BS: scottish independence

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:28 PM

Well it's a bit like the 'Mudcat wars" here N of the Border: far too many people heaping 4-letter word derision, vitriol and nastiness on anyone who disagrees with them. The Yes campaign are very vociferous, the No Thanks brigade much less so - afraid of having their windows put in, dog shit through their letter-boxes, etc if they declare their inclinations. They may be the silent majority, tho the polls suggest that the gap is closing fast.
The only 2 options are Yes or No: if there had been a 3rd option of "Devo-max" (more devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, I'm sure a lot of people would have gone for it. This option was blocked by Westminster: they would only agree to the 2 option referendum.
If there is a No vote, the aim would be for further devolution to occur, but the Yes campaign are currently using as their slogan - "Vote No for a Tory Government", and saying it will never happen.
I have read a lot, watched the TV debates, read thousands of diatribes on Facebook (now hiding most of them, and NOBODY, but NOBODY on either side has really convinced me that they are telling the TRUTH! My vote is already cast by post, and I'm no telling!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

McGraw. The United Kingdom exists. It doesn't alter as a result of any referendum on independence by a present part of it. It is still The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This forms part of the legislation allowing the referendum. I'm rather disappointed that you of all people are not noting that fundamental fact. A United Kingdom is not a coterminous geographical declaration.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:01 PM

So I assume you'd be all for merging the various countries in the EU into a single state, robomatic?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:29 PM

It seems like a devolution to split up something that works and replace it with something that will create more bureaucracy and be economically and militarily weaker. Putting two frontiers where there is now a border.

Robomatic who believes that when it comes to the U K, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM

"couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU ..."

The thing is, there are 'experts' on both sides saying completely opposite things, and each side wants to believe only its own experts. The fact is nobody knows - whatever happens will be determined more by politics than legal opinions, not least because there is no legal precedent. It will likely be a fudge - yes independent Scotland probably will stay/be admitted into the EU (but this is by no means a foregone conclusion since it will depend on the political agendas of a lot of different countries and institutions) but we cannot know what they might have to concede to achieve it.

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty and risk for the doubtful privilege of exchanging one set of lying bastard politicians for another - even if they will be all your own lying bastards. And if they end up kow-towing to Brussels rather than London, can you say you're independent?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM

Most of this is academic, most people have certainly made up their minds by now and most will vote on gut instinct.

Only the YES campaign have a positive vision for Scotland, the negativity of the NOs is rebounding on them big style, the public have sussed the scaremongering we see repeated on these pages.
Young people and females are swinging strongly to YES in voting intentions.....only the well heeled over fifties are frightened to rock the boat.
Personally, I am far from rich, but am comfortably off after a lifetime of hard manual labour.....but I want to see us start out on a political journey which will give our children and grandchildren a chance of a fulfilling life in the country in which they were born and bred. One doesn't have to be a millionaire to be happy or feel you have contributed to society.

At present a huge number of our young folks have been written off, consigned to the scrapheap and an existence on minimal benefits doled out by our masters in the obscenely rich South.

Give them a chance to develop some pride in their Nation and themselves.
"Now I'm sitting here, before the fire, the empty room, the forest choir
The flames that couldn't get any higher well they've withered now they've gone
But I'm still thinking my way is clear,
And I know what I'll do tomorrow"......VOTE YES FOR FREEDOM!!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:53 PM

If this ocvurs, vould other UK segments follow on a similar path?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:41 PM

Sorry there - "and a totally new country which has never existed before made of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:27 PM

"The UK" is short foe "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - and will cease to exist if the Scots go for independence. There will be two successor states, the already existing, but now independent historic country of Scotland, and a totally new country which has never existed before made of the England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

If Scotland has make a fresh application to join NATO, the EU and the United Nations, why is it assumed that won't apply to the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:19 PM

norway is not in the eu, and like england has its own cuurency but has treaty arrangements, why is this not a possibilty for scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:34 PM

Wouldn't it be funny if the yes vote won but Salmond was barred from public office for lying to the Scottish Parliament?

The snag is, (and on this I agree broadly with Teribus, as strange as it is to say so,) The UK is a member of The EU. Scotland isn't, or is as part of The UK. Spain doesn't want Catalonia getting ideas and Germany can see a skint Scotland in a few years, and they bear the brunt of bailouts.

No. By letting the ugly face of repugnant nationalism have a voice, Salmond and his traitor crew have caused divide, mistrust and hate. Regardless of the outcome, he has divided a country by trying to unite what was already united.

Salmond is not putting forward a case for an independent Scotland. He is putting forward a case for his party and what it wants to deliver. Destabilising the country fundamentally in order to be able to offer such things is reckless. That he cannot afford to deliver them and cannot show how it is costed beggars belief.

Before anybody casts a vote, they have ask themselves how sure they are that Salmond will not change his tune but Westminster politicians will change theirs? Because that is what he is saying.

He is a politician by the way, in case anybody hasn't noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM

Jings, here we go again...

Couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU Yes, it doesn't matter who says what, or how expert they are, Teribus will insist that only his version of reality has any value. Lovely. That must be very nice for Teribus. You're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALLAALA! Not Listening!"

The defence force that Scotland needs would be what was deemed appropriate for defending Scotland. And according to figures from the MOD, at present there are only 14,500-ish MoD personnel based in Scotland, so the 15,000 you scoff at from the White Paper would be more than that. And more than Greenland has, for sure.

Off home now, but may return for more later.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:19 AM

"the Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has explicitly said that Scottish independence is a matter between Scotland and Westminster and Spain has nothing to say on the matter, Spain being one of the countries most likely to feature in your supposed list of blackballers, I'd guess."

Quite right Scabby, Spain has got no say on the matter of Scottish Independence - But it does have some say on whether or not that independent Scotland is ever allowed to join the EU - True? The fact is Scabby that every existing member of the EU has a say as to whether of not Scotland gets to join - that my old son is cast in stone, its one of the EU's rules, irrespective of what Eck and the YESNP crowd say.

"You know, or you should, that is not a problem being faced only by Scotland. Scotland's stats for population ageing are not dramatically different than those for the rest of the UK. So the problem you describe is one that will be faced by ALL of the UK, not just Scotland. in the White Paper however, a partial solution has been proposed - namely to allow immigration to increase by a net amount of around 1400 people a year - the increase in working population would offset the deficit implicit in the ageing increase."

In Scotland the situation is worse than in the rest of the UK as over the next 15 years more people become pensioners than join the workforce. The situation for the UK as a whole over the next 15 years is nowhere near as bad.

Ah yes allowing immigration will ease the problem as promised in that document known as The White Paper which is really the SNP's next election manifesto. All these immigrants to Scotland are going to work where? I take it that those of working age will all have jobs before they arrive and that none of their dependents impose any additional burden with associated costs on independent Scotland's education, health and welfare services? Of course they won't Alex has waved his magic wand hasn't he? What happens as and when these immigrants reach pensionable age? More immigration, or are you relying on accelerated rates of breeding?

Why should anything that threatens Scotland necessarily also threaten the UK, or NATO for that matter? Perhaps some Russian oligarch might want to buy it in a few years time? The Chinese might take it over? As a terrorist target you will not have the force or the capability to deal with one of your oil production platforms being taken over, or counter anyone plundering your fisheries. That Scotland's geographic position makes it strategically important is a myth.

"Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations."

What would Scotland contribute? At present it has nothing and its proposals for a Scottish Defence Force are laughable (Total number was something like 15,000 wasn't it with a Reserve of 5,000 - why indeed should Russia tremble). Renege on Scotland's share of the National Debt and you get no share of assets, even if you did your share of those assets would prove to be a millstone round your necks.

Couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU. The reality is that Scotland is not currently a member of the EU (The UK is) and it will NOT be an EU member once it declares itself independent. Ah yes but Alex obtained "legal advice" on this didn't he? Only thing was the truth was that he hadn't and spent a fortune trying to cover up his lie to the electorate of Scotland.

Perfectly correct Scabby, my error, "There are 48,830 civil servants working in Scotland and 31,690 (65% of the total) work for parts of the UK Government such as the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD)." So that is only a loss 31,690 jobs out of 48,830.

On the Type 26 Frigates:

Initial order of 8 leading to 18 for the Royal Navy - these will be built in the UK
8 for the Royal Australian Navy - these would be built in the UK
6 for the Brazilian Navy + Wave Knight Class Tankers and River Class Patrol Vessels - these would be built in the UK

Any Type 26 Frigates built for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India - That make it any clearer?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:05 AM

I think it is highly probable that an independent Scotland would be in the EU. The question is on what terms? I think the EU establishment would insist on it joining the Euro, or drive a very hard bargain to stay out. Being in the Euro would have a significant effect on trade with the rest of the UK.

The Spanish Foreign Minister's comment is carefully phrased. Of course Spain should not interfere in the question of Scottish independence. The question of an independent Scotland's being allowed to join/remain in the EU is an entirely different one.

Same with NATO - I think it highly probable that Scotland will stay in NATO, but on what terms. If Scotland wants to benefit from the UK's and NATO's nuclear umbrella without hosting it, what other contribution will they be expected to make?

The problem with these issues isn't the black and white, in or out, but the shades of grey in between. It's very uncertain. Perhaps Scots regard that uncertainty as less important than the mere fact of independence. However no country in today's world can be entirely independent, and it is the nature of these and other relationships which will influence just how independent Scotland would be in reality.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM

Best Customer Loss: Well, if England as a market takes a massive "huff", that may well be a concern, but I'm guessing that cross-border trade between England and Scotland will still be a better bet, and less expensive than cross-channel. We'll see.

Proximity, like inertia, makes a big difference. Huge amounts of trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico just because we're all here side by side. Habit and proximity are natural forces probably nearly as strong as gravity. Don't underestimate them.

The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India.

Sounds like a crap shoot here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:20 AM

Oh for Goodness' sake, Teribus. I may answer some of these out of sequence as I don't have time to check references right now, but let me pick up a few things:

"The greatest stumbling block to Scotland becoming a member of the EU is the unanimous acceptance of Scotland's application by the existing member states - EXCLUDING the UK there are six current EU members that will blackball Scotland's application for purely national interest."
Any evidence of that? I am unaware of any member state having said any such thing - in fact the Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has explicitly said that Scottish independence is a matter between Scotland and Westminster and Spain has nothing to say on the matter, Spain being one of the countries most likely to feature in your supposed list of blackballers, I'd guess.

"Scotland's pensioners equate to 23% of the total population"
You know, or you should, that is not a problem being faced only by Scotland. Scotland's stats for population ageing are not dramatically different than those for the rest of the UK. So the problem you describe is one that will be faced by ALL of the UK, not just Scotland. in the White Paper however, a partial solution has been proposed - namely to allow immigration to increase by a net amount of around 1400 people a year - the increase in working population would offset the deficit implicit in the ageing increase.

And really, I'd love to know what the obsession is with NO-vote supporters in applying personal insults to Alex Salmond. If your points are valid, then don't undermine them by childish and irrational name-calling.

Your point 8 falls because I don't accept your premise that Scotland would be outside of the EU.

Point 7.   Civil Service - According to https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-provides-more-than-30-000-civil-service-jobs-in-scotland (do your own blicky, if you like) there are 48,830 Civil Service jobs located in Scotland, or to put it another way, less than one quarter of the number you cite. Of that number they are split about 65% - 35% between servicing UK requirements and Scottish Government needs. It's possible that some reduction in size may be necessary over time, but nothing like the carnage that you suggest.

3. NATO again. (sigh) If you care to look at a map, you will realise that anything that poses any kind of military threat to Scotland would automatically pose a threat to any of... wait a minute I already said this.. (Copy.. Paste) The second thought is that of course NATO could choose to "exclude" Scotland, but in reality, how much of a threat is that? As I said above, anything that's a real military threat to Scotland would be as much of a danger for England and other North Atlantic neighbours, so how could England, and its NATO allies, ignore such a threat? Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations.

9. Eh? Can I suggest you re-read this sentence and tell me what you think it means? The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India.
I think you have just said : The UK will never ever, nohow, noway place orders for Royal Navy outwith the UK. Ermm, except for these, which will be built in India. Maybe that's not what you meant. I'm sure you'll let me know.

Chin chin

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:13 AM

The difficulty with the EU issue is that as well as the legal position there are political issues. From what I gather, the EU treaties don't envisage this situation where a part of an existing member becomes independent.

Some, including the President of the European Commission, have said that Scotland would have to reapply just like any new member and would be subject to the same rules as a country joining from outside, which include accepting the Euro. Others disagree.

It seems likely to me that there would be considerable political will on all sides to ensure a smooth transition for Scotland - the alternatives are too messy. However there will also be considerable political pressure within the EU to insist on it joining the Euro. There will also be opposition from Spain and other countries nervous about their own rebellious provinces. Perhaps it will all work out but it is by no means clear and Salmond's repeated assurances that everything will be all right seem to ignore reality.

Same with the currency - either Scotland has currency union with rUK, in which case much of its 'independence' is a sham, or it joins the Euro (ditto), or it goes it alone and has to support its own currency, which leaves it exposed.

If the Scots choose to accept these risks that is up to them, but to pretend they don't exist and to ignore or dismiss unpalatable alternative opinions seems unwise.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:44 AM

Not all other countries are in the strategic geographic position of Scotland, that's the NATO interest. Sea ways domination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Referring to other countries isn't referring to the subject.

If Scotland wants to be in NATO, the subs have to stay.

Or is the promise Salmond making subject to "negotiation" same as every other SNP partisan promise masquerading as a question of independence?

Doesn't sound like independence to me if voting yes saddles you with promises of one particular party.





That can't afford to deliver anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:18 AM

1: "Out of the EU: To state this as a fact is an outright lie. "

One hell of a lot more thruth in what I said than in what Alex Salmond stated with regard to "legal advice" on the subject. If I am lying then so was the President of the EU, the last President of EU Commission and a few other EU notables.

2: "The reality is that many significant, informed authorities have expressed their views that there are no sensible reasons for Scotland's over 5 million citizens, who are already EU members, to be required to leave and then have to wait for readmission."

Since when has it been natural to link "sensible" with the EU? By the bye the 5 million you speak of are EU citizens because they are citizens of an EU member state that state being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - at present there is no such classification as a "Scottish Citizen" - in the UK we are all British Citizens, at least that is what it says in my Passport.

On the 24th March 2016 the United Kingdom will still exist and will still be a EU Member State, the newly independent State of Scotland will not be a member state of the EU and will have to apply for membership, and follow the process as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon including the criteria governing finance and government institutions.

The greatest stumbling block to Scotland becoming a member of the EU is the unanimous acceptance of Scotland's application by the existing member states - EXCLUDING the UK there are six current EU members that will blackball Scotland's application for purely national interest.

3: Why on earth would NATO wish to accept another "freeloader" jumping on the band wagon? Especially one that comes with strings attached. NATO is essentially a "nuclear alliance", something that Jowly & Co say they want no part of.

4: Oh you'll have a currency no doubt, any one you wish, then after a while maybe even one of your own, then you would be faced with adopting the Euro should you push forward with the plan to join the EU - please don't quote UK opt outs or Sweden those doors were slammed shut long ago - any country wishing to join now MUST adopt the Euro.

The guy who came up with the idea of a common currency (The Euro) was a German and he stipulated that it would only work as part of full political integration. That never happened and it is becoming increasingly doubtful that it ever will. Without that political union the monetary union will continue to lurch from one crisis to the next. The Euro is a long way from being out of the woods yet.

As Jowly says Scotland will use the pound initially {That by the way makes the third change in tack he has made since this fiasco was initiated} but without a formal currency union Scotland will have absolutely no control over that currency. Scotland will have no "Lender Of Last Resort" and off hand I do not know what "native" Bank the Scots will use.

5: What "multinational banks are *already* making to withdraw from London to Ireland in the event of an EU withdrawal." The only banks and financial institutions making contingency plans to move are the ones currently located in Edinburgh.

6: "If Scotland becomes independent, AND remains in the EU, maybe the capital will fly North and not to Ireland after all."

And IF my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle. If Scotland becomes independent Scotland will not be in the EU see 1 above.

7: The number of civil servants working in Scotland in departments servicing the whole of the UK's 63 million population is over 200,000. Nowhere near that number will be required in Scotland to service a population of only 5 million if the numbers are scaled down than requires something like just over 29,000 tops - that makes one hell of a lot of redundancies. Banks, Pension Funds, Asset Management Houses and Insurance companies will all HAVE to relocate to where the bulk of their business comes from under EU law (Edinburgh based Standard Life for instance has 90% of its business in the South). The Royal Bank of Scotland is 83% owned by the UK Treasury - it will be told by it's largest shareholder where it will operate.

8: 80% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK. The second it finds itself outside of the EU everything coming from Scotland automatically becomes more expensive. What would be Scotland's main port? What Ferry links would be opened to assist trade between the rest of Europe and this huge new market consisting of 5 million people?

9: The contract to build the Type 26 Frigates has been deliberately delayed until after the result of the Referendum is known. The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India.

All things are possible Mr. Douglas but if I were you I would look more at what is probable.

Back to currency again. At the last televised debate Alex Salmond stated that he sought a clear mandate from the Scottish People {More accurately the electorate of Scotland} to negotiate with the UK for a currency union covering the use by Scotland of the Pound Sterling. Now if you accept this then it becomes a nonsense, if the Pound Sterling within a Union is what is best for Scotland should someone point out to the Fat Prat and the population of Scotland as he calls them that that is precisely what we already have, and if they wish to have that then the one way to guarantee that is to vote NO?

At the moment Scotland's pensioners equate to 23% of the total population. Their pensions are being paid by the contributions of the working population of a country of 63 million people. Immediately on independence that 23% will have to paid for by a working population in Scotland of 42% of the population. Fast forward that 15 years and then it deteriorates to a pensionable population of 39% being supported by contributions of workers equating to 40% of the population - hope all you want Mr. Douglas, but the reality is that that is unsustainable.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:00 AM

Musket: There's two strands to my thought on the NATO position. The first is that NATO will do what NATO thinks makes sense for it. If we think that NATO will behave irrationally, then we should be very, very scared that the UK belongs to it. So if we assume that it won't behave irrationally, then what reason would it have for excluding Scotland?

Out of 28 states currently in NATO, only 3 have nuclear weapons. 5 other nations currently host nuclear weapons. But since geographically, stationing the rUK's nuclear arsenal in England would be as militarily effective (or ineffective), why should Scotland be told that it "must" host these weapons? Would any English constituency happily accept that burden?

The second thought is that of course NATO could choose to "exclude" Scotland, but in reality, how much of a threat is that? As I said above, anything that's a real military threat to Scotland would be as much of a danger for England and other North Atlantic neighbours, so how could England, and its NATO allies, ignore such a threat? Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations.

So what makes the most sense?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:39 AM

What is certain is that Salmond is offering a party manifesto and calling it reasons for independence.

Worse still for those duped by his duplicity, he keeps talking of negotiating with Westminster post referendum.

That and that alone makes not a single promise worth the lie that uttered it.

Scotland can use whatever currency it wishes. I live in The UK but have dollar and Euro accounts to reflect the source of my incomes. No problem. But what good is a government that has no control over its interest rates?

Scabby Douglas says it would remain in NATO. But Salmond says the subs will go, to which NATO reaffirmed yesterday that the subs stay.

Again. Why are so many people hanging on the words of an opportunist fool and risking a predicament that nobody, I repeat nobody has set out the advantages for yet?

He had the cheek to say he would have a mandate for negotiating sterling union. Yes, why don't we have a referendum in The UK to tell Germany what to do? Unless the people of The UK are asked via a referendum, no Westminster government can negotiate currency union. That was brought in regarding the Euro, but applies equally.

Don't get me wrong. If independence is better and UK citizens don't suffer without being asked, go for it. I haven't seen a case made yet though. All I see are unfunded promises by a political party, and what the flying fuck that has to do with nationhood is beyond me...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM

Teribus says:
" newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}"

OK, so one idea at a time:
Out of the EU: To state this as a fact is an outright lie. The UK government has not, and has said that it would not, seek the view of the EU on whether an independent Scotland would remain an EU member. Why haven't they? If they seriously thought the answer would be detrimental to independence, they would alomost certainly have asked, surely? The reality is that many significant, informed authorites have expressed their views that there are no sensible reasons for Scotland's over 5 million citizens, who are already EU members, to be required to leave and then have to wait for readmission.   The reality is that there is more danger to Scotland's membership of the EU from Westminster policy than from becoming independent.

Out of NATO: Seriously? Why on earth would the rUK want to share a landmass with a country that was not a member of the European defence club? Would it not be in the clear interests of rUK, and by extension NATO, to have Scotland as a member? Iceland has no army, 3 coastguard ships for a navy, Greenland has no military force of its own. Scaremongering.

Borrowed Currency: whatever currency arrangements are made, we're pretty sure we'll have a currency. (Yawn)

Flight capital: The bigger capital flight risk is from the preparations that some multinational banks are *already* making to withdraw from London to Ireland in the event of an EU withdrawal. If Scotland becomes independent, AND remains in the EU, maybe the capital will fly North and not to Ireland after all. Also, we're bored hearing these threats about flight of capital and loss of jobs - exactly the same threats were made before each of the referendum votes in 1979 and in 1997.

Best Customer Loss: Well, if England as a market takes a massive "huff", that may well be a concern, but I'm guessing that cross-border trade between England and Scotland will still be a better bet, and less expensive than cross-channel. We'll see.

NO Access to UK Government contracts for shipbuilding:
In 1972, there were around 34,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. Now there are around 6,000. How has the Union protected that industry? The current defence contracts are guaranteed. The independence White Paper proposes a "modest" fleet of 20 to 25 surface vessels to supply work to Clyde yards for a long time, and that's not even considering the benefit to the industry as a whole from diversifying into non-naval vessels.


Nothing is certain with independence, but many things are possible.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:33 AM

NATO summit yesterday included the commitment to retaining a presence in Scotland.

Obama said that included a nuclear deterrent.

Interesting times. Salmond is setting out an SNP agenda in the promises he makes. He states quite clearly that independence means losing Fasslane yet Scotland could vote Yes on that basis but then vote in a Labour government that wishes to remain in NATO.

All this bollocks about the referendum not being party political is about as clever as saying you can force foreign countries to play to your tune.

Negotiate the pound? Sure. Kept the subs, share oil revenue and let us control defence and you can. (That's what negotiation means as a possible example.)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:29 AM

Thanks for heads up on the book Ake, I'll track it down (my wife's a bookseller!).

Kicking trident out would be a real benefit of independence and I hope that if the vote is yes it might cause a rethink south of the border and increase opposition to hanging on to an expensive and essentially useless nuclear 'deterrent'.

I agree with McGrath regarding increased devolution after a no vote. I would seriously question the veracity of anything the main party leaders say; we've all learnt the hard way they do what they want in power even without a mandate and contrary to their manifestos.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:13 AM

Good post by Scabby.

As an Englishman living in England I hope they vote No because I fear the effect on the Rump UK of the loss of a counterweight to London and the Tory south and the reduction in whatever influence we still have in Europe and the world.

But let the Scots decide - I don't expect my fears to sway them. If they vote for independence I hope there's a clear majority and I wish them well. I'm sure after the smoke has cleared the two contries will work out a compromise on the currency, the oil, the nuclear bases etc.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM

""The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it." - MGOH

NOT according to this poll from May 2013:

"More than half of people in Scotland want to see Trident replaced – a new poll has claimed.

The surprising research from Lord Ashcroft, which contradicts claims made by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from earlier this year, showed that 51 per cent of Scots wanted the UK's nuclear deterrent replaced when it comes to the end of its useful life.

A total of 43 per cent of those 1,236 people polled thought nuclear weapons should continue to be based in Scotland with 39 per cent against it – although 68 per cent of people who said they were pro-Scottish independence said were against keeping UK nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM

The facts remain the same Mr. Douglas for whoever wins any election in Scotland in 2016 - the problems and the sums still remain the same and they still simply do not add up.

By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts.

"Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on"

Fastest recovering economy in the western world?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:44 AM

First off, a declaration of my own position: I am Scottish, living in Scotland. I have a vote, and have a settled intention to vote Yes for independence.

It's a mistake to equate the support for independence to unqualified adherence to the Scottish National Party (SNP) or for Alex Salmond. I have had several conversations with "Yes" supporters who declare a dislike for Salmond, but they all know that Scottish Parliament elections will take place in 2016, and they can then vote according to their political preferences. This is often summed up as: "Voting No because you hate the SNP is like not buying your dream house because you don't like the wallpaper". Support for independence is increasingly cross-party, and across the political spectrum. The most recent figures suggest something like 30% of Scottish labour supporters intend to vote Yes, against the expressed position of the Scottish Labour Party.

Jim McLean wasn't complaining about the Westminster Parliament being dominated by English MPs. It's obvious that in any country, geographically, some areas or regions will have differing political persuasions from others. So national assemblies reflect that variety. However, Scots for the most part don't see themselves as belonging to a "region", but a separate nation, a distinct country-within-a-country. So the democratic deficit Jim mentions is not just normal regional swings-and-roundabouts, it's something that people see a chance to end.

The arguments against independence focus a lot on finance, the economy and security. The underlying theme is - there are so many reasons that this could be difficult, unpleasant, uncomfortable - why would we put ourselves through this? It's easy to conclude that Yes supporters foresee a socialist utopia that Brian McNeill warns against: "We'll all live on the oil/ and the whisky by and by/ Free heavy beer! Pie suppers in the sky!". But actually we don't believe that. It will be massively challenging, of course, but is anyone really telling us that we're too poor, too small, or too stupid to run our own country?

The hugely positive aspect of the referendum process has been the way that it has energised political conversation across the whole of the country, in a way that I can't recall. For the most part, away from the televised shouting matches that have been passed off as "debate" between our political representatives, the discourse has been respectful and civilised, and this has allowed undecided voters to be persuaded to a choice, has permitted supporters of "No" to change to "undecided" and then to "Yes" - and there have probably been some who have made the journey the other way.

Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on - continued austerity, privatisation and destruction of the NHS, demonisation of the disadvantaged and those on benefits, xenophobia, withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP, more Middle East adventurism, Cameron/Osborne, and the looming possibility of Boris Johnson as PM, a national Labour party which is virtually indistinguishable in policy from the Con/Dem coalition government.

A vote for "Yes"is a vote for hope and possibility, for my children and grandchildren. It is a vote for change, making our own choices, for a different future.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:33 AM

"The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it. That might not be the case in the immediate vicinity of Faslane, since there are worries it could cost them jobs and trade - though even that is by no means certain.

And the promise that a vote for independence means getting rid of Trident is a significant element in the YES campaign. It's seen as a definite vote winner.

As for Shetland and the Orkneys, I'd think it likely that a constitutional arrangement similat to that of the Faroes with Denmark would be likely in an independeny Scotland.

If I was a Scot I think I'd be very sceptical about all the talk about how a No vote would be followed by increased devolution. The same kind of stuff was promised when they had the first referendum in 1979, and it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:29 AM

Complexion?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:57 AM

Stu, bit of thread drift, but I have just been re-reading "Change in the village" by George Bourne, which deals with the effect of the enclosures on the English people.

A riveting book with many lessons for the future.

Thanks for your input to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

That was a joke, but exactly the same arguments the Scottish nationalists are using to justify independence could be used by Shetland, and indeed some other regions.

Jim McLean complains about the Westminster parliament being dominated by English MPs. That may be true, but Scottish votes have on many occasions altered the balance of power - an article in today's Times points out that if Scotland had been independent the Tories would have held power uninterrupted between 1964 and 1997. The Midlothian Question is real. That doesn't take account of the number of Scots who have held high office. From an English perspective I could feel aggrieved that Scotland has a influence disproportionate to its size, but that is how democracy works.

I'm sure there are communities in Scotland which feel remote from decision-making in the Scottish parliament and feel it is dominated by Central Belt interests. That's inevitable in any political organisation, from the UN and EU down to parish councils.

If the Scots decide to go it alone I wish them well and hope it is a success. I have my doubts that it will be, but time will tell. And Scots may prize independence above other factors and regard that as a success regardless of the economic outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

"If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again?"

The alternative that was favoured in Scotland was DevoMax, basically making Scotland autonomous within the UK but still sharing things like currency, defence, some economic policies etc, basically the stuff it makes sense to share as we all live on the same island. However, Cameron would't have this on the referendum paper insisting instead on a straight Yes/No choice; usual tory absolutist bullshit.


"land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy"

You're starting an argument for the sake of it Tezza, a minor point with the same result. Interestingly enough a local historian thinks a golf club local to us is probably squatting on common land to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:20 AM

"Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke?"

I don't think they actually plan to, but it's been mooted.

If Scotland can secede from the UK taking 'their' oil, why can't Orkney and Shetland do so, taking 'theirs'?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:12 AM

Referendum 18th September 2014.

If the result is YES then Independence Day as currently planned will be 24th March 2016.

I hope and believe that the result will be NO - a YES for Scotland would be a disaster.

GSS you really should read a bit more on the "Clearances" and Stu should read a bit more on the "Enclosures". If both followed that advice GSS would discover that the "Clearances" started in the 17th not 18th century and that they started in the borders of Scotland. He would also discover that the idyll his cut'n'paste described was in fact very different from reality especially in the Highlands, where by the time he was referring to the clan were little more than the chattels of the clan chief and it was that self same clan chief who was kicking "his" people off what he saw as being "his" land. What land HM the Queen actually owns in Scotland was bought by Prince Albert during the reign of Queen Victoria. Stu on the other hand would learn that the land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy {Who saw it as a cheap means to acquire land of their own and increase THEIR wealth}.

To correct some of the misinformation coming from Akenaton:

The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident, the SNP and other groups who do not represent a majority by any stretch of the imagination do. The "people" of Scotland have never been asked about the presence of Trident, but those whose livelihoods depend upon Trident definitely want it to stay.

I was assured by Akenaton on this forum a few years ago that this referendum would definitely take place by 2010. If that was the case then I would have thought that between 2007 and the autumn of 2009 then the SNP would have all their ducks in a row and be fully capable of answering all questions leveled at them on the matter covering every aspect of what their independent Scotland would be like and how it would be financed by the people of Scotland - yet here we are within two weeks of the vote and they cannot tell us anything apart from - It will be alright on the night and oil will pay for everything - What a pity that their sums just simply do not add up.

By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}

The SNP during the campaign leading up to the vote on the 18th September has been caught out deliberately lying to the electorate and people of Scotland on numerous occasions. If such mark Alex Salmond out as "a very adept politician" Akenaton then I pity what will happen in your independent Scotland when the fools who have stupid enough to swallow his lies, incorrect assumptions and groundless assertions finally realise that independent Scotland in the real world cannot deliver what Jowly Eck and the SNP promised them.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:35 AM

Guest, I moved you over here because there's already a current discussion on Scottish independence. Multiple threads tend to split and confuse the discussion.

You pose a good question. It seems to me that there's room for Scotland to make a gradual move toward increasing independence, without fully separating from the United Kingdom. Self-determination has done a lot of good for Scotland already, but there are also many benefits to having an increasingly limited union with the United kingdom.

If the referendum passes, when will Scotland become an independent nation? I'm planning to make my second trip to Scotland next June, on Jim and Susie Malcolm's "SkOrkney" tour (Skye & Orkney). If independence passes, it will be interesting to see what's changed in six months.

-Joe-

Subject: BS: Scottish independence, what if its a No?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:46 PM

If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:41 PM

Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:51 PM

Only because Salmond has become a little too plump and cocky, helping to bring the Scottish Parliament down to the same level of puerility as Westminster, I have been leaning towards the No camp. But McGrath raises a tempting prospect. Could it possibly be that in the shake-up that would follow a Yes vote we might ditch the monarchy and the privileged status of the Church of England?

GSS: The referendum has got sod all to do with the Clearances. And what makes you think Alistair Darling and the Duke of Westminster (Gerald Grosvenor) are related?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM

I think that the assumption that if Scotland goes for independence that means the Tories will have a political boost because there won't be the Labour votes from Scotland could be a radical misjudgement. If the Scots vote for independence I can see the English political system going into meltdown, and a new political settlement coming out of it - with the Tories not doing too well in it.

The psycholigical reality of the realisation that there no longer is a country which can be called "Britain" could be quite dramatic.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:04 PM

You are a fool Ian, Mr Salmond is a very adept politician, driven by one very important goal, the achievement of Scottish Independence.
Without control of our own affairs we are a ship without a rudder, only after a YES victory and a general election will we see the true complexion of the new Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:57 PM

The people at 14 Ratskinner St, Catford have had injustices Dick, but nay bugger offers them independence?

Jim McClean has lost the argument and retires ungraciously. I doubt anybody will lose sleep.

If independence has so many answers and advantages Jim, why run away? Make me look a cunt instead.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:04 PM

bubblyrat, I am English.
Why should that stop me pointing out the injustices the Scots have suffered.Scotland is attempting to move on, that is why they are having a referendum

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: bubblyrat
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:24 PM

Why not an indedpendent Cornwall ? Isle of Man ? Isle of Wight ? Lundy ? Oxfordshire ? Where will it all end ? And ,PLEASE -stop banging on about the Highland Clearances, and "Flower of Scotland " and so on, ad nauseam ; we English have been invaded by Vikings, Romans,the French et al for centuries but we don't keep MOANING on about like the Scots do about us . In fact, I FORGIVE the Vikings , the Danes,the Normans,the Romans ; it is all HISTORY and we have MOVED ON !! Why the hell can't Scotland move on ? ? ? I hope they DO gain their independence ,to be honest !

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

Musket can't have a proper debate without silly insults ... King Alex etcetera. I'm leaving this thread as Musket is not capable of conducting a sensible, non insulting conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM

Perhaps I should have put a smiley on that last post, knowing Mudcat some prat will miss the point and take it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:40 PM

Just read an article about the NATO chinwag in Wales today. One subject on the agenda is the strategic position of Scotland and promises made by Salmond that they will wish to remain in NATO.

That's clever when you think about it. He can forget his promises to get rid of nuclear subs and say it is a stipulation of NATO membership, so out of his hands.

Like I said.. Politician promises eh?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:37 PM

The Union of Crowns came about in 1603 (don't confuse with the Act of Union) because the Scotish monarchy inherited the English crown.

Its time the English threw off the Scottish yoke, sent the Windsors back to Holyrood and declared independence.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM

Still nationalism, which is becoming irrelevant in these global times.

I could make the same argument for huge swathes of England, Wales and NI, who never voted for x party. What makes the Scottish counties so different?

You realise if he wins, King Alex I will be unbearable? Mind you, at least SNP mean well, understand compassion and equality and all that. I was rather bemused however to see Akenaton had joined a party that stands for everything he hates.

A broad church indeed. I hope for Scotland that should he win, his party knows how to lose support because their "promise the lot" attitude has a shelf life.

The rest of The UK getting the government it elects? The UK as it stands always has done, coalitions apart. You must read up on parliamentary democracy Jim before embarrassing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:21 PM

Indeed Jim, plus the scandal of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil. We are sick of being a dumping ground for nuclear weapons, the Scottish people are firmly against this and we will never make Scotland a "nuke free zone" until we are in a position to determine our own future.

Political representation and Nuclear disarmament, two very big positives promoted by the YES campaign.
The NO's have no vision for our country, just an eternity of more of the same....two lost generations of young people, an ever widening wealth gap....."Equality in the UK" don't make me laugh......