To ask how an independent Scotland would fund the ex Team GB athletes?

[Bearbehind]

I have no idea how sports funding works, hence the question, but watching the Winter Olympics has got me thinking. If Scotland votes for independence what would happen to, for example the Curling team, who are all Scottish?

In principle I'd have thought Team GB has access to more funding/ sponsorship etc as a bigger entity but could an independent Scotland provide the required support?

No the party who is leaving would have to start there own lotto

If they wanted to.

I don't approve of gambling, especially the lottery which has the effect of draining money from the pockets of the poor, the credulous, and the hopeless.

What's more shocking is why doesn't the rest of the UK have the amazing training facilities that England has?

We have all paid our taxes etc, why should other areas of the UK not be treated equally.

Why does England/London always benefit the most?

The London Olympics saw funding/ lottery funding diverted from charities, sports clubs, community stuff all over the UK at a massive cost to local areas. That had a major effect on sports facilities all over UK.

Would be great opportunity to invest in decent facilities in Scotland.

Yes agree I think to leave with so many big questions and small unanswered simply to spite the English or thinking Scotland will morph into some Nordic paradise is naive it say the least.

When you talk about the big questions all the yes camp seem to say is either the English are bluffing or it will all work out in the end

But not only is it not economically practical to share a currency I don't think the Scottish are aware of how many English don't want it I listed to Many phone in so this and the general view seems to be I wish they would stay but if they leave they won't be taking the £

Also I can't believe it's not unnerving salmon that business are now openly making plans to relocate from Scotland

Also he's not addressed what happens if the vote is close eg sectarian violence after all this is the issue is NI it's pretty much split down the middle I think your no a hiding to nothing walking away when you only have half the country behind you

Standard Life is talking about a relocation.

But redomiciling businesses need not be a problem if their operations continue in situ (example - Hing Kong in run up to handover).

I said "split" for the Lottery because the infrastructure (terminals etc) exist on both sides of the border, so it might make more sense to divide along the border and sell Scotland based assets to any new iScottish provider, rather than starting from scratch.

A small oil rich independent country is more than capable of funding it's own projects, including sport. How will the UK plug the gap when the oil money stops flowing into the treasury?

That the revenue is the sole reason that the UK. Westminster parties are fighting tooth and nail to hang onto Scotland. Why else would they want to hang on to a region they apparently "subsidise". They won't subsidise people with an extra bedroom yet they come over all altruistic with regards to Scotland and want to keep "subsidising" a whole country.
If the oil was in English waters, the UK government would be telling Scotland to shut the door and put the lights out when they leave.

I imagine that the national lottery money would be split on the basis of population. Scotland has a popultation of 5 million and the whole of the IK including scotland has 63 million. Scotland would get 8% of the funding that the lottery has generated. (I don't know if the lottery is more poplar north of the boarder though.) I expect that there would be a team scotland and a smaller team GB.

"Also he's not addressed what happens if the vote is close eg sectarian violence after all this is the issue is NI it's pretty much split down the middle I think your no a hiding to nothing walking away when you only have half the country behind you"

Why do you think that scots would have secterian violence if there was a no vote? Ireland is different because their split has relgion mixed in. The religous position of England and Scotland are very close. Salmond wants the ablity for scotland to make their own decisions. The SNP is not a terrorist party. They are excercising their democratic right to campaign for change. I am sure that Salmond would be horrified if terrorist attacks were carried in the name of scottish independence after referdum that voted "no".

But a declining natural resource like oil isn't going to keep Scotland for all eternity, particularly if companies like Standard Life bow out and take with them the taxes they and their employees would otherwise pay into the iScottish economy.

of course, the large financial sector in Scotland has a lot of customers in England.

In the event of independence, the English and other rUK customers can be expected to move their savings and investments into their own country, as there are added risks to having your money in a different country. In some cases, the companies will themselves relocate, to avoid losing their customers.

It's possible that tax or other arrangements will be devised to make Scottish companies more attractive to customers outside there own country, but with the experience of Iceland behind us, it's quite reasonable to be cautious about cross-border savings and investments.

But a declining natural resource like oil isn't going to keep Scotland for all eternity

Of course not. But oil is by no means Scotland's only asset/ source of revenue.

Oil is a diminishing resource and that applies to every oil producing country.Fortunately Scotland has a thriving sector in renewable energies, something that will become important in the future not just at home but across the planet. Eventually fossil fuels will run out everywhere and Scotland is already looking towards that and will be well placed to exploit it.

Oil IS a diminishing resource, but it is not diminishing as as quicky as the government would have us believe, there is plenty there. Infact oil analysts predict that the antlantic fields (also in scottish waters) are very significant and will overtake the north sea as the main oil producing region within 20 years. It may be becoming more difficult to extract but Scotland has massive marine engineering experience so again we will manage.

The UK govermment has had 40 years of oil money to play with. Not one penny was saved or invested. And yet in their conceit think that they are best placed to manage it for the next 40. A Scottish government would need to be really inept to make a bigger arse up than 4 or 5 different UK administations have managed.

With regards to sectarian violence, along what lines? The catholic side of the great divide are traditionally labour voters, labour are a unionist party. At the same time many Scots of Irish Catholic decent are fairly anti British in their thinking and would support "freedooooooooom!" The Nats traditionally drew the "protestant vote" or thats how it was percieved, yet many Catholics vote for them, they must do, there was a Nat land slide in the Scottsh elections. The dyed in the wool pillars of the "Kirk" would tend towards unionism and Britishness but do like a good bit of Scottish cant too. Its simplistic to say there would be violence on a "sectarian line". The line is too blurred for that to happen. Who knows if there will be civil unrest, but it is unlikely to be traditionally sectarian as its understood in Scotland.

But salmon told us this WAS not going to happen he told

Us Scotland would keep the pound and that Scotland would be in the EU before tea time and company's are. Not worried so far it's not really panning out

Salmond is adhering to the terms of the edinburgh agreement in not indulging in pre negotiation. The UK goverment is ignoring that and acting outwith what was agreed. If there is a yes vote, Scotland wont become independent tomorrow immediately. It is risible for politicians who are unlikely to still be in power when it comes around to state categorically NOW what will and wont happen THEN.

Having personal savings domiciled in another country isn't necessarily a problem (eg Post Office accounts 'live' in Eire).

Though until iScotland sets up an indemnification scheme, people might prefer to move their savings to a country which has one.

I wouldn't like to live in Scotland and own a property there at the moment. If businesses do move south, then jobs will go. And they will move due to the uncertainty and instability because of the lack of thought process that have gone on. Standard Life are saying this, not because independent scotland is bad, but because uncertainty is bad. Thats why the difference between Hong Kong and Scotland is monumental. Hong Kong was going back to China, it was in policy and planning for a very long time. The transition worked because it promoted stability and a status quo. I don't get why people don't understand this.

If jobs go, house prices go down and people are out of work. Even if you have x amount of money in oil revenue you still need jobs in other sectors otherwise you have a lot of unemployed people to support. People who are not able to move to find work as they are trapped by their homes; if they don't loose them of course.

Yet the whole economic blueprint for the country is based on oil.

It doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the UK (that wouldn't be pretty I fear), if thats happening in Scotland.

The assumption is that making your own decisions will make people more in control of their destiny. Everything I have seen suggested the opposite - not because the idea of a independent Scotland is a bad one - but because the planning and practicalities have been thought through by idiots. Sorry, I'll correct myself, because there is no planning about the practicalities!

I do not get why it is about Scotland v England. It should be about bad governance and bad planning - of which north and south of the border are both clearly guilty of. I don't think that the pro-independence lot have got the best interests of the people of Scotland at heart anymore than Westminster. If they did, the debate wouldn't be the way it was with this uncertainty being a reoccurring theme.

As for sectarianism, its not just an issue for Scotland. If the rest of the UK gets fucked in this, as many pro-independence voices are rather gleefully trying to suggest, it creates a problem. You may end up with problems in Scotland if Independence goes badly, but its also true south of the border.

Not only that, but England will have the dubious position of having someone to blame because we have no vote in the matter. That doesn't bode well for Scots who do make the decision to move south of the border. Flag waving has the potential to be a very tense affair.

I do feel that this idea that "The Scots might get one over on their English masters" a dangerous game and one that some nationalists have no idea of the potential problems it could cause. The truth is, should a negative situation be created either north or south of the border as a direct result of independence, its not going to be good for either of us.

So why gleefully suggest it as a good thing? Unless you are a bit of an ignorant twat.

Monty salmon is not negotiating he is shipyard strutting around Aberdeen

Telling everyone one

We will have the pound we will have easy quick membership to the EU

With out actually talking to the people who hold the keys to the safe

there is also the extra risk of a small country with a large financial sector; and the effect of the government of that country not being very sympathetic to foreigners.

cf Iceland, Cyprus

As regards the people of rUK not having any desire to enter into a currency union with another independent country, remind me again who it was that raised the controversy by saying it would happen?

montysma1 Thu 27-Feb-14 11:55:30
Salmond is adhering to the terms of the edinburgh agreement in not indulging in pre negotiation. The UK goverment is ignoring that and acting outwith what was agreed. If there is a yes vote, Scotland wont become independent tomorrow immediately. It is risible for politicians who are unlikely to still be in power when it comes around to state categorically NOW what will and wont happen THEN.

Which just proves the whole thing was flawed from the word go.

Westminster not taking the idea as having a serious chance and Salmond for deciding that going to independence under those conditions was in the best interests of anyone.

Both = twats.

Grants from the British European pot.

The reason that Hong Kong is a valid comparison is that, although there was planning over many years via JLG, there were many ups and downs on the way and it was by no means clear at many stages what the outcomes would be. And what happened then during the periods of uncertainty (such as redomiciling) is happening again.

And no-one quite knew what a special autonomous region would look like in practice (for China could have handled a number of things in different ways to how they actually did) just as no-one knows exactly what iScotland will be like in practice (because handling of a number of things is unknown).

No, Hong Kong was ALWAYS going back. Hence the fact that there wasn't a need for political point scoring in the same way there is here. There is political motivation to be as obstructive as possible in a way that there wasn't for HK.

I know the circumstances of transfer were different.

But the uncertainties related to the change of status are much the same.

I meant it as a comparison of the (many) practical problems rown up, and effects of uncertaintly. Not anything to do with campaigning (though of course there was quite a lot of propagandising, especially in the early pre-JD/JLG days).