Thank you for your email.
More information on an independent Scotland can be found at http://www.scotlandforward.netHowever, the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer.
With thanks
Susan
That's a pretty poor answer - if you can even call it an answer. How can they possibly claim that independence is good for Scotland if they have no idea as to the outcome? If they really had any integrity* they would state what Scotland's going to get out of it, put the numbers on the table and start a debate about something real and tangible, not just gut feeling and jingoism.
* I seriously doubt how much integrity they have - they're politicians, after all...
You do not see that the SNP made a commitment and are sticking to it.
Ok, "I see" said the blind man.
You have to admire politicians who stick to their commitments. So rare these days.
Does this mean no more scottish MP's in westminster then?
How can the SNP make a statement about what would happen when they genuinely don't know for sure? Even with a yes vote they'd still have to have a second referendum on the exact terms of the settlement wouldnt they?
That's a pretty poor answer - if you can even call it an answer. How can they possibly claim that independence is good for Scotland if they have no idea as to the outcome? If they really had any integrity* they would state what Scotland's going to get out of it, put the numbers on the table and start a debate about something real and tangible, not just gut feeling and jingoism.
Depends on your definition of 'good', I guess.
Like the people who give up high paid jobs where there have little personal freedom, to lower paid ones that they enjoy more.
Is that 'good' because they have more freedom, or 'bad' because they have less money?
Personally I think rationalising independence on fiscal terms ain't great. Seems a bit like whoring yourself to whoever pays the most. But I suspect I might be in the minority on this.
the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer
Which part of that is hard to comprehend exactly?
BTW, if people are struggling to understand why Westminster is so keen to hang onto Scotland, and many Scots doubt the veracity of the espoused rationale, help yourself to a look here:
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report ]McCrone Report[/url]
In essence, we weren't given the full facts when we voted on devolution in 1979, or 1997 - the information was suppressed by successive Conservative and Labour governments. Hardly surprising that we don't trust them now...
Ian - I think there are those for whom independence is a philosophy they want - and for them the cost is irrelevant. Thats a large part of the pro independence people. there are also those for whom its a pragmatic choice and the economic argument is important to them - being better off.
I think the idealists are the majority tho
This whole thing boils my piss to be honest. My view (Scottish unionist) - why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.
Vote wise, if Scotland want independance then it is our (Scottish) vote to leave the union. If however we are voting for Devo-max - then this, in my view, needs to be a wider vote as we in Scotland cant vote to change policies that affect the UK without the say of all others involved. It must be a UK wide vote.
I've listened to some interesting Radio on this very subject, two polarised camps really
1. Remember back to 16.. blah blah and the declaration of independance. We've been under the cosh and it's time we get out and stand alone, paint our faces blue and run around with clamores. I'm going to generalise here but anyway... this view comes from a lot of working class, anti English, sectarian song singing, Stella drinking wife beaters (if their team looses) not that I am wishing to judge them mind...
2. The other group want to look at the financial implications of leaving the union, can we stand alone? what if RBS/BOS tumbled and we were independant? would we be broke? What is the financial benefit of leaving the union, what about our foreign affairs? Will be have a voice, will we be listened to? And let's forget the history of William Wallace, it has nothing to do with Independance on the 21st century This view, again generalising is held by the middle class, Edinburgh, banker types.
Personally I think there would be a great exodus from Scotland if independance were to become reality, I for one would be getting in line to buy my ticket.
why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.
The obvious response to this is that it's impressive if you were predicting this before the event, since most of Europe's governments, including our own, were of much the same mind. Ireland and Iceland might have been hit earliest, but they've by no means been hit the hardest, and it's not as if we dodged the bullet ourselves financially.
Arguments about RBS are moot at this point - Westminster set the regulatory framework for UK banks, and it was under that framework that RBS had the freedom to screw itself up royally and eventually contribute to the current shambles.
Of course, there's a bigger issue in all of this, which is that if we're basing a decision on independence on how much we perceive we can be subsidised by the rest of the UK, then we haven't learned much as a nation either from the circumstances leading to the Act of Union, or the current economic crisis.
Don't see the logic for "devo max" being a UK wide vote - the original decision to grant devolution wasn't voted on by the UK, other than being rolled into the wider 1997 Labour manifesto, and I doubt if devolution was much of an issue for anyone outside Scotland or Wales anyway.
a lot of working class, anti English, sectarian song singing, Stella drinking wife beaters (if their team looses) not that I am wishing to judge them mind...
Well you would say that, given you describe yourself as a "unionist"
[img] 
[/img]
Is Cliff Richards a Rangers supporter?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/10/alex-salmond-finishes-touches-referendum
The latest leaks from Westminster show the backtracking has started - no sunset clause in any westminster legislation. 3rd( at least u turn from the tories on this.
Independance. If we wish to leave the game, then it is our choice, not that of all players involved.
Devo max. If we wish to change some of the rules of the game to benefit ourselves, then all involved must agree to the changes
As a man of integrity, do you think it will be the same one he was planning to use in 2010, TJ?
A bit of debate from the New Statesman:
...there is a potential contradiction in the SNP's stance. It maintains both that Cameron has no right to dictate the terms of the referendum and that his move will backfire. But if Cameron's move will backfire why is the Scottish government so opposed to it? The answer, as Sturgeon will not say, is that the SNP is not convinced there will be a majority for independence in the next 18 months (or ever) and, consequently, is determined to reserve the option of devolution max. Yes, some Scottish voters will resent Cameron's intervention but others will ask, "why doesn't Salmond want an early referendum? What's the big feartie afraid of?"Set against this must be the disorganisation of the pro-Union side (who will lead the No campaign?) but Cameron has called Salmond's bluff and the initiative, for the first time in months, is with him.
And The Economist is also as thick as me as wondering the irony of all of this:
It is all pretty ironic. Political and legal forces are aligning to put the Union to a once-in-a-generation test. And Mr Cameron, a politician who wants to preserve the status quo, finds himself pressing an in-out vote on Mr Salmond, whose adult life has been devoted to the cause of Scottish independence.
are we attacking a politician now for not wanting to pose a question till they think they can win it...PMs call elections all the time when it is favourable to them rather than the opposition..it is hardly something worth pointing out tbh..I dont see hypocrisy I see him trying to win the vote..it its the very same reason that dave wants one now and without a dev max option as he thinke he will win the former and loose the later. I dont see why any of us are surpirsed at politicians bening shrewd politicians but it applies equally to both sides as to the timing and question choice and not just to the SNP.
- why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.
I don't see Norway regretting becoming independent. In fact even with Ireland's problems I don't see any of them wanting to come back to the UK.
Does Salmond's "fat face" make his ideas wrong?
Personally I think there would be a great exodus from Scotland if independance were to become reality, I for one would be getting in line to buy my ticket.
I'm sure we would struggle on somehow without you.
We have a politician - Salmond who made a commitment for a variety of good reasons wanting to stick to that commitment.
We have a politician -- Cameron- who has no mandate at all in Scotland attempting to gerrymander this and to railroad thru a proposal.
In 2009 the tories ( along with the rest of the pro union parties) stopped a referendum on independence
yesterday they said that a referendum would have to be held within 18 months. today that condition has been removed.
What will the Tories position be next month? How can they reconcile their demand for an immediate referendum now with their opposition to one only a couple of years ago?
salmond is already making political capital from this and making Cameron look foolish
Salmond said: "The UK government is in a state of total confusion. Overnight, yesterday's 18-month sunset clause had disappeared into the sunset, the coalition is riven with tensions, and Westminster is backtracking in the face of the massive thumbs down from opinion in Scotland to Tory interference in the Scottish democratic process."
European leaders react to the news that Dave's ****ted himself again...
[img] 
[/img]
JY - I agree with you. But apparently, in this case AS is different from the rest of them. He's a man of honour and integrity, don't you know.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121 ]Scottish referendum 'must be authorised by UK government'[/url]
Michael Moore said the government would devolve the power to hold a poll to the Scottish Parliament only if it was "legal, fair and decisive".
So are we now going to have the situation where AS wants the referendum but Westminster wont give permission because they don't like the question being asked or because the timing does suit? Or is this just backtracking to where we were before DC opened his mouth on something he has no mandate on?
teamhurtmore - you disappoint me.
I thought you really wanted to understand. Ah well.
well he is doing what he said he would at a time that best suits him...probably as good as we can ever expect from a politician...he is no Nick Clegg though 😕
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.
TJ - I am so sorry to disappoint you.
I thought you really wanted to understand. Ah well.
You know I did and it was fun being in TJ-land for a while. But you burst the lovely bubble with the vote he cannot win bit. I was shocked. Still it was all a bit sickly and too-good-to-be-true.
JY - of course he is. They are all politicians and Salmon is as slippery as his name and the rest of them. Manof integrity - pah! He is as opportunistic as the rest.
It was so funny though, because in addition to the irony that The Economist points out, the New Statesman was correct. Cameron caught AS with his pants down and neither he nor Sturgeon knew how to react.
They have regrouped now and the real battle will begin. Moore must have been a bit pissed because he looks like he was sidelined - DC and GO played dirty there by the looks of things. And Ed, well who cares.
It will now be like an indoor cycling class - loads of spinning and frantic pace with no-one going anywhere.
Still it will be fun to watch!
It will now be like an indoor cycling class - loads of spinning and frantic pace with no-one going anywhere.
No cute bums in lycra to look at, though. Which is a shame.
Isle of Man seems to manage ok?
http://www.gov.im/iomfinance/about/political.xml
Couldn't Scotland's independence use this as a starting point for their own?
Most of the questions and issues raised so far (even the facetious ones) could be resolved by the politicos-that's what they do-that's if Scotland did vote for independence.Throwing up these questions seems to me to be a ploy to put people off voting for independence(speaking as an Englishman living in Scotland with no axe to grind either way).
Were the Westminster Tories ever for a Scottish government in the first place? Genuine question.
Remember the farce of the 1979 referendum for Scotland-why trust Westminster?
BTW AFAIK no referendum carries any legal weight anyway it just directs the government.However the SNP will be snookered if and when any referendum vote is held and independence is rejected
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 peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
Were the Westminster Tories ever for a Scottish government in the first place? Genuine question.
No - they are a unionist party - its in their name and they have been against any form of devolution or independence
they stopped a referendum on independence a couple of years ago. Thats why this is so laughable in its transparancy.
I see the SNP [b]are[/b] trying to go for 2014. Pretty pathetic really.
Pretty pathetic to stick to your commitments?
Pretty pathetic really.
Why? SNP Policy has always been to hold it towards the end of the 2nd half of their term. Sticking to their guns by the sound of it.
No. Pretty pathetic to use Bannockburn to get votes in the 21st century
Self determination for the people of the falkland islands, for the people of Kosovo but not for the people of Scotland?
TandemJeremy - MemberWere the Westminster Tories ever for a Scottish government in the first place? Genuine question.
No - they are a unionist party - its in their name and they have been against any form of devolution or independence
they stopped a referendum on independence a couple of years ago. Thats why this is so laughable in its transparancy.
Thought as much,a more deceitful, disingeneous bunch would be hard to find..
No. Pretty pathetic to use Bannockburn to get votes in the 21st century
Suspect they would want to hold in in the last part of their term regardless of Bannockburn.
imnotverygood - MemberNo. Pretty pathetic to use Bannockburn to get votes in the 21st century
Or so the English media report......
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.
Yeah, and where are you gonna get your whippets from if we declare independence?
I haven't read the preceding pages, but why has Cameron come up with this one this week? Why does he want to [i]force[/i] 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". 😆
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 [b]before[/b] 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
Ah - your use of the singular [i]Act[/i] of Union gives away your ignorance of this subject. In fact, there were two [i]Acts[/i] 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.Zulu-Eleven - Member
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 [i] successor [/i]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 [i]better[/i] off independent.
I see that there's a queue of other oil producing nations lining up to be controlled from Westminster.
And that is the single most persuasive argument I've read on this thread.mcboo - Member
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.
Scotland would need at least one military airfield, which is exactly how many it'll have in the UK.mcboo - MemberAs 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.
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 [i]in[/i] Scotland.Faslane? They are going to want those jobs in Portsmouth, Plymouth or maybe Belfast right? Goodbye to the [b]Gareloch[/b], it was special.....and wet.
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 too. I even married an English woman. It didn't work out though and we eventually divorced 🙂Me, I like England and the English. Especially in London.
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
I do
[img]
[/img]
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/
Maybe 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 [i]per capita[/i] basis) would be around £11Bn. It's one or the other, not cumulative.sadmadalan - MemberNot 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.
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.As part of the separation in will have to take its share of the liabilities.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Didn't the Tories under Thatcher helped decimate steel ,mining and other tradional industries throughout Scotland hence their complete lack of support North of the border. For Cameron to bang on about business needing a quick resolution to this issue is a bit rich....and untrue.
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.
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.
All true. And I can't think of a single Scottish soldier I've known who would want to join an army that doesnt go anywhere or do anything.
mcboo- un peacekeeping not good enough? the Scottish regiment under and independent Scotland would be used for un peacekeeping and not illegal wars.
I suspect this might be attractive to some
Of course there would be another large cash saving. No need to spend billions bombing the middle east back to the stone age
No need to spend billions bombing the middle east back to the stone age
True - the Scottish way would be to discretely encourage Israel and Iran to do it for us; it's cheaper, less work and once they've irradiated the Iranian oilfields for several generations, the value of North Sea oil is going to rocket. Then, we'll subtly pin the blame on the English and let everyone love us for our boozy charm, kilts and the mystery of "what lies beneath".
Let's face facts here; if you have a look at the history of the Empire, it's been Scots who have built most of it, we've run the UK for large chunks of our combined history and, as the Sassenachs are only now just cottoning on, we've been syphoning the profits north of the border for years. Yet despite having robbed and pillaged our way round the globe for several centuries, everyone loves us!
You can be damn sure that we're still one step ahead of you, so you might as well just pipe down and accept what's coming - we promise to phone once in a while 😆
D-J [b]TESTIFY BROTHER![/b]
We did come in handy at fighting Englands wars, pushing back native tribes with the promise of a wee bit of land for ourselves it must be said. I love the ironing of Mcpoo threatening the closure of Lossie...Because THAT will never happen,close down highland RAF bases? Nah,no precident for that,is there?
Well this mornings papers are full of the 1000 day headlines. Now it will start to get dirty. Expect pictures of Alex Salmond wearing nothing but a tutu,a hamster, and a winning smile in the Sun anyday now 😯
BTW the word Sassenach is from the Gaelic "Saxon"
Milliband has joined with Cameron in telling us that we should remain in the Union... ...well that should sway the Scottish Electorate!
Elf, will you be more likely to visit Scotland once its properly foreign?