatives can concentrate their efforts on a much reduced geography, road network, new security bases, replacing lost public offices in Scotland in the North of England this could be a commitment to be made now.

    We could then stop HS2 at the border and the expense of the line through Scotland be the Scottish taxpayers alone.

    I’m beginning to think there could be benefits to a ‘Yes’ decision that I hadn’t considered before. I’m being persuaded by the independent political nation because we aren’t equal in the relationship at the moment, the Scots have had a disproportionate effect on our politics for a decade or more and have achieved much more financially for their now young voters who are still not content even though as a nation with 10% of the population they were represented by 40% of Scots in the Blair cabinet! This has only become apparent to me this week.

    Just what Englishness do we celebrate? We do need a new form of politics in England, Wales and Northern Ireland whatever happens.

    • APL
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      a-tracy: “The Scottish nationals talk about bringing their driving licence checks from Swansea north so in effect creating two separate entities all of this will have additional costs for everyone as splitting Cheshire in half did to our local region.”

      I am fairly sure there is already a branch of the DVLC in Edinburgh.

  58. W Lambeth
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Immediately after a ‘Yes’ vote is declared all MPs representing a Scottish constituency should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament together with responsibility for their pay, allowances, expenses and pensions. They should not be entitled to access to Westminster that is not allowed to the normal visiting individual.

    • Ken Adams
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      The Scottish people are entitled to be represented in their parliament until actual independence, Mr Redwood makes a good suggestion about that in his post last Monday.

  59. nigel
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    JR: Spot on BUT do you really expect a Cameron Clegg Government to achieve this, or even try to achieve it?

  60. Kenneth
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Can anyone tell me, in the event of a yes vote, the date when independence will take effect?

    I assume on that day the rest of the UK (minus Scotland) will have a full Conservative government without the need for a coalition?

    • Hefner
      Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      And I would expect all Westminster parties to ask their MPs (not including the Scotland representatives) for a confidence vote on whether their brilliant leaders, PM and Deputy PM, are still fit for purpose.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      Independence would take effect at the precise instant specified in an Act passed by the UK Parliament to dissolve the Union and for connected purposes; which could be as Salmond proposes, on March 24th 2016, or could be never.

  61. Know-Dice
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Shouldn’t that be “How Scotland would have to negotiate with the rest of the UK”…

    I really don’t have any confidence that our esteemed civil servants will get a good deal for the rest of the UK – which ever way the vote goes England will lose out.

  62. cosmic
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    That seems like a good starting list. One item missing is dealing with the nuclear submarine fleet.

    The big question appears to be that of the currency union and the threat that the Scottish portion of UK debt would be renounced if currency union didn’t come about.

    As I see it, there’s little appreciation that a yes vote would create a foreign sovereign state outside the EU, the interests of which may well not be in line with those of the UK. On the UK side there seems to be little appreciation that we could easily have a bankrupt foreign state with a land border.

  63. R Davies
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I do not have a comment on the post but I would like another post or reply on the question of the powers being offered to Scotland for a no vote. If these powers include the right of the Scottish Parliament to create debt how does the rest of the UK avoid liability for that debt? If the situation is akin to the formal federalism of the United States how does one avoid the risk that a Westminster parliament will face calls to provide funding to avoid a default by the Scottish Parliament (which will not have the power to print money in its own right) in the same way that a possible default by California might give rise to demands for a federal government subvention?

  64. Man of Kent
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    These points should have been debated in the Commons to obtain broad party support.

    The situation on the currency and pensions would then have been crystal clear and denied
    SNP the opportunity to say Westminster is bluffing.

    Who has been running this campaign ?
    And why can’t Cameron ,Clegg and Miliband share a platform to say the vote is above party politics ?

  65. Chris S
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I hear that Salmond has taunted the UK again that he won’t pay Scotland’s share of the debt with the comment “what are they going to do, Invade ?”

    No, we won’t invade, we will just use our veto on his applications to join the EU and NATO until we have assurances that the debt will be paid.

    Does he not realise that we hold almost all the cards here ?

  66. D Wandsworth
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Personally, I would have added…

    11) Agreement will be reached on 1) the information, experience and systems from all Government Departments and contracted agencies that are required by an Independent Scotland and 2) a plan for their delivery, so that those services can be maintained by Scotland. All project costs incurred by the UK (including manpower) will be charged to Scotland. Additionally, to minimise the impact on the UK, the project must be an overlay to, and not part of, existing operations.

  67. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    John: Any thoughts on nationality, citizenship and residence rights ? One idea would be for Scots born people to choose if they take UK or Scottish nationality and if the latter then be subject to the usual non-EU immigration controls. How did Czech Replublic/Slovakia handle this issue ?

  68. Handbags
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    You forgot to mention strong border controls – with passports, visas and work permits.

  69. Peter Smith
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Good question at PMQs, John. Not sure I’ve ever seen you look so cross!

  70. Tad Davison
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Just watching the BBC’s Daily Politics Show, and the pro-Union studio guests hadn’t got a clue! The ‘No’ campaign are keen to say there’s a better deal for Scotland if they stay in the Union, but when Andrew Neil pressed them upon it, neither could say what those advantages would amount to. Nor did the leader’s representatives of the Labour or the Tory Parties sufficiently enlighten us at PMQs, yet there’s a desperate need for the Scottish people to know. They’ve been conned before, and once bitten, twice shy.

    Add-in the wheeling-out of the highly discredited Gordon Brown, and the comments today of his equally discredited Tory counterpart, John Major, to argue against Scottish independence, and it looks as though the whole ‘No’ campaign is built upon sand. Something so momentously important simply cannot be handled so badly. We cannot entrust it to failed politicians whom most of us with memories long and short, do not trust and cannot stand.

    I look up toward a pale blue sky and see a wake of Buzzards circling, ready to pick off the Scottish economy just as they did with the pound at the time of Major’s disastrous ERM. But if they do go for separation, at least there will be a Tory majority in the rest of the UK, and they won’t be able to wriggle out of an EU referendum. My preferred option however, is for Scotland to stay in the Union and for us then to get to hell out of Europe.

    Let’s just hope at this eleventh hour, the ‘No’ campaign gets it act together.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • sm
      Posted September 13, 2014 at 12:43 am | Permalink

      More likely.. Scotland exits the UK and the EU (dastardly deals aside). We the rUK should then with the strategic imperative of our national island interest immediately exit the EU and negotiate with Scotland direct (in good faith) absent EU laws and encumberences.

  71. Excalibur
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I see that Edward Miliband has called for the Saltire to be flown from public buildings throughout England. Imagine the outcry were the Scots asked to fly the flag of St. George from public buildings there,

  72. lojolondon
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    If the Scots want to go, they definitely should go, along with Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, for being politically correct and totally misjudging the situation.

  73. Yorkshire Lass
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redmond, the only man to speak out on behalf England in PMQ’s. Thank you.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      My wife, who isn’t usually very interested in politics, made that same comment, so thank you John. What a shame it wasn’t/isn’t official Tory policy.

      Tad

  74. Iain Gill
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Listening to the SNP on the media, it seems a large part of their argument is against the “political class” of public school boys, who have never had a proper job, often done PPE at uni, often have a trust fund and no idea of needing to work to live. This they have in common with UKIP, really the Conservatives should themselves push for a more representative political class, more working class accents in the senior ranks etc.

  75. Tony Baker
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    As part of the Act of Union didn’t the Bank of England give the Scots £5 million
    If they vote yes should the Scots repay this money with interest?

  76. Monty
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    The most important thing for rUK, is to obtain a clean break, with no outstanding liabilities or exposure to Scottish decisions after independance. So I would suggest that Scotlands share of the national debt is not the most important issue in front of us. Even if they get away with defaulting, that debt is known, and finite. What is most important is ensuring that whatever Scotland does in the future, we are not on the hook for any of their blunders, because the liabilities could be enormous. We need complete financial severance.

    • cosmic
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      The portion of the UK national debt that they would repudiate is about £100 billion, which is less than 10% of the total. A significant part of that is public sector pensions liabilities. It’s not a significant problem for the UK at all. For a newly created state to have begun life defaulting on debt, would create huge problems.

      I can’t see that the UK could possibly enter into a currency union, although given the lack of judgement that many of our politicians have shown recently over Scottish matters, that cannot be ruled out.

  77. scott herd
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Why does England feel like the victim here? We’ve been subsidising you for years, providing the exchequer with billions more than we get back, harbouring your precious nuclear arsenal by our biggest city. England has a lot to answer for.

  78. NickW
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    It has been suggested that we trade our nuclear bases against a proportion of Scotland’s National Debt. This is the wrong approach.

    We keep our nuclear and other bases permanently in exchange for a mutual defence pact with Scotland. If Scotland won’t agree, they can be responsible for their own air and sea defences, the protection of oil rigs, and the protection of their own territorial integrity.

    Although I have to say that my confidence in the negotiating ability of our English politicians is considerably less than zero; by the time they have finished, they will have given away the whole of England and mortgaged our future for a thousand years whilst gaining absolutely nothing in return.

    • William Gruff
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 12:23 am | Permalink

      We might have more confidence in our ‘English’ politicians if they were actually English. At least a hundred of the five hundred England MPs are Scotch (my MP amongst them) and there are numerous other seats represented by British this, British that and British something or others who are in no sense English and make clear that they have no wish to be. Then, of course, the whip system will ensure that few if any members of parliament will follow the wishes of their constituents.

      Whatever the outcome of this referendum, the English, rather than the people of England, need to think seriously about how we allow our ancient homeland to be governed and by whom.

      • a-tracy
        Posted September 13, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        I didn’t know that 100 of 500 MPs representing English seats were Scottish, that explains a lot. How many Scottish MPs and MSP are English I wonder?

  79. Tim
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    How soon will these negotiations be able to take place?

    If Labour get in next May then this list is a bit optimistic.

  80. NickW
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    I understand that Cameron, Clegg and Brown are trying to cobble together a package of bribes for the Scottish people to encourage them to vote No, which will give them Independence in all but name.

    That has to go before Parliament, no ifs, no buts.

    And any English MP who votes for it will be removed from office by a rightly furious electorate in the next election.

    The impression I have is that even Parliament will be excluded from any say on the negotiations now taking place. That is not acceptable and it will not be accepted by the English.

  81. Atlas
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    In the event of a No I cannot see the Treasury giving up one inch of its powers (which are to try to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing).

    Again, if a No the West Lothian question must be adressed – even if the Labour Party don’t want to.

  82. Atlas
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    John,

    I wonder why few, if any, have not mentioned the formation of the Irish Free State, in that that was done at the height of the British Empire and it did not bring everything crashing down – that was reserved for Hitler to do!

  83. Old Albion
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    JR. Well done for asking the question at (non)PM’s question time. A shame Hague didn’t take it seriously, no surprise there.

  84. Tom William
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    If only we could expect these ten points to be made.

    Future historians will, I hope, castigate this and previous UK governments, regardless of the result, for:

    Allowing the SNP to hold a referendum which allowed sixteen year olds to vote, even though they could not vote in a general election and disenfranchised 100% Scottish citizens who were not currently resident in Scotland.

    Allowing the BBC to hold a debate which was like an uncontrolled shouting match in a bar.

    Not being prepared to oppose the idea of “independence” publicly until the last minute and not taking advertisements in all major newspapers to show the lies and evasions of the Yes campaign (if necessary by finding sponsors to do so).

    Making no preparations for what would happen in the event of a Yes vote, and announcing them.

    I write as a half Scot. I do not want Scotland to become a Tartan Albania. If the vote is “Yes” Cameron must go, immediately. I would have happened on his watch.

  85. Mr Smith
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    An aside, but I notice this increasingly in the comments..

    We should stop referring to rUK or rest of/rump UK. Its a demeaning term for the vast majority >92% of the peoples outside of Scotland. Moreover, if Scotland votes to leave, then there will be no UK left – the Act of Union 1707 will have to be repealed thereby dissolving the original union between England and Scotland. So lets just call a spade a spade and refer to England when that is predominantly what we mean. I am pretty sure the Welsh do not refer to themselves as rUK.

    For me, this derogatory term is a perfect example of Westministers (and certain parts of the media) seeming refusal to recognise England and by using a non specific term it becomes much easier to ignore the aspirations and any demand for national recognition. Why, otherwise, would a politician not say England when that is largely what what they are referring to post devolution?

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

      Yes I heard Robert Peston on C4 news refer to England, Wales and N Ireland as the rump of the UK, make him take it back the rude man we are no rump as Scotland will soon learn if they vote Yes!

    • NickW
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      A very good point and one with which I agree.

      Referring to England as a “rump” is offensive and plays into Salmond’s hands.

      I can understand that Wales and Northern Ireland would be displeased if they were included in “England” as a collective noun. We would still be a United Kingdom but smaller.

      The “New UK” is a better term, it is accurate and not pejorative.

      • William Gruff
        Posted September 12, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink

        If the peoples of the little nations do not wish to be included in England ‘as a collective noun’ the post dissolution polity could be called England and its sullen, resentful and viciously Anglophobic dependents.

  86. John Ward
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Succinct and realistic ten points…amazing how there’s always ten.

    But in the light of the latest research, this is no longer an academic question: the Yes lead is now estimated to be eight points. See: http://barker.co.uk/scotlandpoll
    I was informed by a senior bureaucrat over the weekend that there is NO contingency plan in Whitehall in the event of a Yes vote. Quite incredible, but apparently true.
    A few moves down the line, however, this could be a major car-crash: a plunging Pound, lost confidence, a Scottish bank failure, and epidemiological effects in the eurozone.
    Then Salmond will have no euro to turn to.

    This is what happens when cynical senior politicians allow things purely on the basis of being certain of a result in their favour.

    Reply Today’s poll puts No ahead at 53%

  87. waramess
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    1.If Scotland will not be a part of the pound the UK government will be asking Scotland to take on foreign debt, which was never envisaged and so Scotland would be taking a not unreasonable position in refusing to take on part of UK indebtedness.
    2.Scottish banks will almost certainly move their domicile to the UK so the point is likely to be entirely irrelevant.
    3.The UK’s debt is in its own currency and it is therefore in a position to print and burn
    4.Should not be seen a problem per se. To a Socialist “must own everything” government it could be but the Scottish government with its reduced revenues, will need to be a little more pragmatic
    5.Thus Scotland will be in the position that I and most of your readers would want for the UK: outside the EU. A real bonus
    8 UK pensions are a thorny issue with Westminster however it is reasonable to ask what happened to past premiums? Each month the NHI premiums are deducted from salaries and a part allocated to pension contributions. These are recorded and the amount of pension paid to each contributor will be relative to the amount of premiums paid during their working life.
    Westminster claim this is all a part of general taxation but clearly it is not for, were it so, it would be collected as general taxation.
    Of course, we all know where it went but the excuse is as weak as Maxwell claiming his pension fund was unfunded and monthly contributions were to his personal benevolent fund
    10.PFI was entered into foolishly by Westminster without the consent of Scotland as an entity. No contractual consent by Scotland means no contract and no contract means no liability. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    The no campaign does seem to be full of bluster and not much else other than Cameron flying the flag at the very last minute and almost breaking into tears. After months and indeed years of pompous complacency by Westminster they now panic. Westminster really does deserve a resounding YES vote

    Reply Scottish MPs have gone along with a pay as you go state pension scheme, so Scotland has to honour its part of that for Scottish people from its future revenues.
    Scotland will owe the rest of the UK its share of the total UK debt, if it is to also enjoy its share of the total UK assets. IF it refuses to pay interest and repayments on this debt then it will be in international default, which will make it much harder for it to borrow from others.

  88. Dave
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Your list misses out a preliminary agreement that the RUK’s nuclear deterrent be given leave to stay for a decade or more; and an agreement to maintain the common travel area for a similar period (understanding that Scotland may eventually be compelled to join Schengen).

    Although there would be much debate over what constitutes a basis for a ‘fair’ division (population, land mass, GDP per capita) March 2016 isn’t impossible; at least for the bare bones to be settled in an overarching “nothing agreed until everything agreed”negotiation and subsequent legislation. I’d regard these negotiations as an unprecedented development, calling for a limited period of unity coalition government. Whilst the Scottish negotiating team will be exclusively SNP, the future of the RUK is not a matter that should or needs to become the subject of domestic political positioning between the major parties. I would suggest a quick Bill to appoint a 5 strong RUK negotiating team: 2 Tories, 2 Lab & 1 LD. I t could of course be bigger. To last until a treaty dissolving the 1707 Union is passed by Parliament as a whole and a majority of the non-Scots MPs. The UK could still have a general election in May, but that would not significantly affect the government’s negotiating position. A further general election in May 2016 shouldn’t be ruled out. A Labour govt which lost its majority in March 2016 needs to be catered for on the Murphy’s Law principle. The RUK should invite a former head of state from a neighbouring country with some history of coping with separation (Sweden, Norway, Ireland …) or a commonwealth state (Canada, India) to facilitate the negotiations. Alongside these arrangements, the parties would also establish a Speakers Conference on the future governance of the RUK (starting with the name, anthem, flag etc!)

    I am not a fan of setting a hard and fast deadline for re-negotiating with the EU. There is no majority in the present parliament to do so. However it is clear that no serious renegotiation can happen in the event of a YES vote until March 2016 when it is clear where the RUK stands on EU issues and what is the status of its northern border. That makes 2017 a still more unrealistic proposition – assuming that is that the object is to secure an overall consensus on reform to the Treaties to deliver a more palatable deal for the minority of Euro holdout states, alongside closer integration for the currency area.

    I was intrigued by your discussion with Peter Hain on newsnight. I rather feel that the West Lothian question requires a combination of English votes for English laws with radical decentralisation and the wholesale replacement of Barnett. The basic issue around EVEL is defining what is England only, given that any measure with financial consequences would be bound to have some impact on NI , Scotland and Wales. Even for example the bill to create the Olympic delivery authority was opposed by nationalists because the Olympics were designated as outwith Barnett in the DCMS books, with negative implications, given the opportunity costs of spending the same money in a devolved field. I like the simplicity of Barnett, but it has outlived its purpose (it was adopted as an interim device by the Treasury in 1978 on the assumption that it would be re-visited post devolution).
    If there is to be an English Parliament however you are absolutely correct that it is, as it always has been, the English MPs and Peers. Incorporating Acts of Union from Wales under Henry VIII onward have simply added extra territory to the domain of England’s Parliament. I rather like your idea of an English (Labour) UK Minister answering Treasury Questions one day and an English (Tory) Minister covering Health the following day. There would still be elections where 1 party wins a majority in both classes, but otherwise you are looking not so much at coalition, but French style cohabitation, becoming the new normal. I submit that if this is going to work out, we will want further radical, necessarily asymmetric, decentralisation within England, particularly to the northern big cities and traditional counties alongside, on the lines Peter H was driving at …

  89. fedupsouthener
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Add to the list subsidies for all the wind turbines Salmond has lumbered Scotland with.

    Even more fed up now that I have been told that selling my house to get out of Scotland will be nigh impossible. Oh God, Salmond is on the TV again spouting off about Westminster and how evil they are. Got to turn it off!! Be glad when the whole debacle is over and done with. How we will ever live with the smirk on Salmond’s face I’ll never know. For goodness sake do something to wipe it off.

  90. Terry
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    It is clear that Mr Cameron gave away far too many advantages to Mr Salmond during the run-up to the forthcoming referendum. Not least is that 100,000+ foreigners residing there, would be permitted to vote for the independence of Scotland from it’s partner of 300 years. How crazy is that?
    As it now stands, those foreigners could hold the balance of the argument. Many of these newbies are asylum seekers and most all without any training nor English language for any jobs so they rely upon benefits and free housing to maintain their new lifestyles. They’d like to keep them. So, when they hear Mr Salmond declaring that such persons will be helped even more in a ‘liberated’ Scotland they will go with the flow and vote for him, of course. It’s bribery, of course because there is no detail given on how it’s all to be funded when the rest of the UK stops providing Scotland with the £17 Millions of additional money required to balance their books. each and every year.
    So it appears, in falling for this typical socialist disinformation that the Scots aren’t so “canny” after all, doesn’t it?
    Furthermore, why have the English and the Welsh not been consulted over this very important matter? After all, we are the ones paying for Scotland to maintain their existing lifestyles and we have no desire to pay anymore.

  91. a-tracy
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    I was astounded to hear Robert Peston on C4 news call the left over UK the ‘rump’ . If , as this program demonstrates, the children have been educated in Scotland that they’re getting a rough deal from Westminster and they are Scottish first and don’t feel British at all then I’m really beginning to hope the majority do all vote Yes and end this. I hadn’t thought that the Scots were so much more socialist and different politically than the rest of the UK, it has all been very eye opening.

    Is the Natwest still a Scottish bank? Is RBS now majority owned by the United Kingdom now? How do you even start to unwrap all that?

  92. Trimperley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    There needs to be a time limit on how long England will negotiate for. I fear the bickering will go on for ever and do both sides no favours. England needs to set a limit on how long she will negotiate for and stick to it. At the end of that period England moves on and tries her best to ignore Scotland while Salmond yaps at her heels.

  93. Christopher Hartley
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    An alternative strategy that might perhaps be worthy of consideration, is that the rUK government retains all assets it owns in Scotland. After all the UK government will continue to exist as a legal entity and could retain all of its property and corporate holdings. We could lease them back to the Scottish Government, or act as a commercial service provides and charge either the citizens directly, or the government of Scotland for the use of the services and facilities.

    This would require the rUK to undergo minimal upheaval, and provide stability as far as it would be achieve in a post-yes world. We would in essence give the Scots nothing, and retain all liabilities. Partial cost recovery of these liabilities could be achieved by the aforementioned charges to use rUK services or facilities based in Scotland.

    Any military bases would be covered by the treatment explained above, and / or, by changing their status to something akin to that of the bases in Cyprus.

    This option would present a fundamentally clean break. Anything currently owned by the UK Government presently would continue to be so owned by the, presumably re-named, (r)UK Government, and anything owned by the current Scottish Government would continue to owned by them.

    Should the independent Scottish Government not wish to, or acquiesce to, paying the rUK Government for services and facilities, it would either have to build, from scratch its own, or, nationalise the rUK Government facilities, which would make them internationally very poorly perceived, it would destroy their credit rating, and they would be in a position whereby they couldn’t get credit, and would have a very small, relatively speaking, asset base to try to leverage for finance.

    Then we can ask how wonderful and idyllic independence looks.

  94. Richard
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Point 3 :
    I canot see how England can force an independent Scotland to pay its share of our £1.5 trillion debt and in fact Mr. Salmond has already threatened to renege on this debt if he does not get his way on Scotland’s use of the pound.

    Point 5 :
    I am not convinced that Mr. Salmond will want Scotland to re-enter the EU. He may well decide that he prefers the Norway model especially if the EU insists that Scotland must accept the Euro and the Schengen agreement together with no special UK “opt-outs” and rebates.

    • formula57
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Re point 3. no assumption of debt would be met by no transfer of assets, likely to the benefit of England as there ought to be more assets than liabilities but should there be a shortfall, oil revenues could be captured sufficient to meet that.

      Salmond actually makes a reasonable point, being that if Scotland accepted material liabilities denominated in Sterling, then were its base currency to be something different, it would face unacceptably large foreign exchange exposures. That could be dealt with, however, by Scotland refinancing itself by an early debut on the international bond markets and paying off its Sterling debt. As a new sovereign with oil assets, it may well enjoy a decent credit rating and find investors have a good appetite for its debt.

    • Chris S
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      If Salmond is determined to join the EU we can insist that he accepts the debt otherwise we will veto his application to join.

      If he has any sense, he will follow the Norwegian model in which case we will have to rely on the markets to make life difficult for him. After all, the one thing financiers hate is a person who reneges on their obligations.

  95. Julian
    Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    There are many public sector jobs in Scotland which are not Scotland specific which would be at risk of transfer to England. Just one small example is the premium bond office:

    National Savings and Investments, Glasgow.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      Yes Julian it will be interesting to see what the plans would be for the Royal Mail, would the English no longer have to subsidise Next Day delivery to northern Scotland, that costs an absolute fortune delivering to little villages and Islands if the current Royal Charter is no longer necessary with an independent Scotland.

  96. Chris S
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    If the Scottish banks decamp to England to stay under the umbrella of the Bank of England, we need to be absolutely sure that, in return for our being responsible for any future bail outs, they will be paying corporation tax on ALL of their profits in England.

    Salmond wants to cut Scottish Corporation tax to a lower rate than England so there will be a temptation for the banks to declare most of their profits in Scotland but be regulated in England.

    This cannot be allowed to happen.

    John, I think this is something that needs to be taken up with the Chancellor immediately.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      The English can simply vote with their money and just take their money and business out of Scottish based banks if we got stuffed like that. I think some people are underestimating the English response to all this antagonistic behaviour by The Yes campaign.

  97. StephenO
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    If Scotland votes for Independance the onus should be on Scotland to pay for it and leave the rUK no worse off.
    Regarding 3. Scotland should issue its own debt the proceeds of which should be used to pay off its share of UK, any rUK guarantee of Scotland’s debts should last no longer than three years, to allow the transition.
    On 6. arrangements need to be made for Royal Navy bases which will be very difficult and expensive to move, they either should be retained as part of the rUK or the cost of the move should be borne by Scotland as part of the costs of independance.

  98. dumpling
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    The issues you enumerated should have been thrashed out before the campaigning so that the Scots know exactly what they are voting for. It was typical Cameron going about things half cock. In the event of a No vote I resent extra bribes being given to them.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      And how did our wonderful leaders determine that those voting NO actually want more devolution?

      Certainly a YES vote needs the people of the rest of the UK to have their say via a referendum.

      Can we expect a legal challenge to a Scottish YES vote?

      • Chris S
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

        Can we expect a legal challenge to a Scottish YES vote?

        I hope not !!!!!

  99. cosmic
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    4. Scotland will no longer be part of the BBC…….

    As a gesture of pure goodwill of course, I suggest the BBC, widely acknowledged to be a huge part of our national treasure, be ceded in its entirety to the new Scottish state and urgent plans made to deliver the gift.

  100. Peter
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    In the event of a yes vote or devo-max, which would have all the benefits of independence but with the rest of UK as guarantor, no Scots Labour MPs should be part of negotiations as they would surely not have the English/Welsh/N.I interest at heart.

  101. a-tracy
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    My questions for Alex Salmond would be:

    1) how does he expect the remaining countries within the existing union to respond to Scottish independence? Not a fob off no change because that isn’t realistic!
    2) Do you see a rise of English nationalism as a future threat to Scottish business and taxation prospects?
    3) if you are so keen on independence Alex why is it so important to you to join the EU?

  102. David Edwards
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Just to continue on from the points that you raise, what is the position under international law where a signatory to a treaty splits apart? Are both entities bound by the treaty obligations or neither? I am certainly no expert in international law, but under contract law the surviving entity after a divestment would still be bound by any contract obligations. Is it the case under international law that Wales, Northern Ireland and England is a surviving entity under the Treaties of Rome –Lisbon, Nato etc. or a different entity? If the latter, would the remainder of the previous UK need to renegotiate all previous treaties?

    Reply It is likely the EU will regard the rest of the UK as the successor state. However, they will also need to incorporate the new name. They will also need to adjust the population and tax base figures for the contributions, the voting weights until these are entirely population based. There will need to be discussions between the successor state and the EDU, so I think this would be a good opportunity to negotiate the new relationship we need.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      There is nothing that would require any change to the EU treaties, apart from the change to the UK’s subscription to the EIB which could be left where it is now until the next treaty changes made for other reasons.

  103. James Matthews
    Posted September 12, 2014 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    A good start, but insufficient. There needs to be added:

    1. Independence negotiations on behalf of the rUK not to be undertaken by any Civil Servant, Member of Parliament or the House of Lords of Scottish parentage (a matter of trust);

    2. No further warship contracts for Scottish shipyard or other MoD contracts for Scottish manufacturers;

    3. All rUK forces to be removed from Scotland as soon as possible (no Scottish bases);

    4.No shared embassies or High Commissions;

    5. No open border or common travel area (immigration);

    6. No dual nationality option. Only those who do not opt for Scottish nationality to be allowed to retain British citizenship;

    7. No rUK government employment or elected office for those who opt for Scottish nationality.

    8. No continued subsidy by rU taxpayers or consumers of Scottish renewable energy.

    Given the abject nature of the Conservative negotiating position pre-referendum we can have very little confidence that they will even try properly to look after our interests if there is a yes vote, but we live in hope.

    • Sue Doughty
      Posted September 13, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      Yes, James, the list is very long. Mr Redwood included only a few but enough to make it readable. It is a fact that in the same week Scotland became independent, if they take that option, state pensions and benefits will have to be paid out, but income will not start coming into their account until the end of that calendar month. They will need a loan to cover those payments but the interest rates on offer will be punitive. Scotland could be born bankrupt!

  104. Steve Gee
    Posted September 12, 2014 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    I’m definitely voting for you to run England’s negotiations, John. However, I hope you are just getting going there. I can think of another ten key proposals without trying.

    This is a historic moment either way. You must put country before career and openly fight for England.

    Why are the Tories opting in to the European treaties on criminal law, by the way?

  105. Sue Doughty
    Posted September 13, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Thank you for the well crafted piece and for putting it on record, Mr Redwood. It hammers home the truth of independence, if it happened. I hope now that it doesn’t, our is a union that is the envy or the world, though it might ensure Britain never again has to endure a Labour government.
    There are a lot more aspects that should be in the list but that would make it harder to approach and digest. I hope the media that Scottish voters are accessing picks up on your words.

  106. James Sutherland
    Posted September 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    “4. Scotland will no longer be part of the BBC, the NHS, and the other major UK wide public bodies. Her parts of these will be split off and will be for her to manage.”

    Part of the absurd dishonesty in this campaign has been the assertion that voting “no” would have some negative impact on the NHS … ignoring the fact the NHS in Scotland is already devolved to Holyrood control anyway! It is depressing to see how easily some Scots are scared by vague assertions about evil plans to “privatise” the NHS in future.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page