An Independent Scotland?

One of the possibilities mentioned was a different nuclear platform which is already being considered anyway by the MoD. Trident and the subs it launches from are near end of life and a replacement need not be of the same type. As for somewhere to keep trident even temporarily I'm not so sure that couldn't be accomplished easily enough. A.S. has said it must go within the life of the next Scottish government, that gives rUK six years to build/convert a suitable base and it's not impossible an extention could be negotiated.
 
But the really interesting discussion was about the future of Faslane/Coulport. On the one hand, there is no site in the rest of the UK which could be made suitable to take over the roles of Faslane/Coulport within the timescale the Scottish Nationalists have set out, and possibly not within any timescale whatsoever
Click to expand...

There are other options though, the obvious one is to simply go to the US and base there until a new site can be found in the UK. The missiles go there anyway for maintenance as they are 'pooled' with the US stock. The only issue is marrying warheads which are UK assets. Thats not insurmountable though. I was surprised that he didn't discuss that as an option.

On defence in general though, I doubt it would make as much difference as he made out. I really don't see the Scots armed forces taking what they currently claim when they find out the costs involved. It is also dependent on how many people in the forces want to transfer to the Scottish forces. It's all very well for example saying that they want 12/16 or whatever the number is this week typhoons but if they don't have the air and support crews for those, it's pointless.

Interestingly when talking about capital expenditure, it was said the income from North Sea Oil in the last few years has not covered the amount spent on Scotland. In other words the ability of a Scots Government to pay for policies using that as a source isn't as sustainable as they have been leading people to believe.
 
We've discussed the oil revenue projections before, it's only the last two years it's been lower (and not by much). Companies and governments know full well that oil prices fluctuate so when they want to express it's value positively they quote a ten year average. That the no camp/WM are quoting specific years is just political gamesmanship and is something they'd be complaining about vociferously if it were the other way round.

/edit Here's Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland on BBC News back in February on the subject of oil revenues.

 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
I'd agree, but to play devils advocate, theres also the issue that very little would ever get done as a result. Can't please all the people all the time, and it's protesters who are most likely to vote.
Click to expand...

You quoted the second part of my post and then put a point across which the first part of my post (which you left out) answered! lol




gman said:
It can be based on a % of population to trigger the vote. If that many are going to protest then you will certainly get a large amount voting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Time will tell. But you (and your man on the video) are basing on projections. The quote from last night was on reality. Now reality can change, and possibly will if the Middle East goes really silly, like it shows every sign of. Granted thats good for Scotland, but it's still a gamble. Either way it is interesting that no one in the yes camp is prepared to admit that if the current situation with regards to oil remains the finance plans aren't going to work.

Also, he talks of the industrial output from Scotland is the same as the rest of the UK, will it remain so? Given that contracts have been awarded to Scotland that wont be in future. 2 Aircraft carriers for example. Of course they aren't the only things.
You'll say, and often do that the No side are not telling the whole story, but nor are the Yes. In fact the yes side seem to me to be less honest than the no so far.
 
What's people's thoughts on Salmond threatening to renege with taking on a share of the debt?
 
more importantly for the "city robbers" whats the Stock Market think will happen ……….. how are they "betting"?
 
gman said:
What's people's thoughts on Salmond threatening to renege with taking on a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

The 'plan' is to take on our share as is right and proper. That said, how much we take on in reality depends on negotiations later, again it's been covered in this thread previously but for example it's highly unlikely we'd need all the MoD resources we'd be entitled to where rUK would = bargaining point. If for whatever reason WM refuse to negotiate in good faith then Scotland would be within it's rights to refuse to accept it's share of any debts.
This will not happen! politicians and civil servants are pragmatic by necessity, a compromise acceptable to all will be reached.
 
Steep said:
One of the possibilities mentioned was a different nuclear platform which is already being considered anyway by the MoD. Trident and the subs it launches from are near end of life and a replacement need not be of the same type.
Click to expand...
Not relevant. If you're going to have missile submarines then you need somewhere to park them, you need somewhere to store the missiles and the warheads, and you need somewhere to mate the warheads to the missiles and load them onto the subs. All those locations have very strict operational requirements and they have to be close together. That's a general issue which is the same regardless of whether it's Trident or a different platform.
Steep said:
As for somewhere to keep trident even temporarily I'm not so sure that couldn't be accomplished easily enough.
Click to expand...
With respect, that's a ridiculous thing to say. The experts who have looked into this say it can't be accomplished easily. You can't just wave your hands and say they're wrong. Unless you can point to a credible study which supports your assertion?
Steep said:
... and it's not impossible an extention could be negotiated.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But the experts say building a new base would take *much* longer than 6 years. I can't see that setting a deadline of, say, 2036 would be viewed very positively by the Scots.

This *is* a major, major issue, and if Scotland votes for independence it will strain relations far more than any other. With most of the issues regarding the separation, sensible people realise that a sensible compromise which is in both parties' interests will be negotiated. But here, the two camps start off so far apart that there's no compromise which would be acceptable.
 
Bernie174 said:
There are other options though, the obvious one is to simply go to the US and base there until a new site can be found in the UK. The missiles go there anyway for maintenance as they are 'pooled' with the US stock. The only issue is marrying warheads which are UK assets. Thats not insurmountable though. I was surprised that he didn't discuss that as an option.
Click to expand...
That option was considered when we bought into Trident and was discarded for operational and political reasons. (It might have been cheaper than building our own facility at Coulport though.) The operational and political obstacles would still be there today, of course. It's perhaps not inconceivable that the UK could do a deal with the US *but* the political price Scotland would have to pay for forcing the issue would be considerable.
 
gman said:
What's people's thoughts on Salmond threatening to renege with taking on a share of the debt?
Click to expand...
Constitutionally, Scotland cannot become independent without the agreement of Westminster. Salmond knows that.
 
Steep said:
The 'plan' is to take on our share as is right and proper. That said, how much we take on in reality depends on negotiations later, again it's been covered in this thread previously but for example it's highly unlikely we'd need all the MoD resources we'd be entitled to where rUK would = bargaining point. If for whatever reason WM refuse to negotiate in good faith then Scotland would be within it's rights to refuse to accept it's share of any debts.
This will not happen! politicians and civil servants are pragmatic by necessity, a compromise acceptable to all will be reached.
Click to expand...


Specifically the currency union though, if it's not agreed do you think it's right that Scotland don't take on a share of the debt?
 
gman said:
Specifically the currency union though, if it's not agreed do you think it's right that Scotland don't take on a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

politicians and civil servants are pragmatic by necessity, a compromise acceptable to all will be reached.
 
StewartR said:
Exactly. But the experts say building a new base would take *much* longer than 6 years. I can't see that setting a deadline of, say, 2036 would be viewed very positively by the Scots.

This *is* a major, major issue, and if Scotland votes for independence it will strain relations far more than any other. With most of the issues regarding the separation, sensible people realise that a sensible compromise which is in both parties' interests will be negotiated. But here, the two camps start off so far apart that there's no compromise which would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

This in reply to your whole post but specifically the timescale and feasibility.

"29. But, as we have seen, in the event of separation and a new Scottish Government insisting upon the 'speediest safe transition' of the nuclear fleet from the Clyde, then this could be done in less than twenty four months. If the UK wanted to maintain the nuclear deterrent, then the UK would have to identify and develop an alternative site, or sites, that replicated the assets of Faslane and Coulport. (Faslane and Coulport are two sites, eight miles apart, connected by a road.) We heard differing views as to how easy this would be."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm

The thing with experts is whatever opinion you want to advance you can find an 'expert' to back it up.
 
It may have been cheaper than Coulport, but that isn't just a special weapons site, it's conventional as well. So at the time, US basing might have been cheaper, but wouldn't satisfy a duel role. Of course other ordnance sites could have been expanded, but Portsmouth for example now wouldn't be practical due to other development reducing the sites size.
The conventional side of Coulport would also need moving, along with the non V class boats, Astute etc as the entire Submarine force is now planned to be based up there.
On replacement, it depends on what that replacement is. If air launched, its far less problematic, there are plenty of RAF Stations that retain an SSA, albeit unused, reactivating those is a cheap option, as is QRA 'arsenal' aircraft using either tomahawks or storm shadows with nuclear warheads. Not an ideal solution, but cheaper and the infrastructure while not is use exists.
In any case while disarmament might be the SNP's aim, is it really something a majority of Scots actually support? If they are ousted after independence, will an incoming Government follow that path? The other question is from the UK's point of view, which is would we be happy having our nuclear base in a foreign powers territory? when that power could in theory at least prevent it from sailing?
 
Steep said:
politicians and civil servants are pragmatic by necessity, a compromise acceptable to all will be reached.
Click to expand...


Putting it in bold doesn't change its lack of clarity.

Salmond has specifically said: "Scotland won't take share of UK debt without currency union"

So if we can come back to reality for a moment where things don't always go to plan or the way you want it, if the currency union is not agreed do you think it's right that Scotland don't take on a share of the debt?
 
This from the same report

Barrow and Devonport have a large population too close to satisfy the safety margins required, and Milford Haven has a huge Liquid Natural Gas facility nearby. Falmouth, relatively close to Devonport, had been considered as a possible Coulport in the 1960s, but was ruled out because it would impact upon an area with a strong tourist economy and involve the loss of two villages and moving a significant population.[59] Portland, which was considered in the 1960s, was judged to not have a suitable site for the warheads depot closer than a Ministry of Defence tank range 15 kilometres inland.[60] Professor Chalmers said this criteria of keeping warheads and missiles far enough away from people and sites of economic value was why Scottish locations were popular among the 1960s options:

Perfectly ok to keep Trident 30 miles from the centre of Glasgow because there are too many people and it would affect the tourist trade at these English sites?
The major cause of any delay in transferring Trident out of Scotland today would be English public opinion. Planning permission to build a new site would be needed and that would certainly be endlessly challenged. There's an option to send them to the U.S. temporarily while new facilities are built in England, according to the paper they would not need to be as large as Coulport because there's less warheads now.

In the end it's all down to whether the English population are willing to have them parked nearby, if they're not then why not? is it only acceptable to have a nuclear deterrent if the missiles are not stored near your house?
 
gman said:
Putting it in bold doesn't change its lack of clarity.

Salmond has specifically said: "Scotland won't take share of UK debt without currency union"

So if we can come back to reality for a moment where things don't always go to plan or the way you want it, if the currency union is not agreed do you think it's right that Scotland don't take on a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

In those circumstances and with all the other stuff added in then yes I do.
 
Steep said:
In those circumstances and with all the other stuff added in then yes I do.
Click to expand...

Despite the consequences this could have of Scotland's ability to borrow and trade internationally and risk becoming a pariah state?
 
I don't see that it would have that effect and it's a moot point anyway as it's not going to happen.
 
The site was selected in the main because it's very easy to defend. The distance from centres of population isn't much of an issue, simply because to set one off accidentally is if not completely impossible then very very nearly completely impossible.
Thats the difficulty in the rest of the UK, there's plenty of places but you need to be able to defend them, on that either geography is against or there's population nearby. So, Portland might have been ideal, but it's now impossible to stop all access. Falmouth you could do, but you'd need to move people.
It's not impossible to move them it's just not a quick job.
Anyway, I am still wondering what mandate the SNP thinks it has to ask for them to be removed, and what the policy is of the other Scots only parties. On that subject what are the Policies of the other Scots Parties on everything assuming Independence happens?
 
StewartR said:
Constitutionally, Scotland cannot become independent without the agreement of Westminster. Salmond knows that.
Click to expand...

This is the most important point re the debt and currency union (and in fact everything else). Whatever is agreed between the negotiators then has to be put to a vote in both parliaments before Scotland can become independant.
 
Bernie174 said:
Falmouth you could do, but you'd need to move people.
It's not impossible to move them it's just not a quick job.
Click to expand...
And it would take a sustained effort of political will and cross-party support. Again, not impossible, just not easy.

I think the best solution would be for Faslane, Coulport, Garelochead and the Rosneath peninsula to remain part of the UK. There are precedents for this (Cyprus). It would allow the Scottish government to achieve the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, by the simple dint of removing the places where they are kept from Scotland. All it takes is a bit of paperwork.
 
StewartR said:
I think the best solution would be for Faslane, Coulport, Garelochead and the Rosneath peninsula to remain part of the UK. There are precedents for this (Cyprus). It would allow the Scottish government to achieve the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, by the simple dint of removing the places where they are kept from Scotland. All it takes is a bit of paperwork.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree entirely with that I doubt it would be achievable. Salmond thinks this is his ace in the hole re currency union, he will compromise but at an unacceptable cost to Westminster. Further, I think a large majority of his party would genuinely like to see the end of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil, he might struggle to sell it to the faithful
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
I don't see that it would have that effect and it's a moot point anyway as it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I see it as being very serious, just like in business you don't want to deal with people who don't pay their bills and any internal queries related to this won't really be of interest to the outside world. All they will know is that Scotland don't honour their debt, so that will have an impact on borrowing, trade, interest rates etc.

You or anyone can't guarantee that it won't happen being over-confident is often associated with being careless. If Scotland reneges on the debt because of not getting a currency union then that would put us in a very weak position with the negotiations for other assets and England could play serious hardball.

I think a better tactic would be for Salmond to say they would take on less debt without a currency union because it is seen as having value, this would show a reasonable and prudent attitude and perhaps less like a little child throwing his toys out of the pram.
 
StewartR said:
And it would take a sustained effort of political will and cross-party support. Again, not impossible, just not easy.

I think the best solution would be for Faslane, Coulport, Garelochead and the Rosneath peninsula to remain part of the UK. There are precedents for this (Cyprus). It would allow the Scottish government to achieve the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, by the simple dint of removing the places where they are kept from Scotland. All it takes is a bit of paperwork.
Click to expand...


I'm sure I read that Salmond already hinted at allowing Trident to remain in return for a currency union. It wouldn't surprise me as there's not much anyone could do about it by then anyway as once the deal is done it's done. Besides, it's a good opportunity for Scotland to charge exorbitant amounts of rent for allowing it to stay.

Besides, if people felt that strongly about it they'd be down there protesting on a regular basis but instead there's not really much of a protest presence. As always, happy to shout about it from home but never willing to put their money where their mouth is. Bit like Yes Campaign donations (a topic quietly avoided earlier on in this threat I noticed).
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
And it would take a sustained effort of political will and cross-party support. Again, not impossible, just not easy.

I think the best solution would be for Faslane, Coulport, Garelochead and the Rosneath peninsula to remain part of the UK. There are precedents for this (Cyprus). It would allow the Scottish government to achieve the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, by the simple dint of removing the places where they are kept from Scotland. All it takes is a bit of paperwork.
Click to expand...

Part of the feeling against nukes in Scotland is their placement 30 miles from a major population centre, making a change on a map and saying it's not part of Scotland any more wouldn't cut it.

The same problems that would exist in moving the base to another area would exist today if it was Coulport/Faslane they were intending to move them to. Back in 1960? they didn't have to worry about planning permission though I expect the MPs for various possible ports might be up in arms about theirs being picked.
 
Steep said:
The same problems that would exist in moving the base to another area would exist today if it was Coulport/Faslane they were intending to move them to. Back in 1960? they didn't have to worry about planning permission
Click to expand...
Absolutely true, I'm sure. But it doesn't make the problem any less intractable.
 
And it would take a sustained effort of political will and cross-party support. Again, not impossible, just not easy.

I think the best solution would be for Faslane, Coulport, Garelochead and the Rosneath peninsula to remain part of the UK. There are precedents for this (Cyprus). It would allow the Scottish government to achieve the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, by the simple dint of removing the places where they are kept from Scotland. All it takes is a bit of paperwork.
Click to expand...

The difficulty with Sovereign Base Areas, like Cyprus is that although in theory we can do whatever we like on them, the Cypriots get a tad upset and start revolting if we do something they dislike. Like building a radio mast or potentially using them for offensive operations, like Libya.
If the same were to apply to the Coulport area, and the Scots Government decided to get up on their high horse over something we'd not be able to sail not just the V class boats, but any of the Submarines Squadrons.

So if for example the Argies decided one afternoon that tea on the lawn at Port Stanley was a good idea, and somehow managed to do it (almost impossible with the state of their forces at the moment, but who knows what the future holds), the Scots could prevent us from sending subs in case we do something warlike, sinking a warship for example. Thats not tenable.

If that was overcome, and as I've seen suggested the locals in that area are likely to overwhelmingly reject independence anyway, then it could make sense, everyones won. Well, except Salmond who looses his blackmail card, which I suppose is a very good reason why it wont happen.
 
Steep said:
True Stweart but it would be easy enough to set up electronic polling stations, a polling card with a qr code and a screen set up like a ballot paper. Press the button next to your choice, check and press 'vote'.
Click to expand...

Would cost far too much to implement and manage. Could be open to abuse. Would never be ready on times anyway.
 
Steep said:
Bank of England is making contingency plans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28773893
Click to expand...
gman said:
It's the prudent thing to do, something Salmond should learn from.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Carney isn't a politician. His job is to ensure the financial stability of the UK on September 19th and afterwards, regardless of what happens on September 18th. (And of course Scotland is part of the UK on September 19th, regardless of what happens on September 18th.) Of course he - and his organization - are going to make contingency plans. It would be irresponsible not to. But that has absolutely zero relevance to the post-independence situation. As Carney said very clearly, that's up to his political masters.
 
So no politician is responsible for the financial stability of their country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top