Would Independence Be Expensive For Scottish Tax Payers?
Tampering with the Barnett Formula triggers the Law of Unforeseen Consequences.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/6762989/Tampering-with-the-Barnett-Formula-triggers-the-Law-of-Unforeseen-Consequences.html
As a few people are aware, OR is a staunch Unionist and I do wonder where this latest thinking may take that debate. Despite our all being states of a federal Europe, would not an independent UK be easier to pull out of The EU slave pact?
Posts
16 comments:
I beg to differ SubR
If Scotland breaks the United Kingdom, The United Kingdom is no more.
It was formed by Scotland and England, incorporating Wales and Ireland, or Northern Ireland were later inserts.
Let me say that again, The United Kingdom is no more. It is not the rump that is left after Scotland breaks the Union. Scotland does not "leave" the Union, it is broken.
So the thought that Scotland would have to apply for membership and England plus attendant provinces would just keep their membership is wrong.
They too would need to apply for membership.
The best bet for English Nationalists who want to pull out of the the EU is for Scotland to break the Union and England to confront the consequences vis a vis the EU.
Just a thought.
Sorry this should read
It was formed by Scotland and England, incorporating Wales.Ireland, or Northern Ireland were later inserts.
Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, shoots and leaves.
Wales is not a kingdom it's a principality and it's part of the Kingdom of England and Wales, not the union per se.
I have a shoitie keyboard and someties miss out mmmms and periods but does Angry Man's post underine my logic?
RE: Quiet Man's post
Similarly, Northern Ireland is a protectorate. I think it may technically be considered a possession of the UK rather then a constituent part of it.
But yes, I think your point is being undermined, Bugger. The UK is not a Union of equal parts - Wales and NI were conquered, Scotland joined through treaty. I'm no expert on that facet of the UK constitution, but I'm pretty sure it would mean that the UK would remain, sans 4.8 millions people and a good bit of land.
What does a Panda know anyway, except the price of bamboo.
I would like to hear from so meone who is a lawyer, but I'm buggered if I am paying a fee, about the construct of the UK.
Any constitutional legal beagles out there?
SR,
Time to say goodbye - The Union sucks, it's broken and beyond economical repair, let us go our seperate ways but remain firm friends.
We are neighbours after all and have much shared history and DNA!
Crazy D
SR,
We stick together, come out of the EU together, then we devolve power each to England, Wales, Scotland and NI
That way we all have our own local laws, but agree on national laws - its called Direct Democracy and there is only one party willing to give that!
Simples!
OR, only I seem to have noticed that you are not SR.
May I congratulate you Jim, the others just don't notice any change in style. I don't know whether that's a compliment to OldRightie or me. :)
What you have to remember is that Scotland is due roughly 10% of all the buildings and infrastructure built and shared in taxation after 1707. For instance. 10 Downing Street, was not as far as I know in existence in 1707. So if it's valued at £100 million, Scotland gets £10 million and so on. The same would of course be true of the Forth Road Bridge etc in Scotland, if built with Taxpayers' dosh. But I'll bet the most money comes to Scotland.
It was the Treaty of Union that created the UK. If Scotland repudiates that treaty then the UK is dissolved.
WfW - the problem with that is we'd still be in the UK and the EU. Trident on the Clyde and EU directives telling us how big sausages should be and how many immigrants we have to accept.
No thanks.
How can it be a Union without anything being unified. It wasn't a union BEFORE the Act of Union of 1707. If the treaty is nullified how can it STILL BE a union and this a UNITED Kingdom?
Doesn't make sense. But when you bring in international law sense may not be called for.
Dark Lochnagar some very good points.
And I never got around to saying--good to see you Subrosa.
Good to see you too Jeanne.
I always felt countries should be identifiable land masses, divided by seas, mountains, rivers or other such physical entities. Not by race, religion or doctrine. Iregard myself foremost a Brit, secondly English! Mind you, I do enjoy English V Scots football matches.
Post a Comment