We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England. That'd be super (and may actually be viable, which a large part of me thinks an independent Scotland wouldn't be).I'd vote for that!
I've said it before, but what we should be voting for is Independence for the South East of England. I think the rest of us could bump along quite nicely without them. And it'd save everyone in London the (frankly embarrassing) trouble of pretending that the rest of us even exist
I've said it before, but what we should be voting for is Independence for the South East of England. I think the rest of us could bump along quite nicely without them. And it'd save everyone in London the (frankly embarrassing) trouble of pretending that the rest of us even exist
Could we also be banned from working there too please?
As a west country type, I'm fed up of being expected to do the M4 corridor run. "it's only 100 miles".....It takes 4 ****ing hours!
Perhaps its southern counterpart could be the Thames - We're All Tories - Sub-region.
London which sits nestled on the Thames is very far from being "all Tory".
In 1997 London had 57 Labour MPs compared to 11 Tory MPs.
Even after the last election which returned the Tories to government London wasn't "all Tory" :
[img] 
[/img]
wrecker - MemberI'm not remotely surprised. 10's of billions? All political parties would have a tough time swallowing that badboy.
One of the MOD/RUK government assumptions seems to be that scotland would pay a share of the costs of a new base. Which is just nonsense frankly, and exactly the sort of high-handed presumptious crap that people are getting fed up of. Paying for decommissioning- fair enough. They want a nuclear deterrant afterwards? Up to them.
as a proper northerner (Northumbria) you can swear filter right off trying to lump us in with those north of the border. If anything we should be giving the south to France, that would teach em!
Perhaps its southern counterpart could be the Thames - We're All Tories - Sub-region.London which sits nestled on the Thames is very far from being "all Tory".
In 1997 London had 57 Labour MPs compared to 11 Tory MPs.
Even after the last election which returned the Tories to government London wasn't "all Tory" :
Yeah, but you can't make a puerile acronym out of Thames - We're All Tories Apart From 57 London Labour Constituencies - Sub Region.
I suspect that if you zoomed out a bit then most of the map along the bit south of the Thames would be blue.
if scotland gets independance will i get dual nationality
if scotland gets independance will i get dual nationality
Quite.
So how about we define Scottishness and what entitles someone to a Scottish passport?. It can't simply be residence, as that then means that anyone of any nationality can be a jock, simply through location. In fact there may well be a minority of people in the country who were born there. Judging by my immediate locality there are literally thousands, probably millions of ex pat jocks throughout the UK, so what about them? Are they excluded from Salmonds vision?
What about me? Father being a Scottish Borderer, Mother from Penrith?
Personally, I'm all for devolution of government, and less centralisation, but in a world of increasing globalisation does this Little Scotland idea actually make any sense?
Simple making plans just in case. However maybe it is time to boot the whinging kid out of the family home. See how long before the come back asking for more pocket money or to be let back in.
That really is a terrible way to talk about the english.
That map is a bit misleading ernie. Stefs point mentioned the SE not London. If you take an indicative line from The Severn to the Wash the political map below that line will be mainly blue I imagine.
Seeing how the EU have half opened the door to an independent Scotland, do we think that the Basques are going to be allowed a crack at it as well?
The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
That map is a bit misleading ernie. Stefs point mentioned the SE not London.
Stef's point mentioned "the Thames", not "the SE". London is the largest settlement next to the Thames.
The map shows the election results in London after the last general election which returned the Tories to power. There is nothing misleading about it.
On the other hand the "We're All Tories" comment concerning the 'Thames Sub-region' was somewhat misleading. Specially as in 1997 London elected more Labour MPs than the whole of Scotland.
[quote=scotroutes ]The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??
The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
Can it trump the UN charter?
Specially as in 1997 London elected more Labour MPs than the whole of Scotland.
I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?
Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??
Ourselves. And this is a good thing. Scotland [i]should[/i] grow up and stand on its own feet.
I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?
About 11 more.
But for every Tory MP Londoners elected in 1997 they elected 5 Labour MPs.
Not quite the "We're All Tories" sentiment which was suggested.
Not quite the "We're All Tories" sentiment which was suggested.
Well, [i]someone[/i] must be voting for the buggers 😉
mikewsmith - Memberscotroutes » The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??
"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."
Said no country, ever.
Seeing how the EU have half opened the door to an independent Scotland, do we think that the Basques are going to be allowed a crack at it as well?
The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
I wonder if this is something that's been thought through? It's quite likely the Spanish Government will oppose the admission of an independent Scotland to the EU, as they don't want to set a precedent for Catalonia.
Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."
I suspect you might find the population of quite a few countries would take that option, albeit their governments may well not. Zimbabwe perhaps?
[quote=StefMcDef ] mikewsmith - Member
scotroutes » The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??
"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."
Said no country, ever.
Whats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners
Just to get back to the original point, cos it needs clarifying.
In the event of the Scottish voting yes to independence the British Govt has no intention of hanging onto Furslane, and the (or more accurately, a very vocal "some") Scots are very angry and say that's bullying.
So, the obvious question: wuh!?
I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?
And probably northern England too*
* Cheshire isn't the north. Its a satellite state-lette of the South East
"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."Said no country, ever.
Well that's not the impression that I got in some Central Asian countries where I was told that if given the chance they would want to rejoin the USSR. Granted it might not be unversal but it is a widely held opinion.
mikewsmith - MemberWhats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners
I'm sure your ideological forebears convinced themselves that the ****less populations of America, Canada, Ireland, India and countless others would never make a go of it without John Bull's beneficent guiding hand.
And Scotland is hardly Zimbabwe or a central Asian republic - it's a small, developed, relatively resource-rich nation in northern Europe. The Scandinavian states are probably more accurate comparators for how things might turn out.
All of which will probably turn out to be moot - but the potential is there for an independent Scotland to prosper.
[quote=StefMcDef ] mikewsmith - Member
Whats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners
I'm sure your ideological forebears convinced themselves that the ****less populations of America, Canada, Ireland, India and countless others would never make a go of it without John Bull's beneficent guiding hand.
And Scotland is hardly Zimbabwe or a central Asian republic - it's a small, developed, relatively resource-rich nation in northern Europe. The Scandinavian states are probably more accurate comparators for how things might turn out.
All of which will probably turn out to be moot - but the potential is there for an independent Scotland to prosper.
Good on you give it a go 🙂
So long as they continue to maintain the road between gareloch head and loch long because its teh awesomes on the road bike!
klumpy - MemberJust to get back to the original point, cos it needs clarifying.
In the event of the Scottish voting yes to independence the British Govt has no intention of hanging onto Furslane, and the (or more accurately, a very vocal "some") Scots are very angry and say that's bullying.
Apparently the original point does need clarifying, because this is completely backwards. The original post was about the MOD suggestion to annex parts of scotland post-independence.
Apparently the original point does need clarifying, because this is completely backwards. The original post was about the MOD suggestion to annex parts of scotland post-independence.
Well, the Guardian said so - and they even quoted "sources" "spokesmen" and an ex-minister. The UK government, however, says different:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23267584 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23267584[/url]
Does the Guardian have a stance on independent Scotland? Cos this kinda stirring could influence the vote.
I think it's more that the MoD was speculating without checking with the politicians.
The Guardian seems very anti-independence usually.
klumpy - MemberWell, the Guardian said so - and they even quoted "sources" "spokesmen" and an ex-minister. The UK government, however, says different
In fact the government haven't claimed the story is wrong or false, they've just said that the MoD suggestion isn't realistic.
mikewsmith - Member
Simple making plans just in case. However maybe it is time to boot the whinging kid out of the family home. See how long before the come back asking for more pocket money or to be let back in.POSTED 16 HOURS AGO #
Sorry, I read that post at 7am, and I've only just stopped laughing!.
winston_dog - Member
...Scottish Navy? What will that consist of?
The ships they are intending to build on the Clyde for the Scottish navy.
As for Faslane, the sooner we get rid of a nuclear target 30 miles from a major centre of population, the better. I'm sure Westminster has some citizens it regards as disposable in England, so there's plenty other [s]targets[/s] locations they can pick.
I dont believe that only 500 of 6000 jobs at Faslane are reliant on Trident, but even if that is the case an independant Scotland will surely not keep up levels of defence spending, especially as everyone loves us and we won't have the English dragging us into wars we don't want.
The locations and manpower at military bases in this country I assume are what is deemed neccessary for the defence of the UK. Perhaps eck has an attack strategy post independance.
[quote=athgray ]I dont believe that only 500 of 6000 jobs at Faslane are reliant on Trident,
It was the answer given by the MOD to a FoI request.
It would at least be nice to have a couple of ships able to patrol the Moray Firth without having to get them sent up from the English Channel the next time a Russian Fleet decides to park off our coast.but even if that is the case an independant Scotland will surely not keep up levels of defence spending, especially as everyone loves us and we won't have the English dragging us into wars we don't want.
The locations and manpower at military bases in this country I assume are what is deemed neccessary for the defence of the UK. Perhaps eck has an attack strategy post independance.
Does the Guardian have a stance on independent Scotland? Cos this kinda stirring could influence the vote.
Really I never saw it sold up there - not even wrapping chips
I'd be happy to see the entire trident defence system sink to the bottom of the english channel and never be seen nor heard from again )apart from the crews - obviously), a contemptible waste of money.
athgray - Member
we won't have the English dragging us into wars we don't want..
Which wars?
Retro83. Iraq.
My post was meant tongue in cheek although it may not appear that way. I don't for a minute believe that is the case however the SNP would have many believe otherwise.
Fortunately we don't live as close to the threat of a nuclear war these days, but I wonder about the validity of placing a nuclear facility like Faslane so close to a major population centre.
The nature of Faslane is that it would have to be saturated with nuclear explosions to put it out of order.
Glasgow is right next door. There's a good chance the entire population would be wiped out or die lingering and painful deaths. I wonder why they didn't place this base in London? 🙂
In reality, it wouldn't have mattered. If there was a build-up to war, then the subs would have been dispersed to the dispersal moorings away from Faslane - those that didn't go straight to sea. So there would have been nukes targeted at pretty much everywhere - and Glasgow as a major industrial centre would definitely have been on the list, as would London.
The worry is more about accidents.
Fortunately we don't live as close to the threat of a nuclear war these days, but I wonder about the validity of placing a nuclear facility like Faslane so close to a major population centre.The nature of Faslane is that it would have to be saturated with nuclear explosions to put it out of order.
Glasgow is right next door. There's a good chance the entire population would be wiped out or die lingering and painful deaths. I wonder why they didn't place this base in London?
Tongue in cheekness aside, Glasgow would have been on the Soviets' target list anyway - as would anywhere with an airfield with a reasonable length of tarmac runway in order to prevent the RAF using them as diversionary/dispersal sites...
bencooper - Member
In reality, it wouldn't have mattered. If there was a build-up to war, then the subs would have been dispersed to the dispersal moorings away from Faslane...
So it wouldn't have mattered if the base had been in central London then... 🙂
