[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Though having said that Faslane was a designated USSR nuclear target.

True, though its worth commenting that even without the Vanguard class submarines (trident carrying) that Alex and his mates want rid of, Then Faslane would still be a target for the Vanguard subs that they are happy to keep

Oh, and for the FOGB huge NATO armaments depot where they store the conventional weapons that Alex is keen to keep, and the huge NATO fuel depot, and the other NATO fuel depots to the north, and the deep water jetties, and lets not forget the great big long runways that would be used to stage aircraft to defend the GIUK gap, or the radar stations, or the Clyde shipyards...

Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

All this talk of nukes really just reminds of what a total, and utter bunch of ******* we as a species can be.

Why? Kill us, we kill you - perfectly balanced, Europe has been torn apart by war after war after war for centuries, we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!

List of wars in Europe during the post-WW2 periodGreek Civil War (Greece)Basque Conflict (Spain and France)The Troubles (UK and Ireland)Invasion of Czechoslovakia (USSR)Ten-Day War (Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia)Croatian War of Independence (Croatia vs. Yugoslavia)East Prigorodny Conflict (North Ossetia vs. Russia) (Transnitria vs. Moldavia)Bosnian War (Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia)Albanian RebellionWar of DagestanSecond Chechen War

:

Suez Crisis (UK and France) (France and Spain)Bizerte crisis (France)Angolan War of Independence (Portugal)Dhofar Rebellion (UK)Mozambican War of Independence (Portugal)Shaba I and II (France and Belgium)Falklands War (UK)Afghanistan War

t hasn't been all that peaceful ninfan

He mentioned Africa etc

Hey I can handle Scotland saying no to Trident Can you not handle us saying no to a currency union?

the UK is declining an offer and AS is make a threat in return.

I also agree AS was foolish there as it is obvious that both cock ups are pretty big. He needs to be able to negotiate his way out of his current position and that level of entrenchment is not helpful. Still he seems a skilled politician so reversing his position should come easy to him.

we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!

ninfan - Member

Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

Only Aracer.

But it's beside the point; most people object to Trident and more so the Trident replacement because it's a big sick joke, a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.

it hasn't been all that peaceful Ninfan

Yes, and 1968 was the only year without a British serviceman dying on active service somewhere in the world!

But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before, five million in the Napoleonic wars, 16 million plus in WW1, 30 million plus in WW2, repeated millions in other repeated wars over the same soil. The wars quoted aren't between nuclear powers, which have become the great leveller.

a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.

While one side has it, so must the other - its not something that can be uninvented and even if there were none now, the first thunder of any major war would see the race build them.

Junkyard Africa is a continent and not a country.

[i]You need to remove your us and them, I am not voting in this and reside in england.[/i]

A referendum would be needed for a currency union and I would be voting against that. Why should the UK be the lender of last resort to iScotland? I wish an independent Scotland all the best but would not want the UK to have the responsibility of bailing Scotland out should things go wrong. If the majority of Scots want independence then I respect their decision, the majority of people in the UK do not want a currency union with an iScotland, can you not respect that?

[quote=ninfan ]Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

Surely they must be targetting Sir BS of Eck, and if not can't we subscribe him?

[quote=Northwind ]Only Aracer.

I was simply suggesting that it wouldn't be targetted because of having nuclear strike capability given the strike capability isn't there (and by the time any boats sailed it would all be well over), happy to accept it might be a target for other reasons, and the presence or absence of the Trident subs doesn't really make any difference to whether you're likely to be killed in a nuclear strike if you live nearby.

[quote=Junkyard ]Is he not decling your offer of taking on some debt? legally it is no this so its a choice he declines.
rUK declines currency when asked iS declines debt when asked.....where is the difference here beyond you agreeing with one and not the other?

The significant difference is that the debt ties in with the real assets - the ones which are tradeable - the ones which Sir BS would like a share of, and not all of which are located in Scotland, so he has to negotiate if he wants any of those. That and the Edinburgh agreement means that rUK actually holds all the cards if iS tries asking for anything which isn't seen to be in the best interests of rUK. The other difference is that there is a quite clear moral reason for iS to take on some of the debt, not doing so has other consequences for them.

But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before

The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos wasn't by proxy though. The United States were quite prepared to bomb third world countries directly themselves.

The significant difference is that I dont like Sir BS of eck

What do you mean the Edinburgh agreement?
It is available [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00404789.pdf ]here[/url] and i see nothing in it that says rUK holds all you say - its just a document about the actual referendum - ie how to conduct it

Is it something different you are referring to? Have I missed something skimming it?

It does contain this gem as the final paragraph

The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed,
through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. [b]The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.[/b]

Interesting news article
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-dockyards-to-carry-on-building-warships-even-if-there-is-a-yes-vote-for-independence-9223811.html ]Independent says RN ships will be built in iScotland[/url]

That's just common sense really - there isn't any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it's not like the UK doesn't already buy military kit from other countries.

bencooper - Member

It really doesn't help the way everyone (especially the mainstream media) confuse a currency union with "keeping the pound". We're keeping the pound, no-one can stop us

If you knew what plan B was all along then why didn't you tell us?

fasternotfatter - Member

A referendum would be needed for a currency union

Says who?

That's just common sense really - there isn't any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it's not like the UK doesn't already buy military kit from other countries.

Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.

Hello,been in Albion with a bunch of pupils. Have l missed much since Thursday? 😛

No, it's exactly the same bickering. But the poo being flung around is a slightly different tone of brown.

Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.

I'm not so sure - the UK doesn't manufacture it's own explosives and propellants much any more, the big ordnance factories like Bishopton were closed down and they are now made in South Africa. Surely the MoD would just invite tenders from any company capable of building ships?

The concept that the UK should be in control of the manufacture of it's defence hardware went out the window years ago.

Nice to see what some of us have been saying for a long time come out in the press, firstly on the currency point and secondly on the point of ship building contracts etc. I wonder how much other stuff will come out in the next few months.

Don't buy it sorry. Politics will come into play and what's best will eventuallygo out the window. It'll be a while before the MOD needs another super carrier, by which time the Clyde May well not be fit for purpose. If Scotland wants a sustainable ship building I believe it needs to look beyond the MOD.

Bear in mind Scotland will have a significant defence budget and no Trident to pay for... The SNP plan is to be building 4 T26s (or equivalent) frinstance as well as smaller boats. That's a significant amount of work but less than UK procurement is expected to provide.

The talk of "not building abroad" is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn't currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they'll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)

But it's not that simple- yes there's political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we'd likely do badly. There's a reason UK military shipyards aren't building tons of ships for other nations.

What complicates that is that T26 was designed as an inside job for production in the UK, so Scotstoun is still going to be an excellent place to build them. But frankly for the rUK it'll probably make more sense just to buy FREMM, one of the reasons for doing it solo is to keep it inhouse.

So now there is a bit of a split on the "Osborne says no" starting point of the this thread,and from "dahn sarf" as welL...Can anybody tell me where THM has gone? I mean,he may be a slow eater but... 😀

He's still eating his tea

He'll have had his tea.

But it's not that simple- yes there's political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we'd likely do badly. There's a reason UK military shipyards aren't building tons of ships for other nations.

Pretty much sums it up for me. Its either a highly politicized decision, or your competing with far better shipyards. Or some ungodly mix of the two.

The talk of "not building abroad" is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn't currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they'll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)

I was pretty clear that mid term ships will continue to be built, but long term. Nothing I've seen gives me confidence that an iScotland will retain shipbuilding. It needs to move away from the MOD. And I'm not sure that comparing a Super carrier with a river class boat is that sensible. Small things like that aren't very political, Flag Ships are. And the last thing BAE is, is free from politics.

Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?

Think it's largely context. For the SNP at least it's been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. Whereas the "no currency union" thing is something that seemed to conveniently appear from nowhere at a convenient point in the campaign and was widely doubted even before the leak. So it's on shakier ground in the first place, so calling it into doubt takes more easily.

But I am a Yes supporter and perfectly happy that a deal can be made on trident. The best case scenario for that is that we stop paying for it, we stop being responsible for it, but we still get the economic boost- principles aside that's a total win for scotland and still a win for the rUK too. But it is a point of principle for many. Unfortunately! And a full on political commitment for some.

It's one of the things I'd hoped might be a spin-out from the referendum, that it'd kickstart debate on Trident replacement nationally. (it's still to be hoped that post-independance the ruk cans the whole thing tbh).

I'm with Northwind on this one. Mt issue with Trident is the cost rather than the fact that they're nuclear subs. I'd be reasonably happy with a compromise of letting rUK have Faslane in return for things I personally see as more important.

Another vote for giving up Faslane. I think a lot of the English adopt the idea that Scots hate them and that is why we are apparently cutting our noses off to spite our pusses,a convenient train of thought. It isn't about that for the majority of us and a common interest in Faslane will force us to remain close. I will also think more kindly of Westminster if don't pay for Trident.

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?

Because whenever Scotland wanted, we could cut off supplies, cut off power, blockade the port, any number of things. Not saying we would, but it's a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset.

A deal on Faslane would be acceptable to me as well. Lots of tricky negotiations required in the event of a yes vote. I suspect this "leak"on currency union might well be the first "feeler"

TJ salutes your dislike of Nuclear weapons

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of scotland even though they are not.

rUK cannot build a new base in the timescale even if they wanted to and they dont given no one knows what will replace it or even if something will replace it.

FWIW the unaamed source [ lets call him VInce - THM will be delighted to have both AS and Uncle vince in his headlights] is given more weight due to
1. Confirmation bias
2. It is likely a govt minister so high enough up the pole to have an opinion that matters and it supports the Yes notion that it is still on the table/ the no campaign lie

NW, WNB, Duckman,

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it's OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW's words, a policy that's

'been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ' ?

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?

plus blockading a nuclear sub, if things every got that bad, it's potentially not the most sensible thing in the world to do! 😆 If we're dealing in fantasy, might as well go the whole hog! 😆

Having to invade to get your nukes back isn't exactly the ideal solution, though 😀

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it's OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW's words, a policy that's

'been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ' ?

I'm not sure there's really much to explain from us because I'm not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one to be had.

Because I suspect that as pointed out by McJunkyard from about page 3, it was always about negotiation. Long term England will build a base for her subs,as pointed out above. The negotiations will be about give and take,bluff and counter bluff,was the announcement(which has backfired,and not by a little) any different? Time will tell.

michaelbowden - Member
Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?

I'm not quite a Yes supporter, but do accept that continuing Trident is a possibility.

In fact, I'm thinking that the deal will probably be a bit of debt+Trident, with favourable terms for the debt repayment (maybe zero-rated.) Not basing this on anything other than what we all use, some intuition and long-term observations of politics in general.

As I said in an earlier post, our American friends are certain to have made overtures already.

As an indication of whether I could be right or not, look out for pronouncements on National Security ramp up in the next few months. I expect AS will make noises like "Scotland's position in geopolitics is such that we must accept our responsibilities, viz in the light of current Russian behaviour" or similar, to soften us all up!

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of Scotland even though they are not.

That or some convenient wording that involves the exact interpretation of 'based in' or 'visiting' (don't ask, don't tell)

I strongly suspect that the vice will be applied over NATO membership

I'm not sure there's really much to explain from us because I'm not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one to be had.

Not trying to pick a fight and my comments were'nt aimed at you three in particular, you just happened reply to my post. But if you look back to page 73 through 75 seems to be the position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

Plus I don't particularly believe the currency is all that important, it'll be made to work regardless.

Its a good point Michael.

Interesting to see the way this thread is going....initially, some heavily entrenched opinions. And over time, lots of give and take, and maybe even some flexibility on stance.

There are still a few who seem to have some quite fixed ideas, I suppose. I wonder how representative this will be of the UK in general?

McJunkyard

http://www.scotweb.co.uk/tartan/Bargain-Booze/54036

No really Bargain Booze do have their own tartan

Vince Cable, if he is the mole rather than Hammond, normally behaves like this when he is losing a point not when it is policy. Rather desperate thing to cling to anyway.

While I can understand folk note being able to get their head around/understand currencies and debt, especially when you have someone like AS deliberately lying about them, swallowing the garbage on trident requires an extraordinary level of gullibility. One can take whatever view one wants on the merits or otherwise of Trident and on the policy of maintaing the current level of defence spending as a %age of GDP (but on conventional weapons etc), but to think that "don't ask, don't tell" equates to no nukes in Scotland is like saying that Celtic is a club supported largely by Protestants!

Ducks. Better that way than getting indigestion but busy weekend and enjoyed lurking for a while. 😉

Tbh THM I think I preferred you when you were eating your tea. The constant playing of the man and none too subtle attempts at insulting out intelligence have gotten boring. As have the arguments about the nukes that have already been had. Maybe we should all leave the thread alone until something new comes up to discuss.