You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
To add to what I say above, I feel we are in this together, and any problems that may be encountered along the way can be fixed together. I do not wish to see a line drawn from Gretna to Berwick that may end up sending what I consider to be the same country down two different paths.
Sorry Junkyard, I may be dim, but you have lost me??
[quote=athgray ]There are no guarantees on currency, Europe, Defence, Monarchy, media and a whole range of things that may be different between [b]two countries[/b] that I see are the same.
[quote=athgray ]what I consider to be [b]the same country[/b] down two different paths.Which is it?
athgray - MemberI want my family to live in a democracy where peoples views can be listened to and rejected at the ballot box even if they are a dick.
Whenever I think about democracy in the UK, I think about the fact that my country is ruled by a bunch of tory bawbags, then I think about all the tory MPs that we voted in. Oh, did I say MPs plural? Ooops.
I tried that scotroutes Best of luck
Irony does not work either
Northwind that is because a country of Scotlands size cannot determine the govt except for when it determines the governemnt
The first quote scotroutes is taken based on the situation post independance, hence two countries.
The second quote is what I believe the situation should be now. Read again please. I am trying to be positive about the union in the face of pedantry although I sense there isn't much love for it here.
Did nobody enjoy the Olympics last year?
Northwind I have a Tory Prime Minister and an SNP first minister. Life can be a s*****r eh?
[quote=athgray ]The first quote scotroutes is taken based on the situation post independance, hence two countries.
The second quote is what I believe the situation should be now.
Got you. So why not one country, one government? Is it that you believe a Scottish Government isn't capable of taking all decisions for the people of Scotland? If you are in favour of larger unions, where do you stand on the possible withdrawal of the UK from Europe?
Oh, incidentally,
bencooper - MemberHow's the Wesminster parliament working right now, do you think? Scots haven't decided the outcome of a general election since before WWII at least
64 and 74, apparently. Oh and 2010- take away Scotland and the Tories would have had an absolute majority, which probably wouldn't have made an awful lot of difference to them but would at least have stopped the Lib Dems from turning to the dark side.
A better stat, I reckon, is that the last time the Tories had a majority in Westminster and in Scotland was 1959.
To answer that honestly scotroutes I would think that a withdrawal from Europe would be a bad thing and the potential outcomes depending on the two referendums are complex and of paramount importance.
I have enjoyed this robust disagreement, and will keenly follow this thread, but will sit on my hands as it has gone well off topic largely down to myself . Look forward to continuing this subject when it reappears. Good night all.
My point about the Union Jack was that it's rhe UK flag should any one of the member countries leave the UK as it was will no longer exist. Something else may take it's place maybe some sort social union under the same monarch. You might even call it the United Kingdom but it will be different from the current UK.
It will probably carry on being called the UK. It will probably carry on flying the union flag. Most people probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
Interesting though that this fiercely independent state-to-be is planning on being a leech on the UK and Europe in terms of defence. Especially interesting given the UK's recent history of invading countries for oil. We wouldn't even need any aircraft carriers to invade Scotland 😆
this sort of crap makes me value my simple low paid low skill no thinking simple life. At least I have things to worry about in the here and now, so I don't have to get stressed about the big things. Cos If I had a job getting stressed about the big things. I don't think I could cope! I have a certain understanding, but y'know, **** the stuff you can't control! I am having a real problem with coming to terms with the truth of "**** the stuff you can't control". then it is easier I think.
A referendum [i]is[/i] something you can control.
Zokes An independent Scotland is not planning to be a leech on anyone. The defence budget according to yes campaign figures would be between 2.8 and 3.3 billion. Exact figures would depend on which party was returned to government post referendum.
If you are planning on invading anyone. ......you did try that before 😆
Zokes An independent Scotland is not planning to be a leech on anyone.
Really?
You intend to join in with NATO yet not hold a major part of its defences...
You intend to join the EU, where likely you will be a net receiver...
Ben, what really is the issue (with your OP)? The stance of the SNP has been repeated recently by Sturgeon and is unequivocal (no bargaining, no Trident etc). Given that she and AS are among the most able politicians in the UK and have had years to examine these complex issues in far more detail than the rest of us, we can be sure that how this relates to Nato membership has been properly examined. So this leaves the rest of the UK and the MoD with a serious issue ie, the real (if Sturgeon is to be believed) prospect of a non-functioning nuclear deterrent for many years, that needs to be addressed. Along with rapid or gradual withdrawal, other locations and/or the idea of remaining in Falsane are options that should be investigated fully by them as well and as a matter of urgency IMO. What then is the issue?
You intend to join in with NATO yet not hold a major part of its defences...You intend to join the EU, where likely you will be a net receiver...
So if they were planning to leave NATO and the EU you would think this was a better move 😕
Seems to me you would spin it either way
As for the EU I doubt Scotland will gain that much from them given the poorer Eastern states and is more likely to be a giver tbh
the real (if Sturgeon is to be believed) prospect of a non-functioning nuclear deterrent for many years, that needs to be addressed. Along with rapid or gradual withdrawal, other locations etc, the idea of remaining in Falsane is one option that should be investigated fully by them as well. What then is the issue?
I would imagine they would use this "need" as a a very useful bargaining tool in the complicated and protracted negotiations.
If we cannot have the pound you cannot have a base type mexican stand off in order to drive a hard bargain
I would imagine they would like having them over a barrell on that one personally in any negotiation situation
Westminster warnings that the bill for ridding an independent Scotland of Trident would run into billions have been undermined by revelations that the UK Government previously put the cost at £150 million.
Of course, that's £150m to decommission Trident and everything associated with it. I'd say that gives a decent starting point for any negotiations. "[i]Here's £15m as Scotlands contribution to removing Trident from Faslane[/i]"
So if they were planning to leave NATO and the EU you would think this was a better move
They wouldn't be direct leeches, so in the context of the point I was making, yes.
True JY, which is why I question the "able bit". This was the point made (ie the bargaining chip) by a SNP candidate in the FT. Maybe Sturgeon is beyond that kind of thing (no bargaining are her words) and is a politician of principle!?! The SNP candidate quoted by the FT seems cut out of the more traditional cloth however.
Frankly, the give-away recently is when the SNP try to hide behind the "Westminster is trying to bully the Scots" argument. This card is usually played when their lack of joined-up thinking (EU, £, Central Banks etc) has been exposed. So my gut feel is that this is another issue that needs to be resolved properly. Hence, it is good IMO that Faslane is bought correctly into open debate.
zokes - what countries in NATO aren't "leeches" then? Just the UK and the US?
What then is the issue?
The issue was the presumptive way it was assumed that annexing part of another country to store nuclear weapons would be acceptable.
Sure, something will need to be worked out. They won't be able to leave Faslane right away. But they will be the responsibility of the RUK to deal with - if the RUK wants them, the RUK can pay for storing them.
One defence source said: "It would cost a huge amount of money, running into tens of billions of pounds, to decommission Faslane. Those costs would be factored into any negotiations on an independence settlement. [b]The sovereign base area is an option. It is an interesting idea[/b] because the costs of moving out of Faslane are eye-wateringly high."
Ok, I read that slightly differently to "annexing". Any way, we shall see. An interesting topic....
Zokes there are 25 'leeches'in Nato. Or should I say 25 non nuclear Nato members.
Zokes there are 25 'leeches'in Nato. Or should I say 25 non nuclear Nato members.
But you're not only talking about nukes. You're also talking about having a small coastal defence farce in lieu of a navy. One assumes therefore that you'd rather the larger navies of your NATO allies made sure your defence farce wasn't troubled too much
There's an established precedent for that Iceland for example has a coast guard but no army.
There's an established precedent for that Iceland for example has a coast guard but no army.
And a socking great US base
Keflavik? Closed in 2006, they're now using the bunkers for concerts and the like.
Sounds like a good idea, looking forward to T In The Bunker.
And yes, as discussed above it's not at all likely that Scotland will be an EU "taker", as we'll be a pretty wealthy country per cap.
NATO isn't really as simple, what constitutes a "NATO leach" in your book?
They wouldn't be direct leeches, so in the context of the point I was making, yes.
Yes but ignoring your point do you think they would be better off leaving ? Answering that would answer my point about you using it either way.
Nice politicians answer though 😉
Maybe Sturgeon is beyond that kind of thing (no bargaining are her words) and is a politician of principle!?!
Yes that would seem likely
Frankly, the give-away recently is when the SNP try to hide behind the "Westminster is trying to bully the Scots" argument. This card is usually played when their lack of joined-up thinking (EU, £, Central Banks etc) has been exposed. So my gut feel is that this is another issue that needs to be resolved properly. Hence, it is good IMO that Faslane is bought correctly into open debate.
I do agree in general but the problem is the current pro union govt will not bee seen as negotiating for the break up pre vote. It would be better practically to sort out many of the complicated issues to aid an informed choice and preparations made for either eventuality.
Give it is politicians there is no hope of that and then a rushed botched mess will ensue if devolution is the choice which helps neither country
who will own the oil in the north sea?
who will own the channel tunnel?
[quote=compositepro ]who will own the oil in the north sea?
IIRC about 90% is in Scottish waters and the gas is mostly in English waters.
IIRC about 90% is in Scottish waters and the gas is mostly in English waters.
expect invasion soon then...though it might be an insidious government led attack no one saw coming
Yep. All that oil [i]and[/i] WMDs - I'd expect nothing less 🙂
[i] The defence budget according to yes campaign figures would be between 2.8 and 3.3 billion.[/i]
So a £1000 per taxpayer?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/7
[quote=b r ] The defence budget according to yes campaign figures would be between 2.8 and 3.3 billion.
So a £1000 per taxpayer?
About that I guess. How much do you think the UK currently spends [i]per taxpayer[/i]?
These figures are usually compared on a %age of GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I'm trying to think of what Scotland would want with Trident and a big ass blue water navy.
Struggling to think of anything to be honest. Invading the Faroes perhaps?
[quote=piemonster ]I'm trying to think of what Scotland would want with Trident and a big ass blue water navy.
Don't forget that aircraft carrier we're currently building!
Those Faroese are gonna get the butts kicked.
To be fair, probably only need one of those carriers. Could sell the other one to a neutral country like Argentina.
Would that be the aircraft carrier we won't have any suitable aircraft for till 4 or 5 years after it's completed? 😆
Yes that's the one. But if we are invading the Faroes some light aircraft and hand grenades would do the job.
Couldn't we just pile up some flatties on deck and skim them into submission?
Well, on balance that suggestion seems approximately as sensible as Scotland retaining a nuclear equipped blue water navy.
Junkyard - lazarusI do agree in general but the problem is the current pro union govt will not bee seen as negotiating for the break up pre vote.
In fact, it's been pretty clear (and unsurprising) that the government are perfectly happy to deride the Yes campaign for not giving solid answers, while simultaneously withholding the essential information needed to give said answers, and releasing scare stories and dubious "facts" instead.
I'm trying to think of what Scotland would want with Trident and a big ass blue water navy.
A seat on the Security Council, and the chance to randomly threaten England whenever we have had a few drinks - what's not to like?
Looking at it that way, no way are you getting the nukes back, we're keeping them 😉
Im not convinced the UK will retain that seat in the decades to come, at least not with it's current level of influence.
And t be honest, as mentioned before in the thread id prefer that target being a bit further away. I reckon Lulworth Cove would be a good spot.