Scottish Independence vs Military assets
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,751
Received 2,730 Likes
on
1,162 Posts
Still cannot see the figures adding up, and how is signing up for the EU independent, first off they would need to hand back their fishing grounds, plus the Orkneys have said they wouldn’t want to be part of an independent Scotland so that would be the major oil fields gone, plus there is the decommissioning bill to be paid
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "
Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
" the SSNs could, I suppose, go back to Guz "
This was discussed a lot last time round - IIRC the question was would you try and replicate the current facilities or could you get away with something less massive. There was talk of opening a new facility at Falmouth but it would take forever to get permissions and build something. The obvious answer is to base them out of the USA.
This was discussed a lot last time round - IIRC the question was would you try and replicate the current facilities or could you get away with something less massive. There was talk of opening a new facility at Falmouth but it would take forever to get permissions and build something. The obvious answer is to base them out of the USA.
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "
Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
Equally, when was the UK, sans Scotland, ever a member? Might Brussels want to renegotiate the treaty with such a different entity?
Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.
Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "
Scotland will argue, with some made up justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
Scotland will argue, with some made up justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge
The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line
Was "Scotland" a member of the EU? No.
Within Scotland in the 2016 referendum was there a majority of votes cast to remain? Yes
Within Scotland in the recent parliamentary elections, was there a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties? No.
Can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are foreign relations within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? No.
Was "Scotland" a member of the EU? No.
Within Scotland in the 2016 referendum was there a majority of votes cast to remain? Yes
Within Scotland in the recent parliamentary elections, was there a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties? No.
Can't have it both ways.
Was "Scotland" a member of the EU? No.
Within Scotland in the 2016 referendum was there a majority of votes cast to remain? Yes
Within Scotland in the recent parliamentary elections, was there a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties? No.
Can't have it both ways.
Prior to last time polling for 'Yes' started below 30% and ended with a frighteningly close 45/55. This time it appears the starting base is only just under 50%.
It's stretching it a bit to assume that all SNP supporters want independence or that only SNP supporters want independence. Reality it is more nuanced than that.
People who persist with this 'Scotland's too wee, too stupid and too fickle' line of attack are more likely to be doing the SNPs job for them.
Equally, when was the UK, sans Scotland, ever a member? Might Brussels want to renegotiate the treaty with such a different entity?
Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.
Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.
yet here in the Highlands we pay the highest prices for electricity despite producing and exporting south large amounts. yet prices are set in London.
"Can't have it both ways."
well Boffin that absolutely proves you're not a politician.. ( I hasten to add I never thought for a minute that you were!)
Those of us who don't want Scotland to leave can argue all we like but I have a nasty feeling that this time the SNP will get their Referendum and that they will win it. The current Govt in London is far less popular than even Cameron's. The PM is absolute poison N of the border - the Scots Tories asked him to stay away during the latest election campaign
well Boffin that absolutely proves you're not a politician.. ( I hasten to add I never thought for a minute that you were!)
Those of us who don't want Scotland to leave can argue all we like but I have a nasty feeling that this time the SNP will get their Referendum and that they will win it. The current Govt in London is far less popular than even Cameron's. The PM is absolute poison N of the border - the Scots Tories asked him to stay away during the latest election campaign
Scottish Independance
How about this for 'a cunning plan'.
Have a referendum in England on Scottish Independance with English only voters.
The English being totally fed upwith subsidising the Scots and getting nothing but abuse back in return would overwhelmingly vote to ' let the Scots go'.
( not putting the clocks back in Autumn giving lighter nights in the winter would be a big vote puller)
The Scots, because they disagree with everything the English want would then contrarily vote to remain!
Problem solved!!
Have a referendum in England on Scottish Independance with English only voters.
The English being totally fed upwith subsidising the Scots and getting nothing but abuse back in return would overwhelmingly vote to ' let the Scots go'.
( not putting the clocks back in Autumn giving lighter nights in the winter would be a big vote puller)
The Scots, because they disagree with everything the English want would then contrarily vote to remain!
Problem solved!!
An ‘English only’ referendum, Mahogany Bob! Nothing particularly chauvinistic in that at all, eh?!?
And there was me thinking for all these years that I had been living in the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’; where Great Britain comprised England, Scotland and Wales! And my taxes were paid to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the greater good of all of the UK!!! Apparently not!!
Sometimes I despair!!!
And there was me thinking for all these years that I had been living in the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’; where Great Britain comprised England, Scotland and Wales! And my taxes were paid to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the greater good of all of the UK!!! Apparently not!!
Sometimes I despair!!!
The idea of an earlier "indicative vote" would be interesting - if 95% of the English decided they wanted the Scots to stay tit might actually help. The problem is if 51% say b***** off it would lead to a landslide or, even worse, what happens then if Scotland doesn't stay?
I don't think anyone is silly enough to give England a voice on N Ireland..
I don't think anyone is silly enough to give England a voice on N Ireland..
Thread Starter
It appears the political aspects have hijacked the thread...I know when to choose my battles!
Here goes then. Scottish independence is inevitable in my opinion, a long as the SNP are in charge. They have no interest whatsoever in the will of the Scottish people, unless that will is to leave the UK. If they force a referendum, and I believe they will, and the result is to 'Stay', does anyone honestly believe Sturgeon will repect that vote? Of course she will not - she is hellbent on independence, and will find a reason in a few years to force another vote, and another ad infinitum, until she gets a 'Leave' result. Once that happens, will she continue to have referendums every few years in case Scots have changed their minds and wish to rejoin the UK...of course not.
Scotland has beautiful countryside and lovely people. But my experience of Scottish towns is that they are run-down, tired, and getting worse. The rate of decline is only being slowed by the cash coming from south of the border. The sensible economic argument to leave does not exist, but the SNP will lie about that. This is purely about Nationalism, and that is why I despise Sturgeon so much, she is a vile excuse for a Scot, who will not be honest with 'her' people. She needs to be honest and say what is obvious to most of us - she wants independence for the sake of it, and so she can rule her own country. She needs to say the people will suffer, the economy will tank ,and jobs will be lost by the thousands, but they will be 'free'. I would at least respect the honesty, but she does not have an ounce of integrity - a truly disgusting individual.
Scotland is being supported by the UK - quite rightly as it is part of it. However, when they choose to leave, they must leave. Not a single penny for their shipyards, bases, airports, NHS, welfare state (a huge drain on Westminster) etc etc. Let Sturgeon talk her way out when Scottish companies are losing contracts and deals in their droves.
I am certain that the English would vote for Scotland to leave, in fact in a landslide. I would love nothing more than to watch the SNP sink under the reality of their own lies...and then extend the Olive branch and graciously allow Scotland to return as the old friends that they once were.
Not Sturgeon though. She would be banished to Rockall, which she can have for free.
Here goes then. Scottish independence is inevitable in my opinion, a long as the SNP are in charge. They have no interest whatsoever in the will of the Scottish people, unless that will is to leave the UK. If they force a referendum, and I believe they will, and the result is to 'Stay', does anyone honestly believe Sturgeon will repect that vote? Of course she will not - she is hellbent on independence, and will find a reason in a few years to force another vote, and another ad infinitum, until she gets a 'Leave' result. Once that happens, will she continue to have referendums every few years in case Scots have changed their minds and wish to rejoin the UK...of course not.
Scotland has beautiful countryside and lovely people. But my experience of Scottish towns is that they are run-down, tired, and getting worse. The rate of decline is only being slowed by the cash coming from south of the border. The sensible economic argument to leave does not exist, but the SNP will lie about that. This is purely about Nationalism, and that is why I despise Sturgeon so much, she is a vile excuse for a Scot, who will not be honest with 'her' people. She needs to be honest and say what is obvious to most of us - she wants independence for the sake of it, and so she can rule her own country. She needs to say the people will suffer, the economy will tank ,and jobs will be lost by the thousands, but they will be 'free'. I would at least respect the honesty, but she does not have an ounce of integrity - a truly disgusting individual.
Scotland is being supported by the UK - quite rightly as it is part of it. However, when they choose to leave, they must leave. Not a single penny for their shipyards, bases, airports, NHS, welfare state (a huge drain on Westminster) etc etc. Let Sturgeon talk her way out when Scottish companies are losing contracts and deals in their droves.
I am certain that the English would vote for Scotland to leave, in fact in a landslide. I would love nothing more than to watch the SNP sink under the reality of their own lies...and then extend the Olive branch and graciously allow Scotland to return as the old friends that they once were.
Not Sturgeon though. She would be banished to Rockall, which she can have for free.
Actually the repeated calls for referendums year after year was a PQ tactic in Canada - which never really worked...................
I feel for the Scots from the ideological perspective but I suspect the next indyref will fail because Sturgeon, much like Salmond, simply can't answer the basic economic questions. There's only so much shortbread you can shift...
Either way, we can expect a warm welcome North of the wall!
Either way, we can expect a warm welcome North of the wall!
Just found this thread and read it expecting the usual amount of Jingoistic bolleaux. I wasn't disappointed, though to be fair there are some excellent and balanced contributions.
In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.
In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.
To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.
Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.
In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.
In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.
To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.
Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.
It intrigues me that the SNP want on the one hand to retain the Queen as head of state but on the other hand want to sign international treaties and have their own armed forces.
If the Queen is in charge then the UK will be responsible for foreign affairs and defence as is the case with the Crown Dependencies. That means no armed forces flying the Saltire and no international treaties like union with the EU.
Have these points been addressed?
If the Queen is in charge then the UK will be responsible for foreign affairs and defence as is the case with the Crown Dependencies. That means no armed forces flying the Saltire and no international treaties like union with the EU.
Have these points been addressed?
Just found this thread and read it expecting the usual amount of Jingoistic bolleaux. I wasn't disappointed, though to be fair there are some excellent and balanced contributions.
In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.
In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.
To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.
Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.
In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.
In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.
To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.
Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.
The US was not able to do this and consequently had a traumatic civil war. Czechoslovakia by contrast achieved an amicable 'velvet divorce'.
Not sure where things stand in the England/Scotland discussion, but I see no indications that any serious discussions such as took place in Czechoslovakia before the split are happening, just posturing.
That last thought is critical imho, unions are voluntary and can dissolve unless the various partners can reach acceptable accords.
The US was not able to do this and consequently had a traumatic civil war. Czechoslovakia by contrast achieved an amicable 'velvet divorce'.
Not sure where things stand in the England/Scotland discussion, but I see no indications that any serious discussions such as took place in Czechoslovakia before the split are happening, just posturing.
The US was not able to do this and consequently had a traumatic civil war. Czechoslovakia by contrast achieved an amicable 'velvet divorce'.
Not sure where things stand in the England/Scotland discussion, but I see no indications that any serious discussions such as took place in Czechoslovakia before the split are happening, just posturing.
