An Independent Scotland?

[fracster]

I hoe you are right Hugh, if the Scottish people vote yes, then I sincerely hope it is a success.

I fear that it could be a long and hard road for you though.

 

[MWHCVT]

Out of interest in the event of a Yes vote is there a proposed timescale for the transition to independence as its not going to be a right we are independent now...once the count has been confirmed...as the reality is the UK will have a lot of assets to return to UK Soil

 

[srichards]

Was Alec Salmond not the one that advised RBS to buy ABN Amro which consequently bankrupted them?

 

[acetone]

You think we can't be fully independent until we sign treaties with the rest of the world?? horlicks.

I said that after the vote this September it will take several years before you become fully independent, AND you will have to sign lots of new treaties with the rest of the world.

The SNP say it will take 18 months from a yes vote to complete the independence process.

If you think vote yes, and were independent on the 19 September 2014 and then you won't need to sort out treaties your living in cloud cuckoo land .

 

[MWHCVT]

I said that after the vote this September it will take several years before you become fully independent, and you will have to sign lots of new treaties with the rest of the world.

The SNP say it will take 18 months form a yes vote to complete the independence process.


If you think vote yes, and were independent on the 19 September 2014 and then you won't need to sort out treaties your living in cloud cuckoo land .

Exactly even basic stuff like air travel Scotland will have to sort out it own flight rights even between Scotland and England potentially then there is trade treaties etc there will quite literally be around 200 years worth of treaties and negotiations to undertake

 

[Steep]

I said that after the vote this September it will take several years before you become fully independent, and you will have to sign lots of new treaties with the rest of the world.

The SNP say it will take 18 months form a yes vote to complete the independence process.


If you think vote yes, and were independent on the 19 September 2014 and then you won't need to sort out treaties your living in cloud cuckoo land .

That might be what you meant but the way it read was that Scotland would have to sign treaties with everyone before independence would be complete. Of course it will take years, probably more than two before everything is finalised, no one has ever said different.

Mathew it's funny you should say that, just today BA has said they would have no qualms about continuing their service in an independent Scotland. In fact since the SNP want to abolish airport tax it would be cheaper to fly to and from Scotland

 

[MWHCVT]

That might be what you meant but the way it read was that Scotland would have to sign treaties with everyone before independence would be complete. Of course it will take years, probably more than two before everything is finalised, no one has ever said different.

Mathew it's funny you should say that, just today BA has said they would have no qualms about continuing their service in an independent Scotland. In fact since the SNP want to abolish airport tax it would be cheaper to fly to and from Scotland

I know BA have said that of course they will be more than happy to continue to serve they are a business if the market is there they will serve likewise I don't expect there to be air treaties to have to be signed between England and Scotland but in theory it will have to be negotiated even if it is a simple open skies free for all between the two nations...where it will get interesting is with other countries such as all members of the EU have open skies which is what enables the likes of FR (Ryanair) to be an Irish Airline that operates and sells tickets all over the EU, if as is highly likely Scotland actually has to apply to be a member of the EU effectively unless a air treaty is agreed between Ireland and Scotland it could see the likes of FR face difficulties...and this is just 1 out of hundreds if not thousands of various treaties that would need to be worked out before independence could realistically move forwards without Scotland becoming an international social pariah...good god by the time this is all sorted out North Sea oil will have run out

 

[Steep]

I really don't think things will be anything like as difficult as you make out if and when the time comes but don't assume that the Scots are not capable of dealing with whatever comes up. It's that apparent "you can't handle it" attitude that makes most of us yes voters want independence in the first place.

You and many others keep finding difficulties, obstacles to throw in the way but what I'm saying is none of it matters! Whatever comes up we'll deal with it as and when we need to given a yes vote.

 

[MWHCVT]

I really don't think things will be anything like as difficult as you make out if and when the time comes but don't assume that the Scots are not capable of dealing with whatever comes up. It's that apparent "you can't handle it" attitude that makes most of us yes voters want independence in the first place.

You and many others keep finding difficulties, obstacles to throw in the way but what I'm saying is none of it matters! Whatever comes up we'll deal with it as and when we need to given a yes vote.

I wish Scotland the very best of luck with independence IF the vote is yes I say IF as I honestly don't think that the vote will end with a yes, your right Scotland will have to deal with if they vote yes, but there is not sticking your head in the sand and saying everything will get sorted, as it's not going to be 2-3 years to sort it, your looking at years to negotiate everything, and I mean everything, there are decades if not centuries of trade agreements that we the British benefit from that will nearly all have to be renegotiated

Thus far all I've read have not really given me confidence that all of the effects of breaking from the union have really been considered...

 

[acetone]

It not that we keep finding difficulties, more that the yes campaign don't seem to have answers to those questions.

Of course given enough time problems can be sorted out, how hard things will be in that intervening time is an unknown.

There just looks to be a campaign of vote yes and well discuss the issues later coming from Alex Salmond. I would think you want to know some answers before you vote and not just say yes on blind faith.

There are the very technical issues that the normal man in the street will find difficult to understand, but there are simple things you would like to know first, such as what currency will I be paid in.

 

[Steep]

Maybe the questions are being answered but you're not getting to hear/see the answers? Is there a question in particular you can think of? I'll try to answer it for you if I haven't already in this thread.

 

[jakeblu]

Independent and free to take credit where it's due, make our own mistakes and pay for them when we need to. Scotland has the resources and ability to make a real success of it, we need to put the work in ourselves though.

These arguments about eu membership and what currency we'd use are all just semantics, nothing will be decided either way until the time comes and either way it makes no difference. If we choose to take independence we will deal with whatever needs dealing with. If we don't continue in the eu I won't miss it, there are many other options available. I quite fancy the idea of a Scottish punt or crown and it will work if we make it work regardless of the naysayers.

There will be no Scottish independence without sorting the currency issues. If you want independence sort it now!

Steve

 

[jakeblu]

As for Standard Life they said exactly the same thing before devolution, they're still here and will still be here if, as and when Scotland becomes independent.

This is not devolution this is independence and seeing as 90% of SL customers are south of the border should SL stay based in Scotland that would make a lot of nervous investors. You need to sort the currency issue now or independence is dead in the water.

Steve

edit : whoops missed the D

 

[antihero]

I can't see myself selling a lens for two dozen deep fried mars bars

 

[acetone]

There will be no Scottish independence without sorting the currency issues. If you want independence sort it now!

Steve

In truth the currency is sorted out, it's just that the SNP don't want to tell the people of Scotland the truth.

Scotland will be using the euro, it's that simple. Under EU rules all new member states that join have to adopt the Euro and accept control of monetary policy passes to the European Central Bank (ECB)

Scotland is not currently member state of the EU, the United Kingdom is a member, but Scotland will leave the United Kingdom and so will have to join as a new state.

The issue is what will Scotland use in the time between independence and joining the EU. Unless of course Scotland decides not to join the EU, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

.

 

[FourRingCircus]

Forgive me but Scotland's Parliament isn't entirely devolved, and it does not pay (from what it is allocated as Budget from Westminster), for Defence, Foreign Policy, The EU, Overseas Aid and I'd guess a lot of other things. On the other hand it does receive the B...b****r, forgotten his name formula amount, for every person, working or not, adult or not. Now, I accept that it will be claimed, and you might be right, that this makes up for the loss in oil revenue. But does it really? Even if it does, then these added extras, defence etc, are pretty much unaffordable as things stand. It also explains why the UK is in debt, but Scotland is within budget.

OK, some facts for people who may have missed them (either by chance or becasue they are not interested).

The Barnett formula gives Scotland (& Wales etc) a fixed amount of money to spend. In the case of Scotland, the UK government apportions non-devolved spending on a per-capita basis and debits this from the funding. So, Scotland effectively pays 8.4% of UK government spending back to Westminster for non-devolved spending such as Defense etc. (since the population of Scotland is 8.4% of UK). To make matters worse, we pay debt interest to Westminster based on population size (8.4%) too, even though Scotlands real share of the debt is actually only 5%!! It's not just defense (fights in far flung places we don't agree with) either. The Olympics was funded 8.4% by Scotland. Crossrail is funded 8.4% by Scotland. HS2 will be funded 8.4% by Scotland etc etc. Meanwhile, the new Forth Road Bridge is NOT being funded from the UK. The commonwealth games in Glasgow is NOT being funded from the UK. Understanding this is the key to understanding why the Scots are 'whinging' and looking to break free from Westminster. It's not an Anti-English thing, far from it. It's a desire to take some fiscal control and manage our own affairs properly with our own priorities.

Now, this (Scottish) 8.4% of the UK population pays 9.9% of total UK revenue into Westminster. Only the SE of England contributes more per head than Scotland. Meanwhile, Scotland receives 9.3% of pubic expenditure. Scotland is not the basket case that many in the south believe. GDP per head is significantly higher (£24k) in Scotland than it is in the south (£20k).

Furthermore, UK Plc is in deep dodo when it comes to debt. In numbers, it's a staggering £1,380,000,000,000.00, or put in an easier to swallow form, almost £1.4 TRILLION pounds!! To be brutally fair to Mr Osborne, the rate this debt figure has been added to in the past three years has been slowed, but it is still increasing with a UK deficit of about £93 Billion last year (over £100Bn the year before).

When they talk about 'reducing the deficit', all they actually mean is they are adding to the overall debt by a lesser amount year on year. Put another way, you could say that you are adding less to the debt this year than you did last year. But the debt is still increasing, and it has been every year since 2002.

And how much of the UK debt has been spent on servicing the enormous losses that the banks have accrued.

It's not quite as simple as that. The answer in simple terms is about £375Billion, but it hasn't been 'spent' as you would think it. It has been used to 'underwrite' the banks and buy stock - hence why we (theoretically) own a huge % of RBS. However, the ownership is in shares, which can be sold at a profit in future, so basically the government has bought cheap shares with our money and can sell them when the share price improves. The net effect is that 'bailing out the banks' hasn't actually cost anything as it isn't money down the dran.

They would have to somehow get into the EU without a vote (which seems improbable), member countries have a veto on new admissions, and Spain has already intimated it won't approve due to their own Catalan nationalistic issues.

Too much Daily Mail there I'm afraid. Barosso doesn't speak for Spain (or the rest of the EU for that matter) and he has already been stamped-down on this by many members of the EU. Even the Spannish foreign minister has rubbished Barosso's suggestion. Catalonia is not the same as Scotland. The Spannish constitution frobids break-away's from within so there cannot be a Spannish referendum on independence for Catalonia. In fact, Barosso has done more harm to Spain with his comments than he has to Scotland, as he effectively suggested that Catalonia 'could' vote for freedom for themselves.

It also seems some large Scottish financial institutions aren't too thrilled with the independence idea either (according to the news tonight).

Standard Life said they would leave Scotland in 1997 if we voted for a devolved parliament. They even handed out notices to their staff to vote no back then. This 'news' isn't actually news at all. Most large corporations in Scotland (especially in the financial sector) are duty bound to look at their future plans and I'd be very worried about thier competence if they weren't. Only George Osborne has caused this with his suggestion that there will be no currency union - it is not a result of the pragmatic approach being attempted by the Scottish government.

For now I am pretty sure the government asked the spanish to issue these warnings.

It has already been proven that the 'British' Embassy in Spain has been briefing against Scotland. Just shows the contempt for the Scottish part of an institution which is meant to look after our interests abroad.

You can't have an on going EU membership, because as a new country you won't be a member in the first place.

I have been a (Scottish) citizen of the EU for about forty years now. This confers upon me a variety of 'Human Rights'. To deny me these rights, just because of some political changes, goes against the fundamental principles of the EU. Scotland is not a 'new country' when it comes to the EU. What is competely new is the territory the EU finds itself in and one which the EU never made a contingency for. Watch this space when the international /EU law advocates pick-up on the rights of existing EU citizens. Remember, a Yes vote in September does not automatically put us out of the EU. It took Greenland six years to get out of the EU whenthey split from Iceland!! If it takes six years to get out of the institution, we can probably manage to negotiate in during that time. Net result would be near seamless integration and this would probably suit all parties involved as nobody would be loosing anything.

 

[StewartR]

Remember, a Yes vote in September does not automatically put us out of the EU. It took Greenland six years to get out of the EU when they split from Iceland!! If it takes six years to get out of the institution, we can probably manage to negotiate in during that time.

I'm not sure how applicable the Greenland case is, since Greenland isn't an independent country. It is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark; I'm not an expert and it's very hard to generalise in these areas, but its status in Denmark might be comparable to Scotland's status in the UK. (Or perhaps a devo-max Scotland. But probably less similar to an independent Scotland.)

But Greenland does have a unique relationship with the EU. It took 3 years (referendum 1982, treaty 1985) to negotiate Greenland's new relationship with the EU (or EEC as it was then). Things might be slower now as the EU is larger with more members to have a say. On the other hand Greenland has a population about 1% the size of Scotland's and perhaps they could have gone faster if they'd had a bigger civil service.

Interestingly citizens of Greenland are still Danish citizens (in the same way that citizens of, say, the Falklands are UK citizens) and therefore they are also EU citizens.

 

[onomatopoeia]

I have been a (Scottish) citizen of the EU for about forty years now. This confers upon me a variety of 'Human Rights'.

The human rights come from the ECHR which is a treaty of the CoE, not the EU (although certain newspapers like to conflate the two by just saying "Europe" and hoping their readership interpret that as the EU).

Nothing I'm aware of to stop an independent Scotland becoming members of the CoE and a signatory to the ECHR without being members of the EU.

 

[Finste]

I have been a (Scottish) citizen of the EU for about forty years now. This confers upon me a variety of 'Human Rights'. To deny me these rights, just because of some political changes, goes against the fundamental principles of the EU.

The EU issues directives which are then implemented in law by the member governments. Your Human Rights are therefore granted by law from Westminster. If Scotland becomes independent, then your Human Rights will be in laws made by a Scottish Government.

Regards...

 

[kendo1]

Another Facebook find

If Scotland does gain independence after the referendum, the remainder of the UK will be known as the Former United Kingdom,
or FUK for short...

 

[BRASH]

.............and Scotland will be know as Scottish Historically Independent Territory.

 

[kendo1]

...and Wales or NI?

 

[arclight]

.............and Scotland will be know as Scottish Historically Independent Territory.

 

[Laudrup]

Standard Life said they would leave Scotland in 1997 if we voted for a devolved parliament. They even handed out notices to their staff to vote no back then. This 'news' isn't actually news at all. Most large corporations in Scotland (especially in the financial sector) are duty bound to look at their future plans and I'd be very worried about thier competence if they weren't. Only George Osborne has caused this with his suggestion that there will be no currency union - it is not a result of the pragmatic approach being attempted by the Scottish government.

Standard Life said that in 1992, by 1997 they had changed their minds and did not expect business to be affected. The currency union being rejected by the 3 main parties is the biggest killer to Salmond and the yes campaign. No plan B seems to be forthcoming as the 'Panama pound' doesn't look an enticing prospect and an independent currency looks to be off the table.

 

[Dave *]

The currency union being rejected by the 3 main parties is the biggest killer to Salmond and the yes campaign. No plan B seems to be forthcoming as the 'Panama pound' doesn't look an enticing prospect and an independent currency looks to be off the table.

They could always do a Zimbabwe and use the US$.

 

[BBR]

it would be cheaper to fly to and from Scotland[/B]

I suspect it will need to be.

 

[acetone]

They could always do a Zimbabwe and use the US$.

It's not really what currency they use, but who is lender of last resort, and who controls interest rates and the value of the currency.

All the same arguments used by Denmark or the UK over joining the euro apply to Scotland joining a monetary union with UK pound.

Greece would likely not be in the crap they are now if they could have devalued their currency and/or set interest rates.

 

[Dave *]

It's not really what currency they use, but who is lender of last resort, and who controls interest rates and the value of the currency.

All the same arguments used by Denmark or the UK over joining the euro apply to Scotland joining a monetary union with UK pound.

Greece would likely not be in the crap they are now if they could have devalued their currency and/or set interest rates.

I know mate, it was more tongue in cheek. We don't have a smilie to signify it .

 

[FourRingCircus]

I met with a Westminster MP and an MSP on Friday. It has been suggested to me that there is a Plan B right through to a Plan D. However, what's the point in pushing out Plan B when Plan A WILL BE ON THE TABLE (along with EVERYTHING else) if there is a Yes vote. What's the point in laying out an alternative just for the opposition to tear holes in? How about asking the No side what their Plan A is, never mind anything else? All the people on the No side like to trot-out what they are voting against, but nobody there can tell you what they are voting FOR. I recon that's pretty dangerous and reckless.

A No vote is being touted as a vote for the 'status quo', but what exactly is that? For a start, there's the expected £4Bn reduction in the Scottish block grant to look forward to when the Barnett formula is reviewed. A No vote could have many other ramifications - primarilly a reduction in devolved powers. Anyone who thinks that devo-max will come from a No vote is deluded. Westminster will be doing their utmost to ensure that the chance of Scotland attemting to break away again will be nailed shut. Just like a dog that is given the freedom of the garden, the day after he tries to jump the fence is the day he finds himself in a cage.

I know what I'm voting FOR - even the uncertainties. The No's don't even have the first clue about what they are voting FOR.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I met with a Westminster MP and an MSP on Friday. It has been suggested to me that there is a Plan B right through to a Plan D. However, what's the point in pushing out Plan B when Plan A WILL BE ON THE TABLE (along with EVERYTHING else) if there is a Yes vote. What's the point in laying out an alternative just for the opposition to tear holes in? How about asking the No side what their Plan A is, never mind anything else? All the people on the No side like to trot-out what they are voting against, but nobody there can tell you what they are voting FOR. I recon that's pretty dangerous and reckless.

A No vote is being touted as a vote for the 'status quo', but what exactly is that? For a start, there's the expected £4Bn reduction in the Scottish block grant to look forward to when the Barnett formula is reviewed. A No vote could have many other ramifications - primarilly a reduction in devolved powers. Anyone who thinks that devo-max will come from a No vote is deluded. Westminster will be doing their utmost to ensure that the chance of Scotland attemting to break away again will be nailed shut. Just like a dog that is given the freedom of the garden, the day after he tries to jump the fence is the day he finds himself in a cage.

I know what I'm voting FOR - even the uncertainties. The No's don't even have the first clue about what they are voting FOR.

Voting for uncertainties - that sounds a very illogical thing to do!

So what are the ramifications for all our Armed Forces based in Scotland and all our Scottish servicemen and women? Every body I know is pretty much dead against it and they are fed up with the lack of information. There isn't even an A Plan on paper and absolutely no consultation.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[FourRingCircus]

Voting for uncertainties - that sounds a very illogical thing to do!

Then please tell me what a NO vote is for then? NOBODY KNOWS!!!

So what are the ramifications for all our Armed Forces based in Scotland and all our Scottish servicemen and women? Every body I know is pretty much dead against it and they are fed up with the lack of information. There isn't even an A Plan on paper and absolutely no consultation.

I was having this very conversation with the MP/MSP last week. Firstly, there are only really 'personnel' based here at the moment. Monkeys, cannon fodder, call them what you will. There are NO generals, or top-brass of any kind in Scotland. Independence will see the key decsision makers being based here. The bases that are in Scotland will become the Scottish bases as it makes no sense to build new ones just for the sake of it. UK service personnel will perhaps be given the option to 'come home', but all these things will have to be 'negotiated'. Personally, I think the military could be significantly better off in Scotland with a redrawing of the priorities, taking people away from imperialist conflicts in far flung places. There may also be significant opportunities in the Scottish military - especially if Westminster want to retain all it's personnel.

 

[Dave *]

Then please tell me what a NO vote is for then? NOBODY KNOWS!!!

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Surely a NO vote is a vote to maintain the status quo?

 

[FourRingCircus]

Surely a NO vote is a vote to maintain the status quo?

From my previous post Dave:

A No vote is being touted as a vote for the 'status quo', but what exactly is that? For a start, there's the expected £4Bn reduction in the Scottish block grant to look forward to when the Barnett formula is reviewed. A No vote could have many other ramifications - primarily a reduction in devolved powers. Anyone who thinks that devo-max will come from a No vote is deluded. Westminster will be doing their utmost to ensure that the chance of Scotland attempting to break away again will be nailed shut. Just like a dog that is given the freedom of the garden, the day after he tries to jump the fence is the day he finds himself in a cage.

Status quo in Scotland can also mean foodbanks, 51% of children in some areas being born into poverty, adult life expectancy in some areas being worst than Mubai, Labour MPs who don't care about their constituencies, nuclear weapons, nuclear waste dumping grounds........

 

[boyfalldown]

It's not quite as simple as that. The answer in simple terms is about £375Billion, but it hasn't been 'spent' as you would think it. It has been used to 'underwrite' the banks and buy stock - hence why we (theoretically) own a huge % of RBS. However, the ownership is in shares, which can be sold at a profit in future, so basically the government has bought cheap shares with our money and can sell them when the share price improves. The net effect is that 'bailing out the banks' hasn't actually cost anything as it isn't money down the dran.

But despite that the figure has still been included in the UK's debt. You can't argue the debt is x amount. Then say a significant % of it hasn't been 'spent'.

 

[FourRingCircus]

You can't argue the debt is x amount. Then say a significant % of it hasn't been 'spent'.

OK, it's been spent on something which could return the money to the treasury, rather than something which can't (like peoples wages). To make matters worse, the government has effectively borrowed the money from itself via the financial shenanigans known as 'Quantitative Easing'. This means that Alastair Darling nipped-out to the shed in the garden of No.11 and printed the stuff, gave it gratis to the BoE (owned by the govt), borrowed it back from the BoE and then used the lending to buy bank shares. Confused?? Me too!! And that's exactly what they want the public to be.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Then please tell me what a NO vote is for then? NOBODY KNOWS!!!


I was having this very conversation with the MP/MSP last week. Firstly, there are only really 'personnel' based here at the moment. Monkeys, cannon fodder, call them what you will. There are NO generals, or top-brass of any kind in Scotland. Independence will see the key decsision makers being based here. The bases that are in Scotland will become the Scottish bases as it makes no sense to build new ones just for the sake of it. UK service personnel will perhaps be given the option to 'come home', but all these things will have to be 'negotiated'. Personally, I think the military could be significantly better off in Scotland with a redrawing of the priorities, taking people away from imperialist conflicts in far flung places. There may also be significant opportunities in the Scottish military - especially if Westminster want to retain all it's personnel.

Monkeys, cannon fodder ! That's really insulting and you're talking out of you hat !

Of course you have Generals in Scotland! you have 51 Brigade run by Major General Nick Eeles, General Officer Commanding the Army in Scotland and Governor of Edinburgh Castle.

There is quite a lot of both Royal Navy and Royal Marines based in Scotland,many who have just returned home from operational tours. The Monkeys and cannon folder are the mainstay of the forces to which you refer. I'm quite offended by your comment.



It's clear that that your MP/MSP is clueless and you know even less.




Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[boyfalldown]

OK, it's been spent on something which could return the money to the treasury, rather than something which can't (like peoples wages). To make matters worse, the government has effectively borrowed the money from itself via the financial shenanigans known as 'Quantitative Easing'. This means that Alastair Darling nipped-out to the shed in the garden of No.11 and printed the stuff, gave it gratis to the BoE (owned by the govt), borrowed it back from the BoE and then used the lending to buy bank shares. Confused?? Me too!! And that's exactly what they want the public to be.

I know its OT, but maybe you've a better way of doing it. You could just of let the bank go down. Become a basket case like Iceland, or gone the same way as Ireland. I'm confused by it all too, but to suggest (or imply) that any economy could of come through that particular storm with a balanced budget isn't quite true

 

[DaveS2]

Monkeys, cannon fodder ! That's really insulting

It most certainly is, and quite offensive.

I just hope that is not representative of how our armed forces are seen by the 'Yes camp'.

If it is, then they have just sunk about a low as they can get in my view.

Dave

 

[FourRingCircus]

@ Nick (York) and Dave (Suffolk). Firstly, there was no offence intended and I'm sorry if such was caused. The 'Monkeys' element was meant in the context of 'monkey/organ grinders', meaning that there are no organ grinders here. It was not meant to infer that soldiers were 'monkeys' per se, though I can see that I didn't make that very clear.

However, I'll stand by the cannon fodder statement, as you will find that the Scots regiments have invariably been sent to the front line (in the past three hundred years) with far greater frequency than their (8.4% of UK populous) demographic would infer.

 

[GeeJay57]

I too am offended by the 'monkeys, cannon fodder' reference.. Very poor choice of words John. Whether you agree or not with what the UK armed forces are tasked with, it is not acceptable to refer to our soldiers, airmen and sailors in this derogatory manner. They risk their lives to do our bidding. Shame on you.

Edit - your feeble attempt to justify your comments is even poorer. Stop digging and apologise. That there may be a disproportionate number of frontline Scottish soldiers may actually speak volumes about their bravery and commitment to our nation. Just think about that for a moment...