strichener Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 We could just take the £200m from our contribution to the UK foreign aid budget. I am sure the UK wouldn't mind as it surely is part of the remit of the DfID is "Helping developing countries to improve their infrastructure" . Given the state it appears we will be in when we become independent (no infrastructure, threat of Invasion, High Debt levels) we should easily qualify. Or we could just keep our £900m annual contribution and reduce it to £700m for one year. (Sorry Mr Corrupt African Politician, you will have to change your retirement plans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Can you provide evidence that I just make statements and disappear. Yes I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 oh thats nice that means we have part paid for it,which in turn means we own some of the systems down in ruk,so what are the start up costs of the ruk going to be? Not much. Anything that forms part of the fabric and institutions of the state remains with the successor state. Not particularly fair in my view, but then again geographical considerations come into play for buildings and mineral rights so it's swings and roundabouts I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Not much. Anything that forms part of the fabric and institutions of the state remains with the successor state. Not particularly fair in my view, but then again geographical considerations come into play for buildings and mineral rights so it's swings and roundabouts I suppose. Smashing we get the nukes,anyone got north koreas number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Software which belongs to the UK. As that is part of the institutional fabric of the UK it will remain under their ownership should Scotland secede. So it may be there but it will continue to be used by HMRC. The revenue service of an independent Scotland will have to sort themselves out. In what way are software licences immovable assets of the UK? They'll be split in the negotiations like everything else. That's if the UK even owns them, some IT will be provided by contractors like Fujitsu, Capita, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Smashing we get the nukes,anyone got north koreas number? Clearly not as they are part of the fabric and institutions of the UK, ie the Armed Forces In what way are software licences immovable assets of the UK? They'll be split in the negotiations like everything else. That's if the UK even owns them, some IT will be provided by contractors like Fujitsu, Capita, etc. I didn't say they were immovable assets I said they were part of the fabric and institutions of the UK. They will not require to be split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhaleOilBeefHucked Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Software which belongs to the UK. As that is part of the institutional fabric of the UK it will remain under their ownership should Scotland secede. So it may be there but it will continue to be used by HMRC. The revenue service of an independent Scotland will have to sort themselves out. The software may belong to the UK but you do realise that the company that created the software for the HMRC is a worldwide company that have also provided software for other countries tax collection agencies? Knowing the way the company works you'll probably find the system the HMRC got it wasn't too different to the one knocked up for the Australians, New Zealand or the Dutch. They will also be more than happy to knock up a system for a Scottish Tax office as long as they can make a profit and it won't be for 100's of millions either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Be ready for an influx of financial sector compaines once they realise that Scotland won't have a mechanism to tax all those massive bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Clearly not as they are part of the fabric and institutions of the UK, ie the Armed Forces I didn't say they were immovable assets I said they were part of the fabric and institutions of the UK. They will not require to be split. In what way could software be deemed to be part of the fabric and institutions of the UK. If you were to take this to it's logical conclusion this would cover absolutely everything currently owned by the UK (including licenced blocks offshore etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Tio is into the scaremongering,he is basically trying to say that indy would set us back to the stone age,my nuke comment was purely tongue in cheek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Clearly not as they are part of the fabric and institutions of the UK, ie the Armed Forces I didn't say they were immovable assets I said they were part of the fabric and institutions of the UK. They will not require to be split. This is completely wrong. The 1983 Vienna Convention provides that unless the successor states otherwise agree, immovable and movable state property connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to that state,' 9 while movable state property not connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to the successor states in equitable proportions. Harvard Law Journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I don't know how anyone can argue with the SG position regarding set up costs. They won't know exactly how much it will cost until after negotiations. Seems fair enough to me. In the spirit of "keeping both sides honest "... Can HB and Ad Lib spend the next 3 pages condemning the outright lies put forward by the UK government regarding start up costs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 This is completely wrong. The 1983 Vienna Convention provides that unless the successor states otherwise agree, immovable and movable state property connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to that state,' 9 while movable state property not connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to the successor states in equitable proportions. Harvard Law Journal. There will only be one successor state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Tio is into the scaremongering,he is basically trying to say that indy would set us back to the stone age,my nuke comment was purely tongue in cheek No I am not and no I am not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 No I am not and no I am not. oh you are,your implying that iscotland will get a few empty buildings, when any sane person acknowledges that there will be talks and things will get sorted out amicably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 There will only be one successor state. What will the other be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 This is completely wrong. The 1983 Vienna Convention provides that unless the successor states otherwise agree, immovable and movable state property connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to that state,' 9 while movable state property not connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to the successor states in equitable proportions. Harvard Law Journal. Oh Parp, why do you keep making such a complete tit of yourself? Does the Harvard Law Journal tell you who the countries who have signed the 1983 Convention are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 We can download a copy of the UK tax software off pirate bay. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Oh Parp, why do you keep making such a complete tit of yourself? Does the Harvard Law Journal tell you who the countries who have signed the 1983 Convention are? Please provide evidence that the convention will not be used as a guide to negotiations between rUK and Scotland. While you're at it you can provide alternative international legislation that covers the division of assets and liabilities between successor states. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-flash-of-perspective/ Good read. The 200 million set up costs seems like the bargain of the century to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.