Scottish Independence vs Military assets
 

It appears that the issue of Scottiish Independence may soon be addressed again, if the SNP have their way. I have my own views on the merits of this, as I am sure most do (craving independence only to re-join the EU and give it away again :rolleyes:, relying heavily on oil revenues when the whole world is going green and they don't own the oil, basing recovery on the abilities of one of the most unhealthy workforces in Europe etc etc), but my question is not about whether Scotland should leave, but about the UK's military assets and other related issues. I would like the opinions and views of the sage Pprune contributors.

Examples:
-There is a lot of investment going on at Lossie for Wedgetail, Poseidon etc. Does the base close and are all assets moved South of the border? Scottish taxes paid for part of the work, so how is this addressed?
- If UK bases remain in Scotland, are they given 'Sovereign' rights ie. SBA's in Cyprus?
-There are a lot of Scots in the UK Forces, and indeed entirely Scottish regiments. Do they remain in the Service of the UK Armed Forces when Scotland is not in the UK? If they get the right to stay, then can a Scot who is not currently serving joing the UK Forces? Can an Englishman join any future 'Scottish' military?
- Trident (and replacement)??

Interesting times.

This was thrashed about last time and I'm not sure that its worth re-opening

To be blunt no-one has a clue and it all depends on

a) there being another referendum

b) Scotland voting to go

c) the exact terms agreed THEN - no point in all arguing what "should" happen in all our varied opinions as it will absolutely no effect on the actual negotiations and what WILL happen

This in a nutshell is the enormously frustrating thing about the independence "debate"- it's a chicken and egg situation. If people vote to leave on the grounds that nobody knows what will happen, why vote to leave in the first place? The merits are obviously not clear and neither are the negatives, although to my mind the risks are pretty clear. Anyone gambling the entire economy on a "what's the worst that could happen?" attitude shouldn't be allowed within a million miles of a political party, let alone actually be in government. Of course the Nat's argument is that the one thing that would be guaranteed would be sovereignty, and apparently that's enough for some people. Personally I think sharing a house is better than nailing the door to your bedroom closed just so that you can call it yours, but maybe I just can't see the big picture.

Ultimately though we won't get answers to these questions unless the UK gov spells it out, because the Nats will do anything and everything to keep the subject as vague and fuzzy as possible. It's much easier to sell a dream than a reality check.

One reason giving for leaving is that they are fed up with being dictated to by and external authority ie Whitehall.
Sooooooo, ditch Whitehall and do what Brussels tells you.

Personally I don't see the sense in them leaving, but then, I don't get a vote in that referendum.

Hamster post has a great deal of common sense but it also illustrate an on-going problem

With both the EU and Scotland the English always talk about "economics" (as in the Common Market) whilst the other side is talking about a political vision.

The Scots Nats (the EU ) don't CARE about the economic case - they want to run their own show and will do whatever it takes AFTERWARDS to to make it run as a country

Napoleon was right in many ways when he described the English as " a nation of shopkeepers" -and even the greatest patriot would be hard pressed to suggest that "grand projects" are something the English want

I would argue 9/10ths of what a government does is defined by economics. A government with no money is just a group of people in a room making wishes they have no power to enforce. This goes doubly for socialist governments who rely on taxing the rich to provide for the poor- you need to have rich people in your country for that to work, that relies on businesses, they rely on policies, etc etc.

You're absolutely right that many voting for Indy don't care about the economic argument- but that's only because they've already lost it. If the case were stronger it would be on the front of every flier.

Scotland will manage to get by with a weaker economy, yes. But I do wonder what solace those in poorer families will find in greater sovereignty when the resulting Austerity hits. Probably much the same as the fishermen who voted to leave the EU only to find they couldn't sell any fish. Turns out, money is quite important to most people.

Whatever the economise woes brought on by independence might be the Nats would surely blame the UK Government.

It would be the UK's fault for not providing a batter departure settlement.

It would be the UK's fault for not being a more supportive neighbour.

It would be the UK's fault for not re joining the EU.

It would go on, and on and on.

Should Scotland break from the union, then WRT the bases, no different to the Ukrainians allowing Russia to use Sevastopol.

Nothing to worry about.

:E

JAS

There is already a thread on JB for this political argument. Do we really need to have it here as well?

Just being a pedant. It wouldn't be the UK's fault as it would be the DUK's - The Dis-United Kingdom...

The sentiments are correct though. It would always be someone else's fault.

You are not being pedantic. You have raised the most important question of all and nobody has the answer to it.

Scottish Independence - At What Cost?
 

In adding my two penny‘worth I may be coming across as a tad controversial, but, then I’ll only be living up to the late, great TE Utley’s definition of an Ulsterman viz ‘The first to give, and the first to take offence’. So here goes!!

Anyone who knows me will realise I’m an avowed ‘Capital-U’ Unionist both by upbringing and instinct, so it would break my heart if, following any independence referendum, the SNP should succeed in breaking up the Union. However, before any referendum is held then the UK Government should make the SNP and the Scottish people aware of the following.

On the day of secession HM The Queen immediately ceases to be the Head of State of an independent Scotland.

Within a clearly defined period (say two to five years) the following should come into effect:

a. The Pound Sterling can no longer be the currency of Scotland;

b. There will be no further fiscal assistance or intervention from Westminster;

c. All UK military bases and personnel to be withdrawn from Scotland and relocated at suitable locations within the remainder of the UK;

d. The regular and reserve battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland be given the option of remaining within the orbat of the British Army or being disbanded with all the honour due to their, and their forebears, gallant service (with similar options being given to similar reserve units of the RN and RAF);

e. All military personnel currently serving in the UK armed forces who were born in Scotland should be given the option to remain on their current terms of service or to be honourably discharged;

f. All UK Civil Service facilities in Scotland to be relocated to the remainder of the UK and their personnel based in Scotland given the option to relocate, or to accept a ‘length of service and seniority’ based redundancy package;

g. No preferential treatment to be given to Scottish industry or manufacturers for any defence or other UK Government contracts; and, finally,

h. A 'hard' border be established between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

These courses of action may seem harsh, and for someone with close familial and work-related ties to Scotland I don’t suggest them lightly. However, they are neither vindictive nor punitive, as the following should be noted.

Firstly, the SNP cannot have their cake and eat it…either they are an independent nation, making their own way in the ‘big, bad world’ whilst standing on their own two feet, or they’re not.

And secondly, in the event of any ‘Border Poll’ in Northern Ireland signalling the reunification of the island of Ireland into a single political entity then all of the tenets that I have outlined above would most certainly be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland!! So why should an independent Scotland be treated any differently?

Will the UK Government do this? Almost certainly not!! If it did lay out all (or some) of what I have proposed, would it change the outcome of any referendum? It almost certainly would!!

What you have to realise that on a 63% turnout only 49% of the Scottish people voted for pro-Independence parties; that's only 30.87% of the total Scottish electorate. So to use a Scottish aphorism - the SNP’s ‘coat is on a shuggly peg’!! Obviously, the cry for 'Freedom' is not as clear cut as Ms Sturgeon et al would have you believe!!

Aside from all the other drawbacks mentioned above, I assume, amongst a million other things, that a big box with all the DVLA records and Companies House records would be slung over the border and Jimmie Krankie would be left to get on with it. The CAA would immediately rescind all airworthiness certificates for anybody based in or operating out of Scotland.

If Her Madge's forces were withdrawn, who'd stop the Ruskies flying their Bears where they wanted ?

Most people I know in industry, particularly those who live and work in their Scottish company's premises in England dread the thought of independence because they know that their income stream would stop right away. and they wouldn't get any more work from us.

OJ72,

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything that is British is in fact English.

The Queen will still be the head of state of Scotland, just as she is the head of state of numerous Commonwealth countries that gained independence.

The Scots can call their currency whatever they like, if they want to call it Pound Sterling they have every right. Just that the Bank of England will no longer be lender of last resort.

I would imagine that on independence everyone living in Scotland will have the right to call themselves Scottish citizens.

Anyone living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will remain British and would have to relocate to claim Scottish citizenship, be they military or civilian.

All UK Civil Service facilities are as much Scottish as they are 'English" and will be divided up as part of any settlement. You can't just assume that they are all English!

Emotionally I like the idea of an independent Scotland, and a reunified Ireland for that matter.

But the economic cost to Scotland could be immense.

The economic cost to England would be negligible and mainly concern relocation of certain military nuclear facilities.

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. England would still be the fifth largest economy in the world, Scotland would be about 154th...

That is a LOT of influence and clout to give up.

Dave Gittins,

You make a good point. In addition to things such as DVLA and Companies House, an independent Scotland would have to set up a diplomatic service, embassies and all the paraphernalia that goes with being an independent nation.

Oh, and as for Russian Bears, I would imagine that there would be no change from the current situation.

Treat the Jocks the same way we treated the Mick’s after they gained independence.
Don’t let them travel freely to the U.K.,vote,use the NHS,claim benefits or serve in ‘our’ armed forces.............................................🤦🏻‍♂️

I thought the saying was, if you choose to leave the club, then you can’t expect to still use the facilities. You are quite correct, they are UK assets. I would imagine that IScot is about 8%, that also includes UK debt.
Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?
I am not making any comment about the rights and wrongs of IScot, I don’t get a vote, mores the pity.

It does rather beg the question whether the leadership of the SNP as opposed to their supporters actually want independence. The emperor’s clothes would seem a little threadbare.

FWIW an ethnic Scot

YS

"Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?"

The Central bank doesn't guarantee mortgages - you get them from a commercial organisation - such as the Bank of Scotland plc - or the Halifax

It's the currency a C Bank manages - and they could just adopt the Euro (which for 25 years some folk in England have been claiming "can't last")

And only 32% for remaining in the Union.
Those who show up...

Er, sorry to rain on your xenophobic parade, but have you ever heard of the Common Travel Area?
It is an agreement between the UK and "the Mick's" whereby citizens of each state can freely travel, live, work, retire, have health care and receive benefits in each other's country.

And I suspect we would have a similar agreement with an independent Scotland.

But that's the whole point! It's NOT a club, it was an Act of Union.

I suspect that you are about right with the 8%.

As to mortgages, that will be a commercial opportunity for some. A bank does not have to be of the same nationality as the area it serves, witness the Spanish bank Santander and the huge number of UK mortgages they have.

Er, aren't there supposed to be some minor issues like economic convergence, financial stability etc to be met before a country can join the Euro?

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-e...e-mechanism_en

Can't see how that's going to work when ScotGov doesn't control the currency it enters with and can't even control it's own budget deficit. It's a relatively unprecedented situation in the history of the EU. Countries have hitherto joined with their won currency, not one that they're pirating from another state and central bank.

There's also the question of whether the EU actually wants to take on another net spender - as opposed to a net contributor. Right now I'm sure there would be a desire to do so as payback for Brexit. Whether that survived a cold analysis (not least by Germany) would be another question. And that's before we get to the Catalonian precedent that Scottish Independence might set......

Nowhere near as easy as wee Krankie is making out.

Boffin

Again we're back on the "economic" arguments - Scotland is so small teh EU would never notice it . And expanding the "union" is a basic tenet of the place - and, of course its one in the eye for London. The Spanish Govt themselves have said that they see a "free" Scotland that leaves o an n agreed basis as very different from a Catalonia

pr00ne,

Being an Ulsterman trust me me I am certainly not labouring under any misapprehension that Britishness equates to Englishness…God forfend.

However, I think that it’s a trifle presumptuous of you to assume that the Scots will want to retain HM The Queen as Head of State. Remembering that the last nation (sic) to secede from the UK, the Irish Free State (then the Republic of Ireland (RoI)) most certainly did not wish to retain any semblance of linkage to the monarchy.

Regarding the retention of use of the term ‘Pound’, indeed the Scots can call their currency the ‘Jock’ (made up of 100 ‘Sporrans’) if they wish, but if they want to go it alone then as you say there should be no linkage to the Bank of England. Remember, from 1938 until the RoI joined the Euro in 2002 their currency was the ‘Punt’ (Ir£) made up (if I recall correctly) of the ‘Scilling’ and the ‘Pingin’(?).

As for everyone in Scotland having the right to call themselves Scottish citizens that is a given. However, as you may recall from the Belfast Agreement (1998) the complex tenets of nationality are not just as clear cut as they first may seem. Everyone in Northern Ireland now has the right to be British, Irish, Northern Irish or any combination of the above! So what about the nationality rights of, what will be a very large number of Scottish Unionists? 32% of Unionists who did vote + the X% of Unionists who didn't vote in the recent Scottish Parliamentary elections!!

Indeed, given that the largest Pro-Union constituencies in Scotland are the border counties, will there be scope of redrawing the map of Scotland allowing these pro-Union counties to remain within the UK? Remember, that precedent has been set with the formation of Northern Ireland in 1921.

As regards the Civil Service I didn’t assume that they were English. However, they CS as now constituted serves ALL of the UK. If, and again God forfend, Scotland secedes from the Union, then, as per the RoI (and indeed Northern Ireland following the outworking of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (and subsequent Acts)) then an independent Scotland will have to set up it’s own independent CS to serve their own wholly independent state.

As I said, an independent Scotland would be total anathema to me (and indeed many people), and as for a United Ireland…this is not the forum to go down that tortuous road. But the main thrust of my argument was that, contrary to what the SNP and their fellow travellers would have us believe, independence is not simply a matter of tearing down the Union Flag, putting up the Cross of St Andrew or the Lion Rampant, and replacing God Save The Queen with 'Scotland the Brave', 'Flower of Scotland' or even 'Stop Yer Ticklin’ Jock'. There are a huge amount of complex relationships to be sorted and mutually agreed, and these matters will not just be meekly acquiesced by HM Government despite what Ms Sturgeon thinks. We are certainly not going to solve the Scottish question** in this forum, but, one thing that you and I certainly can agree on is that Scotland has much more to lose by seceding from the Union than it has by remaining!

**This could have all the makings of what Sellar and Yeatman said in '1066 and All That'...'Every time the English tried to solve the Irish Question, the Irish changed the question!!'

Which bank does Scotland own? All those current mortgages are with UK banks /building societies with Sterling set at an interest rate in Sterling. Which new commercial bank is going to provide mortgages with no accounts and no savings?

As a mere Sassenach it seems to me that at the moment Scotland runs (most) of its own affairs on its own while being subsidized by the UK (as do Wales & NI). Seems like a winner to me & I fail to understand why they want to go it entirely alone without the subsidies and the other things like frigate construction contracts which are placed north of the border as a sop to the nationalists.

Many years ago I earned in Dutch Guilders, I was offered a cheap mortgage from
Germany. My financial advisor advised, 'if you do this you are actually a currency trader
open to exchange rate variations for the life of the loan'.
Cue rapid exit.

One might speculate they could be invited to use Lossie as a F.O.B...

Good post OJ, and at the risk of slight thread drift; one correction. Ireland being officially bi-lingual Punt was the gaelic/Irish name and Pound the English for the currency. Ireland's currency went decimal in 1971. The currency was pegged 1-to-1 with Sterling until 1979 when it free floated, with the country later being in the first tranche of those entering the Euro.

JAS

No. We're back on political arguments. The Euro either has entry criteria, or it doesn't. The basic stability of the currency depends on it and the boxheads (and Cloggies for that matter) might be slightly less than enthusiastic about that effect.

Not at all sure the Spanish have actually said what you suggest.

the requirements to join the Euro and the EU are different the Budget deficit is to join the Euro not the EU to join the EU you just have to give a commitment to join the Euro at some time in the future. Sweden,Poland,Hungary amongst others have not and show no sign of doing so.

Those countries all have their own currency, which an independent Scotland will not.....

Er,meant to be wildly ironic,think I pulled it off......................................................... .....!

I was living in Aberdeen for the last indyref, where I heard all forms of fanciful plans. I'm looking forward to watching the next one with a bowl of popcorn.

the Cloggies and the Boxheads are actually very happy happy with the Euro. As exporting nations they benefited greatly from a shared currency as their previous own currency was much stronger.

but to come back on the argument: the only way to see if there is a backing for independence is to have a referendum. So let them have it. Wether it is smart or not is not the question. The same applied to the Brexit ref. The future will tell..

As was I and I'm still here. Most of the Wifes family are rabid SNP supporters who'd happily hang Boris if they got the chance as everything bad in Scotland is his and Westmonsters fault.
They either won't listen to sensible arguments about tax and spending or claim it's all 'operation fear' to put people off.

I was also told by a work colleague last time that I shouldn't be allowed to vote in an Independence Referendum as I'm English, even though i've lived in Scotland for almost 20 years (I think he'd fall foul of Hamza's new Discrimination law these days), all the polish people on TV with Salmond saying they were voting yes were fine but the English shouldn't get a vote.

I'm still waiting on Nicola to announce when all the freebee's she promised in the last few months are coming - and who's going to pay for them... Free bus transport for under 21's, free computers for school kids who can't afford them and free bikes, free dental care and of course the 4 day working week. All of the promises were un-costed in their manifesto but they did promise not raise taxes, but they did that in 2016 then raised taxes. Of course when she can't provide it all it'll not be her fault, we'll blame Westmonster and it's another reason to hold a Referendum.

Or I may just be a cynic

From the original post...

How'd that work out for you? :)

It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland

The full read starts from page 232 but apparently the UK would be quite happy to hand Scotland the following hardware:

• 2 Frigates
• 4 Mine countermeasures vessels
• 2 offshore patrol vessels
• 6 patrol boats
  
  
• 1 deployable Brigade HQ
• 2 light armoured reconnaissance units
• 2 light artillery units
• 6 AAC HELICOPTERS
• 1 Typhoon squadron
• 6 C130 Hercules
• 1 RAF helicopter squadron

I don't think so, somehow.

Artificially low is one thing. Stable is another. Might also be a bit of an issue if you import energy priced in dollars (or even roubles for that matter).

At some point the Northern European taxpayers - and financial institutions - will tire of supporting the rest of the EU. Which is why yet another net spender (like Scotland) may not be as welcome as they'd like to think when there are a diminishing number of net contributors..