An Independent Scotland?

[MWHCVT]

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.

Indeed I've a lot of friends in all the branches of the armed forces and I would never dream of describing in those terms, to be honest I'm somewhat disgusted at the attitude of majority of the Yes campaign there seems to mostly consist of hatred of England more than anything else which is sad and true fully a little pathetic...

 

[FourRingCircus]

As an ex-officer in Her Majesty's senior service, I have apologised as much as I'm going to Glenn. If you read my comments again, I did not mean to infer anything about the forces being 'monkeys', other than in the context of monkeys and organ grinders. I have already accepted that it was perhaps a poor choice of words but there you go. You may continue to think that's feeble and there's nothing I can do about it.

As for the disproportionate number of Scots in the front line, their bravery and commitment is not at odds - what I am suggesting is that they do not choose their detail themselves, it is the 'organ grinders' who decide upon deployment and I'm sure you know that perfectly well.

 

[fracster]

In fairness, John has stated that he made a poor choice using the words he did, no point thrashing the point guys. The military and how it is separated,if at all, brings a new problem that I had not considered.

One thing that I would like to know, if Scotland vote yes, then is it correct to assume that all the Scottish MP at Westminster and there aides, will lose there jobs in London and have to move to a new Scottish Parliament?

 

[GeeJay57]

Edit - removed my comments so as not to detract from the original discussion.

 

[MartynK]

One thing that I would like to know, if Scotland vote yes, then is it correct to assume that all the Scottish MP at Westminster and there aides, will lose there jobs in London and have to move to a new Scottish Parliament?

I think that would be a fair assumption. If Scotland leaves the Union, and becomes an independent country, there would be no reason for her to send representatives to a foreign parliament and I can't imagine why this would be permitted. There's been a lot of debate about how this would impact Labour's vote.

 

[Cobra]

Guys, up till now, this has been a very level headed and well thought out argument / discussion on both sides.
It really is good to see adults discussing matters that affect them, clearly and calmly,
without the play ground element that so often creeps in to these types of threads.

Please don't let it go tits up or get personal through a badly worded comment, and
what may or may not have been a miss-interpretation, of said comment.

Can we move on now?
Thanks

 

[fracster]

I think that would be a fair assumption. If Scotland leaves the Union, and becomes an independent country, there would be no reason for her to send representatives to a foreign parliament and I can't imagine why this would be permitted. There's been a lot of debate about how this would impact Labour's vote.

It would decimate Labours vote, leaving us with little option about who governs us.

 

[boyfalldown]

It would decimate Labours vote, leaving us with little option about who governs us.

and therein lies the whole reason 'Call me Dave' speaks to an empty stadium from London about how keen he is for Scotland to stay. Honest. He is, No,really

 

[FourRingCircus]

if Scotland vote yes, then is it correct to assume that all the Scottish MP at Westminster and there aides, will lose there jobs in London and have to move to a new Scottish Parliament?

You are half right Ade. The Scottish Westminster MP's will be out of a job - period. You will also be welcome to most them, as very few will be enjoying a rapturous homecoming and NONE of them will have a place in the Scottish parliament unless they are democratically elected to serve there. I'm sure some of them might suggest that they wanted independence all along but as things stand, ALL the (non-SNP) Westminster politicians are against it. In light of their employment status, I wonder why.....

Glenn is entitled to his opinion, as am I. I know exactly what context I was referring to, so I too will choose not to respond to the overblown Daily Mail style of quoting, accusations and demands for further apologies. For the avoidance of doubt, my words were (and any fool can look back to see it) that I used the term 'personnel' to describe the nature of the forces on the ground who are not decision makers in the forces.

 

[GeeJay57]

Cobra, your point is well made. I have removed my comment above.

Returning to the military bases in Scotland, presumably they could still be operated by rUK following independence in the same way that the US bases were/are operated in the UK already. Just needs an agreement of some sort would be my guess.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Edit:- I have just read your comment Cobra. I won't add anything further !



Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[FourRingCircus]

I'm unsure if Glenn wants (informed?) comment from the area in question. However, I am perfectly happy to continue on the basis that we can all be friends and move-on together.

Scottish bases are Scottish bases - period. Just remember that George Osborne has started the offensive when he said no negotiations on the £ in the face of a pragmatic SNP proposal of shared interests. We can just as easily say, no negotiations on bases and you have twenty-eight days to get your nukes out of our country too.

Irrespective of the 'negotiations' to be had, I'll wager that NONE of the current UK bases in Scotland will be operated by rUK if there is independence.

 

[Moadib]

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

Iceland is doing rather well since letting their banks go. Ireland went the bail-out route, and is suffering the death of a thousand cuts that we have.

If you believe that there is no other option than bailing the banks out, you have already lost. "Bailing out the banks" is a nice euphemism for making THEIR private mistakes, OUR public responsibility. If we keep rewarding ill-advised risk taking, we'll keep getting it. Just as "quantitative easing" is a nice euphemism for "printing money". The economy cannot tell the difference between the money you worked for and the money that was printed and given to the banks. It's still purchasing power taken from everyone who holds pounds, and given to the recipients of QE. In another time we'd have called that theft. If they'd asked us to give 1, 2, 5% of our assets to the banks, would we? Because the effect is the same.

 

[Moadib]

They risk their lives to do our bidding. Shame on you.

This is one of the issues - they risk their life doing someone's bidding, but it sure as heck ain't mine. Hopefully more local control could be exercised if the regiments truly were Scottish.

 

[LCPete]

It would decimate Labours vote, leaving us with little option about who governs us.

Yes we would be stuck with the Tories forever !

 

[fracster]

You are half right Ade. The Scottish Westminster MP's will be out of a job - period. You will also be welcome to most them,

Oh no you don`t John, if you vote for independance, you can have them all back...................

 

[GeeJay57]

This is one of the issues - they risk their life doing someone's bidding, but it sure as heck ain't mine. Hopefully more local control could be exercised if the regiments truly were Scottish.

Not really my bidding either. I have no personal wish to send anyone into battle.

Currently UK national interest includes Scotland at least in principle. It's a discussion point of course as to whether anything done on the wishes of Westminster is in the best interests of the UK as a whole and in this thread, for Scotland in particular. For sure an independent Scotland would be able to choose how to defend itself and how its armed forces are deployed if at all. If the Scottish government deployed them, I'd be surprised if everyone in the country agreed with it. Not much different from now, just wouldn't be able to pin the decision on Westminster.

 

[Steep]

Glenn, John has a point historically. It's a fact that Scots regiments were used as front line cannon fodder in the wars following the last uprising because it was "better to lose them than good English soldiers". That is of course no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. It is indicative of something I mentioned in an earlier post about how the Scots were perceived by the powers that be doon sooth even into the 1970s and 80s though and it was one of the major reasons why I became a Nationalist in my teens.

 

[fracster]

In fairness Hugh, do you think that us living in the north of England feel any loyalty to London, don`t you think that we feel isolated and treat as second class citizens by Westminster, don`t you think that we feel that we don`t get the same level of funding as other areas of England?

Being treat differently by London, I assure you, is not specific to Scotland.

 

[Dave *]

Glenn, John has a point historically. It's a fact that Scots regiments were used as front line cannon fodder in the wars following the last uprising because it was "better to lose them than good English soldiers". That is of course no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. It is indicative of something I mentioned in an earlier post about how the Scots were perceived by the powers that be doon sooth even into the 1970s and 80s though and it was one of the major reasons why I became a Nationalist in my teens.

Other than the fact that it isn't all that accurate and probably a generalisation. Looking at ww1, the Regiments with the highest casualties:

British Regiments 1914-18, EA James, Naval and Military Press
London Regiment - 29100
Northumberland Fusiliers - 16000
Royal Fusiliers - 15600

Battle of the Somme

1 July,1916 casualties
10 West Yorks 710 all ranks
1 Newfoundland 684
4 Tyneside Scottish 629
1 Tyneside Irish 620
1 Hampshires (585 all ranks killed and wounded).

Looks like the North East of England came off pretty badly there....

 

[GeeJay57]

Glenn, John has a point historically. It's a fact that Scots regiments were used as front line cannon fodder in the wars following the last uprising because it was "better to lose them than good English soldiers". That is of course no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. It is indicative of something I mentioned in an earlier post about how the Scots were perceived by the powers that be doon sooth even into the 1970s and 80s though and it was one of the major reasons why I became a Nationalist in my teens.

Hugh, I get the point that historically the 'English' did some pretty nasty things to 'Johnny Foreigner' and that that extended to anyone that wasn't considered English. Not everyone in the 'English' club was actually English or living south of the border.

My hope and expectation is that the reason for campaigning for an independent Scotland is about forward looking issues rather than trying to right the wrongs that occurred in our history that none of us are proud of.

I don't know which specific post or poster said that the UK is broken, but I do agree with that. What I don't agree with is the notion that separation from the UK will actually be beneficial for Scotland or the UK in the long term. I would like to see the home nations stick together to sort the issues out.

Having a Scottish parliament is IMHO unlikely to result in some kind of north of the border nirvana, especially if said government hitches the Scottish wagon to the euro and the EU. Politicians are like leopards, they don't change their spots.

I guess come September, all will become clear(er)...

 

[Steep]

In fairness Hugh, do you think that us living in the north of England feel any loyalty to London, don`t you think that we feel isolated and treat as second class citizens by Westminster, don`t you think that we feel that we don`t get the same level of funding as other areas of England?

Being treat differently by London, I assure you, is not specific to Scotland.

That's fine Ade, the difference today is some of us Scots are trying to do something about it.

Other than the fact that it isn't all that accurate and probably a generalisation. Looking at ww1, the Regiments with the highest casualties: snip

A generalisation certainly but not inaccurate, I did say the wars after the last uprising. By the time the 1800s came along Scots soldiers had gained an enviable reputation for ruggedness and determination in battle largely because they had been so often up front in any engagement. They were not so badly used by that time since their proven effectiveness made them less of a spendable commodity.

 

[Steep]

Hugh, I get the point that historically the 'English' did some pretty nasty things to 'Johnny Foreigner' and that that extended to anyone that wasn't considered English. Not everyone in the 'English' club was actually English or living south of the border.

In fairness I didn't say English nor did I mean that, In those years a certain 'class' made the decisions much I suppose as they still do now to some extent, they were not necessarily English indeed some were Scots to whom Jock Sporran or John Smith were equally 'spendable'.

 

[Dave *]

A generalisation certainly but not inaccurate, I did say the wars after the last uprising. By the time the 1800s came along Scots soldiers had gained an enviable reputation for ruggedness and determination in battle largely because they had been so often up front in any engagement. They were not so badly used by that time since their proven effectiveness made them less of a spendable commodity.

It might be interesting research, but I would doubt that the Scottish regiments fared any better or worse than the majority of other regiments, especially when compared to those from Northern England.

To generalise that X lost more than Y over the number of conflicts over 300 years is always going to be a total thumb suck.

 

[FourRingCircus]

Ypres:

Of the 157 battalions which comprised the British Expeditionary Force, 22 were Scottish regiments…

Of the 557,000 Scots who enlisted in all services, 26.4 percent lost their lives. This compares with an average death rate of 11.8 percent for the rest of the British army between 1914 and 1918. Of all the combatant nations, only the Serbs and the Turks had higher per capita mortality rates, but this was primarily because of disease in the trenches rather than a direct result of losses in battle. The main reason for the higher-than-average casualties among the Scottish soldiers was that they were regarded as excellent, aggressive shock troops who could be depended upon to lead the line in the first hours of battle.

Just as a little aside, when 'England expected every man to do his duty' at Trafalgar, one-quarter of Nelson’s captains and one-third of his crews were Scots (and a substantial percentage of the rest of the crews were Irish rebels from the 1798 Rising, whose only choice was the Navy or the hangman).

 

[GeeJay57]

In fairness I didn't say English nor did I mean that, In those years a certain 'class' made the decisions much I suppose as they still do now to some extent, they were not necessarily English indeed some were Scots to whom Jock Sporran or John Smith were equally 'spendable'.

That's why I put 'English' in quotes.. Us plebs have always been seen as expendable by the ruling classes.

 

[Dave *]

Of the 157 battalions which comprised the British Expeditionary Force, 22 were Scottish regiments…

Of the 557,000 Scots who enlisted in all services, 26.4 percent lost their lives. This compares with an average death rate of 11.8 percent for the rest of the British army between 1914 and 1918. Of all the combatant nations, only the Serbs and the Turks had higher per capita mortality rates, but this was primarily because of disease in the trenches rather than a direct result of losses in battle. The main reason for the higher-than-average casualties among the Scottish soldiers was that they were regarded as excellent, aggressive shock troops who could be depended upon to lead the line in the first hours of battle.

©Tom Devine?

You shouldn't really post someone else's words from a book without attribution .

But you are still showing jingoistic nationalism with your generalisation. I'm not saying that the Scots soldiers didn't do their part, just that many other English regiments have done similar (I am sure that if you were to research and separate out the regions the same conclusion could be made for many northern regiments that also found themselves used as first wave troops with high casualty rates).

You don't need to denigrate the others to try and make some sort of point for your views.

 

[FourRingCircus]

©Tom Devine? You shouldn't really post someone else's words from a book without attribution .

Correct (hence the italics). The lack of attribution was the haste to get the point out. Busted again

 

[Dave *]

Correct (hence the italics). The lack of attribution was the haste to get the point out. Busted again

Naughty naughty .

Rereading my last post it looks quite antagonistic, and it isn't meant that way. My point is I really dislike trying to lift one portion of an army of brave men, if we are talking the last 100 years all sections of Britain (and beyond) made huge sacrifices. I know most of my local regiments suffered high casualties in both world wars (as did the Scottish).

I think that per capita the New Zealanders actually lost far more than anyone.

 

[FourRingCircus]

I discovered one of my (aurora) phtographs being used as someones pc desktop recently. I complained that it was theft. He said that he was only borrowing it and would take it down..... whenever I produced a better picture!!

 

[DaveS2]

I could be wrong, but the impression that I am getting from those representing the 'Yes Camp' in this thread, is that they are more about into looking backwards into history, who was hard done by whom, and settling old scores, as opposed to looking forward with respect to whether or not Scotland would be better off independent.

Nationalistic beliefs clouding common sense and practicality. In fact just the very thing that was behind many conflicts throughout history.

It all sounds to me like going back to the days of the Clans in Scotland, when they fought among each other, never mind the English.

As I have said before, its of absolutely no consequence to me, whether Scotland stays in or leaves the union, apart from seeing all of my Scottish friends that don't want segregation, being very disappointed if Scotland does breakaway.

The Union Flag, that the Scots, Welsh, and English fought for against Napoleon, The Kaiser, Hitler, and Mussolini, to name a but few aggressors, will look very strange without St Andrews Cross.

Dave

 

[Dave *]

The Union Flag, that the Scots, Welsh, and English fought for against Napoleon, The Kaiser, Hitler, and Mussolini, to name a but few aggressors, will look very strange without St Andrews Cross.

Dave

One of the current options doesn't look that strange (St David's flag replaces Saltire).

But then, it might not even change:

Another organisation that may have some say - the College of Arms - says that the flag is determined by the crown, and was confirmed by an order of the Privy Council in 1800.

Andrew Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Flags and Heraldry, agrees that the matter is unclear. "There is no official legal protocol on flags, to the extent that you can't even say that the union jack is the flag of the United Kingdom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

 

[FourRingCircus]

Rereading my last post it looks quite antagonistic

Nothing to worry about Dave, I often do the same. Sometimes it's good to be slightly antagonistic to promote discussion, as there can be several lurkers who need a prod to get involved.

I could be wrong, but the impression that I am getting from those representing the 'Yes Camp' in this thread, is that they are more about into looking backwards into history

Well Dave,.... it's easier than looking into the future, and if you can't learn from the past, you won't learn anything!

I'm guessing that there is something here that many south of a notional border simply can't understand. You may deride it as 'nationalism', as if that's a bad word. So let me explain something (if I can do so clearly). I would give up every material possession that I have - from fancy cars to fancy lenses and cameras - just to get back 'my boy' who died at fourteen (four years ago). I should point out that 'my boy' had four legs, a tail, woofed and was my best mate, after my wife of course!

Whether or not you think the foregoing statement is 'sad', I can also tell you that I'd give-up the chance of getting 'my boy' back, in order to get independence.

 

[Steep]

I could be wrong, but the impression that I am getting from those representing the 'Yes Camp' in this thread, is that they are more about into looking backwards into history, who was hard done by whom, and settling old scores, as opposed to looking forward with respect to whether or not Scotland would be better off independent.

You are wrong, but the reason the YES camp exists comes from past events and attitudes. Scotland as an independent nation would be a vibrant forward looking place and the Scots in it free to make their own futures.

I'll turn your own point around on you, read through this thread and see how many posts from folk who aren't directly involved are positive, saying best of luck etc. and how many are negative, saying "you can't do this or have that" in some form or other.

 

[fracster]

I could be wrong, but the impression that I am getting from those representing the 'Yes Camp' in this thread, is that they are more about into looking backwards into history, who was hard done by whom, and settling old scores, as opposed to looking forward with respect to whether or not Scotland would be better off independent.

Nationalistic beliefs clouding common sense and practicality. In fact just the very thing that was behind many conflicts throughout history.

It all sounds to me like going back to the days of the Clans in Scotland, when they fought among each other, never mind the English.

As I have said before, its of absolutely no consequence to me, whether Scotland stays in or leaves the union, apart from seeing all of my Scottish friends that don't want segregation, being very disappointed if Scotland does breakaway.

The Union Flag, that the Scots, Welsh, and English fought for against Napoleon, The Kaiser, Hitler, and Mussolini, to name a but few aggressors, will look very strange without St Andrews Cross.

Dave

A good post Dave, with some good grounding in my opinion.

Is it not time to stop looking back, rather look forward. That may well encompass what the yes people are saying, in that they are looking forward. Yet there seems to be an underlying bitterness to what has happened in the past. For that the Empire/Commonwealth has a lot to answer for, but is it really so relevant now?

 

[dinners]

Nationalistic beliefs clouding common sense and practicality.

The above line is true for some people however it's true for both sides.

I've said from day one that many will vote with their hearts rather than their heads and the 'Yes' campaign will milk this to cringeworthy levels. The 'No' campaign doesn't have the same clout.

I'm British and proud of it. Whatever the outcome - I'll still be British and (like many) will probably make far more of my British identity should the 'Yes' vote come out on top.

 

[Yves Geza]

Ypres:

Of the 157 battalions which comprised the British Expeditionary Force, 22 were Scottish regiments…

Of the 557,000 Scots who enlisted in all services, 26.4 percent lost their lives. This compares with an average death rate of 11.8 percent for the rest of the British army between 1914 and 1918. Of all the combatant nations, only the Serbs and the Turks had higher per capita mortality rates, but this was primarily because of disease in the trenches rather than a direct result of losses in battle. The main reason for the higher-than-average casualties among the Scottish soldiers was that they were regarded as excellent, aggressive shock troops who could be depended upon to lead the line in the first hours of battle.

Just as a little aside, when 'England expected every man to do his duty' at Trafalgar, one-quarter of Nelson’s captains and one-third of his crews were Scots (and a substantial percentage of the rest of the crews were Irish rebels from the 1798 Rising, whose only choice was the Navy or the hangman).

You might be interested to learn that my great uncle, who was an East End Jewish boy and who was mustard gassed on his eighteenth birthday in 1916, served as a very un-Scottish Seaforth Highlander. There's a family photo of him in his Tam O' Shanter.

I only found out quite recently the reason why. Apparently, and sensibly, during the First World War newly enlisted recruits were allocated to wherever they were needed to replace casualties as each Regiment was stood down from the line,

I suspect your "excellent, aggressive shock troops" might well have been rather more representative of a UNITED kingdom than any regional interest.

 

[MartynK]

I only found out quite recently the reason why. Apparently, and sensibly, during the First World War newly enlisted recruits were allocated to wherever they were needed to replace casualties as each Regiment was stood down from the line,

Not quite. Volunteers who joined the regular army - on standard or short term enlistments - could choose their regiment, subject to the "exigencies of the service". It was normally granted. Kitchener's Army and the Pals battalions were examples of this. Conscripts didn't have this option, but could request naval service.

It was certainly true that men were posted between units to replace casualties, but remained members of their own regiments unless they requested a transfer.

I suspect your "excellent, aggressive shock troops" might well have been rather more representative of a UNITED kingdom than any regional interest.

Yip, particularly after conscription was introduced in 1916.

 

[boyfalldown]

Iceland is doing rather well since letting their banks go. Ireland went the bail-out route, and is suffering the death of a thousand cuts that we have.

If you believe that there is no other option than bailing the banks out, you have already lost. "Bailing out the banks" is a nice euphemism for making THEIR private mistakes, OUR public responsibility. If we keep rewarding ill-advised risk taking, we'll keep getting it. Just as "quantitative easing" is a nice euphemism for "printing money". The economy cannot tell the difference between the money you worked for and the money that was printed and given to the banks. It's still purchasing power taken from everyone who holds pounds, and given to the recipients of QE. In another time we'd have called that theft. If they'd asked us to give 1, 2, 5% of our assets to the banks, would we? Because the effect is the same.

Didn't the UK government protect UK savers from Iceland then? As many other European countries did. But I suppose they weren't bailed out.

I don't believe there was no option at the time, but I do think its was very badly mishandled afterward. Especially considering the number of ordinary folks (including me) who would of lost houses, savings etc.... Now it seems a no brainer to split retail and investment arms.

Anyway, thats O/T. I do believe that as a United Kingdom every part of it is stronger. I'm sure Scotland can stand on its own....I think if it would be better for it, or for that matter other parts of the union would, certainly isn't the case

 

[DaveS2]

I'll turn your own point around on you, read through this thread and see how many posts from folk who aren't directly involved are positive, saying best of luck etc. and how many are negative, saying "you can't do this or have that" in some form or other.

As I said way back near the beginning of this 'thread', I wish Scotland and its people the very best, whichever way the vote goes, but I don't believe that breaking up this great nation (Britain), is in anyone's best interest, except perhaps those in Scotland who can't forgive and forget the days of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the English Red Coats.

I am as English as it is possible to be, but see myself as British, and proud to be so.

If Scotland does breakaway, I will still be British, in a somewhat smaller Britain.

I will watch this space, come September, with interest.

Dave