You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Or reopen the debate about just how much we prepared to sacrificr for an independent nuclear deterrent?
It doesn't matter what government ministers say the people in the rest of the UK do not want to be responsible for bailing out foreign countries. We don't care if businesses suffers a bit if we don't go into a currency union we are not prepared to lose some of our own independence to help a potentially foreign country gain more independence. A currency union would have to be put to a referendum and the polls indicate that it just would not happen. You can whine on about not taking your share of the national debt or kicking Trident out on day one because the majority of shared assets are in the control of the UK and would remain that way after independence. From day one you would have no military assets, no lender of last resort and no access to UK embassies around the world. If Scotland does not take any debt we withhold an equivalent amount of assets. The UK can also block Scotland joining the EU and there are no legal documents stating that Scottish citizens have any EU status they all state that UK citizens do though. We are not going to be dictated to by a small foreign country.
It doesn't matter what government ministers say the people in the rest of the UK do not want to be responsible for bailing out foreign countries. We don't care if businesses suffers a bit if we don't go into a currency union we are not prepared to lose some of our own independence to help a potentially foreign country gain more independence. A currency union would have to be put to a referendum and the polls indicate that it just would not happen. You can whine on about not taking your share of the national debt or kicking Trident out on day one because the majority of shared assets are in the control of the UK and would remain that way after independence. From day one you would have no military assets, no lender of last resort and no access to UK embassies around the world. If Scotland does not take any debt we withhold an equivalent amount of assets. The UK can also block Scotland joining the EU and there are no legal documents stating that Scottish citizens have any EU status they all state that UK citizens do though. We are not going to be dictated to by a small foreign country.
Oh dear. You sound a bit mad.
It doesn't matter what government ministers say the people in the rest of the UK do not want to be responsible for bailing out foreign countries
Aye the govt always listens to the people - IRAQ war for example
FWIW they have helped out Ireland recently as well because it was so important to the UK. If Scotland's economy completely collapsed it would clearly have an impact on rUK and it is not in its best interests for this to happen either - it will clearly be worse for iS but rUK would not be unaffected by this.
You can whine on about not taking your share of the national debt or kicking Trident out on day one because the majority of shared assets are in the control of the UK and would remain that way after independence. From day one you would have no military assets,
You are contradicting yourself here
Firstly legally scotland can refuse the debts it belongs to the Uk so you cannot stop her doing this by any legal means - it is very unlikely to do this IMHO
Everyone knwos that rUK is the majority but if the assets get split then clearly they would have military assets, Have you noticed some of the bases are actually physically there - you invading and taking them back brick by brick or something?
The UK can also block Scotland joining the EU and there are no legal documents stating that Scottish citizens have any EU status they all state that UK citizens do though.
I think we all know that it is the UK that is the EU and not Scotland.
We are not going to be dictated to by a small foreign country.
I think they know a number of you intend to bully her like you have done for the entire union 😛
Both sides have nuclear options over debt or vetoing EU mebership or nukes or currencies etc. It is most unlikely that either side will negotiate as you suggest as it harms both sides
Johhners cybernats continue to argue the case for a currency union while ignoring statements from the three main political parties saying there will be no currency union and polls from the rest of the UK indicating no support for a currency union. Ignoring facts and accusing the people stating the facts of bluffing or being bullies is bit mad as well. Is it not time for plan b?
Politicians lie.
Frequently.
^^^^^^^This and i really should learn brevity
[s]Are you saying that all three of these parties have never broken their word? 😀
Saying that what a politician says before an election is a fact is mad- i would not use your word i would say it is very very unwise as they almost never keep to their pledges or manifesto as a quick check of any political parties claims and outcomes when elected will show.
Its funny only on this issue do people hold up those parties and these people as honourable folk whose word we can trust.[/s]
In this instance Junkyard.
It's fairer and more balanced that all four parties are more than capable of telling porkies.
Junkyard telling the rest of the UK that they have to be the lender of last resort to Scotland in a currency union or Scotland would not take on any debt is not negotiating it is blackmail.
I also hope that in the event of independence we could amicably agree a fair division of assets. We did help out Ireland but we were not obliged to bail out their banks entirely and that is what Salmond is trying to force us to do.
Pie - i actually included AS in my post but removed it for brevity- double fail 😳 🙄
Of course he lies to he is a politician.
faster you can use whatever language you wish to describe it- you seemed fine threatening iS yourself up there for example over military assets- but it is the best negotiating strategy for iS.
I doubt either side will use nuclear options - veto EU or take no debt but I bet they both threaten it at some point
AS started the threats by saying no currency union means no debt. I personally think that it would have been better to start negotiations by offering an incentive for a currency union, like offering the use of Faslane for 20 years, more than enough time to set up an alternative site.
Well legally the debts are not the responsibility of Scotland so one could easily say he was simply pointing out the legal position in response to the UK saying there would be no currency union whilst also saying they wont negotiate - is that credible or consistent?
That is just conformation bias tbh and I see little point in some sort of playground who started it debate.
Both sides do the same thing you are only telling us which side you support
No he is saying that if we enter into a currency union then Scotland would not take on a share of the national debt, if he does not get what he wants he threatens to not take any of the debt. I view that as AS trying to force the UK into a currency union that we don't want, that is blackmail.
The debt was run up by the UK government for all of the people currently in the UK, if part of the UK leaves it is not unreasonable for them to take some of the debt. Even if they don't accept any debt a similar amount in assets can be withheld. I do hope things don't come to this though and a currency plan b is announced.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/osborne-dismisses-currency-union.1396096757
I suspect the damage is done now.
fasternotfatter - MemberI view that as AS trying to force the UK into a currency union that we don't want, that is blackmail.
That is negotiation.
I view that as AS trying to force the UK into a currency union that we don't want, that is blackmail.
as he said it is trying to get the result you want in a negotiation.
The debt was run up by the UK government for all of the people currently in the UK, if part of the UK leaves it is not unreasonable for them to take some of the debt
Unfortunately the law disagrees with you. I dont think what you is say is an unfair proposal but they counter by saying they need to then get a share of the assets and this includes the currency [see what i did there]. The law is not on iS side there but rUK will have to make a choice and other factors [ bullying as you call it] will impact on this decision.
. Even if they don't accept any debt a similar amount in assets can be withheld.
That is not blackmail then?
They do not legally need to take the debt but if they do you will steal assets to pay off a debt 😯
You can disagree with the law and the "threat" but what you propose is at least as bad ....still they are the baddies eh.
Time will tell none of us really knowI do hope things don't come to this though and a currency plan b is announced.
Junkyard, negotiation is not about the result you want, rather the result you are prepared to accept. What are both sides prepared to accept?
[i]I dont think what you is say is an unfair proposal but they counter by saying they need to then get a share of the assets and this includes the currency [see what i did there]. The law is not on iS side there but rUK will have to make a choice and other factors [ bullying as you call it] will impact on this decision.
[/i]
You are not talking about an asset that can be split and you take your share you are saying that the UK government and UK taxpayers should bail out Scottish banks after independence or you will not take on a share of jointly accumulated debt. I am sure in the scenario of an iScotland suffering a banking crisis we would offer some assistance but expecting us to totally bail out your banks is madness. Post independence you need to stand on your own feet, have your share of UK assets but do not expect UK taxpayers to save you should your banking system collapse.
[i]They do not legally need to take the debt but if they do you will steal assets to pay off a debt
You can disagree with the law and the "threat" but what you propose is at least as bad ....still they are the baddies eh.[/i]
I offer my own opinion about the UK holding back assets from Scotland whereas AS has issued a threat that I consider blackmail against the UK therefore using your logic AS is a baddie but the UK government are still the goodies? eh! We could always apply tariffs on all Scottish imports to the UK until your debt to us is paid off and we could get away with this because you won't be a member of the EU or the WTO. It is the UK's name that is on EU and WTO agreements just like it is the UK's name on all UK debt, how ironic. Small countries shouldn't try to bully big countries or maybe it is just bluff and bluster.
read the thread, there's a good fellow.
fasternotfatter - Member
....Small countries shouldn't try to bully big countries or maybe it is just bluff and bluster.
I'm sure India & Africa would have been grateful for that sentiment 100+ years ago. 🙂
I think its obvious now that, in the event of a yes vote, horses will be traded. So, yes: Scotland would almost certainly get the THE POUND to use, if an agreement can be reached on exactly what Scotland would offer in return.
A big chunk of the debt? Trident?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound
(I'm sure I mentioned this a few weeks back.....)
negotiation is not about the result you want, rather the result you are prepared to accept. What are both sides prepared to accept?
I dont think any of us really know tbh. I would be very surprised if iS dont take some debt and not that surprised if there is or there is not a currency union as i think it depends. It will be a political decision rather than economic IMHO. rUK will demand/negotiate/bully some concessions for this, if given, as would anyone in this position. I find it hard to believe either side will press a nuclear options here as it harms both sides - tariffs, no debt, blocking EU membership etc. Will there be a currency union honestly i do not know but i do not consider it to be off the table just because some politicians have said so nor do i consider it a certainty because some have said so. Its the only issue where folk seem content to accept that this shower are people of honour who always do as they say
There won't be a currency union the only way it would be sellable to the rUK electorate is by big concessions by iScotland. I think anyone who think rUK are going to be poor at negotiation is missing a huge history of doing pretty well at it see EU rebate, see forcing France to hand over Exocet details and other events. If they want to play hardball they will and a big chunk of the electorate will be no fan of iScotland and support them IMO.
In response to epicyclo, I wouldn't have thought you would have mentioned Africa due to the prominent part played by Scots in both the slave trade and slave ownership.
Codybrennan, taking a big chunk of debt or keeping trident has not been offered, instead we have been threatened with no currency union means no debt. Not a very amicable start to negotiations. I also have a link, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/osborne-alexander-quash-currency-union-with-scotland ]The only way to keep the UK pound is to stay in the UK[/url]. It is amazing how nats take the words of one minister as gospel if he supports your cause but the three potential chancellors after the next election are bluffing when they say no to a currency union. How about the polls of the rest of the UK showing no support for a currency union, is that more bluffing? AS has said there is no need for a currency union referendum in the UK, so he gets his referendum but wants to deny the people of the UK theirs. Is AS being a bit hypocritical here?
I think the anonymous minister's comment is an indication that Better Together is not together.
It really doesn't help the way everyone (especially the mainstream media) confuse a currency union with "keeping the pound". We're keeping the pound, no-one can stop us, the question is whether we have a currency union to go along with it.
Anyhow, some interesting analysis on why "no currency union" now will become a more sensible position after a Yes vote:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8962-the-whole-worlds-watching
Oh, and Trident is not on the table. With a Yes vote, Trident is going - everyone on the Yes campaign of all parties agrees on that.
just like they all agree that a currency union is not on the table eh Ben? Both are on the table though both unlikely.
If they want to play hardball they will and a big chunk of the electorate will be no fan of iScotland and support them IMO.
This is true both sides of the border and each side will portray the other side as the cause.
In response to epicyclo, I wouldn't have thought you would have mentioned Africa due to the prominent part played by Scots in both the slave trade and slave ownership
Woosh.... What a nice way to miss the point entirely and then attack Scotland. No country has an illustrious history re slavery but do you think this small nation may have bullied other countries in the past...the conquests and the empire would suggest that the answer is a no brainer.
Not a very amicable start to negotiations
Declining it before the negotiations that you said you would not negotiate before the vote is what exactly then?
Your so one sided - hell you even make ben and THM look balanced 😀
Is AS being a bit hypocritical here?
He is a politician what do you think ?
As above is saying you wont negotiate before a vote and then stating your position a bit hypocritical...I wonder which side you think are the hypocrites here
Its politicians being politicians on BOTH sides.
just like they all agree that a currency union is not on the table eh Ben? Both are on the table though both unlikely.
Touché 😉
Trident isn't staying long-term - for one thing, would the rUK really want their nuclear deterrent under the control of a foreign country? There will have to be a handover period while the rUK builds the facilities - if the rUK even wants to keep the things. Perhaps we'll play nice in the handover period in return for a currency union.
I am sure you will try this approach....you bullies 😉
Salmond, speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News, said the comments from the minister were "a very important demolition of the No campaign and "indicate that all this bluff and bluster about not sharing sterling is a campaign tactic".He said: "The reason we are gaining ground is that we are putting forward a positive message on what Scotland can do and can be.
Salmond also said he would not allow the British government to strike a deal in which British nuclear weapons would be retained at the Faslane nuclear base in return for retaining monetary union. He said: "We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation".
TBH i am not sure why each side is drawing such lines in the sand as it makes it so much harder to change tact once the actual negotiations start.
As i said both doing the same who choose to believe is just saying which way you would vote
Incidentally- the 'unnamed' insider is alleged to be Vince Cable. Given that VC has a tendency to brief against party line, and has a strong economic background, I could believe this.
None of us know whats going to happen, of course. But its makes sense, and is pragmatic, for all sides to think about the possibilities and weigh up options. If Scotland does vote yes, and would like to retain a currency union- and I was George or David (shudder!) I'd be keeping the option of selling the Scots some debt or keeping Trident. Horse trading.
I think at this stage the only certainty is that there are no certainties, and any politician who states categorically that option x or y is not possible is just being a politician- attempting to influence an outcome, but preparing for other eventualities. Its in the job description.
codybrennan - MemberIncidentally- the 'unnamed' insider is alleged to be Vince Cable. Given that VC has a tendency to brief against party line, and has a strong economic background, I could believe this.
He's also of course relatively unlikely to be happy with toeing the blue line (because of course, "no currency union" isn't his party's decision, it's the new boss's.)
How is a currency union still on the table when all parties state is is not and the electorate don't support it either? I can get my head around trident not being negotiable can you not do the same for a currency union? I don't see the UK voting for being lender of last resort of a foreign country.
[i]Woosh.... What a nice way to miss the point entirely and then attack Scotland. No country has an illustrious history re slavery but do you think this small nation may have bullied other countries in the past...the conquests and the empire would suggest that the answer is a no brainer.[/i]
He mentioned Africa and I pointed out the role of Scots in bullying African nations, he also mentioned India and we took over India by liquidating the East India company, hardly bullying. You are not jealous of our successful empire in comparison to the failure of the Darien scheme are you? 😉
[i]
Declining it before the negotiations that you said you would not negotiate before the vote is what exactly then?
Your so one sided - hell you even make ben and THM look balanced[/i]
Hey I can handle Scotland saying no to Trident Can you not handle us saying no to a currency union? Saying no to a currency union and threatening not to take on any debt are two separate things, the UK is declining an offer and AS is make a threat in return. The hypocrisy is AS saying we are being bullies for not accepting currency union while trying to bully us into one. The last time I felt this bullied I was still at school.
fasternotfatter - MemberCan you not handle us saying no to a currency union? Saying no to a currency union and threatening not to take on any debt are two separate things
Why?
Fasternotfatter- who is the 'us' you mention? You speak for a group?
......of course, I'm being a d!ck- you mean "English people". I'll stop being disingenuous.
Listen- if Scotland votes yes, newsflash- you and I won't be invited to the decision making party. It will be politician to politician, thrashing out a compromised solution based on who is in the stronger position. There will be disappointments on all sides. If it goes down, it will change everything. But regarding a currency union- if Scotland wants it, it will happen, but a price will need to be paid.
Newsflash - if Scotland wants a currency union it will happen, it already has because we're in one! The point is, currency union under an independent Scotland will mean no real independence, the only way rUK would agree is if fiscal and monetary policy was controlled by London.
Hence we get back to page 1of this thread.
Whoops:
[i]Alex Salmond is preparing a sensational U-turn on his promise to remove nuclear weapons from an independent Scotland, according to a senior SNP source.[/i]
Named sources too! You can expect this story to grow over the next few days!
Bainbrge-
the only way rUK would agree is if fiscal and monetary policy was controlled by London.
Proof?
As I say, when it comes to brass tacks- if Scotland did vote yes, then it will become a series of negotiations. And the outcome of these negotiations depend on many things, probably primarily who wants what the most. So, the only thing I can say to your assertion is: well, maybe?
What politicians say now is designed to set a tone and influence an outcome- that, and and what actually happens, could be two different things. (I'm basing my statement on observations of how politics in general looks to me to work.)
Ninfan- thats exactly what I'm saying. If theres a yes, neither sides currently stated position will be the final outcome. Its politics, after all- just a set of negotiations, in sequence, one running into the other.
Remember of course that America will have a voice in this, or will have expressed its voice to Whitehall already. Scotland is strategically important. Trident in their eyes must stay.
I think the SNP have nailed their colours a bit to the mast on trident... And it's definitely something that scottish people desire. Personally i'd be happy with a land lease scheme, as long as I'm not paying for the thing or taking responsibility for it, but a lot of people aren't.
What is still on the table though is timescales- even the SNP can still negotiate a long withdrawal, and that could easily be the lifespan of Trident. The replacement will want revised infrastructure anyway so it turns a large part of that from a relocation cost into a repurposing cost which would have existed anyway. Not to mention taking the rush out of things.
Politically it's got to be difficult for the UK to continue to pretend to be an independent nuclear superpower while unable to host their own weapons or fleet, mind, not to mention that it'd effectively become a subsidy to Scotland's economy. But these become effectively arguments against replacing trident at all rather than arguments against basing Trident in Scotland- an argument already won up here.
What is still on the table though is timescales- even the SNP can still negotiate a long withdrawal, and that could easily be the lifespan of Trident.
Seemingly not - according to the Guardian report of the Sky News interview, Alex has said today
"We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation".
Now - thats not actually true of course, what they said in the white paper was that they would make an agreement on the safe removal of trident [i]"This would be with [b]with a view to[/b] the removal of Trident within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence"[/i]
I have no doubt that Alex 'misspoke' however he seems to have just painted himself into a corner by making another commitment over and above that in the white paper, and one that is going to be bloody difficult to find a way out of!
So he has, good spot. What a bellend, he's gained nothing by that either.
(I like Alistair Carmichael's comments at the bottom btw, yes the poor impoverished No campaign with the entire national media and UK government behind them...)
This is a big cock up, because that comment is going to come back on him with more detailed analysis in the coming weeks!
edit: you're right - no gain whatsoever, I can only put it down to either overconfidence or sheer arrogance, but that was just sloppy!
Mind you in the richter scale of cockups, it doesn't even register compared to government ministers admitting that currency union is on the cards and that the government's so happy to lie to everyone. That goes right to the heart- and is doubly corrosive since so many people already believed it was the case.
But it's stupid anyway, since at the moment they're doing a good enough job of hanging themselves.
Northwind - Member
I think the SNP have nailed their colours a bit to the mast on trident... And it's definitely something that scottish people desire. Personally i'd be happy with a land lease scheme, as long as I'm not [b]within 5,000 miles of it[/b]
Fixed it. 🙂
Don't like being a nuclear target or on top of nuclear waste being dumped into our water.
[quote=epicyclo ]Don't like being a nuclear target
Were you not paying attention further up the thread when it was pointed out to [b]you[/b] that the base for the Trident subs (which could actually be anywhere in the world and don't need to return there for months) isn't actually a target.
Kind of a moot point, if it gets to the point where people are throwing nuclear weapons around to the extent that the UK's a target we're all *ed, it doesn't matter that much whether you're *ed in the fireball or ****ed in the aftermath really. Probably cooler to burn out than to fade away 😉
Though having said that Faslane [i]was[/i] a designated USSR nuclear target. The reason the trident replacement wants 4 subs is because that's the minimum required to keep 1 on patrol at all times (there is some suggestion that 3 is adequate) but the bases are still certainly targets.
Faslane will stay the Yanks will be involved as mentioned above and will want it to stay. easy to get around the country issue you just designate it rUK sovereign territory as happens plenty with military bases elsewhere.
All this talk of nukes really just reminds of what a total, and utter bunch of ******* we as a species can be.
Though having said that Faslane was a designated USSR nuclear target.
True, though its worth commenting that even without the Vanguard class submarines (trident carrying) that Alex and his mates want rid of, Then Faslane would still be a target for the Vanguard subs that they are happy to keep
Oh, and for the FOGB huge NATO armaments depot where they store the conventional weapons that Alex is keen to keep, and the huge NATO fuel depot, and the other NATO fuel depots to the north, and the deep water jetties, and lets not forget the great big long runways that would be used to stage aircraft to defend the GIUK gap, or the radar stations, or the Clyde shipyards...
Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?
All this talk of nukes really just reminds of what a total, and utter bunch of ******* we as a species can be.
Why? Kill us, we kill you - perfectly balanced, Europe has been torn apart by war after war after war for centuries, we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!
List of wars in Europe during the post-WW2 periodGreek Civil War (Greece)Basque Conflict (Spain and France)The Troubles (UK and Ireland)Invasion of Czechoslovakia (USSR)Ten-Day War (Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia)Croatian War of Independence (Croatia vs. Yugoslavia)East Prigorodny Conflict (North Ossetia vs. Russia) (Transnitria vs. Moldavia)Bosnian War (Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia)Albanian RebellionWar of DagestanSecond Chechen War
:
Suez Crisis (UK and France) (France and Spain)Bizerte crisis (France)Angolan War of Independence (Portugal)Dhofar Rebellion (UK)Mozambican War of Independence (Portugal)Shaba I and II (France and Belgium)Falklands War (UK)Afghanistan War
t hasn't been all that peaceful ninfan
He mentioned Africa etc
He used an example of a small country bullying a larger one and he used a wink to indicate he was sarcastically negating your point about small countries not bullying large ones. to discuss whether scotland was involved, was better or worse is irrelevant as small country bullied a larger one hence woosh.
Hey I can handle Scotland saying no to Trident Can you not handle us saying no to a currency union?
You need to remove your us and them, I am not voting in this and reside in england.
the UK is declining an offer and AS is make a threat in return.
repeating this will not make it true. Is he not decling your offer of taking on some debt? legally it is no this so its a choice he declines.
rUK declines currency when asked iS declines debt when asked.....where is the difference here beyond you agreeing with one and not the other? I get it that you cannot see they are the same thing,IMHO due to your bias, so shall we leave it now?
I also agree AS was foolish there as it is obvious that both cock ups are pretty big. He needs to be able to negotiate his way out of his current position and that level of entrenchment is not helpful. Still he seems a skilled politician so reversing his position should come easy to him.
I thought it only ended when brave Thatcher and Regan brought the iron curtain to its knees 😉we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!
I dont disagree with your point tbh
ninfan - MemberDoes anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?
Only Aracer.
But it's beside the point; most people object to Trident and more so the Trident replacement because it's a big sick joke, a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.
it hasn't been all that peaceful Ninfan
Yes, and 1968 was the only year without a British serviceman dying on active service somewhere in the world!
But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before, five million in the Napoleonic wars, 16 million plus in WW1, 30 million plus in WW2, repeated millions in other repeated wars over the same soil. The wars quoted aren't between nuclear powers, which have become the great leveller.
a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.
While one side has it, so must the other - its not something that can be uninvented and even if there were none now, the first thunder of any major war would see the race build them.
Junkyard Africa is a continent and not a country.
[i]You need to remove your us and them, I am not voting in this and reside in england.[/i]
A referendum would be needed for a currency union and I would be voting against that. Why should the UK be the lender of last resort to iScotland? I wish an independent Scotland all the best but would not want the UK to have the responsibility of bailing Scotland out should things go wrong. If the majority of Scots want independence then I respect their decision, the majority of people in the UK do not want a currency union with an iScotland, can you not respect that?
[quote=ninfan ]Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?
Surely they must be targetting Sir BS of Eck, and if not can't we subscribe him?
[quote=Northwind ]Only Aracer.
I was simply suggesting that it wouldn't be targetted because of having nuclear strike capability given the strike capability isn't there (and by the time any boats sailed it would all be well over), happy to accept it might be a target for other reasons, and the presence or absence of the Trident subs doesn't really make any difference to whether you're likely to be killed in a nuclear strike if you live nearby.
[quote=Junkyard ]Is he not decling your offer of taking on some debt? legally it is no this so its a choice he declines.
rUK declines currency when asked iS declines debt when asked.....where is the difference here beyond you agreeing with one and not the other?
The significant difference is that the debt ties in with the real assets - the ones which are tradeable - the ones which Sir BS would like a share of, and not all of which are located in Scotland, so he has to negotiate if he wants any of those. That and the Edinburgh agreement means that rUK actually holds all the cards if iS tries asking for anything which isn't seen to be in the best interests of rUK. The other difference is that there is a quite clear moral reason for iS to take on some of the debt, not doing so has other consequences for them.
But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before
MAD didn't stop "turmoil" from happening, it just displaced it to Soviet-NATO proxy wars in the third world. The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos compares with WW2 quite easily.
The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos wasn't by proxy though. The United States were quite prepared to bomb third world countries directly themselves.
The significant difference is that I dont like Sir BS of eck
FTFY
What do you mean the Edinburgh agreement?
It is available [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00404789.pdf ]here[/url] and i see nothing in it that says rUK holds all you say - its just a document about the actual referendum - ie how to conduct it
Is it something different you are referring to? Have I missed something skimming it?
It does contain this gem as the final paragraph
The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed,
through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. [b]The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.[/b]
You can see this happening before your very eyes currently never mind at negotiations/bullying.
Interesting news article
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-dockyards-to-carry-on-building-warships-even-if-there-is-a-yes-vote-for-independence-9223811.html ]Independent says RN ships will be built in iScotland[/url]
That's just common sense really - there isn't any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it's not like the UK doesn't already buy military kit from other countries.
bencooper - MemberIt really doesn't help the way everyone (especially the mainstream media) confuse a currency union with "keeping the pound". We're keeping the pound, no-one can stop us
If you knew what plan B was all along then why didn't you tell us?
fasternotfatter - MemberA referendum would be needed for a currency union
Says who?
That's just common sense really - there isn't any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it's not like the UK doesn't already buy military kit from other countries.
Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.
Hello,been in Albion with a bunch of pupils. Have l missed much since Thursday? 😛
No, it's exactly the same bickering. But the poo being flung around is a slightly different tone of brown.
Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.
I'm not so sure - the UK doesn't manufacture it's own explosives and propellants much any more, the big ordnance factories like Bishopton were closed down and they are now made in South Africa. Surely the MoD would just invite tenders from any company capable of building ships?
The concept that the UK should be in control of the manufacture of it's defence hardware went out the window years ago.
Nice to see what some of us have been saying for a long time come out in the press, firstly on the currency point and secondly on the point of ship building contracts etc. I wonder how much other stuff will come out in the next few months.
Don't buy it sorry. Politics will come into play and what's best will eventuallygo out the window. It'll be a while before the MOD needs another super carrier, by which time the Clyde May well not be fit for purpose. If Scotland wants a sustainable ship building I believe it needs to look beyond the MOD.
Bear in mind Scotland will have a significant defence budget and no Trident to pay for... The SNP plan is to be building 4 T26s (or equivalent) frinstance as well as smaller boats. That's a significant amount of work but less than UK procurement is expected to provide.
The talk of "not building abroad" is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn't currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they'll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)
But it's not that simple- yes there's political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we'd likely do badly. There's a reason UK military shipyards aren't building tons of ships for other nations.
What complicates that is that T26 was designed as an inside job for production in the UK, so Scotstoun is still going to be an excellent place to build them. But frankly for the rUK it'll probably make more sense just to buy FREMM, one of the reasons for doing it solo is to keep it inhouse.
So now there is a bit of a split on the "Osborne says no" starting point of the this thread,and from "dahn sarf" as welL...Can anybody tell me where THM has gone? I mean,he may be a slow eater but... 😀
He's still eating his tea
He'll have had his tea.
But it's not that simple- yes there's political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we'd likely do badly. There's a reason UK military shipyards aren't building tons of ships for other nations.
Pretty much sums it up for me. Its either a highly politicized decision, or your competing with far better shipyards. Or some ungodly mix of the two.
The talk of "not building abroad" is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn't currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they'll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)
I was pretty clear that mid term ships will continue to be built, but long term. Nothing I've seen gives me confidence that an iScotland will retain shipbuilding. It needs to move away from the MOD. And I'm not sure that comparing a Super carrier with a river class boat is that sensible. Small things like that aren't very political, Flag Ships are. And the last thing BAE is, is free from politics.
Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?
Think it's largely context. For the SNP at least it's been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. Whereas the "no currency union" thing is something that seemed to conveniently appear from nowhere at a convenient point in the campaign and was widely doubted even before the leak. So it's on shakier ground in the first place, so calling it into doubt takes more easily.
But I am a Yes supporter and perfectly happy that a deal can be made on trident. The best case scenario for that is that we stop paying for it, we stop being responsible for it, but we still get the economic boost- principles aside that's a total win for scotland and still a win for the rUK too. But it is a point of principle for many. Unfortunately! And a full on political commitment for some.
It's one of the things I'd hoped might be a spin-out from the referendum, that it'd kickstart debate on Trident replacement nationally. (it's still to be hoped that post-independance the ruk cans the whole thing tbh).
I'm with Northwind on this one. Mt issue with Trident is the cost rather than the fact that they're nuclear subs. I'd be reasonably happy with a compromise of letting rUK have Faslane in return for things I personally see as more important.
Another vote for giving up Faslane. I think a lot of the English adopt the idea that Scots hate them and that is why we are apparently cutting our noses off to spite our pusses,a convenient train of thought. It isn't about that for the majority of us and a common interest in Faslane will force us to remain close. I will also think more kindly of Westminster if don't pay for Trident.
Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?
Because whenever Scotland wanted, we could cut off supplies, cut off power, blockade the port, any number of things. Not saying we would, but it's a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset.