[Closed] This Scottish Business

I don't think he's lying, I think it's a fuzzy area - one of those areas that will have to stay a bit fuzzy for a while because one side refuses to negotiate before the referendum.

And I don't care, really. It's not an issue that affects my opinion of independence, whether we have £, €, $ or ¥ symbols on our cash.

In the end so long as there is a no crawling back clause in the deal they can vote for what they want 🙂

Northwind - Member

The pound- the idea of the pound, if you like, rather than an individual banknote- is a valuable thing.

Ya, but with UK having the second largest external debts in the world ... ya ... how long before the bubble burst and when will everyone get drag down like US$. They sneeze everyone gets the flu errhh ... 🙄

Valuable hmmm ... I certainly don't want to put all my eggs in the same basket.

And I don't care, really. It's not an issue that affects my opinion of independence, whether we have £, €, $ or ¥ symbols on our cash.

...unless you're one of those FREEEEEDOMMMMM voters, of course.

The whole independence campaign is from my perspective really frustrating. I grew up in the borders with a real sense the history of the trouble and strife caused by warring between England and Scotland.

The UK is so integrated culturally and socially so will it make much difference? You are all governed by Tesco and Newscorp anyway.

I think there is a real problem of too much power in Westminster and this is a problem that needs to be solved for the whole of the UK. It is just that Scotland can hang it on a load of jingoistic nationalism. This though deflects from the real need for the regions of the UK to be able to make their own policies and mistakes that are suited to their issues. London dominates far too much. Maybe in the long run the whole of the UK would benefit by kicking them out of the union and being forced to make real changes to our economy 🙂

All this talk of comparisons to the Nordic countries is missing the point some what. The Nordic countries basic philosophy that makes them work is [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante ]Jante's Law[/url].

The ten rules state:

You're not to think you are anything special.
You're not to think you are as good as us.
You're not to think you are smarter than us.
You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us.
You're not to think you know more than us.
You're not to think you are better than us.
You're not to think you are good at anything.
You're not to laugh at us.
You're not to think anyone cares about you.
You're not to think you can teach us anything.

Which inversely seems to mean that everybody is respected and wants to be respected. From what I can see all forms of work are viewed as a profession and people seem proud of themselves. This is total opposite of what seems to be the culture of the UK.

And is it really SNP policy to cut Corporation tax?

And is it really SNP policy to cut Corporation tax?

Ben and THM can argue all they like about whether the Pound is an asset. All I know is that there's no way I'm going to vote for a political party that puts it into some ill-planned cobbled-together currency union in order to end up in a worse mess than the Euro. And I'd be amazed if I was alone in that.

So I don't think we'll be seeing an independent Scotland using the same currency as the rest of the UK.

The Pollsters must be busy today.

Which inversely seems to mean that everybody is respected and wants to be respected. From what I can see all forms of work are viewed as a profession and people seem proud of themselves. This is total opposite of what seems to be the culture of the UK.

Considering some of the 'they have crap jobs coz they was lazy" bashing that's occurred on STW you may be right.

Not only to cut corp tax but to keep it below RUK corp tax by three percentage points. So who utlimately sets CT an independent Scotland or the RUK? It beggars belief especially when he is openly talking about this in the context of a fixed exchange rate. He is an economist, so knows this (misaligned fiscal policies within a currency union) doesn't work. Therefore there is only one conclusion - deceit and lies.

So two key aspects or macro policy for a state - that ability to set interest rates and tax will be, wait for it, still in the hands of those (insert abusive term of choice) at Westminster.

Never have so many trees been sacrificed for so little!

The leader in The Scotsman sums things up pretty well

But in some areas the answers provided in Scotland’s Future fall some way short of being definitive. Unfortunately for the SNP, these areas include some of the most fundamental aspects of statehood. For the most part, the white paper openly acknowledges when a particular outcome is simply an “aim”. It makes clear it is an advocacy document. But in other areas it is guilty of trying to give the impression that a favoured outcome is a foregone conclusion, when even the slightest degree of scepticism would reveal that it is, at most, a best guess or a high hope. There are too many unsupported assertions in this document, and they let it down.

Indeed Scotland deserves better than Alex Salmond. Independence and Constitutional Change is too important.

more recently he's claimed that by closing Faslane Scotland would forcibly disarm the UK, ffs,

In nuclear terms, yes it will. To create a military base that can handle the subs. missiles and warheads will take a significant length of time. There is also the other problem of somewhere geographical suitable. Coulport where they keep the nasty bits, is basically a hollowed out mountain alongside a deep water berth. I can't think of anyway similar in England. The Clyde wasn't selected because the English don't like the Scots you know.

some ill-planned cobbled-together currency union in order to end up in a worse mess than the Euro.

So you won't vote for independence because the worst-case currency scenario is the status quo?

So you won't vote for independence because the worst-case currency scenario is the status quo?

The status quo is a currency controlled by a single state. What's being proposed is a currency controlled by two separate states, with divergent economies.

Worse - and this is the bit that's frustrating - is that Mr Salmond refuses to even admit the possibility that coming to an agreement over how these two states might manage this shared currency might be difficult. There [b]will[/b] be a currency union, he blithely states.

Oh, and I suspect I won't get a vote on independence, but whatever happens I will definitely get to vote on how sterling is managed 🙂

EDIT: unless of course you're suggesting that one option is for Scotland to continue using Sterling, but for the RUK to control it? But that's totally insane. Scotland: just get your own currency already!

What's being proposed is a currency controlled by two separate states, with divergent economies.

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that the currency would be controlled by one state, but used by two?
I didn't think that an independent Scotland would have any influence on the pound, and that was part of the problem? (for Scotland)

unless of course you're suggesting that one option is for Scotland to continue using Sterling, but for the RUK to control it? But that's totally insane. Scotland: just get your own currency already!

Mr Salmond refuses to even admit the possibility that coming to an agreement over how these two states might manage this shared currency might be difficult. There will be a currency union, he blithely states.

Maybe he's just recklessly assuming that the Westminster government will prefer to come to a sensible agreement, rather than watch Scotland leave without taking any of the national debt.

Maybe he's just recklessly assuming that the Westminster government will prefer to come to a sensible agreement, rather than watch Scotland leave without taking any of the national debt.

There's no guarantee that such an agreement would ever be made.

You forget that we've already done the whole currency union gig with EMU. George Soros bet that we wouldn't stick it out, and he was proved right, and made pot loads of money in the process (which we lost).

Every speculator under the sun would be betting against this currency union and only the most foolhardy of politicians would think they would have any chance against that.

Ben, please dont be fooled by the idle threat of walking away without any national debt. That is simply more subterfuge. Its the sweetened way of saying that as a brand new nation state our first move in global financial markets will be to default on our debt obligations. Salmond may say some silly things but even he is not that stupid. It sounds good though doesn't it. Hey you lot, we are not taking any of your nasty debt (did you watch how he did this twice in Newsnight) unless you give me more sweeties.

I hadn't thought that the Scots were the kind of people who walked away from their responsibilities

We're not - but the No campaign has a habit of assuming that UK assets* are English assets, so Scotland has no right to a share of them. If we don't get to share the UK's assets, we won't share its responsibilities either.

* for the pedants, I use this in the loose sense of anything which has value or benefit

Tsk, tsk THM - now you are just getting incoherent. How can something be "brand new" and yet have pre-existing properties?

Ben, you will find that the methods for allocating both assets and liabilities in the case of a yes vote are well understood and both sides know the merits of each one. There will be inevitable negotiation on that. That is completely different from proposing a default. It's a typical Salmond bully technique which like all bullying bluster is easily pricked *

* For the pedants, "prick" is only being used as a verb here.

yet have pre-existing properties?

It's not a nation state now is it? Besides your just being pedantic.

If we don't get to share the UK's assets

Cripes, I'm sounding anti-independence; I'm not at all. But things must be fair, and the UK has no obligation to make it easy for him.

The Euro area has a currency union, which basically means Germany telling the rest of us what to do - they're bigger and have more money. What happens when (inevitably) rUK starts throwing its weight around and decides on a policy that doesn't favour the Scots? It's a foreign country, why would rUK care what damage it does?

We're not - but the No campaign has a habit of assuming that UK assets* are English assets

So does the Yes campaign, doesn't it? How much English money went in to developing those oil fields that they think they are entitled to? What about the refineries?

Edit, ha, ha Scotroutes!! I am fooled by all those car and bike adverts displaying their brand new models or talk of a brand new start for Scotland.

But actually [i]Scotland's Future[/i] was itself a brand new document yestrrady despite the contents displaying many per-existing properties of both fact and fiction. So I rest my case!!!!

Ireland was in a currency union for a long time with the rest of the UK and its economy did not develop very much until it broke with it as part of preparation for the EURO as I understand it.

If Scotland had its own currency then would it not be a petro one? Maybe they will decide not to spend any of the oil money locally like the Norwegians. 🙂

oldnpastit - Member

The status quo is a currency controlled by a single state. What's being proposed is a currency controlled by two separate states, with divergent economies.

Worse - and this is the bit that's frustrating - is that Mr Salmond refuses to even admit the possibility that coming to an agreement over how these two states might manage this shared currency might be difficult. There will be a currency union, he blithely states.

The important part is "diverging economies"- since our economies are incredibly unlikely to become significantly different in the short or even middle term. Even if governments take dramatically different approaches, economies have momentum like supertankers and obviously the 2 economies will have enormous connections still drawing them together. What's good for the UK in currency terms will almost certainly be good for Scotland for the duration, and vice versa.

And of course there is room for future change- a currency union or even a non-union use of sterling makes a lot of sense in the short term while establishing the independent state, but is likely to make less sense on all fronts as time passes, and that's something we can return to. No need or desire to change everything on day one, and no need to feel stuck with everything we don't change. If in 2025 a new currency or the euro or the malaysian ringit or the bitcoin makes more sense, that's something we can return to- and it'll be easier to do so then.

Have to say this doesn't come across clearly in the Yes message- perhaps because they think it's bleedin' obvious but it'd be good if they'd state it anyway I reckon.

So will being independent make that much difference anyway? As I said before big corporations control our lives as much as governments, much of our legislation comes from Europe and as a people, apart from London and the South East, the rest of the UK is quite similar.

Is it not just a lot of extra cost for a jingoistic vanity project?

Is it not just a lot of extra cost for a jingoistic vanity project?

Absolutely.

If Scotland wants a divorce, fine. As long as England wont have to pay maintenence or listen to the whinging if it all goes wrong. I'm not sure anyone's really thought it through.

It is a bit jingoistic. I mean sure, Scotland doesn't share the South East's tory leaning, but neither does the rest of the UK. The only reason it's being discussed is because the Scots have a different label and can be considered 'different' to the rest of us, because they were born in a particular part of the UK.

If it were Northern England asking for independence they'd be laughed at - why?

How much English money went in to developing those oil fields that they think they are entitled to? What about the refineries?

They were paid for by the oil companies (some state-owned to start with) who then went on to make massive profits because of them. Are you really saying the oil industry lost the English taxpayer money?

If it were Northern England asking for independence they'd be laughed at - why?

If Northern England want to join an independent Scotland, I'm sure they'd be very welcome.

I'm sure they'd be very welcome.

I doubt that.

I doubt that.

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

It is a bit jingoistic. I mean sure, Scotland doesn't share the South East's tory leaning, but neither does the rest of the UK.

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

Gotcha! If that's not anti-English then what is? 😀

It's the Southern Fairies we hate, not the Northern Monkeys.

But it is annoying, lazy stereotyping,

😐

While walking the dogs it struck me that I was being a little unfair on wee 'eck. So I want to put the record straight. As an Independent State, Scotland will prosper and perform significantly better than the RUK. Thanks to the policies laid out in Scotland's Future. Thanks also to the generous offer of a currency union, Scotland will abdicate responsibility for monetary policy to the people he was chastising on Newsnight last night. Given the inevitable weakness in the RUK that will follow in absolute and relative terms, Scotland's interest rates will be set too low. Furthermore with the rush of new businesses to Scotland attracted by lower rates of tax and wonderful childcare, pensions and other welfare benefits, labour will be attracted, consumption will rise and so will prices. Oh dear. But wee 'eck knows what he is doing and will have learnt from germanys mistakes in the past. He will authorise fiscal transfers from Scotland to those poor folk South of the border (presumably we will be able to call it that then) in order to create a better equality of economic performance and allow for the correct levels of interest rates to be set for Scotland.

May I be the first to thank him and my friends in Scotland for this wonderful gesture in advance. That is a noble response and we will be very grateful I am sure. Gee, what a guy.

seems that some of the scotch are a bit conflicted about this

[img] [/img]

At Parkhead last night.

I don't get it.

Personally hope the Scots go for independence and wish them well. It seems a shame the argument is almost solely about money.

(Double post)

Gotcha! If that's not anti-English then what is?

It's anti-[i]southern[/i]-English 😉

Actually, it's a joke based on a Guy Ritchie movie.

Doesn't an independent Scotland have to take NI with it? I mean it was all the Scottish border reviers that got kicked out of Scotland and planted in NI that are the source of the trouble in the first place.

We could even have two Untied Kingdoms. North Untied Kingdom and South Untied Kingdom. Like North and South Korea.

Another question. If the SNP loose the vote will they shut up or just have another go until they get the correct answer?

I don't get it.

I grew up in the borders with a real sense the history of the trouble and strife caused by warring between England and Scotland.

EDIT: unless of course you're suggesting that one option is for Scotland to continue using Sterling, but for the RUK to control it? But that's totally insane.

Every speculator under the sun would be betting against this currency union and only the most foolhardy of politicians would think they would have any chance against that.

Ireland was in a currency union for a long time with the rest of the UK and its economy did not develop very much until it broke with it as part of preparation for the EURO as I understand it.

konabunny - Member
I don't think you have thought through what you are saying. There's nothing to speculate against - there's only one currency.

Alternatively knowledge of what happened in Cz and Slovakia may lead to a different conclusion? Their monetary union (with nothing to speculate against????) lasted less than 6 weeks. Perhaps that's a part of these mythical powers these traders and rating agencies have? 😉

I notice there are quite a number of people who are resident in England who are very keen to see we subsidy sucking Scots set free.

If you are one, would you please contact your MP and tell him you want rid of us?

And point out the advantages to the Tory party of getting rid of all those left leaning loonies in one hit, as well as never having to endure another Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

Please, pretty please... 🙂

David Dimbleby did suggest to Alex Salmond his best bet was to let the English vote rather than the Scottish 😆

Who's face is that on the saltire?

Mel Gibson?

Northwind - Member
@THM- That's already been discussed and dismissed in the independence thread. This "Danish position" has been open Yes campaign policy for some time. They've been so secretive about it that Salmond discussed it on Newsnight last year. Don't believe everything you read, even when you want to

You are correct NW, but then I was fooled by Nicola and her honesty claim and stupidly expected to be able to believe what I read in SF. So on page xii at the start, she/her friends write, "we can remove Trident from Scotland for good." only later to clarify this with the "confidential basis caveat."

Bare with me, its very hard to read this stuff and not get confused. Still I am sure its clear to the layman - no nuclear weapons in Scotland apart from the ones that are hidden away on a confidential basis.

How do you spell transparency, tranpreacy, transperancy...oh forget it? Will the hidden nukes be an asset protecting Scottish territories or a dangerous liability I wonder? 😉 At the very least, it allows the Guardian writers to get their knickers in a twist!

I grew up in the borders with a real sense the history of the trouble and strife caused by warring between England and Scotland.

Really? Really? Did you?

Yes. Not much knowledge of the history of the borders? It was a bit crap in our part of the world then.

Breaking the link with sterling

In the 1970s, the European Monetary System was introduced. Ireland decided to join it in 1978, while the United Kingdom stayed out.[4]

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism finally broke the one-for-one link that existed between the Irish pound and the pound sterling; by 30 March 1979 the parity link between the two currencies was broken and an exchange rate was introduced.[5]

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was a system introduced by the European Community in March 1979, as part of the European Monetary System (EMS), to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability in Europe, in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro, which took place on 1 January 1999.

I think stirring up nationalism is always a dangerous game to play as at the heart of it is marking your group out as something better/better off without the others

Not read any of the above.

Apparently Scottish land want to have their own armed forces too. Thats going to work well isnt it...

An interesting conversation with my FiL last night. He works for a massive American oil company and is an european director of his employer(been in long enough to have been a human shield courtesy of Saddam) He summed up the whole oil will leave Scotland debate thus... "We have depots in Mogadishu(sp) and Baghdad because they are close to the oil, can you see Aberdeen getting rougher than that?"

Having started this thread I would just like to say its been really useful to me in considering all of the issues around the independence sitaution. Personally, I don't agree with it per se, but I would strongly support more and better, devolved government for everyone.

The reason I don't support it, is that I think the impact both sides of the border is so unpredictable, and potentially catostrophic as to make it unwise, on the act in haste repent at leisure principle. Therefore if it were to go ahead I for one would want it to be on longer term and managed step by step basis. It is also for this reason that I think that the entire population of the UK should be engaged in the decision.

Finally regarding my apology: I feel that sometimes argument is mistaken for and even becomes belligerance. It is actually a very good technique for testing views and theories. It works well right up to the point where testosterone takes over and sense leaves the room. Bottom line is both make and listen to argument, but don't be too proud to admit when you're wrong. This forum would be the better for that, and far fewer people would suffer the ban hammer if that were understood.

RIP Fred and TJ

The reason I don't support it, is that I think the impact both sides of the border is so unpredictable, and potentially catostrophic as to make it unwise, on the act in haste repent at leisure principle

I do agree with this to some extent - some issues worry me (not least of which that about 50% of my customers are in England). But the bigger worry is that this referendum isn't a choice between independence and the status quo - there are strong indications that if the referendum says no, there will be retribution from Westminster - rewriting or scrapping the Barnett formula, attempts to pull powers back from the Scottish parliament. There seems to be a dangerous assumption that a no vote will still lead to more devolution.

RIP Fred and TJ

I'd be very surprised if TJ wasn't reading and laughing at this - I'll ask him tomorrow 😉

(not least of which that about 50% of my customers are in England).

Ben - Why would that be a problem?

Ben - Why would that be a problem?

It's unlikely that it would be a problem - but theoretically if there were currency problems, border issues, something like that. Unlikely, but possible if Westminster decides to spit the dummy instead of negotiating sensibly.

However I think the impacts on my business of the UK leaving the EU would be much larger and much more likely - if it suddenly became as difficult to import from Germany as from the USA, it'd be a big pain.

So actually in a balance of risks, I think independence would be the better risk to take.

BermBandit
The UK goverment would be repreenting the UK people in any negotiations after a yes vote. Do you mean that there should be a UK wide referendum? IF so what would happen should Scotland vote yes but the rest of the UK vote no? I think this would be the worst possible outcome. Personally I believe the referendum as proposed is fair, and that after a yes vote its incumbent on both governments to negotiate a fair settlement.
I agree with you that devolution of power within the other areas of the UK is a good thing. Devolution of power away from a financial/political elite would be even better.

Bencooper- retribution from Westminster is already underway, with a significant re-trenching of public service jobs back into the (much more expensive) SE.
If Scotland votes No and thus stays in the union, we will be severally punished for our insolence in daring to challenge the status quo. That alone should be a good reasdon for voting yes. Add in the Scots ability to make our own lives better, when unshackled from the SE, then I can see a lot of good in the plans.

Ben, I agree. If not retribution then some form of backlash and that is risk and a pity. There are certain politicians who evoke sometimes irrational responses and wee 'eck is one of them in many peoples' minds. His deceit and bare faced lies makes people angry and yesterday was more of the same IMO.

I spoke to my mate "very good sportsman" Grey in Edinburgh last night and he hates wee 'eck with a passion. Like many people his preference is/was for devo max but prefers the status quo to full independence. For him and those like him, this is a vanity show and given the (wrong) question, is not in Scotland's best interests in fact the whole thing in his mind is a step backwards. Plus like you Ben he fears some form of political response that will be less-than-positive.

We both ended by agreeing that Scotland deserves better than Salmond. It would be a great pity if a no vote did indeed reduce the extent of/inhibit further devolution of powers and responsibility. The old law of unintended consequences!!!

devolution of power within the other areas of the UK

We have already been there -
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004 ]Devolution Referendums 2004[/url].

The NE was chosen as the first due to the strong local identity, I know how true that is as it's where I'm from. It was booted right out. People did not want another wasteful layer of Government.

Do we just keep asking the question until some gives the answer some want to hear?

So how will Scotland get a better leader than Salmond? By voting for him or her.

A vote for independence is [u]not[/u] a vote for the SNP.

Though the white paper doesn't help matters by mixing independence ideas with SNP party promises.

I agree Ben on the vote and mixing SNP policies into this document but in that case, they were in a no win situation to be fair. Plus today in PMQ there was an SNP guy ranting on about CMD not getting involved. Like you, CMD reminded him that this is not SNP v Tories but the SNP politician didnt seemed convinced. He needed a little talking to from the Speaker.

I wonder if Salmond hadn't got so big for his boots whether Scotland could have actually got a devo max vote and most people would have been better off. Probably a distant dream now.

CMD reminded him that this is not SNP v Tories

No, but neither is it SNP vs. the No campaign. It's the Yes campaign vs. the No campaign.

So the debate should be between the leaders of each campaign - and Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

But Alastair Darling refuses to debate with Blair Jenkins.

Blair who? Sorry!!!!!

Sympathies though Ben, it is a bit of a mess in the end. Politicians eh?!? Scotland really does deserve better.

Winston You could always reduce westminsters roll in government no need for devolution to mean extra tiers of government.

Scotland really does deserve better.

We all deserve better - the Westminster system is broken, which is why a majority don't even bother to vote any more.

We have already been there -
Devolution Referendums 2004.

The NE was chosen as the first due to the strong local identity, I know how true that is as it's where I'm from. It was booted right out. People did not want another wasteful layer of Government.

Do we just keep asking the question until some gives the answer some want to hear?

I thought it was due to them being given no real powers and just pushing things around from various quangos and councils.

Funny we got police commissioners without anybody asking if we wanted them?

It's unlikely that it would be a problem - but theoretically if there were currency problems, border issues, something like that. Unlikely, but possible if Westminster decides to spit the dummy instead of negotiating sensibly.

However I think the impacts on my business of the UK leaving the EU would be much larger and much more likely - if it suddenly became as difficult to import from Germany as from the USA, it'd be a big pain.

So actually in a balance of risks, I think independence would be the better risk to take.

You're making the assumption that EU membership is a given - I'd say it's probable, but don't underestimate the possibility of Spain spitting its dummy, either.

I doubt very much either Westminster or Edinburgh would make much trouble over border issues, either - despite the joking on here about rebuilding the Wall I don't anyone is realistically expecting border controls, and without controls massive smuggling would be inevitable were there not a customs union. I'd be more concerned about regulatory differences, which could make life complicated in a lot of sectors.

mogrim - Member

... and without controls massive smuggling would be inevitable were there not a customs union.

Can I do people smuggling ... smuggling the Geordie across the border.

From the perspective of living I doubt it will make much difference Scotland being independent. I doubt there will be any issues being part of the EU for example or going to Sainsburys.

Then there is the fact that due to EU regulation/law there is not that much you can do as a government due to EU standardisation. Most of it is tweeking.

Suppose there will be lots more civil servants as a whole new structure will have to be set up for those things like tax and embassies that are done centrally.

Will it not seriously screw up the pensions of all those civil servants?
Will the Scots govt be on the hook for these? The UK govt can't be liable for any pensionable service following the divorce.

bencooper - Member

We all deserve better - the Westminster system is broken, which is why a majority don't even bother to vote any more.

Yep. I'm not a natural independence voter- gens una sumas - but disgust at westminster's been a major part of changing my mind. I'm just against being part of [i]this[/i] UK and I don't see what else we can do to fix the situation.

It's not a simple choice. Basically coming up we have a general election coming up with a choice of shitehawk, empty suit, and bought-and-paid-for quisling, with a side order of racist. Or we can do something else. Honestly I find all of the scottish parties more palatable then the national parties.

I'll be both sad and glad if we end up leaving the union. But to me it's either fix it or * off and I'm for *ing off and living, as they say, in the early days of a better nation.

One point that irks me - Salmond wants the BoE to be the lender of last resort to any failed Scottish banks in the future.
So UK taxpayers will be expected to bail out the failures of foreign banking businesses? Not happy about that thought.

I would say bencooper is right on something on page 9 about the white paper. Yes voters are always saying a vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP, however the paper puts forward proposed SNP policies and visions.
What if the Yes vote win then lose an election to a party that would wish to retain Trident. Unlikely, but you never know.

Are those visions in the "miraculous dreams" sense?

a party that would wish to retain Trident

By that you mean continue to allow a foreign power to base their weapons on your soil? The UK always been good at that.

You don't think that Scotland could keep it as an "independent" system do you?