Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Scottish Independence Referendum


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1133 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country? (55 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Scotland be an independent country?

  1. Yes (27 votes [49.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.09%

  2. No (28 votes [50.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.91%

Vote

#1 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 10:53 AM

Bring it on!



#2 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,615 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:03 AM

Never too early to organise a street party


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#3 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:11 AM

True enough! I wonder,though, if by "announcing" this date, within two years of thye referendum, the SNP may have overplayed their hand?



#4 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:29 AM

Now, that's just a daft date, I genuinely thought they'd take longer than that to do it properly.  Some of you may know that I spend my working life doing merger and demerger projects for major companies and they can take a long time for something as simple as a company compared to a country.  I demerged the financial systems and processes of one FTSE100 company a few years ago now and it was an absolute nightmare trying to get it into 1 year, we did it but that was only because we could afford to almost stop everything for a whole month to break apart bonds.  I'd assume that to do it properly as a country would require 3-4 years at the very least to do a competent job, mainly because a government can't stop spending and things must keep moving.  Even getting the legal bit right about what could and couldn't be taken can take a year or so if there are even minor disagreements as to the split.

 

Taking at complete random, genuinely this was the first thing that came to mind, the armed forces.  You have to negotiate which units stay rump-UK, which become Scottish.  What about strategic assets such as the Navy bases?  Then you have to set up a Scottish MoD, getting Developed Vetting done takes about 9 months for even the more basic positions, never mind having to almost recruit from scratch where you have to be even more cautious about bringing in lots of new people.  Then you have the people side, you have to set up an administration system capable of at least matching the existing one to even do the most basic thing of paying people.  What about ongoing research, if it's based in Scotland, is it Scottish now, even after the UK government has paid in the money for years?  What about training bases, there's not the capacity in Scotland to either house or train the absolute minimum needed to sustain a new military.  Same with the signed contracts that are in place to buy military kit for the next 10-15 years, e.g. the F35 variants, aircraft carriers, next generation military equipment, etc.  What if the new Scottish government doesn't want them, do they get a say about not wanting them?  What about the processes for allowing soldiers to choose their nationality?  Can a soldier choose to stay in the rump-UK army because there's more likelihood of action and chances to do things than will ever be given to a small nation's army, will the normal Commonwealth rules apply?  What if an English soldier wants to move up north?

 

And that's a brain dump of maybe 1/10th of the things that need to be considered at a high level for an armed services review, never mind the actual detail once it's out the hands of the politicians.  That's also just a tiny fraction of what a government does, I'd hate to think how they're ever going to break apart the benefits system which must look like a cave full of spider webs in the number of discrete interactions that must either be replicated or broken.

 

Then there's the question of paying for it all.  Big demerger projects can be mightily expensive, mainly because of all the reverse engineering of processes and infrastructure that needs to be done and the rebuilding of those in the new organisation.  I'd assume that Scotland will have to pay for it all?  If not, then it's unfair on rump-UK because it's not their call to break away.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#5 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,615 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:39 AM

Now, that's just a daft date, I genuinely thought they'd take longer than that to do it properly.  Some of you may know that I spend my working life doing merger and demerger projects for major companies and they can take a long time for something as simple as a company compared to a country.  I demerged the financial systems and processes of one FTSE100 company a few years ago now and it was an absolute nightmare trying to get it into 1 year, we did it but that was only because we could afford to almost stop everything for a whole month to break apart bonds.  I'd assume that to do it properly as a country would require 3-4 years at the very least to do a competent job, mainly because a government can't stop spending and things must keep moving.  Even getting the legal bit right about what could and couldn't be taken can take a year or so if there are even minor disagreements as to the split.

 

Taking at complete random, genuinely this was the first thing that came to mind, the armed forces.  You have to negotiate which units stay rump-UK, which become Scottish.  What about strategic assets such as the Navy bases?  Then you have to set up a Scottish MoD, getting Developed Vetting done takes about 9 months for even the more basic positions, never mind having to almost recruit from scratch where you have to be even more cautious about bringing in lots of new people.  Then you have the people side, you have to set up an administration system capable of at least matching the existing one to even do the most basic thing of paying people.  What about ongoing research, if it's based in Scotland, is it Scottish now, even after the UK government has paid in the money for years?  What about training bases, there's not the capacity in Scotland to either house or train the absolute minimum needed to sustain a new military.  Same with the signed contracts that are in place to buy military kit for the next 10-15 years, e.g. the F35 variants, aircraft carriers, next generation military equipment, etc.  What if the new Scottish government doesn't want them, do they get a say about not wanting them?  What about the processes for allowing soldiers to choose their nationality?  Can a soldier choose to stay in the rump-UK army because there's more likelihood of action and chances to do things than will ever be given to a small nation's army, will the normal Commonwealth rules apply?  What if an English soldier wants to move up north?

 

And that's a brain dump of maybe 1/10th of the things that need to be considered at a high level for an armed services review, never mind the actual detail once it's out the hands of the politicians.  That's also just a tiny fraction of what a government does, I'd hate to think how they're ever going to break apart the benefits system which must look like a cave full of spider webs in the number of discrete interactions that must either be replicated or broken.

 

Then there's the question of paying for it all.  Big demerger projects can be mightily expensive, mainly because of all the reverse engineering of processes and infrastructure that needs to be done and the rebuilding of those in the new organisation.  I'd assume that Scotland will have to pay for it all?  If not, then it's unfair on rump-UK because it's not their call to break away.

Exactly Craig

Brilliant analysis which sums up the reason for those street parties neatly


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#6 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 01:13 PM

 

Then you have to set up a Scottish MoD, getting Developed Vetting done takes about 9 months for even the more basic positions, never mind having to almost recruit from scratch where you have to be even more cautious about bringing in lots of new people.  Then you have the people side, you have to set up an administration system capable of at least matching the existing one to even do the most basic thing of paying people.


Easy - England become a "service provider" to Scotland and then charge them a f*****g fortune for it !

I can see it now "Visit England, we're like Capita, only bigger........" 

#7 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 01:44 PM

 

Easy - England become a "service provider" to Scotland and then charge them a f*****g fortune for it !

I can see it now "Visit England, we're like Capita, only bigger........" 

If the SNP made a policy of "Vote for independence and we'll ban the likes of Capita from coming near a government contract" then the independence prediction would probably go up by a good few percentage points overnight.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#8 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,691 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 01:56 PM

 

Then there's the question of paying for it all.  Big demerger projects can be mightily expensive, mainly because of all the reverse engineering of processes and infrastructure that needs to be done and the rebuilding of those in the new organisation.  I'd assume that Scotland will have to pay for it all?  If not, then it's unfair on rump-UK because it's not their call to break away.

 

This is a very valid point that I hadn't considered. The UK (England, Wales and NI) shouldn't have to pay for any of this, it's Scotlands call.

 

Surely we just diviy up the National Debt (pro-rata). Move all the UK Beneift offices into the UK (shut down/hand over the Scottish offices) give the Scottish workers a chance to redeploy to the UK then back fill with UK based workers.

 

Stop any defence contracts going overseas. Hand over the DVLA, pension, benefit files to Scotland and say there you go get on with it, What you want us to administer these thing until you get up and running, Ok but it will cost you.

 

and hey presto. Oh and if they want fiscal unity charge them an extorionate interrest on their debt, because they'd havce to borrow through us, (unlees of course they wanted to share, into central coffers, some of this oil they are so keen to get their hands on)

 

Oh and by the way we still own 3/4 of your national bank and i think hedge funds probably own the rest.

 

The SNP are behaving like a petulant teenage who cant afford to move out, but want their own area of the house, so they can do what they want. without paying any keep.


Edited by Bostik Bailey, 25 November 2013 - 01:57 PM.


#9 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 02:15 PM

 

If the SNP made a policy of "Vote for independence and we'll ban the likes of Capita from coming near a government contract" then the independence prediction would probably go up by a good few percentage points overnight.

 

I'd vote for anyone who made the use of Capita, EDS etc illegal !

#10 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 02:16 PM

EDS? 

Now HP Enterprise Services



#11 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,378 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:12 PM

EDS? 
Now HP Enterprise Services


Changing the name has probably been just the boost they needed to start delivering.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#12 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 7,670 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:22 PM

Now, that's just a daft date, I genuinely thought they'd take longer than that to do it properly.  Some of you may know that I spend my working life doing merger and demerger projects for major companies and they can take a long time for something as simple as a company compared to a country.  I demerged the financial systems and processes of one FTSE100 company a few years ago now and it was an absolute nightmare trying to get it into 1 year, we did it but that was only because we could afford to almost stop everything for a whole month to break apart bonds.  I'd assume that to do it properly as a country would require 3-4 years at the very least to do a competent job, mainly because a government can't stop spending and things must keep moving.  Even getting the legal bit right about what could and couldn't be taken can take a year or so if there are even minor disagreements as to the split.

 

Taking at complete random, genuinely this was the first thing that came to mind, the armed forces.  You have to negotiate which units stay rump-UK, which become Scottish.  What about strategic assets such as the Navy bases?  Then you have to set up a Scottish MoD, getting Developed Vetting done takes about 9 months for even the more basic positions, never mind having to almost recruit from scratch where you have to be even more cautious about bringing in lots of new people.  Then you have the people side, you have to set up an administration system capable of at least matching the existing one to even do the most basic thing of paying people.  What about ongoing research, if it's based in Scotland, is it Scottish now, even after the UK government has paid in the money for years?  What about training bases, there's not the capacity in Scotland to either house or train the absolute minimum needed to sustain a new military.  Same with the signed contracts that are in place to buy military kit for the next 10-15 years, e.g. the F35 variants, aircraft carriers, next generation military equipment, etc.  What if the new Scottish government doesn't want them, do they get a say about not wanting them?  What about the processes for allowing soldiers to choose their nationality?  Can a soldier choose to stay in the rump-UK army because there's more likelihood of action and chances to do things than will ever be given to a small nation's army, will the normal Commonwealth rules apply?  What if an English soldier wants to move up north?

 

And that's a brain dump of maybe 1/10th of the things that need to be considered at a high level for an armed services review, never mind the actual detail once it's out the hands of the politicians.  That's also just a tiny fraction of what a government does, I'd hate to think how they're ever going to break apart the benefits system which must look like a cave full of spider webs in the number of discrete interactions that must either be replicated or broken.

 

Then there's the question of paying for it all.  Big demerger projects can be mightily expensive, mainly because of all the reverse engineering of processes and infrastructure that needs to be done and the rebuilding of those in the new organisation.  I'd assume that Scotland will have to pay for it all?  If not, then it's unfair on rump-UK because it's not their call to break away.

Surely we could simplify the process by building two very large walls across the border with a demilitarized zone in the middle. Anybody caught entering that zone is shot on sight. 

 

We could drop off a few aid packages during the first few months but after that they are on their own. 

 

All Scottish MPs should be given a one way ticket back to the motherland and bid farewell.



#13 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:25 PM

Changing the name has probably been just the boost they needed to start delivering.

 

If only.  Its just a device so they can seem to blame someone else when it really is their fault.



#14 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,615 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:00 PM

Surely we could simplify the process by building two very large walls across the border with a demilitarized zone in the middle. Anybody caught entering that zone is shot on sight.

We could drop off a few aid packages during the first few months but after that they are on their own.

All Scottish MPs should be given a one way ticket back to the motherland and bid farewell.

Seems fair
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#15 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,378 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

Surely we could simplify the process by building two very large walls across the border with a demilitarized zone in the middle. Anybody caught entering that zone is shot on sight. 
 
We could drop off a few aid packages during the first few months but after that they are on their own. 
 
All Scottish MPs should be given a one way ticket back to the motherland and bid farewell.


I was thinking we could let them go without any cost if they agreed to have Gordon Brown as First Minister for 5 years.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#16 paulalmanack

paulalmanack
  • Coach
  • 167 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:46 PM

If the Australia's were clever enough to not become a Republic then surely Scotland are gonna say No!! If they do we should give them the Duke of Edinburgh and re-build Hadrians wall.

#17 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,660 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 10:22 PM

I think the yes vote will have a number of impacts on 'us' down south.  One being is how will Labour fair without the Scottish MP's?  Certainly swings things towards the Tories.

 

No more Team GB at the Olympics.

 

Though it would strengthen the position of the FA and SFA against FIFA and UEFA.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#18 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:31 AM

I'm all for Scottish Independence  and the sooner the better.  Yesterday would be good. My worry, though is that the UK will be swamped with  even more foreigners  from north of the border flocking here to take advantage.  Assuming an independent Scotland is at some point admitted to the EU, shouldn't there be accession-state immigration quotas imposed as has been argued in the case of Rumania?



#19 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,833 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 12:02 PM

It's my understanding that Lincolnshire has enough problems with immigrants as it is.

;)


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#20 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 12:04 PM

Well.... there it is... the SNP's blueprint for independence "Scotland's Future".  Two choices, trust what the media says is in it or actually read the 600+ pages for yourself.  For me, I wouldn't trust the media on either side of the debate to even get the name of the document right never mind report accurately on the content.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users