An Independent Scotland?

AHILL said:
"agreed" and then almost immediately you get these statements. aint that a coincidence!
Click to expand...

I know, I know... I should have my head examined for posting such a thing as it would only attract 'such a thing'.


As for oil, just because we have oil doesn't mean we can compete with the big players and actually sell it all.
 
Graham 'we' don't own it the major international oil companies do and it won't cost any more to produce after indy than it does now, these companies produce and sell oil from far more volatile and dangerous places than the North Sea. Edward Davey (WM energy minister) on the BBC last night said rUK would stop buying Scottish electricity! That was blatant fear mongering again, SSE (Scottish and Southern Electricity) Scotland's largest electricity generator is an internationally owned company based in the South of England. Does he really expect us to believe that SSE are simply going to stop generating their own and buy power from Europe?
 
AHILL said:
"agreed" and then almost immediately you get these statements. aint that a coincidence!
Click to expand...

funny since it was gman that changed my post and I've not posted anything remotely abusive or childish yet it's my fault???????? you should work for the no campaign with spin
like that.
 
Last edited:
Hugh, it doesn't matter who owns the actual oil fields, the Corporation Tax collected (which makes up for the bulk of the oil revenue) depends on their performance. Geographical share of the oil revenues makes up for 10% of the total Scottish revenue. We will be hugely more dependent on oil than the UK currently is, in fact I don't even think Corporation Tax for all businesses in the whole of the UK even comes to 10% of the UK revenue. Therefore the performance and price for the oil isn't so crucial for the UK as a whole (taking into account the UK imports about 50% of its oil) but it will be far more important for Scotland where fluctuations in price will have a larger impact. These leaves us exposed to the big oil countries.

50% of the oil fields are owned by just three companies and even though Shell have said they will continue to drill in the high-risk waters, they have admitted that future reserves will come in smaller packages and that recovery will present technical problems. And Hugh, let's not forget the environmental risks to offshore drilling and what happens when things go terribly wrong.

Regarding the electricity, I've not heard or read that yet but from what you say it just sounds silly. Business is business and if Scotland can supply cheaper electricity than somewhere else than I have no doubt in my mind that the rUK will buy it. If we can further develop tidal power then this will put Scotland in a good position. Do you see the difference between us? I can happily accept that there are positive and negative aspects. I've also noticed many points previously posted that have been quietly and quickly ignored. SNP speciality lol




POAH said:
funny since it was gman that changed my post and I've not posted anything remotely abusive or childish yet it's my fault???????? you should work for the no campaign with spin
like that.
Click to expand...

I told you it wasn't me, honest... It was MI5.
 
What if your wrong about the oil what if revenues are less than the SNP claim, I realise that's inconceivable to the Yes camp but what are the alternatives?
Click to expand...

This is what I keep wondering. What exactly is the plan if the revenue isn't coming in. How much of the SNP's masterplan will fall flat on it's face?

How many people are being suduced by the words, and how much of it is actually achievable?

An example is Trident. There's very little spending on it now. It's bought and paid for, yet the SNP keep mentioning it as something they can recoup from not spending on it. Of course ignoring the extra cost there'll be of those employed directly and indirectly at the Naval base who loose their jobs. Not to mention the huge Ammunitions depot thats close by, that they wont need for the one or 2 Frigates they intend to have.
 
trident costs money for upkeep and it's replacement isn't free either. I'd rather my tax not go towards paying for some stupid weapon we don't need.

also this isn't a vote for the snp, they may not be the party in power. the yes campaign is made up of more than just the snp.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
What if your wrong about the oil what if revenues are less than the SNP claim, I realise that's inconceivable to the Yes camp but what are the alternatives?
Click to expand...

A lesson in Westminster economics, for every conceivable permutation of oil prices where you want them to look good you quote a ten year average, unless it's a good way to put down the pesky indy supporters then you quote just last years figures.

Oil is not the only thing Scotland has going for it, it's a bonus and if there was none at all Scotland could get by just fine, Steve you're falling into the BT trap, "oooh it's scary ooooh we cannea do it". Graham why would a catastrophe be any worse for an independent Scotland than for the UK?

A couple of those sources ran the same headline "Holyrood would need to cut deal on lower level of debt, or raise taxes, or cut spending to bridge gap left by falling oil revenues" Just what exactly do you think is going to happen here if we stay in the Union? here's a clue, spending cuts the like of which you've never seen before. Tax rises (probably more hidden taxes rather than outright tax hikes) to cover the cost of more incursions into countries that we should be staying clear of

Bernie Trident needs replacing pretty much now, spending on its replacement is expected to start from 2017 and will reach £100 billion! if estimates don't go up and when did they not go up? A hundred billion pounds??

Graham, sorry if I've missed some points, I've been so busy answering the same tired old previously debunked guff that I may have inadvertently passed over some genuine queries, if you have one that you think needs answering please post it again ;)

P.S. I'm an SNP voter until independence is achieved, I'm not the SNP just for the sake of clarity.
 
POAH said:
funny since it was gman that changed my post and I've not posted anything remotely abusive or childish yet it's my fault???????? you should work for the no campaign with spin
like that.
Click to expand...
:runaway:
 
trident costs money for upkeep and it's replacement isn't free either. I'd rather my tax not go towards paying for some stupid weapon we don't need.

also this isn't a vote for the snp, they may not be the party in power. the yes campaign is made up of more than just the snp.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you are voting on the basis of the SNP's policy document on Independence, it is that which mentions getting rid of Trident, and suggests that there's money there to be used on other things.

The problem is that isn't much, if anything. The upkeep isn't a huge amount in the scheme of things, and the replacement for Trident hasn't started. When you take into account that the Royal Navy moving out would mean a loss to the local area in terms of spending the likely result is that getting rid of trident is going to be a loss, not money saved.

Looks like you are a good example of what I keep saying, someone seduced by the idea, but has little idea of the reality.
 
Ignoring the facts Bernie, our share of the cost of Tridents replacement = £8.9billion at a minimum, spread over ~15 years. That's assuming the estimates are close, Trident cost five times as much as we were told it was going to.


/edited Steve to Bernie
 
Last edited:
EVERYTHING costs five times as much as we are told (trams, hutch for politicians, olympics.....)
 
Facts seem to be something ignored by the Yes side, not me.

Trident replacement has not been approved, and little spend has gone on it.
The spend is all assumption at the moment, as you don't know what that money will be. It may be we don't go for the same sort of deterrent, it may become SSGN, ie cruise missile launches from an Astute class. So, as I say, the budgets are based on assumptions and flawed starting points.
On the other hand, you are ignoring the loss to Scotland's economy if the Clyde Naval Base is closed. Leaving aside it's in a poor place for Defence, unless you are expecting the Irish to come a calling, even if you do use it as a Naval HQ for the 2 or 3 ships you are going to end up with the income isn't going to match the current.
So, you can't say it's a saving, you can't claim that there's no impact.

Lastly, the SNP, and it IS the SNP have sneaked this in the disarmament question with the referendum, it's their stated aim, so how is that more democratic than Westminster? I mean, if you want to be Independent, you have no option over Nucs, as I said, you seem to be being led by an ideal, and to hell with reality.

Lastly, I actually hope you do go independent. I think it will be good for the rest of us.
 
I do find it a little strange that it's only Scots who are allowed to vote, it is a union after all which inherently means more than one. Taking into account that all countries in the Union have contributed to the Union, then a split by any one country should be voted on by all.

I'm surprised Salmond didn't want to count the English vote also as I'm sure they are sick of our whining and would vote Yes lol
 
No-one said there would be no impact on Faslane but housing Scotlands west coast naval units is only part of Faslane's possible future. It's ideally placed to be the port serving the Firth of Clyde oil industry, over time the naval units will increase, we'll need fisheries protection, mine sweepers...

The subs that carry trident will need replacement soon and according to a bbc report a year ago they will take 17 years to complete at who knows what cost. There's even doubt that the replacement for trident will be sub based if it's not a Tory government in power so what happens to Faslane then? The port has a better future without Trident in an independent Scotland.
 
Graham since when did the other partner in a divorce (in this case partners since it's not just England) get a choice? We're looking for independence to get away from having decisions made for us by people with no interest in us.
 
It's not a marriage.
 
Bernie174 said:
Firstly, you are voting on the basis of the SNP's policy document on Independence, it is that which mentions getting rid of Trident, and suggests that there's money there to be used on other things.

The problem is that isn't much, if anything. The upkeep isn't a huge amount in the scheme of things, and the replacement for Trident hasn't started. When you take into account that the Royal Navy moving out would mean a loss to the local area in terms of spending the likely result is that getting rid of trident is going to be a loss, not money saved.

Looks like you are a good example of what I keep saying, someone seduced by the idea, but has little idea of the reality.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter who came up with the idea

figures from 1998 so god knows what it is now

The annual cost of Trident
Operating Trident submarines [1] £277 million
Nuclear Warhead programme [2] £410 million
Conventional forces [3] £308 million
Other costs [4] £ 60 million
Annual total £1055 million (£1 billion)

thats not chump change
 
Last edited:
And you have those numbers from where?

Try this for food for thought.

So is the cost of Trident less than 1.5% of our annual benefits bill as the Prime Minister said?

Benefits expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions for the financial year 2011/12 was £158.5 billion. That figure includes £74 billion of state pension but does not include Child Benefit which is dealt with by the taxman, who gave people £12 billion in 2011/12.

1.5% of that bill roughly totals £2.38 billion, which is roughly equal to but certainly not a lot more than the MoD’s cost projections.

It looks like the figures cited by the Prime Minister were pretty sound, although they’re not set in stone as the MoD is still in the process of reviewing Trident replacement.
Click to expand...

So it reality, not a huge amount.

The Scots '10%' as thats around the number constantly quoted would be, what? £230Million then? Not a great deal, certainly not going to keep people in deep fried mars bars.

So whats the cost in terms of lost revenue in the Clyde Naval base? Remembering the arms depot for conventional weapons would be going too, as the RN isn't going to want to leave it in the hands of a foreign Government.

Apparently there are 11,000 jobs dependent on the base, and it contributes £270 Million to the Scottish economy. So getting shot of Trident costs Scotland £40Million a year. Again, not huge but also not taking into account the benefits costs thereafter.

OK, so it becomes Scotlands only Navy Base. to support a couple of frigates? Combined crews, 300-400. Not much of a replacement. You don't need 11000 people to support that sort of Navy.

Thats just one part of the SNP's paper on Independence, how many more are going to cost the Scots far more than claimed?

In fact most of the ideas on defence are doubtful.

Lets look at ship building on the Clyde. At the moment there's 2 Aircraft carriers being built there. Are the RN going to order more from there? No of course not, so thats it. The reason why they only build warships there is they cost too much and take too much time for merchant ships. So thats the end of those jobs.
 
Last edited:
it can be spent on something else that actually matters which is the point.

loosing the subs won't be a big deal, the base will be used for something else that's already been discussed above. the jobs on the Clyde are in danger either the vote is yes or no.

the RN won't have a say in what is done with the arms depot as that's a government issue to trade on, some of the bullets have been paid for by Scottish money too remember.

independence can only be good for Scotland.

the only thing I worry about is science funding from the big agency's that would according to their current regs be unable to fund Scottish research
 
Last edited:
Bernie you're a great one for ignoring the stuff you don't want to see and massaging your info so that it makes your case look better, I can see why if you're taking anything David Cameron says as a model.

£230mil is more than the cost of setting up an independent Scotland! and the deep fried mars bars crack wasn't clever.

I'd be interested to know where you got the £270mil value to Scotland (is that annually?) and the 11,000 jobs is another Labour massive over estimate (but less than the 19000 one they've also tried). 6700 employed at Faslane, most of whom are military who would go with the subs and missiles to wherever they get sent. The MOD has said there's only 520 civilian jobs reliant on Trident there.
http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/...-reveals-just-520-faslane-jobs-depend-trident

There are peripheral jobs but not nearly as many as unionists would have you believe, as I said in my earlier post Faslane has a bright future in an independent Scotland but you go ahead and keep ignoring what I say.
 
Hopefully the Thames, park them up outside the Houses of Parliament and see how long it takes rUK MPs to vote to get rid altogether.
 
Steep said:
Hopefully the Thames, park them up outside the Houses of Parliament and see how long it takes rUK MPs to vote to get rid altogether.
Click to expand...

I was expecting a sensible answer. This debate is turning in a comedy comparable with the parallel situation. Less than 100 days left, then this tedium will be over. I think I will seek out a more informed and balanced forum on this subject else ware. That is all.
 
Hugh

I read the link you included, which is I'm sorry to say one of those smoke and mirrors things.

The Naval base exists to support the Trident and Astute Submarines, and to store conventional explosives.
Once Scotland asks for them to go, then there is no reason for the base, so everyone goes. You mention, as does the article Trident, maybe it's correct that 520 are directly employed by Trident missile tasks, but that's not the point is it, the whole base is going to close. Of the 11000 there are a huge number that don't work directly on the trident system, but are only there because the submarines are.

So everyone not directly employed by the RN, and some of the MOD civil Servants is unemployed. The trouble is CND asked the wrong question, they asked how many were employed directly on Trident as a missile. The answer they got is undoubtedly true, but isn't the number that will go if the site is closed.

Moving on, the £270 million came from a local (to CNB) web site, but doesn't surprise me. Trouble is with people who've never had anything to do with the forces, is that you have no idea how everything works round the edges of it. So, not everyone that gets posted to CNB stays behind the wire, in fact like most Military stations, almost no one does. They get paid, and that money gets spent in the local area in the main. Families shop in the local area, people drink in the local pubs. Cars are bought, and sold. Provisions for ships are often sourced locally, as is food for on shore Messes. People live in their own, and rented accommodation in the area, and pay Council tax.
Submariners on Trident spend months at sea, with nothing to spend money on. When they get back a lot of that flows into the local area.
Businesses grow up around Military bases and are dependent upon them, thats all Military Bases, not just CNB. The base goes, they go, more loss to the local economy.

Anticipating your 'oh, well the Scottish Navy will be based there!' line, the SNP say that it will consist of a couple of Frigates. your navy is going to be less than 1000 people all in. Probably a lot less. That leaves a huge black hole in the economy, which is currently the biggest single site employer in Scotland.

Read what's written, and you'll see that what Cameron said was cross checked against the reality. For once for a Politician he's told the truth.

So thats just one example of what I have been trying to say to you. The SNP are selling you a dream, if they have misled once, how many more times have they done so? Ok, you are never going to accept that, but there are seemingly a number of Scots that will fall for it, and once this vote is over they have to live with that. Once they start to find out they have been led up the garden path it's too late, hence why I think you should have negotiated first and then voted.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I was expecting a sensible answer. This debate is turning in a comedy comparable with the parallel situation. Less than 100 days left, then this tedium will be over. I think I will seek out a more informed and balanced forum on this subject else ware. That is all.
Click to expand...

"Less than 100 days left, then this tedium will be over....etc"

:agree:
 
Bernie, you've once again ignored everything but the point you want to make.

Trident and the subs removal does not mean the closure of the base unless the MOD has behaved true to form and polluted the waters so badly it has to be closed. Scotland will need more than a couple ( I see what you did there ) of frigates.

There's OIL in them thar waters! for the third time and Faslane is the ideal base for supporting that.

If Scotland votes no and Trident stays its only safe as long as there's a Conservative government, the other WM parties favour other solutions. What happens to Faslane if the sub based Trident is not replaced?

Trident needs replacing at high cost, the submarines that carry trident needs replacing at high cost, far higher than any sane person should be willing to pay.

Thanks for your assumption that I know nothing about forces life, I was brought up on RAF bases all over Europe. I've lived my life within spitting distance of two Army bases and two RAF bases, one thing I can tell you with certainty is that forces personel and their families do not have money to throw around. So your point that submariners having spent months at sea are going to rush off to spend their hard earned cash at the local Tesco is ludicrous. That's if they even live in the area, most of the military personel at Faslane commute and spend very little cash locally. We've already had discussions about the state of Helensburgh with all it's 'military money' being spent elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
I was expecting a sensible answer. This debate is turning in a comedy comparable with the parallel situation. Less than 100 days left, then this tedium will be over. I think I will seek out a more informed and balanced forum on this subject else ware. That is all.
Click to expand...

Nick, no point my answering this really since you've moved on to a more informed and balanced forum but I have to say I agree with poah here. I'd prefer it if they were scrapped altogether but as long as it's away from Scotland it's not going to be any of my business where.
 
I hope Scotland gets independence because it would mean Labour loses 27MPs and keeps the two Eds out. Political, sorry.
 
What are the Sporting implications for an independent Scotland and what will happen to the Royal connection with Scotland and their annual visits there, property etc., - (not that these concern me) - will Scottish residents also not be part of the annual UK "honours" system and will the NHS and similar just be split and new bodies formed. Will Scots still be allowed to join the UK armed forces etc. and how will the military side of things work. Will the Scots have their own Passports or identity cards?

Don't get me wrong I am happy for Scotland to become independent if that is the genuine wish of it's people and as an Englishman I would be happy not to see Scottish MP's at Westminster.
 
Bill, we're keeping the Germans :(
I dare say we'll have our own honours system, hopefully not as open to nepotism as the current one.
NHS is already seperate and always has been (all four countries have their own)
I expect currently serving members will be allowed to continue on post but no idea if rUK will be open to Scots joining, maybe they will allow it but at Gurkha pay rates ;)
Scots passports, yes though anyone already holding a UK one will be allowed to keep it along with UK citizenship if they wish.

Gerry, unfortunately the number of Scots labour MPs hasn't made a difference to a WM election in a very long time, with or without them we'd have had the same government. As a special compensation, we would be willing to allow you to have George Galloway though, in fact I suspect we might even be persuaded to keep Trident to make sure you took him!
 
P.S. re sport, we'd still lose.
 
Steep said:
Bill, we're keeping the Germans :(
I dare say we'll have our own honours system, hopefully not as open to nepotism as the current one.
NHS is already seperate and always has been (all four countries have their own)
I expect currently serving members will be allowed to continue on post but no idea if rUK will be open to Scots joining, maybe they will allow it but at Gurkha pay rates ;)
Scots passports, yes though anyone already holding a UK one will be allowed to keep it along with UK citizenship if they wish.

Gerry, unfortunately the number of Scots labour MPs hasn't made a difference to a WM election in a very long time, with or without them we'd have had the same government. As a special compensation, we would be willing to allow you to have George Galloway though, in fact I suspect we might even be persuaded to keep Trident to make sure you took him!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've got most of the important points covered - so good luck with your vote, presumably you are going to have your own registration number for motor vehicles and what are you going to replace the GB sticker with?

(PS - just be careful that you don't spend more than 90 days a year in GB otherwise you may be liable for UK tax)
 
Last edited:
Good thinking on the 90days thing!

We've always had SCO car stickers so nothing to worry about there.

Registration numbers? Another good one, come to think of it I'm getting my claim for SCO1 in now!
 
Better yet I'll have SCOTT 1 E

I can put it on a Beamer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top