An Independent Scotland?

[FourRingCircus]

except perhaps those in Scotland who can't forgive and forget the days of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the English Red Coats.

Dave, with the greatest respect, it is typically people down south who bring these historical things up! There is nothing 'anti-English' about the desire for independence. It's purely political and a desire to be free of Westminster. There is no need to drag-up ancient history and you only need to go back over the past few decades to see why Scotland would want to be in control of its own destiny. By the same token, you would have to be here on the ground to understand it, as it simply can't be seen from a Suffolk perspective.

 

[DaveS2]

It's purely political and a desire to be free of By the same token, you would have to be here on the ground to understand it, as it simply can't be seen from a Suffolk perspective.

John, I fully accept that I am an outsider looking in, and as such cannot have a full understanding of the situation. Maybe, as all of my Scottish friends, both in Scotland and down south, who are all very much against the separation of Scotland from the UK, I get to hear their
views. Which, I have to say, make a lot of sense, to me at least.

As I also said earlier, I have no love for, or faith in Westminster, only disappointment and anger even, at what they (Tory and Labour) have done to this country, hence my leaning towards UKIP. I won't pursue this issue any further, but we are becoming a nation divided, and I'm not referring to the Scottish Independence issue.

You guys up there will decide upon Scotland' future, and I will respect whatever decision is reached, but you will always be British to me, as that's how we fought and died together, and the nation that I was born into, over 70 years ago.

Good luck, and good fortune, where ever the future takes you.

Dave

 

[Moadib]

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.

It's not so much the number that agree with it for me, it's who's bidding they are actually doing, and how to control that. It is always suggested that they are doing the bidding of the people, yet 2 million marched against the invasion of Iraq and were utterly ignored. If it was the will of the people not to do so, and it was done anyway - whose bidding was it?

At least in a smaller context it should be more controllable, a Scotsman is one voice in 5 million or so, rather than one voice in 70 million. I think fundamentally the wishes of Britons and the wishes of Westminster are not aligned - at least from an independent Scotland there is a chance to resolve that locally.

 

[jakeblu]

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

The last three labour governments would still have had a sizeable majority without the Scottish MP's.

Steve

 

[DaveS2]

BTW, John, as an aside, and the fact that you are an RN Officer.

My father and his younger brother, were both career RN, having joined at age 14 (HMS GANGES). My father was a PO Gun-Layer on the Cruiser HMS Kent, and later a CPO GI (Gate & Gaters ). His younger brother was a PO Gun-Layer on the Destoyer HMS Keith, when it was sunk by German aircraft, while rescuing the troops from Dunkerque, for which he was awarded the DSM. He later lost another two ships, and in one case spent 13 hours in the water, before being rescued. He went on to retire as a Lt Com Gunnery Officer.

My Great Uncle lays at the bottom of the South Atlantic, along with 983 of his shipmates (the entire crew), after his ship, the Cruiser HMS Good Hope was sunk by German Naval gun fire on the 1st November 1914.

Another page in the book of my proud British history.

Dave

 

[jakeblu]

Yes we would be stuck with the Tories forever !

That is simply not true in 1997, 2001 & 2005 labour would have had a sizeable majority in parliament without the Scottish MP's

Steve

 

[FourRingCircus]

That is simply not true in 1997, 2001 & 2005 labour would have had a sizeable majority in parliament without the Scottish MP's

Steve speaks the truth. In fact, since WWII, I believe there have only been two general elections where the Scottish 'block vote' has seen Labour into power. Nowadays, that vote has diminished somewhat as well. It used to be almost all (59) Scottish Westminster seats went to Labour. At present, I believe it's down to about 38.

 

[LCPete]

[quote jakeblu, post: 6140275, member: 10988"]That is simply not true in 1997, 2001 & 2005 labour would have had a sizeable majority in parliament without the Scottish MP's

Steve[/quote]

Ok didn't realise that

 

[FourRingCircus]

John, as an aside, and the fact that you are an RN Officer.

EX RN Officer!

Talk of Ganges etc was well before my time and I'd suggest from what you've said that you are of my fathers vintage.

I went through BRNC Dartmouth in the mid 80's and I have to admit to my (nationalistic) views being somewhat 'tainted' even from that time. The intake was primarily 'Etonian' in its nature and I was, but a 'token Jock'. The other lads were all from families who already frequented the Queens Garden Party and they considered almost everyone to be less worthy in the great scheme of things. These are exactly the same breed that we find in Westminster today. In fact, possibly the career politicians are worse, as they are probably the ones who couldn't even get into the services. By contrast, I was a council house lad from Scotland who was really 'out of place'. I recall once, in the wardroom, being served by a young 'AB' whose accent was distinctly Scottish. I tried to strike-up a conversation with him about where he was from, but he made it plainly obvious to me that he didn't want to be seen 'chatting' with an officer, as this would lead to him being stigmatised later. That's not what I wanted from a fellow countryman.

Anyway, the whole point of this is to try to explain why I want something different from my political leaders. No matter who Scotland votes for (and of course this applies equally to the NE, NW etc) we get what the SE wants in terms of a government. The ONLY way to shake the tree (aside from a revolution) is to go for independence. Furthermore, the only 'region' of the UK that can possibly do this is Scotland for many obvious reasons. Finally, after this one, there may never be another chance.

 

[onomatopoeia]

That is simply not true in 1997, 2001 & 2005 labour would have had a sizeable majority in parliament without the Scottish MP's

Steve

It would have been a small majority in 2005 if the seats in Scotland were removed from the count. 314 seats with 294 needed for an outright majority.

Labour should have done much better than that, what with Michael Howard leading the Conservative party into the election.

 

[DaveS2]

EX RN Officer!
Talk of Ganges etc was well before my time and I'd suggest from what you've said that you are of my fathers vintage.

Yep, I was a 'leave baby' , conceived in 1941 and born in 1942.

Like you, I have little or no time the 'Old Etonian Brigade', as they are out of touch with the 'real world', and it is the likes of them that have broken Britain. May all those that have died fighting for this country, forgive them.

BTW, my Lt Com uncle, was a 'lower deck officer', having come up through the ranks from a 'Boy Seaman'.

Dave

 

[jakeblu]

It would have been a small majority in 2005 if the seats in Scotland were removed from the count. 314 seats with 294 needed for an outright majority.

Labour should have done much better than that, what with Michael Howard leading the Conservative party into the election.

Actually they would have had a majority of 43 with no Scottish mps a very workable majority.

Steve

 

[FourRingCircus]

my Lt Com uncle, was a 'lower deck officer', having come up through the ranks from a 'Boy Seaman'.

You couldn't beat an 'upper yardie' but (unfortunately) they never got the credit they deserved. The lower decks didn't like them being 'one of their own moving up' and the Officers didn't appreciate them moving-in. Still, if you wanted a sensible and pragmatic solution to a problem from someone who understood all sides of the equation, they were the guys to provide it.

 

[Steep]

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.

This last page or so you've seen a few posts regarding the ancient past but nothing else and it's certainly not a point that has been pushed in any way. I wish you would not make all encompassing generalisations about the attitudes of people you seem to know nothing of, it shows a real ignorance of what Scotland and her people are all about and are capable of. Independence is NOT about bringing back some long forgotten and never existent ideal, it's about the future and what we can make of it. Some of us (I hope the majority of us) believe we can do better by going it alone.

 

[DaveS2]

Hugh, for my part, I only formed an opinion based on what some Scottish 'Yes Camp' members in this 'thread' have said.

Perhaps the 'Yes Camp' needs to choose it's words more carefully, if it doesn't want us less informed ("ignorant") people South of the border, to be misinformed.

Dave

 

[dinners]

A 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

Lets leave the Italians out of it

 

[DaveS2]

Lets leave the Italians out of it

Dave

 

[StewartR]

I'm referring here to something that was said quite a few pages back, but I've been out of the loop for a few days so I hope that's OK.

This:

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?...
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.

I think that's a very perceptive post, though I'd take it a little bit further.

NOBODY knows what they're voting for.

If the Yes vote triumphs, nobody knows what the result will look like.
* For starters there are the big issues like currency, EU, relationship with rUK on matters like defence etc. There's an awful lot of horse trading to be done, nobody knows what the outcome will be, but one thing that seems pretty certain is that nobody will get everything they want.
* Then there's the fact that nobody knows what an independent Scotland would feel like. In 20 years time, would everybody be complaining that the country was bring run for the benefit of the bankers and the chattering classes in Edinburgh? I would hope not, but nobody knows. A fact of life with any parliamentary democracy is that you never really know what the government will do in the 4 years or so between the rare occasions when they have to listen to the voters.
* And finally (for me now, though there may be other aspects I've overlooked), nobody knows what scars would be left if the vote is narrow. If the result is, say, 55-45 - which would be a landslide compared to current polls - that's still 45% of the population who will find themselves living in a country in which they didn't want to live. That's bound to have some effect, but it's impossible to predict what it would be.

And if the No vote triumphs, again nobody knows what the result will look like.
* The reaction of the Westminster government is impossible to predict. There are those who believe that a close vote would lead to greater devolution for Scotland. There are those who believe exactly the opposite, that the Westminster government would arrange matters so as to reduce the chance that the Scots could ever try this again. It could go either way, but it probably won't be pretty.
* And again, nobody knows what damage a close vote would do to the fabric of the country. If the result of a close No vote is a clampdown from Westminster, powers taken away from Scotland, less uniquely Scottish institutions and so forth, how will that affect relationships within Scotland? Nobody knows.

Nobody knows what they are voting FOR in practical terms. At the end of the day it all comes down to principle, hope and belief, that Scotland will be better off somehow (for some personal definition of "better off" if it isn't or is part of the UK. Voters in both camps may find that they're facing a Pyrrhic victory - that they've won the point of principle, but eventually find that the mundane practicalities are worse than before.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Going back to the military theme. I can't see the MoD just giving away all those barracks, buildings and prime land. They are pretty much selling everything off as it is to bolster the defence budget. Surely Scotland would have to buy these?


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums

 

[FourRingCircus]

I've seen this 'imperialist' thinking before, so let me turn it round in order to explain the flaw. Scotland 'owns' almost 10% of everything in the UK. Scotland paid in part for the Olympics, Crossrail etc etc. Scotland will be due to pay almost 10% of HS2, Trident replacement etc. etc.

Now tell me you want us to buy back a few bits of our own land.

Perhaps you will begin to understand the desire for what people like to call 'divorce', when 'England' believes that everything in the 'marriage' is 100% theirs to begin with.

 

[boyfalldown]

I've seen this 'imperialist' thinking before, so let me turn it round in order to explain the flaw. Scotland 'owns' almost 10% of everything in the UK. Scotland paid in part for the Olympics, Crossrail etc etc. Scotland will be due to pay almost 10% of HS2, Trident replacement etc. etc.

Now tell me you want us to buy back a few bits of our own land.

Perhaps you will begin to understand the desire for what people like to call 'divorce', when 'England' believes that everything in the 'marriage' is 100% theirs to begin with.

by that argument does that mean the remaining parts of the Union own 90% of everything in Scotland?

 

[FourRingCircus]

Indeed it does Hugh. However, 10% of UK is MORE than 90% of Scotland. It's the 'shared' items that are at odds here. For example, the Bank of England.

I've seen talk from people in the south that if Scotland wants to go, then she can 'b****r off with nothing'. Try that on your spouse and see how far it gets you!

The original 'Union' of 1707 was a joining of two sovereign powers with apparently equal status. If my wife was to decide to leave just now, she would take HALF of everything we have built together, even though she hasn't earned anything significant for the past twenty years. That is one of the reasons I'd vote NO to her leaving. However, if she alone has the decision, then the ball is firmly in her court.

Personally, I don't like the divorce analogy, because independence is not a 'divorce' in the way the media portray it. However, before anyone in the south starts down the route of 'what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own', perhaps they should pause for a moment.........

 

[Steep]

It won't come to that or anything like it. The political posturing (from all sides) is part of the electoral process we've come to expect, claim and counter claim back and forth ad infinitum. What we need AS to do is stay away from it wherever possible and stick to the positive message. Come September and a yes vote the discussions and bargaining start there, anything that went before will just be so much vapour.

 

[border_all]

I will go touchy feely i would like Scotland to stay, i have some Scottish relatives and have visited many times with every thing else going on in the world perhaps we could remain united.

 

[StewartR]

I just re-read my previous post and something occurred to me.

Nobody knows what they are voting FOR in practical terms. At the end of the day it all comes down to principle, hope and belief, that Scotland will be better off somehow (for some personal definition of "better off") if it isn't or is part of the UK. Voters in both camps may find that they're facing a Pyrrhic victory - that they've won the point of principle, but eventually find that the mundane practicalities are worse than before.

A couple of things on which I think we can all, or at least nearly all, agree:
1. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, there will be big changes for Scotland.
2. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, those changes might not be for the better (for your personal definition of "better").

It seems to me that this situation is largely due to the machinations of Alex Salmon, and it's very easy to see him as a megalomaniac who wants to write his own pages of the history book even if the end result isn't good for Scotland.

I'm sure there are people who view AS like that. I don't know him, but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he honestly, passionately believes that an independent Scotland is a better Scotland. That doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but I can respect his point of view.

And in a similar vein it's easy to see David Cameron as an out-of-touch toff who only cares about Eton and Westminster. He says he's committed to the Union but in fact he's trying to undermine it and install an almost permanent Tory majority in England.

I'm sure there are people who view DC like that. I don't know him, but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he honestly, passionately believes that preserving the Union is good for both England and Scotland. That doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but I can respect his point of view.

 

[FourRingCircus]

I will go touchy feely i would like Scotland to stay, i have some Scottish relatives and have visited many times

You will still have Scottish relatives and I'm sure you will still be welcome to visit them.

 

[Steep]

I'm sure there are people who view AS like that. I don't know him, but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he honestly, passionately believes that an independent Scotland is a better Scotland. That doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but I can respect his point of view.

Don't forget that Alec Salmond is leader of the Scottish National Party, the party who's main aim since it's inception in 1934 has been independence for Scotland, he wouldn't be the leader for as long as he has been if he didn't believe.

 

[Moadib]

I've seen talk from people in the south that if Scotland wants to go, then she can 'b****r off with nothing'. Try

Never mind that - according to our British Propaganda Broadcasting Corp., we get to b****r off, AND the EU gives RBS to what's left of the UK.

Where do we sign?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655

 

[FourRingCircus]

This is actually great news!!!

We all know that the banks are only 'Scottish' in name anyway. The fact that they are partly domiciled in Scotland is actually a problem for the Yes side because their vast financial business (most of which is outside of Scotland) gets attributed to the 'risk' side of our argument - ergo Osborne's argument.

Standard & Poors have already indicated that the >20% financial market share of Scotland's GDP being so reliant upon financial services is actually a problem - compared to only 16% being oil related.

So, if the banks move south (a paper exercise), Scotland holds very little risk to offer in a currency union.

Before anybody starts about "oh, what about all the thousands of jobs in the banks head offices......."

RBS registered Head Office address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.

How many people can you fit in here?

 

[border_all]

You will still have Scottish relatives and I'm sure you will still be welcome to visit them.

Thank you that's good to know but will I require a passport and a border check point still would like Scotland within the union please

 

[gman]

However, 10% of UK is MORE than 90% of Scotland.

So on that note, 90% of Scotland isn't even worth 10% of the UK... lol

 

[gman]

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.

What happens when you translate those percentages into actual numbers? Things become a lot more transparent:

9.9% of the UK Taxation Revenue in 2012/13 is: £54.5 Billion
9.3% of the UK's spending in 2012/13 is: £62.7 Billion

So what looks like a 0.6% surplus for Scotland is actually an £8.2 Billion deficit when you extract the truth. This includes oil revenues.

 

[FourRingCircus]

So what looks like a 0.6% surplus for Scotland is actually an £8.2 Billion deficit when you extract the truth. This includes oil revenues.

This is absloutely correct Graham, but it belies a number of hidden aspects to the debt/deficit calculations. Scotland indeed runs a deficit (as do all countries in Europe), but it is proportionately less than the UK's. Scotland is in fact allocated a share of the UK deficit based on a population percentage (8.4%). This means that in 2011-12 (figures I have from GERS), Scotland ran up a £7.6bn deficit, but still got debited with £10.2bn of the UK deficit onto our debt balance – £2.6bn more than our fair share. In fact, Scotland's deficit is about 5% GDP whereas rUK is about 8% GDP. The cost of servicing the debt is a lot of the problem as we again get hit with a per capita share rather than an actual share. It wouldn't matter if Scotland was in surplus, we'd still be paying to service rUK's deficit/debt.

 

[DavieW]

Before anybody starts about "oh, what about all the thousands of jobs in the banks head offices......."

RBS registered Head Office address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.

How many people can you fit in here?

OK, that might be their registered office but have you seen the offices/call centres etc in Gyle and at Gogar? There's more than handful of employees in these buildings.

 

[Steep]

You have RBS the bank and the RBS Group, the bank would stay where it is but the group HQ might be made to move if Europe says they have to. The bank employs by far the most people so the jobs would mostly stay. That said RBS Group have laid off just under forty thousand people in the UK in six years with a good chance of thousands more to go yet. Whether the group stays or goes the jobs are not safe so all the weeping about potential job cuts in an independent Scotland is just more political manouevering.

 

[border_all]

I thought RBS was 80 odd % plus owned by the tax payer! it seems an ideal solution for an independent Scotland to inherit the bank so that it could be the central bank for Scotland.

The good thing there would be it fulfils some of the assets of the what would be former union

Many are very good at facts and figures here I was wondering in square miles how large a percentage of the Union Scotland is?

Still would like Scotland staying though

Found it Scotland is roughly 34% of the total area I think someone mentioned a ten percent contribution to the exchequer

 

[FourRingCircus]

34% of UK is probably about right for the landmass of Scotland but I'm afraid that sheep, mountains, lochs and clean fresh air can't really be expected to pay tax!

 

[gman]

This is absloutely correct Graham, but it belies a number of hidden aspects to the debt/deficit calculations. Scotland indeed runs a deficit (as do all countries in Europe), but it is proportionately less than the UK's. Scotland is in fact allocated a share of the UK deficit based on a population percentage (8.4%). This means that in 2011-12 (figures I have from GERS), Scotland ran up a £7.6bn deficit, but still got debited with £10.2bn of the UK deficit onto our debt balance – £2.6bn more than our fair share. In fact, Scotland's deficit is about 5% GDP whereas rUK is about 8% GDP. The cost of servicing the debt is a lot of the problem as we again get hit with a per capita share rather than an actual share. It wouldn't matter if Scotland was in surplus, we'd still be paying to service rUK's deficit/debt.

There's all sorts of hidden and combined aspects to consider though, such as military bases up here that would disappear but there is substantial income tax revenue, local VAT revenue etc which is associated with these bases. The headquarters which are all saying they will move out, they generate income tax. The shipbuilding on the Clyde - thousands of jobs and again all that income tax gone just as would be the VAT revenue from their local spending.

I would like to see an independent Scotland but not at the expense and financial hardship that we would more than likely suffer for a good number of years, maybe even decades, just so Salmond can fulfil his megalomaniac ambitions. I've got my son's future to think about, I don't to take the chance of him growing up in poverty just so that Scotland can claim to make their own decisions. Besides, they just do as they please anyway. The system up here was supposed to be designed so that no one party could take the overall majority yet the SNP are sitting with over 50% (despite less than 25% actually voting them in - although that wasn't their fault, people didn't vote but then there wasn't really any alternative anyway).

The financial bottom line is too fine, it's too close. If we were a production powerhouse with a large annual surplus that is not reliable on an unstable and finite resource then we could absorb any unforeseen problems that could go with being independent. Then I think it would be worth it then.

But not under Nationalists.

 

[border_all]

34% of UK is probably about right for the landmass of Scotland but I'm afraid that sheep, mountains, lochs and clean fresh air can't really be expected to pay tax!

I was thinking more like the amount of road building and infrastructure that such a large land mass needs

Just over 5 million people will have to pay for all updates for drains, electric cables and gas naming just a few

Mr Salmond has said Scotland needs more people and we know like the rest of the uk it's an aging society so you will need revenue for that as well

I am in the NE England Tony Blair lived less than 20 miles from me I for one agree with Scotland that London sucks the life out of all of us why does Alex suggest we annex London lol we could all get behind that

Please remember politicians are not regarded for their truth telling ambition yes I am 60 so like another member it's not likely I would see all the implications of Scotland leaving but I do wish Scottish folk all the best and I would like seeing you all stay with us

 

[Steep]

Just over 5 million people will have to pay for all updates for drains, electric cables and gas naming just a few

Who do you think pays for it now Allan?

To counter some of the negatives, Scotland is a major exporter of power, electricity flows south to England and Europe. We generate far more than we can use ourselves and there's a ready market for our surplus, wind and water power being eco friendly renewables.
Tourism and Whisky both generate a lot of income. Oil and gas are not going to run out any time soon and we might even get Amazon to pay their taxes!