[Closed] Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

mogrim - Member

Really? How? Cameron didn't have to allow a referendum, he could have ignored the SNP's demands indefinitely.

Yes, the prime minister of this democratic nation could in theory have refused the will of the people as demonstrated in a fair and legal election. But it would look quite bad on his report card.

I'm still waiting for the Better Together campaign to give a good reason why Scots should consider staying in the Union.

So far we have had border guards, potential bombing to protect English interests, we'll be out of EU, out of NATO, no BBC, and a list of other spurious and laughable propaganda. Are they really sure Lord Haw Haw was executed at the end of WWII, because he seems to have been reincarnated?

If we had a democratic government in the UK, then maybe it would be worth preserving.

[quote=epicyclo ]I'm still waiting for the Better Together campaign to give a good reason why Scots should consider staying in the Union.
I believe the Secretary of State [s]Against[/s] For Scotland is supposed to be giving 20 reasons sometime today.

epicyclo - Member - Quote
If we had a democratic government in the UK, then maybe it would be worth preserving.

I bet one of them is Doctor Who

Can't think of many others

We get the government elected by the process we have. It's about as democratic as anything else - though some sort PR might make it more representative than the FPTP system currently in operation

Had this discussion today with my (Spanish) colleagues - and they hate PR, and also complain the current government is "undemocratic", despite having been freely elected following the rules laid out in the Spanish constitution.

Basically the problem is that you vote a party list, not a person, which just entrenches party power even further. The current Madrid mayor was #2 on the list (the previous mayor is now the Justice Minister), the current Madrid Autonomous Community president inherited the post after the #1 decided to retire from politics (sort of...) Etc.

Yes, the prime minister of this democratic nation could in theory have refused the will of the people as demonstrated in a fair and legal election. But it would look quite bad on his report card.

Yes and no - AFAIK there's no UK wide mandate for offering Scotland a referendum. You could spin it both ways, basically.

If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.

mogrim - Member

Yes and no - AFAIK there's no UK wide mandate for offering Scotland a referendum. You could spin it both ways, basically.

You could try, til the UN taps you on the shoulder and asks for a word about that self-determination thing you're committed to...

You could try, til the UN taps you on the shoulder and asks for a word about that self-determination thing you're committed to...

Waiting for them to tap the Spanish government on the shoulder, they haven't yet - and Spain's not even a member of the Security Council.

Still an ongoing situation, that, no final decisions made.

Still an ongoing situation, that, no final decisions made.

True, but I'm unconvinced the UN will step in when there's a written constitution setting out exactly what steps need to be taken to break up Spain, and the Catalan vote won't be sufficient to trigger it. Spain has its problems, but it's hardly Sri Lanka and the Tamils or Russia and Chechnya.

Out of interest, and a bit of [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i]: how big does a sub-population need to be to force the UN to act? If, say, Skye decided it wanted to be independant would the government be forced to act?

I have no idea tbh- the principle is based on "peoples" rather than nations, states or governments but that's nicely wooly

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new "residents" to skew any vote. Skye has a population of only 10,000 so wouldn't be difficult to rig a vote to suit the government trying to hold onto it.

I've just read that one of Carmichaels "20 reasons to say no" was the strength of Britains sporting teams - like the British [s]and Irish[/s] Lions. There'll be a few players from the Republic of Ireland that might take issue with that 😆

But while we maintain a strong pride in our teams for football, rugby and so much more we also maintain an enormous pride in the sporting clout that we represent together.

Whether that’s the British Lions, or next month’s Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new "residents" to skew any vote.

The real limitation is the viability of the unit: there's never going to be a Tooting Liberation Front because not enough Tootingers would want to see Tooting as an independent state.

#FFT

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it's a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William [s]Mc[/s]Hague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it's a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William [s]Mc[/s]Hague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

'Cos he's a lying politician (is there any other sort) and we all know it's just a handy excuse to avoid this turning into Scotland vs. the service-cutting Southern toffs?

I see no problem with support or comments for either side from where ever they come. I have no issue with support shown towards independence from similar movements in other countries, as was seen in a march in Edinburgh for example. Why should a UK politician not be allowed to voice a view? I thought that was a corner stone of democracy. I am sure plenty of after dinner speakers from around the world will be used to promote independence over the coming year. Sir Sean perhaps to name but one.
A Tory politician ffs, not too many will listen anyway.
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

I would like to see Cameron debate Salmond, and have now come to the belief he may not be hammered as much as people think. I agree he is scared though, but in reality a TV debate will probably have little effect

Cameron would have to be a blundering idiot to debate with Salmond for the obvious reason.

Fingers crossed.

I wonder if there's a bigger issue? The independence of Scotland is not the case of a territory seceding from a parent country.

The UK came into being by an agreement between 2 sovereign countries, England and its territories and colonies, and Scotland. It was an international treaty, not the acquisition of Scotland by England (or vice versa).

Come the divorce there won't be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

England will not be the UK, although they will try and spin it that way. It wasn't before, so it can't be after.

So all the dire things that the Better Together campaign say will happen to an independent Scotland (eg having to reapply to EU, NATO, etc) will also be the case for England.

If I'm right, I can see why Cameron wouldn't want to discuss it publicly just yet. He's not stupid.

epicyclo, you can't seriously make the point that rUK would be so affected that it would have to reapply to the EU or NATO without giving rUK a vote in the referendum?

I believe EU membership would happen relatively quickly for Scotland following a Yes vote but conditions may not be as favourable as some would hope. May be difficult to maintain Scotland should receive UK rebate despite larger farming sector than rUK for example.

Would you expect Scotland to have to renegotiate it's membership of EU again if say Orkney and Shetland wished to go it alone with their wealth of natural resources?

[quote=athgray ]epicyclo, you can't seriously make the point that rUK would be so affected that it would have to reapply to the EU or NATO without giving rUK a vote in the referendum?
rUK would certainly have to do some renegotiation with the EU over things like budget rebate, contributions, representation etc. Losing 9% of it's population must have some effect?

I would suggest that the 'yes" campaign could be a little smarter in exploiting the issue of the likes of Hague and Alexander marketing the latest "Scottish Analysis" reports (quite interesting stuff all on the government website that negates the idea that the UK government has not provided clear analysis etc, but that's another point).

Ahead of Mr Hague’s speech, Yes Scotland’s published 10 main reasons why Scotland’s place in the world will be boosted with a Yes vote.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – [b]not by Tory governments we didn’t elect.[/b]

etc.....

Ok a valid point but tactically naive as it highlights the desire to centre the debate as an anti-Tory issue. Tone that down and re-focus the point and the pressure may mount on Cameron. Otherwise, he is unlikely to fall for such a tactical trap and IMO nor should he.

Seems fair to renegotiate scotroutes, but not reapply. If however rUK does not wish to renegotiate terms, what options are realistically available to the EU?

I hope that this would not be the straw that breaks the camels back, and would see rUK come out of EU. This scenario I don't feel is in either the interest of EU rUK or an iScotland.

If rich Scotland has been funding a poorer neighbour for so long, could rUK not negotiate better terms on some aspects of membership?

Well just poured myself a wee dram, toasted my friends north off the border ( :wink:) and settling down to watch QT.

(I hope the panel are better that last week. Nadine Dorries and UKIP, Aaargh. At least Chukka made an interesting slip that made it worth watching!!)

Come the divorce there won't be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?

The White Paper rightly acknowledges that there is no direct precedent for a territory of a Member State to secede from that Member State while simultaneously seeking continuity in its EU rights and obligations. At best, there are more or less plausible arguments and analogies. [b]The dominant legal view – as illustrated in the Boyle and Crawford legal opinion for the UK government – is one that gives preference in continuity to the rights and obligations of the entity which would be the successor state to the United Kingdom, with the seceding entity treated as an entirely new state in international law. In other words, post-independence, the ‘United Kingdom’ would retain its EU membership, with Scotland having to seek EU membership on its own account. [/b]The idea that the treaties would cease to apply to the territory of a seceding entity has also been supported by the European Commission President in a letter to the chair of the House of Lords economics committee.

[i]Kenneth A. Armstrong, Professor of European law, University of Cambridge
[/i]

Not surprisingly, this interpretation is contested in the White Paper.

Same source!!! A bit of a trend here????

"Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?"

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

konabunny - Member
"Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?"

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703. Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership.

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703

Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership. .

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

Wales is a country too, won't somebody think of the Welsh

Don't worry, no-one ever does unless they need a cheap lazy joke.

*goes googling

irelanst - Member
Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703
[b]1707[/b]

Correct, sorry - typo

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.
[b]Scotland is voting to leave the Union, not dissolve it.[/b]

There were only 2 parties to the Union, if one leaves, surely that is it dissolved.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.
[b]Nobody is proposing to split the Union, Ireland left the UK and yet it still exists.[/b]

At the Union Ireland was owned by England, no longer a sovereign nation, had no representation in parliament, and was not a party to the Union. Thus Ireland is not a comparable case.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.
[b]It won’t, there are precedents for this.[/b]

I am not aware of any precedents where 2 equal sovereign nations dissolve/terminate a partnership.

I believe the precedents apply to territories splitting from a superior state, eg a conquered country getting self determination.

Scotland was not a territory of England so how can those precedents apply?

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

You're confusing yourself because you think that there are multiple states within the UK. There aren't. There is a single state called the UK.

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

No. Scotland will secede from the UK giving two states. Those will be Scotland and the UK. Typical SNP thinking they can dictate the rest of the UK has to change because of them.

Oh, and I'm Scottish and proud of it. However I'm also British and proud of it. I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union. Thankfully the majority of my countrymen agree.

I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union.

CMD is debating the future of the union but he is doing it by proxy in Scotland at least because he does not want the no campaign to be seen as a tory campaign.

Gordimhor. Your last post is correct. The No campaign is not a Tory one.

I do wonder though how your solution of 'something new' is intended to help some of the poorest 20% in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester? The truth is you don't care, so no need to quote those statistics.

What is the difference between nationalists and conservatives? One group is intent on redistribition of UK wealth amongst the few in a selfish 'I am alright Jack' manner, and the other are conservatives.

Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

I think you only have to look at their policies to see which party is more likely to redistribute some of the national wealth. Which party came up with the bedroom tax and which came up with a massive increase in child benefit?
Secondly athgray I don't think you read my last post. 😉
CMD is heavily involved in the debate already he just doesnt want to admit it.

But surely the UK prime minister should argue the UK case and the Scottish first minister that for Scotland. Funny that Hague And spineless Danny are waging in.

Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

his failure to articulate illustrates the lack of interest shown by Westminster (and Tories in particular) toward Scottish issues.

He has articulated his view clearly as have the leaders of all the main parties. In his/their opinion Scottish issues are best dealt with in the context of the UK. It's very simple. As a Scotophile, I agree with him.

The rest is now tactics and the gloves are off. The weasel's is here to represent [s]his own interest [/s] sorry, the interests of those who seek full independence and he will use every tactic in the book to [s]get his own way[/s] ensure a yes vote. And so he should. He is a master of the dark arts and manipulation as the book of dreams shows with the Farrage/Starkey/galloway bullying approach of shouting down dissenters when exposed. A naked weasel is not a pretty sight. Good for CMD, the correct tactics at this stage.

If his BS is not in the best interests if Scotland then so be it. But as inthe case this week when it affects the rUK then we should meet fire with fire. He hides behind the Westminster bully tag because that is exactly his approach. Over the past 12 months his bluff has been called time and again and he has been repeatedly exposed. So it's his turn to fight dirty and make this an anti Tory-toff campaign. And why not, that is a winning card for him.

This is now the real thing, Good on the UK leaders for fighting correctly. It's dirty and will get dirtier as the vote gets nearer. It's time to stop the pretence, there is a guy who will do harm to Scotland and to the rUK if left alone. He's played his cards in the book of dreams and very early. The wise man holds back and uses his trumps at the right time.

Ding, ding.....

Oh oh. THM has finally lost it. Reverting to hyperbole and personal insult shows there is no substantive, reasoned argument.

I'll ask again: would Alex Salmond seek to have this debate with a Labour or LibDem PM?

We have had plenty of rationale argument and for the most part that is how it will continue.

But AS has crossed the boundaries this week. So let's take the fight to him properly. He's exposed and trying to fight dirty. We should counter appropriately.

[quote=scotroutes ]
I'll ask again: would Alex Salmond seek to have this debate with a Labour or LibDem PM?

I have no idea, ask him. But frankly I don't care. He is fighting for Scottish interests in a (largely/partly) zero-sum game. Good for him. If the TV debate plays into his hands then it's simple, don't do it.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]I have no idea,
So why argue it's an anti-Tory, anti-toff thing? Do you seriously think that Alex Salmond wouldn't want to take on [i]any[/i] UK PM regardless of party or background? The only person that's focussing on these characteristics of the current PM is you. Is it because you're trying to paint the argument in a certain light - one that gives credence to your own prejudices and opinions?

And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

It means that Alex 'power trip' Salmond seems to keep asking the UK if they can hold his hand throughout the whole process by giving continual feedback (and providing him much needed publicity) - rather than just getting on with doing it. Can see the same thing continuing to happen if Scotland goes independent since the rest of the UK will remain holding all of the trump cards.

Quit the hand holding, state your case, take the vote, make your mind up, YES or NO, get on with it, stop whinging, simple 🙂

I have already posted the yes campaigns announcement from two days ago. What is there first point? How many parties does it mention in that point? How often does AS preface any reference to the government or current policies with the adjective Tory?

Correctly, from a tactical viewpoint, they want to exploit the perception that the Tories are all about cuts etc. this is a natural vote winner whether true or not. As mentioned several times (and to copy a trend) CMD should not fall for the obvious trap.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – [b]not by Tory governments [/b]we didn’t elect.

To answer the question about asking the Lib Dems, first he needs to realise that they are actually part of our coalition government , however inconvenient that admission might be.

In the past 48 hours, we had Alexander (LD) and Hague (C) delivering the conclusions of a UK (coalition) government's latest Scottish analysis. Alexander presented much of the detail. And the reaction from Sturgeon: "an example of the same old hypocritical Tories lecturing Scotland on why we shouldn’t be taking decisions ourselves".

Have I missed Alexander's actual (as opposed to "in effect"!) desertion to the Tories??? Sensibly she focused on Hague and his party and will continue to do so. Sensibly, the better together campaign will do the opposite.

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour - 42%
Lib Dems - 19%
SNP - 19%
Conservative - 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they'd have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

THM, they're just saying what everyone thinks there, including yourself I am sure, we have a Tory government in all but name, executing Tory policy almost without exception. It is perhaps the saddest thing about the current state of affairs, that so many people voted for one thing and their elected representatives have delivered something so different.

rebel12 - Member

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour - 42%
Lib Dems - 19%
SNP - 19%
Conservative - 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they'd have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

For the first, we have an SNP government. We vote labour for the UK parliament and SNP for the scottish parliament, simple. Makes no sense to vote for the SNP in the UK general election as even if every Scottish voted SNP they would remain a minority. (especially given the way that FPTP disadvantaged the SNP- at their highest point they took 1/3d of votes and just 1/6th of seats)

For the latter, that's an excellent selective timescale there, THM will approve 😉 It's now almost 60 years since Scotland voted Conservative, and yet we've had a Conservative government almost half that time. That's quite a long way from "one general election result" eh.

This can be diluted into an anti-Tory position. But it's a wee bit more subtle than that. The reality is, our voting trends demonstrate that as a whole Scotland's politics are markedly different from the UK, we are consistently far more left leaning, and that gap seems to be growing. The wider picture is "We do not approve of how this country is run, and our votes do little to change that" I think it's fair to say we'd feel the same if situations were reversed we'd voted against Labour for 60 years and got them for 30.

Now, consider the dissatisfaction many people have in England- we have a coalition government in which the leading party was voted in with a minority. That's a vote for them, yes, but a very qualified and limited one. That could, you'd think, suggest some restraint and some consideration of their lack of appeal, but instead they've acted like they have total support rather than being the most succesful losers. That's unappealing even in the country that voted them in with such reservations. Now extend that to the country that voted them out.

Apart from the obviously falsifiable first sentance, good points. But why do they point to indepedence as opposed to devolution/status quo. It's blindingly obvious that the book of dreams is essentially arguing for devolution not independence which is why AS keeps getting tied up in knots of his own making. He can't fool the canny population because they can see it too.

We want economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy...
We will have no nuclear weapons apart from the ones we all pretend are not there....
Etc..

Blair Jenkins yesterday

“That is because everybody agrees that after a Yes vote a currency union makes absolute sense both for Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

So what has the last 20 years or so taught us about the fundamental requirements of currency unions? What does this mean for independent monetary and fiscal policies?

That's the beauty of the yes campaign...,out of their own mouths they highlight why their whole notion is flawed. They continue to argue for devolved power within the UK. Funny that, so does better together?!?!

No need for CMD to play the trump yet, let Jenkins and co do the work for you.

THM, tbh your ability to state that black is white amazes even me sometimes. We can't achieve national nuclear disarmament without independence; so there is no possible link between devolution or the status quo, and the goal of full disarmament. (unless you believe that Westminster will agree to relocate Trident and to remove all of the tax burden from Scotland, while we remain in the Union?)

Yes other nations will be able to pass through our waters and ports by observing the niceties, but this is a trivial thing compared to the achievement of getting permanently based weapons of mass destruction out of our country, off our conscience and our wallets. The national disgrace of claiming savage austerity cuts are required while spending billions on nuclear white elephants is a Westminster folly we can't escape from with devolution let alone the status quo.

TBF I doubt that you can believe what you are saying.

And economic independence with some external influence on fiscal and monetary policy is not at all the same as "economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy." It is a strange Salmond-esque habit you have, to take an element of truth and run with it til it is nonsense. Perhaps this is why you dislike the man so much?

I'm literally drinking tea and eating biscuits

I'm literally drinking Lemsip

I apologise to gordimhor for misinterpreting his post on the Tories. It was a bit early in the morning. Still confused regarding "the poorest 20% of the UK having less than 1% of the wealth, the union is not working time for something new".

As we disappear off with 'our' oil wealth I would like to offer the poorest people of Newcastle, Liverpool or London more than a wave goodbye, a few crocodile tears and a good luck message.

I agree with many here that the Tories are not the best people to help the UK's poorest, but if as some claim Scotland should keep its oil wealth rather than try to help others, I see it little better than running away. Again a case of "I am alright Jack".

On another note received a publication through the door from Yes!
Front page says 'win an ipad'. Had to take part in a simple survey. Yes, No or Maybe then submit details.
Which ever answer you gave meant receiving load of info from Yes Scotland. I reckon the only way to have a chance of winning is to say Yes. Did not take part in the end as I would have to answer honestly, and the official Yes Scotland people are the last people I want to give personal info to as a No voter. Good luck on the contest though.

Can't wait for the results to back up Yes campaign.

100% of ipad winners reckon independence would be braw!

Clearly my colour blindness makes it difficult NW but salmond doesn't exactly help.

Page x111 of the book of dreams: " we can remove trident from Scotland for good." Forget black or white, that is a bold and definitive statement ie black[b] and [/b]white.. And the reality? Scotland will follow the don't ask, don't tell strategy. Not quite so black and white is it? Trident may or may not be in our waters, we just know in future. How many shades of grey are there? Forget 50....

Same page: " a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people." The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax, and fiscal policy will be co-ordinated (at the very least with) with rUK fiscal policy. Again not black and white is it.

Ditto interest rates with a currency union and BOE as lender of last resort.

Re the "[b]some [/b]economic influence", one would have to be totally blind, not colour blind, of what has been going on over the last decade not to realise that this is one of the great euphemisms of the whole debate.

I'm literally drinking Lemsip

😆

It's ok, I've got the hint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.wimp

teamhurtmore - Member

Same page: " a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people." The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax

So you keep saying. Proof?

I hate doing this, but:

"remove: verb: take (something) away or off from the position occupied."

That is exactly what the white paper proposes, no ifs no buts, no shades of grey. Trident will be removed from Scotland. I have the strangest feeling we've done this particular conversation before.

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Well if you want it believe that trident will be removed from Scotland, then so be it. I fear you will be not only disappointed but ultimately duped.

Pretending that "don't ask, don't tell" is synonymous with "no Trident" is little more that simple deceit. But we have come to expect that now.

Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A "competitive" tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. Unless companies are actually attracted by paying more tax!?!?!

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Fair cop! And sloppy writing on my part. What I meant but didn't say was that much of the book of dreams sets out essentially what is happening with devolution already especially re Econ independence etc. I agree trident is different. In the case, it is merely deceit. I should have been clearer, I agree.

a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people

And that would be UP, UP an awful LOT if all the promises on the wish list are to be fulfilled.

But he can't do that because taxes will be below the rUK as promised. La-la land economics.

How many cakes can you have and eat at the same time before you are sick of such tripe.

The white paper's use of "remove" fits the oxford english dictionary definition. It just doesn't fit your personal one. This is deceit? Come on. You're not arguing with scottish independence, you're arguing with the english language!

Trident will not- cannot, by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and by NATO treaty binding on the RUK (and on Scotland assuming we join) be based in Scotland.

Re corporation tax:

"Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A "competitive" tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. "

I am confuse. Here is the actual quote: "[i]This Government[/i] plans to set out a timescale for reducing corporation tax by up to three percentage points below the prevailing UK rate."

This is merely an SNP government policy, so in no way a restriction on Scottish tax independence. Care to have another go?

Read the para above- it's an odd "competitive tax" policy that sets tax rates above the perceived competition.

BTW, old Bob Buchan must be a slight embarrassment!!! 😉

Anyway folk for dinner, the rest can wait.

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

teamhurtmore - Member

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

Possibly (operational decisions will be the business of the rUK)

More simple points for you- does the White Paper ever say otherwise? No. Does it ever imply otherwise? No. If we wanted to commit to nuclear weapon free waters, would we not say so? You'd think, since that's quite the big deal. Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does "remove" mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

Re tax... I am now confused. You started out saying that Scotland won't have fiscal and monetary independence. You then tried to use an SNP policy statement to prove this, for some reason. Now you've referred to another SNP policy statement, which still doesn't prove it.

I could be wrong, but you seem to be saying "Scotland will still be part of the world and therefore will have to take into account what competitors do". To which I remark, dur. That's no less the case than it is today.If this is your scary lack of independence, it is no more scary than it is today. Being threatened with the status quo is not new but it is weird.

Considering that the SNP policy which you quoted is to reduce corporation tax, I have no idea where you're going with the repeated comments on setting rates above the rUK.

I find the thread discussion between thm and Northwind interesting and informative. Northwind, we may vote differently this year. Hope you don't mind me saying, I find you to be one of the more salient posters for the Yes camp. I read thm posts with a feeling of "what he said" or thm+1. Both research well and debate better and with greater grace than myself and others. Keep it up you two.

*feels put out that my largely worthless usually childish input is not appreciated by athgray.

**although I do agree with him on 'some' parts of his post

Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does "remove" mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

[i]
The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.[/i]

In other words, don't hold your breath!

Don't worry piemonster. I do feel like I let the debate down sometimes. I can't change though. I keep getting drawn to the topic. Have sometimes felt like a voice of 1, which I suppose causes me to get defensive then lash out.

FWIW, I thought this was probably the sensible and sensitive point raised in this thread

athgray
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.

I do believe our current deputy prime minister committed to not charging tuition fees, that one worked out well...

Trident is an topic I must say the SNP have left little ambiguity over. I don't think an independent Scotland will have Trident, however I don't think Trident is the issue to the majority of Scotland that the Yes camp would like to believe.

Polls show most Scots would like Trident removed. I would be interested to know how such questions are worded. Trident is a topic that allows nationalists to talk "holyer that thou" and promotes the rhetoric of subjugation and war mongering to be ramped up to 11. Not sure how that plays out with normal voters though.

Found one

The poll then asked the question commissioned by Scottish CND: "[b]The UK Government plans to replace the existing Trident nuclear weapons with a new system, at a cost of £65 billion. Do you support or oppose the UK Government buying a new nuclear weapon system to replace Trident?[/b]"

While the results did show a clear correlation between support for independence and opposition to Trident, this was not as marked as might have been expected. The overall figures showed 14% in favour of replacement, 60% opposed, with 25% undecided.

Stripping the latter out gave an overall figure of 19% for replacement and 80% against.

Among those planning to vote Yes, opposition to Trident ran at 87% to 13%, with an identical figure for those still undecided on independence. Among No voters opposition to Trident was also strong, at 75% to 25%.

Undoubtedly a bit of a leading question (but then it [i]was[/i] commissioned by CND). Nonetheless, I'd have thought that the result was pretty clear even after adjusting for that. Note that even the NO voters support removal.

Oh dear. It's not group hugs is it scotroutes? It's only half 8 and I haven't had a drink yet.
Fair enough, but do you reckon Trident features high on most Scots priorities? I am not sure.