imnotverygood - Member
I take it you'd be happy with the people of Shetland & Orkney having a separate vote to take most of the oil with them? After all, they haven't been Scottish for all that long.
Wiki is your friend when trying to troll. Occupied by the Norwegians c8th century; taken back 1400's, about three hundred years before we became "British" 
Just wanted to repost my question instead of it languishing down at the arse end of page 7.
I haven't read the preceding pages, but why has Cameron come up with this one this week? Why does he want to force the issue on Salmond all of a sudden? Serious question.Anyway the funniest thing I heard on the radio concerning the whole thing was "There are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs".
DD - not sure really. I think the timing is probably about distracting from other issues and attempting to find "the enemy within"
As for why he wants to do it - he wants to be able to control the timing and the wording of the question put so as to minimise the chances of a yes vote. the problem is his understanding of what is happing is so poor he has just given the pro independence vote a huge boost.
If he really wants to keep the union he should be creating a pro union argument that is positive not negative and building alliances with other unionists
Not having read much of the 8 pages....but what would an independent Scotaland do with all the Nukes at Faslane?
you know about three hundred years before we became "British"
Erm, When exactly did they become "Scottish"? As far as I can see there's never been a formal incorporation into Scotland.
1669 act of annexation - independent crown dependency 
Salmond was not caught with his pants down - he has comprehensively outflanked Cameron and forced a partial climbdown immediately.Cameron has not called Salmonds bluff - he has given him a huge present - a win win situation.
Its so obvious how out of his depth Cameron is on this. Floundering around.
Un trumps all.
All of this sort of assumes that Cameron actually wants to keep the Scottish union..
Not having read much of the 8 pages....but what would an independent Scotaland do with all the Nukes at Faslane?
This kind of thing would need to be negotiated in the event of a yes vote. I'd guess that they'd go down to the remainder of the UK or we'd get to keep a portion of them. They might go to the RUK but remain at faslane with a rent paid for their storage. No one is really sure but it would be tied in to lots of other factors.
Not having read much of the 8 pages....but what would an independent Scotaland do with all the Nukes at Faslane?
Well no nukes would destroy the local community. Would the new Scottish Navy ( formerly known as Helensburgh Sailing Club) want to use the facilities at Faslane? Doubt it.
It a fairly clear no nuclear commitment from the SNP and widely supported across Scotland. an interim lease of the bases might be possible but they would have to go long term
the amount of money spent on the subs makes the jobs very expensive. the money saved would create far more jobs
Zulu-Eleven - MemberAh - your use of the singular Act of Union gives away your ignorance of this subject. In fact, there were two Acts of Union, one passed in the Scottish Parliament and one in the English. They pute into effect the Treaty of Union drawn up in 1706.
Or is this just backtracking
Can't see how - the position remains true that a change in the constitutional status is a matter for a whole UK parliament, since the 1707 act of union denoted that was binding on both nations, so only a whole UK parliament can enact legislation repealing it. A referendum brought about by any enactment of a Scottish parliament cannot bind the whole UK parliament, as it would be ultra vires. The only powers the Scottish government has are the ones that have been given to it by the UK parliament, which could in theory take them away again.
Acts of Parliament can be, and are, repealed.
International Treaties are not necessarily permanent.
The irony is that the Scottish Parliament was re-instated as a result of the Devolution settlement, thereby paving the way.....
Can't see how - the position remains true that a change in the constitutional status is a matter for a whole UK parliament, since the 1707 act of union denoted that was binding on both nations, so only a whole UK parliament can enact legislation repealing it. A referendum brought about by any enactment of a Scottish parliament cannot bind the whole UK parliament, as it would be ultra vires. The only powers the Scottish government has are the ones that have been given to it by the UK parliament, which could in theory take them away again.
There was no power for the USA or India or any other former part of the empire to become independent. It happened though.
The UN calls it self determination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#The_UN_Charter
interesting discussion on the legal aspects
Europe:
A difficult one. Both the SNP and the dependence parties will roll out "experts" supporting their views that either (a) Scotland will remain part of the EU or (b) Scotland will have to re-negotiate entry. I suspect this one will be settled in the courts, although there may be no need if Scotland wants to (re)join and the EU is willing.
Scotland would get a few seats, the rUK would lose a couple. However, the joint Scotland/rUK bloc would be larger than the current UK has and for areas of mutual benefit, this could be viewed as very positive.
As for rUK membership of Europe, I tend to assume that (as per the Vienna Convention), rUK would be deemed the successor state and would retain its existing membership and that all current agreements and treaties would stand. However, this is not guaranteed and if my name was Sarkozy or Merkel and I was having to deal with an intransigent Tory PM, I might argue the contrary.
According to the Spectator Scotland would be in a big financial hole if independent.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7564283/can-scotland-make-it-on-its-own.thtml
So, an independent Scotland would in fact be a long way from surplus. In 2009-10 its deficit, even assuming that it kept 91 per cent of North Sea revenues, would have stood at 11 per cent of GDP — the same as the figure for the UK as a whole.
What's more, even if Scotland did get Salmond's desired slice of the North Sea — which would comprise around one-fifth of its GDP — it would then be slave to oil and gas production, as well as volatility in their prices. That's all very well in good years like 2008-09, when North Sea revenues totalled £12.9 billion. But what happens if revenues drop to 1991-92 levels of just £0.6 billion? As Fraser's said before, ‘Scotland would swap rule from London for rule by OPEC’.
As an emigrant Scot I can see both sides of the argument. Scotland needs to stand on its own two feet, stop being a collective benefits junkie and quit blaming Tory England for everything.
mcboo - as I posted above, GERS shows Scotland with a deficit of around £4Bn. However, Scotlands share of the UK deficit is around £11Bn, so one could argue that Scotland would be around £6Bn better off independent.
I see that there's a queue of other oil producing nations lining up to be controlled from Westminster.
mcboo - MemberAnd that is the single most persuasive argument I've read on this thread.
Scotland needs to stand on its own two feet, stop being a collective benefits junkie and quit blaming Tory England for everything.
The economics can be spun any which way but I'm pretty sure that hitching your future to oil prices isn't very clever.
As for Defence
If Scotland were independent it would present the English with a problem: where are they going to get their infantry from?
An independent Scotland under the SNP would basically be a pacifist country, much like Germany. Anyone think they are going to need a bunch of expensive fighter aircraft on the North Sea coast? Goodbye RAF Lossiemouth.
Faslane? They are going to want those jobs in Portsmouth, Plymouth or maybe Belfast right? Goodbye to the Gairloch, it was special.....and wet.
I'm not going to go as far as to say "Don't let the door hit you....etc etc", I mean who am I to judge, I left the place and never looked back. Me, I like England and the English. Especially in London.
stop being a collective benefits junkie and quit blaming Tory England for everything.
TandemJeremy - Member
Salmond was not caught with his pants down -
C'mon TJ - even by your inflexible standards that is quite a giggle. Neither Salmon not Sturgeon were expecting to be hit with an "offer" of a legally binding vote. So they were caught unawares. Yes, they recovered by today and the fact that DC and MM seemed un-attached let them score their own points back. And this will probably continue.
Nice post BTW - some very interesting comments in there.
The SNP said at the election that they would hold an indicative referendum on independence in the latter part of this parliament and not before the end of 2013 – however the timing was not explicitly set out in its manifesto.
That's not quite how you put it earlier now is it!!
It is a big gamble and I think the UK government has right on its side in insisting that any referendum is fair and legal and interestingly the Canadian government did exactly that ten years ago in an act of their parliament called the Clarity Act which provides that any referendum in Quebec has to be a clear decision on a clear question, that's following history in Quebec of two very ambiguous referendums in terms of the wording of the question. But whether the [Westminster] government's right to now itself set the timing of what is an SNP government policy and to insist that the referendum is decisive, there they may be over-reaching themselves.
Very interesting.
David Cameron has the law on his side if he wants to stage-manage a Scottish referendum on independence. The Scotland Act 1998 that established Holyrood also dictates clear limits to devolution: constitutional matters remain in Westminster, the SNP can't stage a binding referendum without Westminster's say-so and even an indicative poll to test the public opinion could be open to legal challenge.However, the idea that the UK government would legally challenge a yes vote forcing the Scots to remain part of the UK shows the limits of Cameron's powers. He may have the law on his side, but the moral argument that Westminster should have the upper-hand in dictating the future for the Scottish people – particularly when there is currently only one Tory MP in Scotland – is shaky at best.
Constitutional experts said yesterday that while Westminster remains sovereign, Cameron has taken a huge political gamble by "hijacking" the SNP's plans to test public opinion in an indicative poll and fast-tracking a legally binding referendum.
Now we can understand things from a slightly better perspective.
Everyone's missing the most important question though - who's left with Lorraine Kelly?
I don't know how pertinent it is now, but i looked at the Scots Govt website a while back and got the figures for the year 2006 (i think it was) the last year for which figures were available (at that point).
The striking thing for me was, the gap between what Scotland spent and what she raised in revenue was 3.5 times the amount of revenue raised by the oil industry.
In other words, the oil money, rather than funding Scotland just made the deficit a little less embarrassing.
How the financial situation works now i have no idea.
ac505 - MemberWell no nukes would destroy the local community.
It is very sad, but sometimes governments provide massive windfalls to communities, and sometimes they take them away. Certainly won't be the first or last town to lose its main source of employment.
muddydwarf - MemberThe striking thing for me was, the gap between what Scotland spent and what she raised in revenue was 3.5 times the amount of revenue raised by the oil industry.
Needs careful analysis of what counts as "spent"- people routinely remove the block grant but it's much more complicated to remove the effects of the money flow south.
mcboo - MemberScotland would need at least one military airfield, which is exactly how many it'll have in the UK.As for Defence
An independent Scotland under the SNP would basically be a pacifist country, much like Germany. Anyone think they are going to need a bunch of expensive fighter aircraft on the North Sea coast? Goodbye RAF Lossiemouth.
Faslane? They are going to want those jobs in Portsmouth, Plymouth or maybe Belfast right? Goodbye to the Gareloch, it was special.....and wet.The GERS report I referred to earlier includes an allowance for the amount that Scotland contributes to the UK defence budget. It's significantly greater than is spent in Scotland.
But on defence, I think this is one of the major sticking points regarding the Devo-Max option. Whatever was agreed up-front would unwind as soon as there was another Trident replacement or illegal war.
Me, I like England and the English. Especially in London.Me too. I even married an English woman. It didn't work out though and we eventually divorced
Teamhurtmore - Salmond was well prepared for the announcement s it has been mooted for ages. Stupid to do it but he has been urged to so for a while.
Nice partial quoting - I just give you one of many
4. Colin Munro, Professor of Constitutional Law, Edinburgh Law School, Scotsman, 11 March 1998There is nothing to stop the (scottish) Parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law.
The SNP planned to have an idicative referendum which if yes gives themthe mandate to negotiate a settlement then go back for vote on that settlement.
I've got a secret to tell you.
Ready?
NO-ONE IN ENGLAND GIVES A TOSS ABOUT SCOTLAND
Just let us know when you've made your mind up will you?
Cheers
mcboo - as I posted above, GERS shows Scotland with a deficit of around £4Bn. However, Scotlands share of the UK deficit is around £11Bn, so one could argue that Scotland would be around £6Bn better off independent.
Not sure I understand. If the figures are correct then Scotland with have a deficit of £4Bn AND and its share of the UK Deficit of £11Bn. As part of the separation in will have to take its share of the liabilities. As lots of people have said this and many other major questions have to be answered before Scotland can make an informed decision. Even if they don't know the answer, they should at least indicate which was they will go e.g. Euro/Pound,
Otherwise it becomes a ideological choice - an Independent Scotland or not and ignore any consequences.
Finally AS and the SNP go on about honouring their commitments made in their manifesto. The manifesto states that they will have a vote on Independence, not when it will be held. It also mentions nothing about Devo-Max. As someone outside Scotland but in the UK, if you want to go it alone, do so. Don't expect us to let you stay half in/half out trying to see which way you would like to chose.
NO-ONE IN ENGLAND GIVES A TOSS ABOUT SCOTLAND
And on a final (fat chance) point - what has happened to all the documents that used to exist on the SNP website about Independence? They appear to have been pulled - if anyone on the STW is a SNP member can they please ask where they have gone?
TJ we all know that. But that was not yesterdays news.
sadmadalan - I emailed them about this and was pointed to
http://www.scotlandforward.net/
sadmadalan - MemberMaybe I didn't explain well enough. An independent Scotland would have run a deficit of £4Bn. As the UK deficit is over £100Bn, then Scotlands share (on a per capita basis) would be around £11Bn. It's one or the other, not cumulative.Not sure I understand. If the figures are correct then Scotland with have a deficit of £4Bn AND and its share of the UK Deficit of £11Bn.
As part of the separation in will have to take its share of the liabilities.Estimated at between £49Bn and £96Bn (IIRC). Not a massive sum for a country of Scotlands size/population/resources. There are discussions as to whether or not Scotland would get an AAA rating. I'd say it's marginal but not the end of the world either way.
Finally AS and the SNP go on about honouring their commitments made in their manifesto. The manifesto states that they will have a vote on Independence, not when it will be held.Correct. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the dependence parties pressed the SNP during the election campaign, accusing them of wanting to rush into a referendum rather than concentrating on jobs/growth. Alex Salmond gave a commitment that he would delay any referendum into the second half of the parliament. It is that commitment he is now honouring.
It also mentions nothing about Devo-Max. As some outside Scotland, if you want to go it alone, do so. Don't expect us to let you say half in/half out trying to see which way you would like to chose.I've also given my analysis of "why" Devo-Max has been mentioned at all. I agree though. Devo-Max has to be something which all parties agree on, it's not a unilateral decision.
It is very sad, but sometimes governments provide massive windfalls to communities, and sometimes they take them away. Certainly won't be the first or last town to lose its main source of employment.
Evil Tories.......robbed me of my chance to work down a coal mine.
shame...you seem to be a natural at digging
As for the question where will we get our infantry from? Would there be anything stopping the Scots from enlisting in HM's Armed Forces? I would imagine that these servicemen have a family tradition of serving in the military. There are a lot of ex servicemen serving abroad in Aus and Canada etc.
As for the question where will we get our infantry from? Would there be anything stopping the Scots from enlisting in HM's Armed Forces? I would imagine that these servicemen have a family tradition of serving in the military. There are a lot of ex servicemen serving abroad in Aus and Canada etc.
The British army is full of people from outside the UK, lots of Fijians, Gurkhas etc. Can't see the UK not taking on people from Scotland, if we need more soldiers. However with all the cutbacks in service personal in may not be a problem.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
