Matters the people in the street may not have considered before the Referendum.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:03:42 +0100, "Alaric"
wrote:

I wonder how all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who choose to serve in
the newly formed Scottish Defence Force, and who have been awarded
service
and gallantry medals, will be be treated by an independent Scottish
government? I wonder if it will it be the case that they will be
prohibited
from wearing these decorations on parade because they have been awarded
by
what will by then be a foreign government, one apparently so despised by
the
"Yes" campaigners.

The decorations that soldiers are allowed to wear will be the least of
nearly everybody's concerns. What they'll want to know is which things
will become more expensive,

Booze - Scottish government already committed to minimum alcohol pricing.
Most things shipped from England - there is already a premium to ship to
Ireland, islands and sometimes highlands, expect this to get worse.
Everything if [as likely] they have their own currency as there will be
conversion costs with a wide spread, although if they join the Euro, EU
goods could be cheaper.

which TV programmes they'll be able to watch and whether they'll
still need to pay a licence to London to watch them,

BBC likely to go encrypted and you will have to pay for a card.

and whether they'll need a passport to cross the border.

If Scotland encourages immigration (as Slamond has indicated) then this is
more likely.

Apart from everyday things like these, nobody will care.

There will be lots of little things - like will you need a green card to
drive in the other country,

This seems unlikely

EU law already requires Insurance companies to offer Euro wide third party
insurance as standard and on mainland Europe FC insurance covers you for all
but the riskiest of countries as standard

It is likely that UK companies would offer Britain wide policies as
standard, anything else is just too complicated

tim

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:16:40 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:


which TV programmes they'll be able to watch and whether they'll
still need to pay a licence to London to watch them,

BBC likely to go encrypted and you will have to pay for a card.

What if your TV receiver doesn't have a card slot?

Most do - EU regs IIRC.

Oh no they don't

Not one of my six TV receiving devices does.

One has space where they were going to put a CAM slot, but they didn't
bother

tim

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:01:02 +0100, Andy Burns

wrote:

NY wrote:

If people vote in the next election as they did in the 2010 one, then
there
are 41 fewer Labour, 11 fewer Lib Dem and 1 fewer Conservative.

So that would convert a hung parliament into a clear result - goodbye
coalition.

Regardless of next week's result, Scotland will still be voting for the
UK parliament next May, along with England and Wales ...

Part of Cameron's inability to organise a **** up in a brewery.

and how could he have possibly organised anything any differently?

tim

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Martin wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Regardless of next week's result, Scotland will still be voting for the
UK parliament next May, along with England and Wales ...

Part of Cameron's inability to organise a **** up in a brewery.

The right honourable member for Vulcan North seems to think we could cut
the Scots out of the next general election if they vote for independence.


well we don't have members for Calais or Dublin anymore do we, although we
did.

but did we chuck them out before their homeland ceased to be part of the
country?

tim

"Derek F" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2014 16:14, NY wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Maybe they can exchange them for a Scottish version.
Is there not also a certain place in Scotland which the Queen owns and
has spent much time there? Presumably as maybe she will not be the
Queen of Scotland the tax arrangements on that estate might need to
alter.

I was musing the fact that there are probably almost as many scottish
people in the uk as there are English in scotland.
And what that might mean for the future. I mean look what happened in
Ukraine with Russians in Ukraine and no doubt Ukrainians now being
blackballed in Russia.

Its all very very infantile.
At them moment and in the past any disaster which has happened in
Sotland has been sorted out by the English, however will we be so keen
to help if they want to go it alone?

I wonder what passports for Scottish people will say if independence
goes ahead. Presumably Scottish people's nationality will no longer be
"British" (or "UK" as America insists you write on one of their
immigration forms). Will they have to have their passports re-issued by
a Scottish passport office and with nationality "Scottish"?

I wonder if anyone has worked out just how much Salmond's proposals will
cost in all the bureaucratic changes like this. And who will pay? Will
rUK be expected to contribute or will it come entirely out of the
Scottish "purse" (ie to be paid by Scottish taxpayers)?

I wonder what Labour and Lib Dem feel about the split, given that all
the Labour and Lib Dem MPs in Scotland will no longer be part of the rUK
parliament (by contrast, there is only Conservative MP that would be
lost in the split).

If people vote in the next election as they did in the 2010 one, then
there are 41 fewer Labour, 11 fewer Lib Dem and 1 fewer Conservative.
There are also 6 SNP. That's a total of 59 fewer MPs.

So the results would be (sorry for the maths, Brian - I hope this makes
sense to your screen reader)

Conservative: 307 - 1 = 306
Labour: 258 - 41 = 217
Lib Dem: 57 - 11 = 46

There would be 650 - 59 = 591 so the "winning post" would be 591/2 = 295
(call it 296 to be certain that it's a majority).


So that would convert a hung parliament into a clear result - goodbye
coalition.

Of course it is a *big* assumption that people would vote the same way
:-)



I hope the result of the referendum is clear cut: although I'm hoping
that Scotland votes NO, a clear YES result would be better than a 51% no
/ 49% yes (or a 49% no / 51% yes) because that means that half the
electorate feel aggrieved by the result. I pity Salmond trying to lead a
Scottish government when just under half the people disagree with what
he's done to the country. That's probably his biggest sin - that he's
polarised the country and it looks as if there are going to be a lot of
****ed-off Scots either way.
After a NO vote would there be any point of voting SNP in Scottish
Elections?
No one has recently raised the point that some European countries like
Spain have regions wanting independence and will not vote for an
independent Scotland joining the EU.

I'm sure that everyone is well aware of this

What the don't know is whether the lawyers will successfully argue that
Scotland never "left" and as such the Spanish (and others) wont get a chance
to veto them "joining"

This will, of course, not make the Spanish happy bunnies, but such is life

tim

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Not only that, but if a lot of people do not cast a vote, the outcome is
probably not going to be representative. Here in the UK the main problems
are caused by low turn outs. If there was a none of the above box, aye we
would get a turn out and at least know nobody likes the choices. At the
moment what generally happens is that the die hard people with strong
views vote, and you get a polarised result based on a non majority of the
people in the county.

I imagine Alex is playing the wind up card in an attempt to get even the
don't knows to make up their minds and vote, as a poor turnout would also
diminish the authority of whoever is in charge afterwards.
Of course even if they vote to split, noting will change for quite some
time, it will take years to set it all up.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"NY" wrote in message
...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Maybe they can exchange them for a Scottish version.
Is there not also a certain place in Scotland which the Queen owns and
has spent much time there? Presumably as maybe she will not be the Queen
of Scotland the tax arrangements on that estate might need to alter.

I was musing the fact that there are probably almost as many scottish
people in the uk as there are English in scotland.
And what that might mean for the future. I mean look what happened in
Ukraine with Russians in Ukraine and no doubt Ukrainians now being
blackballed in Russia.

Its all very very infantile.
At them moment and in the past any disaster which has happened in
Sotland has been sorted out by the English, however will we be so keen
to help if they want to go it alone?

I wonder what passports for Scottish people will say if independence goes
ahead. Presumably Scottish people's nationality will no longer be
"British" (or "UK" as America insists you write on one of their
immigration forms). Will they have to have their passports re-issued by a
Scottish passport office and with nationality "Scottish"?

I wonder if anyone has worked out just how much Salmond's proposals will
cost in all the bureaucratic changes like this. And who will pay? Will
rUK be expected to contribute or will it come entirely out of the
Scottish "purse" (ie to be paid by Scottish taxpayers)?

I wonder what Labour and Lib Dem feel about the split, given that all the
Labour and Lib Dem MPs in Scotland will no longer be part of the rUK
parliament (by contrast, there is only Conservative MP that would be lost
in the split).

If people vote in the next election as they did in the 2010 one, then
there are 41 fewer Labour, 11 fewer Lib Dem and 1 fewer Conservative.
There are also 6 SNP. That's a total of 59 fewer MPs.

So the results would be (sorry for the maths, Brian - I hope this makes
sense to your screen reader)

Conservative: 307 - 1 = 306
Labour: 258 - 41 = 217
Lib Dem: 57 - 11 = 46

There would be 650 - 59 = 591 so the "winning post" would be 591/2 = 295
(call it 296 to be certain that it's a majority).


So that would convert a hung parliament into a clear result - goodbye
coalition.

Of course it is a *big* assumption that people would vote the same way
:-)



I hope the result of the referendum is clear cut: although I'm hoping
that Scotland votes NO, a clear YES result would be better than a 51% no
/ 49% yes (or a 49% no / 51% yes) because that means that half the
electorate feel aggrieved by the result. I pity Salmond trying to lead a
Scottish government when just under half the people disagree with what
he's done to the country. That's probably his biggest sin - that he's
polarised the country and it looks as if there are going to be a lot of
****ed-off Scots either way.

Oh a lot will change

the uncertainty of how it will eventually be split up will spook the markets
and our trading partners big time

tim

"Paul D Smith" wrote in message
...
A work colleague has been wondering about university tuition fees. There
is a strange anomaly at present in that the UK can charge English students
but not EU students.

You have that wrong.

England charges every EU student.

It is the Scots that can't charge EU students (as they don't charge their
own), but can charge British (and Welsh) students due to the quirk in the
countries' status

tim

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:22:44 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Of course even if they vote to split, noting will change for quite some
time, it will take years to set it all up.

If Scotland votes for independence and Alex Salmond starts putting into
practice all the things that haven't yet been decided, it would be
interesting to find out five, ten years from now who proportion are still
in
favour of it and what proportion say "we wanted independence, but not like
this" when they see the effects of changing the currency, having to
develop
their own versions of the NHS, BBC, taxation, passports, defence - and all
the other things that they currently get via their membership of the UK
and
which the UK will no longer want to share with them.

Interesting times. I fear that a great big Pandora's box is about to be
opened.

You assume things will be worse in an independent Scotland. Maybe you
should
worry about living in a Britain outside the EU

That would be a pretty big Pandora's box as well, and if you think [big]
business has squealed about Scotland, wait to hear the shreiking about
leaving the EU (as it is, let alone as it was when we joined - I still
remember the paperwork, the carnets, the import licenses...)

with a privatised NHS.

The current "privatisations*" are Labour's, although of course selective
amnesia means they now protest against implementation of their own policy!

--

Martin in Zuid Holland




* mostly farming out minor ops to private clinics so NHS hospitals can get
on with the serious stuff.

No-one made a bigger mistake in the NHS than Labour changing GP's contracts.

On 12.09.2014 02:54, David Kennedy wrote:
On 11/09/2014 07:29, Ulrich Onken wrote:


So there is obviously no need for fences or excessive controls at EU
external
borders. In my view, such nightmare scenarios are incredible and in
the end
undermine the arguments of the "Better together" campaign. Would it
not be
better to create forward-looking scenarios: What could be achieved in
future
if the Scots decide to stay within the UK?
[...]
How are you finding it here on Earth Ulrich? Enjoying it so far?

Tell me, is it in any way like your own planet?

David, I don't think that the two of us are living on different planets.
I have lived in the UK and other parts of this world and have crossed
national borders several hundred times in my life, both fenced and open
ones.

The EU does seal off its external borders against immmigrants in the
Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe. This includes fences in some parts
and strict border controls in others. But there would be no reason to do
so at the Scottish / rUK border after a Yes vote. There is no
significant number of illegal immigrants coming from the north - unless
the Scots would let them enter at airports or harbours. Why should they
do so?

Otherwise, why is there no fence between Sweden (EU) and Norway
(non-EU), in spite of a huge open coastline in Norway? There are just
hills, wetland and a few roads at the Swedish border (similar to the
Lake District) - and no hurdles that would prevent you from crossing
that EU external wherever you like. It has been the same in pre-Schengen
times. Sorry, but to me this fence scenario at a future Scottish border
is good for a joke, but not credible.

Regards,
Uli

On 11.09.2014 13:07, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:29:33 +0200, Ulrich Onken
wrote:

The border between the EU and Switzerland is technically an EU external
border but in practice it is not a border which has "the rest of the
world on the other side" because Switzerland is completely surrounded by
the EU. Switzerland doesn't have a border with any non-EU country.

24% of the population living in Switzerland are foreigners, about 1/3 of
these have a non-EU passport. Before Switzerland joined the Schengen
treaty, many of these foreigners would have needed a visa if they wanted
to cross the border to France or Germany, even for shopping. Some of
them had a visa, others refrained from cross-border visits - and still
others just ignored the rules, usually without being caught.

Well, actually nobody seems to have cared much, maybe with the exception
of that government officer in Munich who was then removed from office.

Scotland is connected to the much of the rest of the world by the sea.

Very similar to Norway with a long border to Sweden (EU) and an even
longer coastline. I have never seen a fence at the border, and you would
have difficulties to find out where exactly the border is located.

Regards,
Uli