Scottish Independence (4 Viewers)

[lewis20126]

I was highly supportive of Scottish independence as I struggle to see why Scots whould receive on average £1400 pp more of social spending that the English. However given the economic turmoil that seems likely to accompany separation wonder whether the northward transfer of funding is a small price to pay for (what passes for) stability.

cheers, a

 

[jpoyner]

I would be very surprised if Scotland was expelled from the EU even temporarily. It has been part of the EU for 40 years, is completely compliant with all EU legislation and would be a net contributor to the EU budget. There is simply no mechanism for stripping 5 million people of EU citizenship and there will be no political will to punish a country for a democratic decision.

As far as I understand it won't be expelled, but will just not be part of it by default being a new country/state in its own right so will need to apply. I don't think the admission is automatic, the EU have said this. Problem here is 1. Spain may possibly veto this 2. EU will try and force use of the Euro. There will be a period of turmoil and uncertainty whatever happens and the economic backlash from this is a total unknown.

It's predicted house prices may devalue by up to 15% in Scotland almost immediately as a Yes vote is cast and may devalue as much as 50% until things settle just for starters, so anyone with a mortgage north of the border should be thinking very carefully!!

This article is well worth a careful read.....http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article47228.html

 

[lewis20126]

Will "English people" living in Scotland be able to apply for rUK passports and become/remain expats in Scotland?

cheers, alan

 

[Birdspotter]

Guys might we leave politics out of this and just stick to the issues that Andy Stoddart highlighted, otherwise this thread is about to get very messy! I have already chose to bite my tongue on a couple of non birding comments in some of the last posts....others might not

 

[jpoyner]

Guys might we leave politics out of this and just stick to the issues that Andy Stoddart highlighted, otherwise this thread is about to get very messy! I have already chose to bite my tongue on a couple of non birding comments in some of the last posts....others might not

Unavoidable I think in a thread titled "Scottish Independence" 9 days before the vote ......fair point...back to lists!

 

[robinm]

Best to keep this in topic. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of the referendum Ruffled Feathers is the place.

 

[lewis20126]

Guys might we leave politics out of this and just stick to the issues that Andy Stoddart highlighted, otherwise this thread is about to get very messy! I have already chose to bite my tongue on a couple of non birding comments in some of the last posts....others might not

Good point Birdspotter.

Andy asks about "the British List" - I would suggest there can be no such thing without a political concept of Britain. I don't think geography can establish a British List, but that is a point of debate I guess, see above for the various definitions of "Britain". The British List (like Britain) is a political construct and is maintained for the purpose of supporting legislative decisions.

cheers, alan

 

[Mud Hen]

Unavoidable I think in a thread titled "Scottish Independence" 9 days before the vote ......fair point...back to lists!

Agreed. It's a purely political subject. To explain what I wrote earlier, I fully understand why the Scots might not want to be ruled from Westminster, especially under a Tory government almost none of them voted for, but it's the phrase 'foreign country' I hate. It's a very short step from there to 'otherness', and xenophobia, which to me is ridiculous given the close ties between our countries and people.

To bring it back on topic then, birds recognise no national boundaries, and I believe that conservation (which often starts with lists) shouldn't either. Co-operation and stressing the things we have in common is far more useful and beneficial to wildlife than division. Conservationists should be first and foremost 'citizens of the world'.

 

[lewis20126]

How do BOU/BBRC respond?
Do their jurisdictions change?
Does recording just adapt to changing political boundaries?

In the spirit of independence, the default should be that BOU/BBRC voluntarily relinquish assessment of Scottish records to the appropriate Scottish body. However if Scottish birders then collectively determine that they wish to maintain the status quo, I don't see whay that would not be possible. There may be some procedural issues with regard to the Scottish List and whether the Scottish parliament and legislators would accept recommendations (eg on "firsts") from a cross border institution.

cheers, a

 

[Birdspotter]

Good point Birdspotter.

Andy asks about "the British List" - I would suggest there can be no such thing without a political concept of Britain. I don't think geography can establish a British List, but that is a point of debate I guess, see above for the various definitions of "Britain". The British List (like Britain) is a political construct and is maintained for the purpose of supporting legislative decisions.

cheers, alan

Indeed, i think the BOU with the political and legal issues of "The British List" in mind would have to omit several species from it that has been only recorded in Scotland. Further more they might/or not have to comsider a name change from the British Ornithologists Union to something else!?
In Scotland i guess the SOC would also have to take on the role of gaurdian of "The Scottish List" with regards to political and legal issues there.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Or parochialism

Funding is a parochial matter, and the RSPB, BTO, BOU, BOURC, SOC, UK Govt and SNP are parochial organisations by definition - hence the money generated from membership fees or taxation or whatever tends to be spent among those who generated it. That's how the world works. So funding to the BOU (or RSPB) would presumably be spent within its own jurisdiction, which would affect the British List, unless they became international organisations.

 

[CornishExile]

This article is well worth a careful read.....http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article47228.html

Careful being the operative word! To pick one example I'm involved in - the cost of decomissioning oil rigs is incumbent on the field developers, not the government as the article claims.

Anyway.

Back to the birds and the environment. It'll be interesting to see how an independent Scottish government fares in terms of agri-environmental income from Europe, and how it decides to apportion it, and to police it. In theory SGRPID and SNH are already on-the-ground; but I wonder whether Scottish independence alters the overarching process of CAP reform and how it will all play out for the environment in Scotland.

ce

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Indeed, i think the BOU with the political and legal issues of "The British List" in mind would have to omit several species from it that has been only recorded in Scotland. Further more they might/or not have to comsider a name change from the British Ornithologists Union to something else!?
In Scotland i guess the SOC would also have to take on the role of gaurdian of "The Scottish List" with regards to political and legal issues there.

It could also have conservation repercussions, with regards to alien/native species classifications. If a species is native in Scotland (say, Crested Tit) but then becomes introduced in England, it then becomes a non-native species in rest-of-Britain, and is an invasive alien. Similarly, Nuthatch then becomes an invasive non-native species in Scotland.

 

[Capercaillie71]

It could also have conservation repercussions, with regards to alien/native species classifications. If a species is native in Scotland (say, Crested Tit) but then becomes introduced in England, it then becomes a non-native species in rest-of-Britain, and is an invasive alien. Similarly, Nuthatch then becomes an invasive non-native species in Scotland.

Common sense has to prevail here. Cetti's warblers, Great White Egrets, Little Egrets are not counted as non-native invasive species despite having colonised from somewhere 'foreign'. Why would it be any different for a species spreading naturally from England to Scotland or vice versa?

 

[lewis20126]

Common sense has to prevail here. Cetti's warblers, Great White Egrets, Little Egrets are not counted as non-native invasive species despite having colonised from somewhere 'foreign'. Why would it be any different for a species spreading naturally from England to Scotland or vice versa?

Hmm, I don't think it as simple as that - there was a good George Monbiot piece on this recently - there is some wording in the WCA1981 (I think) about "not normally resident in.." which could be (is being by some..) interpretted as applying to natural / "native" colonists. I can't recall all of the details - the example may have been to do with Beavers..

cheers, a

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Common sense has to prevail here. Cetti's warblers, Great White Egrets, Little Egrets are not counted as non-native invasive species despite having colonised from somewhere 'foreign'. Why would it be any different for a species spreading naturally from England to Scotland or vice versa?

Think of Horse Chestnut Leaf-miner moth - got here naturally, treated as invasive alien. Also 'continental' cormorant sinsensis - got here naturally, subject to control orders as an invasive. A lot depends on perception, and the laws within national boundaries.

Also moving species within a country is a lot less problematic than moving them between countries, as legally-speaking they might not have been native within the 'new' boundaries (England/Svotland) compared to the old (UK). Could add extra red tape for White-tailed Eagle (obviously formerly resident in recent history in Scotland, much less clear-cut in England).

Bearing in mind the problem of climate change, and the way that habitat fragmentation will hinder the northward shift of species, expansion of English species into Scotland could now have a political dimension, or at least a practical one if we need to translocate e.g. butterflies or birds into new areas further north - you're now dealing with two nation states and cross-border international 'introductions', not translocations within borders. Then there's the issue of funding such conservation measures - which nation pays? England for giving away its species, or Scotland for taking a novel 'invasive' species?

 

[Capercaillie71]

there is some wording in the WCA1981 (I think) about "not normally resident in.." which could be (is being by some..) interpretted as applying to natural / "native" colonists.

I think that refers specifically to species that 'any person releases or allows to escape into the wild' so doesn't refer to natural colonisation. So releasing beavers might present a problem as they are presumably deemed to be not normally resident, but glossy ibises flying here from Spain and nesting does not.

 

[Capercaillie71]

Also moving species within a country is a lot less problematic than moving them between countries, as legally-speaking they might not have been native within the 'new' boundaries (England/Svotland) compared to the old (UK). Could add extra red tape for White-tailed Eagle (obviously formerly resident in recent history in Scotland, much less clear-cut in England).

Bearing in mind the problem of climate change, and the way that habitat fragmentation will hinder the northward shift of species, expansion of English species into Scotland could now have a political dimension, or at least a practical one if we need to translocate e.g. butterflies or birds into new areas further north - you're now dealing with two nation states and cross-border international 'introductions', not translocations within borders. Then there's the issue of funding such conservation measures - which nation pays? England for giving away its species, or Scotland for taking a novel 'invasive' species?

None of this is insurmountable or really a problem though, is it? Our White-tailed Eagles were reintroduced from Norway, which isn't even in the EU. Also I think Scotland has exported Golden Eagles to the Republic of Ireland for reintroduction.

 

[lewis20126]

I think that refers specifically to species that 'any person releases or allows to escape into the wild' so doesn't refer to natural colonisation. So releasing beavers might present a problem as they are presumably deemed to be not normally resident, but glossy ibises flying here from Spain and nesting does not.

WCA1981 as amended:

"14 Introduction of new species etc

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal which—

(a)is of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain in a wild state; or

(b)is included in Part I of Schedule 9,

he shall be guilty of an offence."

My emphasis,

cheers, a

 

[Jos Stratford]

For me, a yes vote would be a crying shame.

Quite the opposite for me ...were I a Scot, I'd be at the front of the queue waiting to vote 'yes'.