An Independent Scotland?

[border_all]

Of course not.

The Westminster parliamentary select commitee investigating the effects of independence on defence said Scotland would be due about 8.9% of the defence assets but that's actually a pretty huge amount. We wouldn't need that much by a long way and it would be a shame to waste it so the idea would be to say 'you' keep this but give us that.

Being honest having given the whole independent process more thought I am hoping you get a good percentage of the naval fleet at least I was thinking with the area you would need to cover being large if rUK kept missiles and nuclear we could hugely reduce our defence size rUK cover our part and Scotland the coast and mainland of north of the border. I think with the 2 aircraft carriers under construction and a smaller one in service now perhaps 2 for rUK and one for north of the border giving you an air strike ability if required.

Doing it this way whichever side of the border I retired defence is covered and if pensions did negotiate a tax concession I might get my state pension indexed as I would in rUK should I move north of the border

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Nick, how do you manage to lay the blame for the cost of the Scottish parliament building at Alex Salmonds door?

I didn't say I blamed him personally. But the cost of independence is likely to exceed far more than estimates. Case in point the Scottish parliament...and that's just for starters.

 

[Steep]

Well fine but laying the blame for everything at the SNPs door is not helping. Labour/Lib Dems were the government of the day for the start and finish of the Scottish parliament building. The set up costs will be whatever they are, probably higher than 200mill but considerably lower than 1.5 billion, what ever it costs we'll suck it up and deal with it.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

That is as may be but history records that in 2001 MSPs overwhelmingly voted to remove the £195 million cap, which in turn led to the £40 million pound overspend and changed the project from Scottish Executive to the Scottish Parliament. In addition running costs were grossly underestimated. Nothing to do with anyone else in power at the time !

 

[Blank_Canvas]

The real question is can you afford to deal with it and how much is going to cost ? Only another 100 days to go !

 

[Steep]

The real question is can you afford to deal with it and how much is going to cost ? Only another 100 days to go !

And the answer (borrowed from our mate Obama) is Yes We Can.

 

[StewartR]

There's no saying the nationalists will be in power in an independent Scotland.

I know a lot of people have ridiculed this statement, but here's a mischievous suggestion.

If Scotland does vote in favour of independence, I think everyone acknowledges that it's likely to be tight. The Yes lobby would consider even 55/45 to be a huge victory.

But what do the pro-independence supporters have in common, other than the desire for independence? Perhaps not very much if, as @Steep suggests, voting for independence is distinctly not the same as voting for the SNP.

Meanwhile 45% of the population wanted to remain as part of the UK, and that's quite a big deal to have in common, because it's well defined in so many ways whereas independence is a clean sheet of paper. That suggests that there could be a lot of support for a Do-Whatever-The-UK-Does party.

The amusing outcome would be that, despite being independent, Scotland wouldn't be governed differently from how it was before independence.

Of course I'm not seriously suggesting this will happen. But it's possible that there might be tensions in the we-agree-we-want-independence-but-we-don't-agree-on-anything-else camp, and there will undoubtedly be a we-want-things-back-the-way-they-were camp, though the latter might not be very large or homogeneous. I'm just trying to illustrate how unpredictable the future is. (And have a bit of fun, of course.)

 

[StewartR]

As we are 25 pages in and many members may not be keen to work their way through it all, perhaps we could create a summary of sorts here as a new staging point. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what you believe are all the main positive and negative aspects of Scotland going independent - maybe in bullet point format?

This challenge was laid down a few pages back. However, what is a positive aspect to one person might be a negative aspect to another, so I thought I might be helpful to identify what actual aspects there are and let others decide on whether they're positive or negative.

So here's my take on what happens if Scotland votes for independence.

1. Scottish people get a government in Edinburgh rather than one in London. It may or may not be more competent, or more honest, or more effective, but the one thing it will definitely be is more local.

2. The grotesque injustice of the West Lothian Question will finally be resolved.

3. ...... No, I can't think of any more. Everything else is conjecture.

And here's what happens if Scotland votes against independence.

1. Nobody knows.

 

[Steep]

Stewart the issue isn't so much about different government as a government with full powers to do the things that need doing.

It's no secret I think that the independence side is made up for the most part of various flavours of socialist that's just the way the Scots vote. For the first eight years of the devolved Scottish parliament we had Labour/Lib Dem coalitions, then four years of SNP / Lib Dem and finally an SNP majority. It depends how well the SNP govern as to whether they will continue in charge at the next election because one sure thing about PR is that 'we' will get the representation we vote for.

The question of the majority in the referendum has come up a few times, basically 50% + 1 gets it. However a vote that close leaves room for whichever side loses to try again at some point in the future and rightly so. I've said before that a close finish loss for yes wouldn't be the end of it, at some point down the line we'd try again but a resounding loss would be a different story.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Try again ? Do you mean this thread could go to to infinity !

 

[StewartR]

Stewart the issue isn't so much about different government as a government with full powers to do the things that need doing.

You already have one of them. The government of an independent Scotland wouldn't have any more powers than the current government of the UK.

 

[Steep]

Well thanks for that insight.

 

[StewartR]

Well thanks for that insight.

You're welcome. Always glad to help correct misperceptions and puncture myths.

But I must admit I really don't understand your previous comment. If it's not about having a different government... and you already have a government with all the powers it needs... unless you're talking about repatriation of powers from the EU, in which case you might get that more readily without independence, given the strength of anti-EU sentiment in England. So I really don't understand what you actually want.

 

[arclight]

That is as may be but history records that in 2001 MSPs overwhelmingly voted to remove the £195 million cap, which in turn led to the £40 million pound overspend and changed the project from Scottish Executive to the Scottish Parliament. In addition running costs were grossly underestimated. Nothing to do with anyone else in power at the time !

Edinburgh Trams project

Todays Telegraph -
"The project was due to cost £375 million when announced in 2003 but that figure has risen to around £776 million to date.

Organisers also backtracked on plans to create a number of different tram lines, instead launching a single track running from Edinburgh's New Town to the airport."

Whilst that project is a horrendous mess there are many government messes and the MoD have a particularly appalling record.
Point is that all governments are populated by people who waste money on enormous scales. Cameron, Brown, Blair, Miliband or Salmond etc. etc. All jam tomorrow merchants that I would not trust to switch a room light on.

 

[Moadib]

You are taking it to the extremes instead of being sensible. Even the Norwegian's (who Salmond keeps referring to) has a reasonably sized Navy including submarines, frigates and missile boats as do they have a decent army and air force.

gman, your assertion has been that a country must "plan for the worst" - having a small navy is not planning for the worst. Planning for the worst is, by definition, taking it to extremes and not being sensible. Of course they have subs - they have considered what is LIKELY and acted appropriately. They are not spending 200% of their GDP planning for the worst case, such as a Swedish invasion.

Well on that basis thank you for proving my point in that not showing up to vote doesn't necessarily mean it's a protest vote. Therefore this only strengthens the case that people should have to turn up so that we have a more accurate representation of how the public feel.

You mentioned that your using your time to spoil is a protest, and that's fine, but it proves nothing about anyone else. IMO there are much better uses for my time than going along to create a spoiled paper that will be ignored, and there are much more valid reasons not to vote. Attempting to force people to turn up doesn't solve the problem, most likely will make it worse (people more disenfranchised), and is a very dangerous path in restricting freedom.

 

[Byker28i]

Stewart,
if Scotland vote for independence, do we invade, do a Ukraine? Probably on a friday night when the locals are incapacitated with drink?

 

[gman]

You mentioned that your using your time to spoil is a protest, and that's fine, but it proves nothing about anyone else. IMO there are much better uses for my time than going along to create a spoiled paper that will be ignored, and there are much more valid reasons not to vote. Attempting to force people to turn up doesn't solve the problem, most likely will make it worse (people more disenfranchised), and is a very dangerous path in restricting freedom.

So what are these valid reasons as to why you don't vote and how do you know that a spoiled paper will be ignored?

 

[gman]

gman, your assertion has been that a country must "plan for the worst" - having a small navy is not planning for the worst. Planning for the worst is, by definition, taking it to extremes and not being sensible. Of course they have subs - they have considered what is LIKELY and acted appropriately. They are not spending 200% of their GDP planning for the worst case, such as a Swedish invasion.

I'm not talking about planning for the worst for every eventuality, I don't think we need to spend fortunes on something like the road network just in case there's a big traffic jam. I'm talking about planning for the worst in crucial areas - such as defence (being physical and cyber). Things which could have serious, costly and potentially irreversible consequences.

 

[gman]

And the answer (borrowed from our mate Obama) is Yes We Can.

Aye and the Americans have also got themselves into ridiculous amounts of debt! Besides, I also don't fancy having to buy my son a bullet proof safety blanket! lol

But then the US Government debt % of GDP isn't actually all that bad considering how close the UK is - probably because we don't produce much in comparison. Although % of GDP isn't always necessarily an accurate view.

 

[Gaz J]

So what are these valid reasons as to why you don't vote and how do you know that a spoiled paper will be ignored?

I can't be bothered my a**e to vote for a bunch of people that seem to be in it for themselves and who can't be bothered to turn up half the time. Who accumulate pensions faster than any other worker in the country as a direct result of being responsible ,until recently, for setting their own pay rises and how their pension is earned.

 

[gman]

So how are we going to change that?

 

[TopBanana]

So how are we going to change that?

If we change it then we can't whine about it

 

[gman]

lol

I've just heard that someone has put a £400,000 bet on Scotland NOT going independent.

 

[Steep]

Aye and the Americans have also got themselves into ridiculous amounts of debt! Besides, I also don't fancy having to buy my son a bullet proof safety blanket! lol

But then the US Government debt % of GDP isn't actually all that bad considering how close the UK is - probably because we don't produce much in comparison. Although % of GDP isn't always necessarily an accurate view.

I only borrowed their quote, to my knowledge we don't intend to borrow their finacial advisers as well.

 

[Steep]

lol

I've just heard that someone has put a £400,000 bet on Scotland NOT going independent.

Typical gutter press manipulation of the truth, it was only £200,000. Probably borrowed their calculator from the treasury

 

[Steep]

You're welcome. Always glad to help correct misperceptions and puncture myths.

But I must admit I really don't understand your previous comment. If it's not about having a different government... and you already have a government with all the powers it needs... unless you're talking about repatriation of powers from the EU, in which case you might get that more readily without independence, given the strength of anti-EU sentiment in England. So I really don't understand what you actually want.

You're the one saying we have the government we want with the powers we want, not me or anyone else on the Yes side in Scotland.

 

[gman]

Typical gutter press manipulation of the truth, it was only £200,000. Probably borrowed their calculator from the treasury

I think the 200k was a separate one by a Scottish guy and the 400k was a new recent one?

 

[gman]

I only borrowed their quote, to my knowledge we don't intend to borrow their finacial advisers as well.

Fingers crossed lol

 

[Steep]

I think the 200k was a separate one by a Scottish guy and the 400k was a new recent one?

Ah well they both lose

 

[gman]

Ah well they both lose

But surely the Scottish one is win, win?

 

[StewartR]

You're the one saying we have the government we want with the powers we want, not me or anyone else on the Yes side in Scotland.

So please, educate me and help me understand your position. What powers do you feel the government needs, which it doesn't currently have?

 

[Steep]

They say the best education is the one you give yourself, ok I made that up but hey... educate yourself - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/15

 

[chadders]

I'm late to the discussion, so pardon me if this has been mentioned before. My personal opinion is that the great benefit of a YES vote is that it should solve the West Lothian question, since successive UK governments have not had the courage to do it.

 

[StewartR]

I'm late to the discussion, so pardon me if this has been mentioned before. My personal opinion is that the great benefit of a YES vote is that it should solve the West Lothian question, since successive UK governments have not had the courage to do it.

Couldn't agree more. As more and more powers have been devolved to the Scottish parliament, the West Lothian question has become an increasingly grotesque injustice. I don't really have an opinion on independence - as an Englishman living in England I don't have to! - but if the Scots do go for it, then at least it will clear up this mess.

 

[Steep]

I too agree, having Scots MPs voting on purely English issues is not fair. The good news there is that almost directly after a yes vote and long before actual independence Scottish MPs would stop voting on issues that don't affect Scotland.

 

[StewartR]

So please, educate me and help me understand your position. What powers do you feel the government needs, which it doesn't currently have?

They say the best education is the one you give yourself, ok I made that up but hey... educate yourself - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/15

Hugh, I really don't understand why you're being so evasive. I asked a simple question and you've given me a massive thesis to read.

But I've read it and I have to say it's a good read, so thanks. It should be required reading for everybody north of the border. (If there is a comparable thesis published by the opponents of independence, then of course that too should be required reading. Are you aware of such a thing?)

If I have a criticism of it, it is that some of the rhetoric tends to confuse the interests of the Scottish people with the interests of the (current) Scottish parliament. For example it tends to say things like "After independence the Scottish government will do XYZ", rather than "After independence the Scottish government will have powers over XYZ". It's a subtle point but there are a couple of steps in the argument which it glosses over. Firstly XYZ may not be feasible, or affordable, or practical, or a priority, or even possible - though of course it's fair enough that the Scottish government should at least be able to try it, if it's what the people want. And secondly it assumes that the post-independence Scottish government will have the same views and priorities as the current Scottish parliament, but that can't be taken for granted because there would have to be an intervening election.

However these are minor criticisms and overall it's a very impressive document.

But back to the original question: this document contains 64 references to "powers" and in every single instance the context is that the future Scottish government will be able to exercise powers which are currently retained by the UK government. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. You are a citizen of the UK and you have a government which has all the powers you want it to have. There isn't a single thing in that document, so far as I can tell, which could not in principle be done by the UK government. The issue, of course, is that the UK government frequently chooses to exercise its powers in ways which are different from what a majority of Scots would want"

Which brings us back to where we started. You said "the issue isn't so much about different government as a government with full powers to do the things that need doing." But it isn't. The UK government could get rid of nuclear weapons, or abolish the bedroom tax, or any of the things that Scots want, but it currently chooses not to do so. What you want is a different government.

 

[Steep]

I thought in all honesty that it had been covered a number of times in the thread already and that you were just being argumentative. Your error is in your assumption that the UK government is the one we want, if we were happy with Westminster there would be no independence movement. We want Scotland to have full autonomy, full control and the only way to have that is to have independence.

 

[arclight]

I thought in all honesty that it had been covered a number of times in the thread already and that you were just being argumentative. Your error is in your assumption that the UK government is the one we want, if we were happy with Westminster there would be no independence movement. We want Scotland to have full autonomy, full control and the only way to have that is to have independence.

Full autonomy, full control ................ as an Eu member

 

[Steep]

Full autonomy, full control ................ as an Eu member

Yes.

 

[StewartR]

Your error is in your assumption that the UK government is the one we want...

No, no, not at all. I don't assume that and I don't believe that.

I was just questioning your assertion that it's not about having a different government. But surely it totally *is* about having a different government. You already have a government - the one in London - which has all the powers it needs to do all the things you want it to do... but it chooses not to do those things. So you want a different government, and your judgement - which I think is correct, by the way - is that the only way to get the government you want is to get it in Edinburgh instead of in London. That all seems quite logical and straightforward to me, and I don't understand why you keep going on about giving the government the powers it needs.

(Ironically the London government has all the powers it needs to do all the things that *you* want done, but there are increasing numbers of people down here who think it doesn't have all the powers it needs to do all the things *we* want done. For example the EU proposal for a tax on financial transactions would be disastrous, but it seems we don't have the power to resist it. But the UK/EU relationship is a separate topic which could spawn a thread just as long as this one.)