Veterans planning to leave Scotland in the event of a yes vote?

[clunckdriver]

Melmothw, you still dont get it, we are still a constutional monachy, we have a Govenor Generall WHO IS OUR HEAD OF STATE, {NOT the PM}, Meech Lake didnt work, Quebec didnt sign, we still swear alligence to the Queen, what you must understand is Canada has not been able to sever its conection with Westminster, thus not not truly an independent nation, the only hope I see for fixing this is if "Big Ears" takes over the throne, he is so disliked over here that this might unite us enough to fix the problem. So to sum up, there have been no "seperation riots " in Canada, simply because we have not fully seperated from the UK, in spite of what you may think.

[melmothtw]

One.last.time.Clunk

It is not that I 'don't get it', it's that, for the purposes of this thread, I do not care about Canada or Canadian history. I only used Canada as an example of a country that did not suffer civil wars and genocide following independence.

Now, before you start ranting to me again about the semantics of whether Canada actually is independent or not (as you seem to suggest) remember, I.do.not.care.

[Herod]

Clunk. I'm ready to be corrected, but when Canada ceased to be a Dominion and became an independent country didn't you set up your own government, currency, central bank, armed forces etc, and are you not an individual member of the UN and NATO? As far as I'm aware you have no connection to Westminster, any more than Australia and New Zealand do. Yes, you do still have the Queen as Head of State and, as such, have a Governor General, but that's as far as British involvement goes. Oh, and I assume by "Big Ears" you are referring to the person who is properly known as HRH the Prince of Wales.

[NutLoose]

I for one also dread the day "Big Ears" finally gets to Rule, one hopes that is not for a very long time.

I have to admit as to not being his greatest fan, nor his sidekick, but I feel it will not do the Monarchy of this Country any favours.... Right that's me orf to the Tower.

[airpolice]

It's not all doom and gloom for pensioners.

Aware as I am that there is a danger of getting back on track........ The potential for Leeming to become the Northern Frontier is the same as the potential for the VietJock Air Force to get Leuchars back to an operational state to support our small Air Force, and defence jobs.


So, Veterans may want to see what happens before deciding to move.

All the talk of Scotland facing bankruptcy is based on us not having enough money to keep doing what we do. That's probably true, but the plans (such as they are) involve not doing a lot of it. Not just Nuclear (armed) subs but Carriers and £65 Million aircraft that do what exactly? We don't need to invade Syria, we need to protect the Oil rigs and Fishing grounds.


However, I do predict job losses in the event of a Yes vote. I'm a Yes voter.

The first round of losses that will be come obvious are at Glasgow, Edinburgh & Aberdeen Airports. There is a large amount of HMG & Civil Service traffic up and down to London town and that can all stop. I think lots of the Euro traffic will also fade away. How the airports will manage on just the people paying their own way for flying is hard to see.

I read a few pages ago that there is a concern re Pensions being kept at the same level if you elect to keep taking them whilst living up here. If our cost of living should go down (as a result of lower taxation supported by lower defence spending) would you want your pension lowered by Westminster?

Spot the connections between Finland, Sweden and Ireland.

Not in NATO.

Not going in for Expeditionary Warfare.

Not getting invaded.

In the event of a yes vote, the smart move for Service Pensioners may be to move up here, buy a nice house, cheap, from a deserter running south with his money, and live in a society not burdened by the cost of supporting pretensions of being a world power.

The Irish don't need Typhoons for QRA. Neither do we.

The Isle of Man don't need their own Navy, despite being an island, and Ireland have an Air Force with fewer than 30 aircraft.

If NATO are so concerned about the top right corner of the UKADGE they might want to rent Lossie from Scotland.

That's just on the military front, imagine all the other money we can save by not doing lots of other stuff that has been festering in Westminster for years. Don't get me started on Brussels.

A few months ago David Cameron was suggesting that Pestilence and a Plague of Frogs would devour Scotland if we split. This was because the Spaniards can't afford to set a precedent by allowing and independent breakaway to join the EU, and being excluded means the sky will fall in. Then just weeks later Dave is suggesting a Referendum on the UK Leaving the EU to improve things.


The case for Independent Scotland going bust is far from clear cut.

P.S. the next time you are going through the security panto at Heathrow, just remember this; the last terrorist who tried to attack a Scottish Airport, got a kicking (whilst on fire) from a baggage handler.

[TomJoad]

Originally Posted by engineer(retard)

Our service to the crown also included Scotland, so debts, assets and liabilities will have to be negotiated and our pensions are a future liability paid for against the defence budget which I am sure the SNP have factored into their White Paper.

Correct engineer(retard) that's certainly my understanding. I have no reason to suspect why the UK gov would not honour that obligation - either by transfer of funds to Scottish government or payment in a similar way as to what happens now where vets are already domiciled outside of the UK.

Tom

[Biggus]

airpolice,


Yes, Ireland not spending all that money on defence certainly helped their economy, didn't it?

Ireland Moves to Repay IMF Bailout Loans Early - WSJ


The population of the Scotland is about 5.3M, of the whole UK approx. 64M, so Scotland represents about 8%. The UK defence budget is estimated to be around £33Bn for 2015. Page 604 of the SNP document projects an independent Scotland to spend £3Bn on defence in 2016. £3Bn represents about 9% of £33Bn. So in terms of expenditure per head of population, an independent Scotland is not planned to actually make any significant savings in defence, indeed it might spend slightly more.

Besides which, any predictions about a future Scotlands economy running into difficulty, whether you agree with them or not, aren't based on defence spending.



As for not "doing" £65M aircraft, page 240 of the SNP document states that they want a minimum of 12 Typhoons!

[ValMORNA]

However, Tom, many pensioners domiciled outside the UK have their pensions frozen at the same level as when they leave the UK, do they not?

[TomJoad]

Originally Posted by ValMORNA

However, Tom, many pensioners domiciled outside the UK have their pensions frozen at the same level as when they leave the UK, do they not?

Surely the service pension is frozen even if you reside in the UK, the only increment being annual CPI or when your commutation period is spent. Or are we talking about something else?

Tom

[Herod]

Tom, the frozen refers to the State Pension. Depending on where you live, and the arrangements in force, that is frozen at the figure it was when you left UK. There is no CPI rise; it just stays at the same figure.

[Burritto]

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer(retard) View Post
Our service to the crown also included Scotland, so debts, assets and liabilities will have to be negotiated and our pensions are a future liability paid for against the defence budget which I am sure the SNP have factored into their White Paper.
Correct engineer(retard) that's certainly my understanding. I have no reason to suspect why the UK gov would not honour that obligation - either by transfer of funds to Scottish government or payment in a similar way as to what happens now where vets are already domiciled outside of the UK.

Tom

Tom, please excuse me but are you saying that the rUK should pay all of your military pension should Scotland gain independence, and that iScot taxpayers shouldn't? I suppose rUK could pay 92% share of all those in iScot, and the scottish government the other 8% (based on population). As long as the iScot tax payer contributes 8% for ALL the veterans residing in rUK of course. I suppose if negotiations become strained I could take a 8% cut, could you take a 92% cut?

[TomJoad]

Originally Posted by Herod

Tom, the frozen refers to the State Pension. Depending on where you live, and the arrangements in force, that is frozen at the figure it was when you left UK. There is no CPI rise; it just stays at the same figure.

Sorry Herod I was talking about the mil pension, I can see what you mean.

Originally posted by Burritto:
Tom, please excuse me but are you saying that the rUK should pay all of your military pension should Scotland gain independence, and that iScot taxpayers shouldn't? I suppose rUK could pay 92% share of all those in iScot, and the scottish government the other 8% (based on population). As long as the iScot tax payer contributes 8% for ALL the veterans residing in rUK of course. I suppose if negotiations become strained I could take a 8% cut, could you take a 92% cut?

No I'm not. I'm saying that the pension which was accrued under contract should continue to be honoured. Clearly an iScotland would have a responsibility to honour her element of that as would rUK - rUK would have the greater percentage to fund. So in effect as you have described less of course the churlish rider at the end. When it comes to these things, despite what we may think, our governments are actually sensible in their solutions.

Tom

[airpolice]

Biggus, like so many other people, you seem to be confusing an Independent Scotland and a Independent Scotland run by the SNP.

Once we break free from the shackles of Westminster, we may treat Wee Eck to a Churchillian send off.

This election is not about the SNP, it's about Scotland.

[Lima Juliet]

Spot the connections between Finland, Sweden and Ireland.

Not in NATO.

Not going in for Expeditionary Warfare.

Not getting invaded.

In the event of a yes vote, the smart move for Service Pensioners may be to move up here, buy a nice house, cheap, from a deserter running south with his money, and live in a society not burdened by the cost of supporting pretensions of being a world power.

The Irish don't need Typhoons for QRA. Neither do we.

The Isle of Man don't need their own Navy, despite being an island, and Ireland have an Air Force with fewer than 30 aircraft.

If NATO are so concerned about the top right corner of the UKADGE they might want to rent Lossie from Scotland.

Naivity?

So that would be the Ireland that needed bailing out for setting up an economy on tourism, booze and local produce? (Sound familiar?)

So that would be the Finland that is starting to get worried over recent Russian border movements?

So that would be the Ireland, Sweden and Finland that are discussing joining NATO in light of what has happened to Ukraine? (Try doing a Google search on the subject!)

So that would be the NATO that has a treaty article that protects us all from what just happened in the Crimea?

So that would be the Typhoons that will escort the Russian aircraft without the correct transponders to show up on Scottish Civil Air Traffic Control Radars that will fly in Scottish airspace without regard to the commercial airliners under its control? And they will be the Russian aircraft that are visiting Cuba and its surface/sub-surface fleet more regularly?

So an armed force is not required by Scotland to protect the oil that 'Salmon D' is so convinced will be all his and will fund his welfare state? That will be the oil and gas that no one else will want then? That will be the myriad of islands with oil and strategic importance that someone like Putin will just take if not given any resistance (like he did in Crimea and is doing now in Ukraine)?

Yup, plain naivity and ignorance will see you through...

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Oh, and as for your baggage handler, maybe the QGM was a bit hasty:

Glasgow terror hero is 'a fake who failed to land a blow on burning man' during airport attack, say bitter colleagues

Alex McIlveen, who tore a tendon in his foot while tackling burning Kafeel Ahmed, told reporters: "John Smeaton is not telling the whole truth. When it came to tackling the bombers, he didn't land a blow."

Mr McIlveen claimed it was he and two other men, Michael Kerr and Stephen Clarkson, who were mainly responsible for defeating the terrorists that day and all Mr Smeaton contributed were fine words.

"It was the policeman, Michael Kerr and myself who tackled the first bomber after he got out the passenger side of the jeep. Then it was Stephen Clarkson, myself and three other policemen who tried to stop the second one who was on fire.

"As far as I am concerned, at no point did John Smeaton attempt to tackle the bombers.

Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/glasg...s-6689067.html

[The Helpful Stacker]

Airpolice - With so many tasty morsels to pick from I was spolit for choice, so I'll just stick with a little bit for now and allow others a turn at the buffet.

If our cost of living should go down (as a result of lower taxation supported by lower defence spending) would you want your pension lowered by Westminster?

Spot the connections between Finland, Sweden and Ireland.

Not in NATO.

Lets start at the end and work backwards. The SNP/Yes to Independence campaign have stated they wish to remain in/join NATO.

So working further back, neither Finland, Sweden nor Ireland are NATO members so can choose their own levels of defence spending.

Going back to the start, if is a very big word. How will iScotland be able to afford lower taxation when (if), according to Salmonds plans, they become a member of NATO and are required to maintain defence spending levels of, I believe, 2% of GDP?

I'm all for Scotland having an independence referendum and, if it leads to it, going their own way, but please don't pretend a post-independence Scotland is going to be a land of milk and honey (and low taxes), especially not if the promises being made by the Yes campaign are stuck to. If the Yes campaign stick to their promises (especially regarding health and social care provision) then someone is going to end up paying a significant amount of tax.

[Biggus]

airpolice,

If the vote is a yes, who is going to do all the negotiations with Westminster prior to independence in 2016. Who is going to lay down all the foundations, institutions, rules and regulations, choose the currency, etc, for an independent Scotland before you have the chance to throw them out in the 2016 elections?

That wouldn't be the SNP by any chance would it?

Maybe there'll be some advisory groups of Subject Matter Experts, selected, and paid, by the current Scottish Government, which is..... ah, SNP.

[TomJoad]

Who is going to lay down all the foundations, institutions, rules and regulations, choose the currency, etc, for an independent Scotland before you have the chance to throw them out in the 2016 elections?

That wouldn't be the SNP by any chance would it?

No it won't be the SNP it will be a cross party team including non political representatives from civic, law,business, charitable,faith organisations. There is also to be a representative component from the ordinary public. Quite an exciting prospect actually - I mean can you imagine having the opportunity to define what your country's constitution and her institutions will look like. No more carping about a corrupt honours system, no more house of Lords.....

Tom

[Lima Juliet]

Quite an exciting prospect actually...

Are you on the 'happy pills' again, Tom?

[Biggus]

TJ,

If you are correct, which I'm not disputing, then surely the 600 odd page document is nothing more than a waste of paper (which cost over £1M of taxpayers money) as nothing in it may come to pass? Indeed, all specific details being pushed by the "yes" campaign are inevitability nothing more than mere speculation. It's basically a case of vote for independence and then we'll work out what sort of country you get afterwards. To take a slightly fanciful example, all this massive amount of talk of keeping the pound on the basis "it's our pound" could be pointless if your cross party team decides to use the US$ on the basis it is a stable global currency and will attract more US tourists!

Presumably this cross party team will have to conclude its deliberations before any discussions with Westminster begin, as until they do the Scottish side won't know what its bargaining position is.