Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

Scottish Independence Referendum

Should Scotland be an independent country?   55 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

    • Yes
      27
    • No
      28

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,134 posts in this topic

Just pulled this from the BBC website:

 

"International Relations and Defence

 

The paper says an independent Scotland would remove Trident from the Clyde by 2020. It would be a member of the United Nations, Nato, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth, the OECD, and the OSCE.

  • it will also seek a closer relationship with the Nordic Council of Ministers
  • a network of overseas embassies will be established in locations including Beijing, Islamabad, Seoul and Washington.
  • an independent Scotland would legally commit to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international aid with an aspiration to spend 1% over time
  • A Scottish Defence Force would consist of 15,000 full time personnel and 5,000 reservists
  • Faslane to be retained as a conventional naval base and joint HQ of a Scottish defence force."

I'd love to know where they are going to get 15,000 full time personnel from? The vast majority of jocks I know serving in the military catergorically do not want to join any token Scottish Defence Force and will decide to stay serving in the British Army/military. Am I right in also suggesting that as a NATO member, the Scottish government wouldn't have a choice of not allowing nuclear missiles in their country? I am sure I have heard of a clause stating for its collective defence, NATO can station missiles in any member country...

 

As for Faslane, most RN and RM personnel will tell you that the Scottish can keep it... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pulled this from the BBC website:

 

"International Relations and Defence

 

The paper says an independent Scotland would remove Trident from the Clyde by 2020. It would be a member of the United Nations, Nato, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth, the OECD, and the OSCE.

  • it will also seek a closer relationship with the Nordic Council of Ministers
  • a network of overseas embassies will be established in locations including Beijing, Islamabad, Seoul and Washington.
  • an independent Scotland would legally commit to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international aid with an aspiration to spend 1% over time
  • A Scottish Defence Force would consist of 15,000 full time personnel and 5,000 reservists
  • Faslane to be retained as a conventional naval base and joint HQ of a Scottish defence force."

I'd love to know where they are going to get 15,000 full time personnel from? The vast majority of jocks I know serving in the military catergorically do not want to join any token Scottish Defence Force and will decide to stay serving in the British Army/military. Am I right in also suggesting that as a NATO member, the Scottish government wouldn't have a choice of not allowing nuclear missiles in their country? I am sure I have heard of a clause stating for its collective defence, NATO can station missiles in any member country...

 

As for Faslane, most RN and RM personnel will tell you that the Scottish can keep it... :)

I've heard somewhat the opposite from my friends still serving.  Those in the Scottish Regiment units and fully badged Scottish other units, e.g. 19RA, are very strongly linked with Scotland and I'd be sure you'd get about 75%+ moving to the new Scottish Army.  The problem is... where to put them in Scotland!  You'd have to create almost a new town along the size of Catterick Garrison to house them all.

 

I'd assume that there would be a joint effort in existing places for at least 5-10 years under a single command until they could be unpicked.  The British Army as it is wouldn't be able to cope with the loss of 20,000 military personnel without stopping some fairly essential commitments and the Scottish wouldn't have anywhere to keep them.  5-10 years would be enough to unpick all that.

 

On Trident, there's a difference between owning your own nukes and being host to someone else's.  If the US wants to pay for their upkeep then that's a massively different scenario to Scotland having to pay for their own.

 

I've yet to read through the thing but the other big things I'd like to read will be around the planned and committed military procurement the government have already put in place for the next two decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milton Jones Tweets: For an independent Scotland just put an x in the box. Then you can cut it out and use it as a little flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International non-manufacturing firms tend to want access to London and the rest of the UK can go wither away as far as they're concerned.  For example, one London based firm I'm going to see tomorrow has a massive London office and that's it for the UK but they have 4 in Australia, 4 in Canada, 3 in the US and so on, they know their UK clients are either London based or they can be reached in a day trip quite easily.  Scotland, the North, Wales, Ireland, in fact anywhere outside the M25 is just make-believe land for many inside London.  I can't really see that changing in an independent Scotland as the EU free trade laws make services transparent across borders.

 I disagree with that. Dublin is also a major financial centre. I don't think that it would be more significant than Leeds or Newcastle if it wasn't a capital city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be interesting if Scotland votes for independence and the UK votes to come out of the EU. That could leave them in no mans land. There wouldn't be any work for the Scots in the rest of the UK then. Interesting times ahead.

Not really. Irish men born before 1948 (the year that the ROI officially left the British sphere) are automatically entitled to British citizenship. It is likely that all people currently living in Scotland would be similarly entitled to British citizenship (especially since they already have it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After quickly scanning through the "Defence" section of the document, I'm actually quite impressed.  I was right to be suspicious of the media in this, the BBC figures there were the independence + 10 years point and the paper is quite realistic about the numbers who'll transfer over to the new Scottish military.

 

So far, what I've read is that the paper is of a far higher quality than I'd ever have thought they'd have produced.  It's still high level in many ways but it's got one hell of a lot of substance behind many of the policies stated. I'm just not used to political parties being that detailed, it'll make one hell of a knuckle-rapper for the next time a "No" campaign spokesman goes on about the SNP not knowing what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard somewhat the opposite from my friends still serving.  Those in the Scottish Regiment units and fully badged Scottish other units, e.g. 19RA, are very strongly linked with Scotland and I'd be sure you'd get about 75%+ moving to the new Scottish Army.  The problem is... where to put them in Scotland!  You'd have to create almost a new town along the size of Catterick Garrison to house them all.

 

I'd assume that there would be a joint effort in existing places for at least 5-10 years under a single command until they could be unpicked.  The British Army as it is wouldn't be able to cope with the loss of 20,000 military personnel without stopping some fairly essential commitments and the Scottish wouldn't have anywhere to keep them.  5-10 years would be enough to unpick all that.

 

Interesting... maybe the little sods are just lying to me! :) Plenty of infrastructure now coming online in Scotland with the move back from BFG starting to kick in. You are right about the impact on the Armed Forces whatever the figure moving across could potentially be but I be surprised if 20,000 personnel was the overall Scottish representation in the Armed Forces currently. There is a large proportion of Fijians/Commonwealth and Northern English serving in fully badged Scottish units like the Scots DG, 1 SCOTS, 3 SCOTS and the SG especially. It's why I am a bit sceptical that fully badged Scottish units would migrate across over whatever timescale set. They'd have huge manning gaps across the board and considering the current recruitment rates in Scotland presently, the SNP may be surprised at what they would be left with in 2020 onwards...

 

I'll have a read of the defence section...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the news coverage on this this evening and I think the media are, yet again, underestimating the Scots.  Much like many of the northern parts of England, the Scots can be mightily awkward if they get a sniff that they're being patronised by one side of the argument.  A 670 page, fully referenced white paper that is being laughed at by the likes of Alastair Darling on something that's eminently negotiable rather than a black/white issue as Darling and Co are making out.

 

The coverage was enough that I'd be tempted to vote "yes" out of sheer spite at the patronising tone coming from the "no" campaign essentially saying "trust us, you're too thick to believe anything but our waffly soundbite-heavy news interviews"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the news coverage on this this evening and I think the media are, yet again, underestimating the Scots.  Much like many of the northern parts of England, the Scots can be mightily awkward if they get a sniff that they're being patronised by one side of the argument.  A 670 page, fully referenced white paper that is being laughed at by the likes of Alastair Darling on something that's eminently negotiable rather than a black/white issue as Darling and Co are making out.

 

The coverage was enough that I'd be tempted to vote "yes" out of sheer spite at the patronising tone coming from the "no" campaign essentially saying "trust us, you're too thick to believe anything but our waffly soundbite-heavy news interviews"

I'd run a mile from Salmond. You might be impressed by the document but he's spent years arguing that Scotland would stay inside the EU, he even went to court to protect the "legal advice" that he was given from becoming public. Then we found out that there never was any advice and the EU position is that Scotland would have to reapply.

 

It's a similar story with the pound. Alex says they'll keep it. The British government says that's not acceptable. Alex claims that they are bluffing.

 

It's hardly surprising that there is a lot of scepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me- and I am in favour of Independence - the White Paper is designed to persuade the good burghers of Scotland  to vote yes. It is stating policy that it has no possibility of enacting..which will be a shame for the Scots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scotlands biggest 3 exports seem to be whisky deep fried mars bars and drunks, would like to know how much this has cost already? must be running in to the millions, whos picking up the tab so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 whos picking up the tab so far?

 

Guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest opinion poll, conducted before the white paper release, showed a 9% lead for the "no" campaign.  Not exactly a massive gap, a 5 point swing will do it.

 

Edit:  Link to the Scotsman's article on it, the Scotsman is quite heavily leaning to the "no" camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest opinion poll, conducted before the white paper release, showed a 9% lead for the "no" campaign.  Not exactly a massive gap, a 5 point swing will do it.

 

Edit:  Link to the Scotsman's article on it, the Scotsman is quite heavily leaning to the "no" camp.

Analysing the findings on the website What Scotland Thinks, John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said: “In what is likely to be the last poll before Tuesday’s independence white paper, Panelbase once again present a more optimistic picture for the Yes side than any other pollster. However like everyone else, they also find that the balance of public opinion remains resistant to all attempts to shift it - and that thus the Yes side continues to be behind.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the news coverage on this this evening and I think the media are, yet again, underestimating the Scots.  Much like many of the northern parts of England, the Scots can be mightily awkward if they get a sniff that they're being patronised by one side of the argument.  A 670 page, fully referenced white paper that is being laughed at by the likes of Alastair Darling on something that's eminently negotiable rather than a black/white issue as Darling and Co are making out.

 

The coverage was enough that I'd be tempted to vote "yes" out of sheer spite at the patronising tone coming from the "no" campaign essentially saying "trust us, you're too thick to believe anything but our waffly soundbite-heavy news interviews"

 

That was my impression too.

 

The no campaign should just concentrate on selling the positive benefits of the union, whatever they believe them to be, rather than trying to rubbish the very notion that Scotland could function as an independent state or claiming that the current Scottish government is somehow too stupid to understand the minutiae of how such a transition would work.

 

The current Scottish government has been sharp and successful enough to reach the point of offering a referendum on the matter. The real stupidity would be to underestimate them or patronise the Scottish people over the choice they have to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my impression too.

 

The no campaign should just concentrate on selling the positive benefits of the union, whatever they believe them to be, rather than trying to rubbish the very notion that Scotland could function as an independent state or claiming that the current Scottish government is somehow too stupid to understand the minutiae of how such a transition would work.

 

The current Scottish government has been sharp and successful enough to reach the point of offering a referendum on the matter. The real stupidity would be to underestimate them or patronise the Scottish people over the choice they have to make.

The yes vote are struggling to get 30% in the polls.You should see how skewed the poll that the SNP carried out was, it was full of leading questions and blatant trolling and even then they couldn't get more than 45%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The yes vote are struggling to get 30% in the polls.You should see how skewed the poll that the SNP carried out was, it was full of leading questions and blatant trolling and even then they couldn't get more than 45%.

I still think "no" will win but it'll be far closer than you or the "no" media are predicting.  The thing that'll swing it is the utter arrogance of the "no" campaign, some of the drivel and dross is just truly arrogant.  For example, yesterday's TV media were talking about Salmond's confused message, his inconsistent message, his barely worked ideas, his silly promises and so on.  They clearly have failed to learn the lessons that Westminster style politicking has failed repeatedly in Scotland where voters have gone over to the SNP in quite startling numbers over the last decade, often just to get away from the cynicism and arrogance of the mainstream Westminster driven parties.

 

My wife, who really couldn't care either way about the result, asked how all these people criticising the document had a chance to read it so quickly if it were just publicly released yesterday morning and released on embargo the day before.  Alistair Darling's interviews were especially canned and written out by a speech writer long before the paper's contents could ever have been known.

 

Anyway, who chose Darling to be the public face of the "no" campaign?  Do the people who chose him not really recognise that the only way they could get a worse person to run it is if they had Gordon Brown promising to dance a naked jig in Edinburgh's Princes Street if the public vote "no">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I want the "no" campaign to win, but if they want to avoid driving up the yes vote, they need to focus on the positives of Scotland remaining in the union.  We all know how tetchy the Scots are when you point out the home truths of secession to them, or when we start to express opinions about this topic so the "no" bodies need to tread very carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why they want monetry union with the UK, once they become independant. All that will happen is that the UK wil benefit from the oil revenue and make policy that benefits London, Enlgand, Wales and NI. the Scots will have very little influence on these policies. Whereas now they have monetry union and send MPs to westminster that can influence the fiscal policies of the goverment. Remove the Scottish MP's and the is very little opposition to right wing central looking policies.

 

Or they could join the Euro and become like Ireland.

 

Salmond keeps using Norway as an example as how an indenpendant Scotland would work, but that country has a very high level of taxation, albeit the revenue is spent to secure the social benefits for the population, it will be a hard sell for him to persude the population that is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think "no" will win but it'll be far closer than you or the "no" media are predicting.  The thing that'll swing it is the utter arrogance of the "no" campaign, some of the drivel and dross is just truly arrogant.  For example, yesterday's TV media were talking about Salmond's confused message, his inconsistent message, his barely worked ideas, his silly promises and so on.  They clearly have failed to learn the lessons that Westminster style politicking has failed repeatedly in Scotland where voters have gone over to the SNP in quite startling numbers over the last decade, often just to get away from the cynicism and arrogance of the mainstream Westminster driven parties.

 

My wife, who really couldn't care either way about the result, asked how all these people criticising the document had a chance to read it so quickly if it were just publicly released yesterday morning and released on embargo the day before.  Alistair Darling's interviews were especially canned and written out by a speech writer long before the paper's contents could ever have been known.

 

Anyway, who chose Darling to be the public face of the "no" campaign?  Do the people who chose him not really recognise that the only way they could get a worse person to run it is if they had Gordon Brown promising to dance a naked jig in Edinburgh's Princes Street if the public vote "no">

I think you have to distinguish between the SNP who run the Scottish parliament and by all accounts have done a decent job and the SNP who want independence who seem to have only half thought it through.

 

An example of which is the currency. The SNP's panel of experts has decided that continued currency union with the rest of the UK is best for Scotland and the rest of the UK and therefore this is their policy and there is no need for a Plan B. This is quite breathtaking arrogance especially since the Tories have been quite clear that it is not acceptable.

 

In addition, the EU requires all new member states to work towards Euro membership. The only states allowed to run their own currecy are those with a prenegotiated opt-out. The SNP don't think this to be worthy of discussion.

 

Another one is that all oil revenues have been assumed to switch to Scotland from HMRC. However, if you go by nearest landmass then between 10% and 20% (depending how the border is drawn) would actually be in English waters. Half thought through but even worse the SNP hasn't discussed the Shetland and Orkney question. The Northern Isles have been quite loud on the subject that if Scotland becomes independent then they would like to become a Jersey style crown dependency and keep their oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why they want monetry union with the UK, once they become independant. All that will happen is that the UK wil benefit from the oil revenue and make policy that benefits London, Enlgand, Wales and NI. the Scots will have very little influence on these policies. Whereas now they have monetry union and send MPs to westminster that can influence the fiscal policies of the goverment. Remove the Scottish MP's and the is very little opposition to right wing central looking policies.

 

Or they could join the Euro and become like Ireland.

 

Salmond keeps using Norway as an example as how an indenpendant Scotland would work, but that country has a very high level of taxation, albeit the revenue is spent to secure the social benefits for the population, it will be a hard sell for him to persude the population that is the way to go.

They want currency union not monetary union. In essence they keep their tax money and we keep ours but we share the pound sterling through a currency board that is neither responsible to the British parliament nor to the Scottish one (as per the Euro). Unsurprisingly it is unacceptable to almost everybody south of the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spanish practices to scupper chances? Wonder what the locals think?

I saw that this morning and it's fairly obvious that Spain will attempt to veto Scotland getting into the EU in order to make it clear to the Catalans that there's absolutely no scope for them getting set free.  I can see the situation where the EU will happily accept any eastern European nation barely able to pay their own way but a relatively prosperous Scotland would be vetoed by at least one or two major countries and left free.

 

It amuses me to think of the UKIP people in Scotland just now, on one hand they're probably instinctively pro-union, on the other they'd do anything to be out of the EU.  So, which way do they vote now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being funny or owt

And maybe it's my age

But which is yes and which is no?

 

Is it yes for staying in uk or yes to independence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being funny or owt

And maybe it's my age

But which is yes and which is no?

 

Is it yes for staying in uk or yes to independence?

The latter.  This is the question:  "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017