Forum menu
And how exactly do you propose to take "your bit" of the BoE/HoP?
By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.
Quid pro quo and by haggling/negotiating
I do not think anyone is literally saying they will take a %of the Parliament ot iS
It is a strange one as some assets belong to the member country where as the rest has to be divided up like a divorce.
you get the house I get the pension
You get the car I have the yacht etc
i dont think you can go itis physically in my country therefore it is mine with things that belong to the UK as they have to be split
By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.
Actually the HoP needs just over a billion quids worth of repairs. SO in real terms it is not worth that much!
Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.
I would have thought that the economics of maintaining current ship building in Scotland would not stack up. One of the longest coast lines in Europe, with ships paid for by only 5 million people. Our ship building industry manages to get by with MOD contracts. (We don't seem to mind building war ships for an apparent war mongering UK btw).
Between building ships for our own needs, and only providing enough renewable energy for our own needs, perhaps you are an isolationist epicyclo.
Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?If they can't afford planes for the carriers, it doesn't sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc...
Good question that I don't know the answer to. I believe there are plans to replace the older elements of the fleet with the new class (who's name escapes me). Where's the money coming from? No idea.
TBF the entire carrier project is a shambles, and was under both Labour and the coalition. Scrapping the Harrier was a masterstroke of utmost stupidity, but then I'm sure there were financial reasons (keeping an ageing fleet airborne can't be cheap). Maybe they should just bin HS2...
Anyhoo, that's a separate conversation.
My understanding is (living near Portsmouth) that the shipyards are being 'kept warm' in case there's a yes vote. An arsh if you're a southern ship builder, but a great contingency if you're overseeing the construction of state-of-the-art battleships and could be 'losing' your shipyard because it's becoming Jonny Foreign.
I've got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.In the case of independence, won't the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I've seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.
As a layman that's not adding up here either.
But that is as a layman, with no particular interest in the city.
By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.
@wanman I have no doubt AS will try this on. He will get precisely nowhere with it. Just like the currency union nonsense. AS needs to focus his negotiating energy on the EU in the unlikely event he wins. It will be the renegotiation of the Scottish membership of the EU which will be the defining factor in the Scots future.
The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis, and this basis might be easiest to acheive but could have significant disadvantages for everyone,there are Uk govt offices all over the Uk including Scotland and their roles often cross the various borders within the Uk for example I dealt with HMRC in Newcastle, DWP in both Dundee and Blackburn etc. There would be costs all around in changing the roles of all these offices no doubt there would be redundancies in some locations and possibly recruitment in others. Alternatively some horse trading could take place to ensure that both an independent Scotland and rUK have all the capacity needed to ensure the smoothest possible transition
I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships
Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it'll be happening. The contracts for the carriers are signed, BAE are building them in Rosyth, and BAE and the MoD have stated that that will be the case whether or not there's independence. Even if BAE wanted to, there's not a facility in the rUK that could build the second carrier.
So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.
The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis
I've only ever said the division of physical things, like buildings, would be on a geographical basis. If it can be relocated in any way, and in any sense of the word, then it'll probably come down to a fair proportion.
What wanmankylung seems to be suggesting is a Scotland keeps 100% of everything within its border and then gets to cherry-pick from the rest of the UK, without thinking that if that's how everything goes down then the UK might want to do some cherry-picking of its own.
There would be costs...
Of that there is no doubt! 😆
Comparisons of GDP, GVA etc are difficult, as the value of the financial services industry is pretty significant (15% of Scotland's GDP). Once the headquarters move, and inevitably oil and gas declines to the point of insignificance (albeit in 20-30 years), it looks to me as though there would be very little value creation in Scotland, unless new industries move in.
I'm genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I've read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don't then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.
Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it'll be happening.... So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.
Or, you know, just sit and wait for 19th September then carry on as normal 🙂
@wanman I have no doubt AS will try this on. He will get precisely nowhere with it. Just like the currency union nonsense. AS needs to focus his negotiating energy on the EU in the unlikely event he wins. It will be the renegotiation of the Scottish membership of the EU which will be the defining factor in the Scots future.
Why would it be trying it on? I find that stance offensive. We paid for our percentage share of it therefore that exact percentage share is ours. That bit is not open to negotiation.
You keep mentioning Alex Salmond - your repeated reference to him says to me that you don't have a clue what the referendum is about. The question is this "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Where is Alex Salmond's name in that question?
So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.
I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who's to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland? Contract would only need amending, rather than ripping up. There's a shipyard with wounded pride and skilled staff on the south coast, gagging for work. If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?
That bit is not open to negotiation.
AS seems to say that a lot about stuff that blatantly is. 😉
If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?
Erm - let me see - the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).
Where is Alex Salmond's name in that question?
I think people keep mentioning Alex Salmond because unfortunately it'll him and the SNP involved in every step of the negotiation process, pushing the SNP's white paper down Westminster's throat, and nothing in Alex Salmond's past or present behaviour suggests that he'll be anything other than an obnoxious flip-flopper who cries bully when he doesn't get his own way.
However loud you shout that it isn't about Alex Salmond, Alex Salmond's ego shouts louder.
A brief interlude for a spot of light relief: http://eveningharold.com/2014/08/08/alex-salmond-insists-were-keeping-the-paul-mccartney/
We paid for our percentage share of it
In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.
In practical terms there will be some balancing done and agreements made to cover a ten year period after Independence to ensure that both governments function. But jobs in Scotland will be relocated in time to the UK. Some assets will "move" to Scotland and some to the UK.
However the UK government will be trying to get the best deal for the UK, in the same manner as the Scottish government trying to get the best deal. It is not going to happen in the 18 month time period outlined by the Yes camp.
I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who's to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland?
The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of "we don't let foreigners build our warships" will no longer work.
In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.
In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.
And that is my exact point. The word that I keep hearing from the Yes side is "fair", the word I keep hearing from the No side is "can't". Remember when you were a kid and someone said that you couldn't do something...
Erm - let me see - the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).
Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London - that's significantly more than the population of Scotland right there), next to the base where most of the crew that pilot the ships will be posted at some point?
It will be about finances undoubtedly, but there is a lot more at stake.
Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London - that's significantly more than the population of Scotland right there)
And that's precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.
I'm genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I've read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don't then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.
I've been trying to find a good graphic which shows it, can't find the one I was thinking of so here's another one:
[img] 
[/img]
Basically, the oil is a nice bonus to have, it doesn't underpin the whole economy. Neither does financial services. We have a pretty decent mix of industries.
In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.
They'll be built where ever politics decide. Short to mid term practicalities means that BAE will probably continue for a while to build in Scotland.
Long term, an expensive decision will be made by an unpopular government trying to win some votes.
Don't mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don't mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.
BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.
Or wherever the customer wants it to be built. If it was the most economic we would not be building them in Scotland. The contract from the Government is with BAE, it is not with Scotland. BAE has said that they will be built on the Clyde, but like all contracts I suspect that there are enough get out clauses to allow BAE to move the work.
What I suspect BAE want in the case of Independence is for the UK Government to commission them to re-establish the dockyards on the South Coast. Given that there would be no Scottish MPs, the UK Parliament may see this as a good long term move.
I think that this is one of the points that yS needs to understand. Trying to tell the UK what would be good for the UK in the event of Independence will be ignored. An iScotland would not have a voice (after the Independence discussions had been completed). The UK would do what they want and if that affects Scotland - well tough. (See also interest rates if Scotland shares the Pound)
The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of "we don't let foreigners build our warships" will no longer work.In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.
I don't buy that.
The second carrier is being used for spares for a start.
BAE is a European company, but - as said above - unless the shipyards can get constant trade it's unlikely to be commercially viable in a country of 5 million, unless it's significantly cheaper to do so (hard to comment on that as the currency of an iS is still very open to discussion).
That and the PR coup of 'returning work' to the UK and 'British ships being made in Britain' will be very tempting for whoever is in government.
Edit: Seems my point is made far more eloquently above.
Slightly misleading, seeing as all the figures quoted are per year, except the oil. That's a total estimated value of all the oil down there, assuming it could all be extracted, and that 100% of the wholesale proceeds go to the government.[img]
Apart from that trivial error, it's a fair representation of Scotland's yearly economic output.
Don't mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don't mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.
BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments. But it's apolitical when it comes to making money - it already employs more people outside of the UK than in.
In sure if a future contract for warships specified that they had to be built at Devonport, then BAE would happily add the costs onto the bill, and the MoD would happily pay it - the MoD have a record of spending astronomical sums on stupid ideas for political reasons.
But that would be the rUK government deciding it, not BAE - BAE are only out to make money.
Not that it really matters - an independent Scotland will have a requirement for 20-25 patrol vessels and a £2.5bn defense budget, enough to keep the Clyde yards busy for years. Then there's the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding - Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.
And that's precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.
I understand and am not arguing with that, just as I'm not arguing against a referendum. Scotland should be free to do as it pleases, as a country.
My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of 'sovereign rights' (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.
Got it in one, Pimpmaster. That's my exact feeling.
My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of 'sovereign rights' (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.
Based on what?
My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction.
There are flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric on both sides. The trick is to look beyond the personalities, beyond one narrative, to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.
BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments.
@ben such is the nature of military contracts. In fact all large contracts under state control, I've heard some disturbing stories about how mobile telephone licences in Asia are awarded.
Then there's the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding - Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.
So what is stopping the creation of shipyards now? After all it would be almost certain to gain UK (and possibly EU) money to set up and run. Interest rates are at an historic low, the world is slowly coming out of recession. So why wait to see if Independence is gained before starting the creation of new shipyards.
I have seen this 'fact' and others - improved productivity, new jobs - but for some reason it is implied that it cannot happen until after a vote - WHY?
Is it because to make the figures stack up, in reducing tax rates, dropping retirement ages, greater spending on social policies add so much cost that we need to find someways of offsetting this. So let's add some shipyards, add some new jobs and improve productivity to show how it can all be paid for.
(Must stop doing this and do some real work!!)
to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.
In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.
I'm not sure how much "blame" you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.
There has been (in my circles at least) an increase in emotions on the referendum recently. Most notably from No voters who assume I'm voting the same. I guess the guard gets let down, Salmond certainly does irritate, but would anybody else in his place be any less irritating? The main gripe is a movement attempting to lead Scotland in a direction that many are against, and increasingly passionately against.
Incidentally I have encountered more, barely hidden near hostility from Yes voters. I'd guess after making assumptions about my voting intention.
Both account for a small minority, but it is certainly something that has increased.
A Scotland united by a vision of it's future it is not.
I've heard some disturbing stories about how mobile telephone licences in Asia are awarded.
What is it that you find disturbing jambalaya? Are some licences purchased, while others paying the same fee are only leasing the licence?
As piemonster hits on the real cost of the referendum. I avoid the subject with some friends, as I would quite like to stay friends.
athgray - Member
...Between building ships for our own needs, and only providing enough renewable energy for our own needs, perhaps you are an isolationist epicyclo.
I see nothing wrong in a country being self-sufficient as far as is possible.
In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.
What are better sources to look at?
What are better sources to look at?
The news? Or is that too English-centric? 😉
That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.
Have you got the source for the graphic above? I'd seen in a Yes leaflet a few weeks ago, and thought it was optimistic, but can't find the leaflet now. By optimistic, I mean that after you remove oil/gas, financial services and chunks of others that are spin offs of oil/gas (chemical), there is quite a drop in GDP.