An Independent Scotland?

Hi All
Steep I don't know where you got your facts on trade but you might want to check them again:whistle:. I suggest others do as well and not just go by what me and Steep are submitting.;) Steep if you decided to become an MP I would vote for you 100% the reason why is I would love to subject all the other MP's to what they subject us too :D
Steeps please don't take it as a personal attack it isn't. All I wish is both sides would put accurate information up so the voter could make an informed choice and could see what consequences of a yes or no votes would have on them and possibly their jobs. There is a lot of talk of after the Vote we will trade more with other countries my question is what has stopped you before no one was tying your hands. Some people will vote with their hearts and some will vote with their Minds but the facts shouldn't be distorted so people base their judgement on correct facts because this is about their lives and their children's life's.
Steeps I think you would agree with me and say no one really knows what 2 years will bring we don't have a crystal ball. I just think we are stronger together than apart :naughty: what would we do without your Football, Rugby and Cricket sides.;)
 
Last edited:
And don't forget tennis :)
 
Cat Boyd speaking about why she thinks Yes is the way.

 
An interesting forecast and so far the best I can find to a proper forecast for an Independent Scotland (see as nobody else has come up with what I asked about). I'm amazed that something more detailed and comprehensive isn't available, or is available but so hard to find. If a newsagent wanted to expand and open another shop, chances are they'd need to submit a decent 5 year forecast to the bank, yet with an entire country wanting to go it alone...

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf


I've already seen this: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451336.pdf and it's rubbish.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
An interesting forecast and so far the best I can find to a proper forecast for an Independent Scotland (see as nobody else has come up with what I asked about). I'm amazed that something more detailed and comprehensive isn't available, or is available but so hard to find. If a newsagent wanted to expand and open another shop, chances are they'd need to submit a decent 5 year forecast to the bank, yet with an entire country wanting to go it alone...

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf


I've already seen this: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451336.pdf and it's rubbish.
Click to expand...


You didn't really expect much more from the likes of Alex Salmond, did you?
 
Interestingly, some former top banana from the Eu is saying that Scotland piggy backing on the Pound would be incompatible with it being in the EU.

Clearly he is a right wing plant and wrong, because Alex has already said, with supporting evidence, ie Alex saying it, that its all no problem. Alex must be right, cause the evidence of Alex saying it is all that needs to happen.

Will they all live happily ever after?
 
Why would it be incompatible? And is that incompatible or is it legally not allowed? I thought there were quite a few linked currencies and EU members. I don't think Salmond is wrong on that one.
 
Bernie174 said:
Interestingly, some former top banana from the Eu is saying that Scotland piggy backing on the Pound would be incompatible with it being in the EU.

Clearly he is a right wing plant and wrong, because Alex has already said, with supporting evidence, ie Alex saying it, that its all no problem. Alex must be right, cause the evidence of Alex saying it is all that needs to happen.

Will they all live happily ever after?
Click to expand...

Haven't seen that but it may have something to do with requiring your own central bank. Presumably there would be no need for one if we were piggy backing on Sterling. After all what would it do. It certainly couldn't act in a way that is required of entry to the EU/Euro.

In addition to meeting the economic convergence criteria, a euro-area candidate country must make changes to national laws and rules, notably governing its national central bank and other monetary issues, in order to make them compatible with the Treaty. In particular, national central banks must be independent, such that the monetary policy decided by the European Central Bank is also independent.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Regards...
 
Finste said:
In addition to meeting the economic convergence criteria, a euro-area candidate country must...
Click to expand...
For the zillionth time, none of that stuff applies because Scotland isn't a euro-area candidate country. And nobody knows exactly what stuff would apply because there is no precedent for Scotland's potential position.
 
Last edited:
Haven't seen that but it may have something to do with requiring your own central bank. Presumably there would be no need for one if we were piggy backing on Sterling. After all what would it do. It certainly couldn't act in a way that is required of entry to the EU/Euro.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure thats the reason for it. He was as I recall an expert on the EU constitution, so I would put money on him knowing a bit more than most on the subject.
Even if it's just opinion, it shows that there isn't the certainty that the SNP would have everyone believe it is. Whatever side you support, you have to accept that there are numerous experts from both sides who have opposing views. Now they can't all be right, and they can't all be wrong.
I don't doubt Scotland will get into the EU one way or another, its the terms of that that I think are the issue. I can't see those being as generous as the current UK agreements on membership.
 
Bernie174 said:
I don't doubt Scotland will get into the EU one way or another, its the terms of that that I think are the issue. I can't see those being as generous as the current UK agreements on membership.
Click to expand...
But as you say, nobody knows anything so at the moment it all comes down to each person's prejudices and opinions.

I think there is a definite tendency for glass-half-empty people to be in the No camp and for glass-half-full people to be in the Yes camp. Perhaps that's inevitable.
 
Steep said:
View attachment 19862
Click to expand...
What is the point of posting that without the context around it. Social injustice, sure about what? That the magic money tree doesn't really exist? That the Tories and rich are bad? I thought the yes camp told us several times that it isn't about that either, yet somehow it seems to constantly come back to that.
 
On the contrary, I think that is exactly what is being discussed.

We are told the power lies with the people, and that once every so often we nominate our representatives and they trot off to whichever parliament and wield our power, on our behalf. So far, so Hans Christian Anderson. Meanwhile in the real world elections happen, and those elected are told what to do by the party, the state, the level above them, whatever. As part of the EU the people of Scotland have no voice. As part of the UK, also no voice. The point then is to call politics BACK, such that the power that the people can wield is sufficient to actually influence political outcomes in the will of the people. Managing Scotland independently is a step toward that. That is realpolitik, and is a large part of what this vote is about for me. These days we're allowed to vote on X-Factor or the like, but the rest of the time you're expected to shut up and let the state get on with whatever it wants. In recent years we've seen mass protests ignored, political parties going to court to argue election manifestos are non-binding, politicians fighting FOR the right to lie in parliament (defeating a bill that would make it an offence to lie in parliament) - at some point we (*cough* the people who hold the power *cough*) need to stop it. This just seems as good a time and way as any.
Click to expand...

But it's not being discussed at all. Scots Parliament, Westminster Parliament, it makes no real difference, politicians will still act like politicians and lie, as they are on Independence, not allow 'power to the people', as they wont after the referendum.
Your voice, of course you have one in the UK. If your local MP chooses to not exercise that voice on your behalf, don't vote for him. People miss the point on MP's, you vote for your individual one to represent your interests. You don't vote for a party as such. It's only politicians themselves who have made it a party issue.
Even if you didn't vote for your MP, they are still supposed to be duty bound to represent your views. Some do, most don't. But to be fair, most people don't go and talk to their MP. I didn't vote for mine, but he has represented me to the CSA, and I one as a result, I still wouldn't vote for him though!
You say Scotland doesn't get have a voice, of course it does! For example, Scots shipyards are building the UK's aircraft carriers, at a cost to jobs in Portsmouth. You must have felt so hard done by over that!
I'm sorry, but the Scots seem to love moaning about what they 'don't get', yet they get a great deal. Scotland mostly voted Labour from 1997, and you had a labour Government. Did the South of England go stamping about demanding independence for Wessex? Of course not. Did the South run round crying when Shipbuilding stopped in Hampshire, in preference to Scotland? No.
 
If Scotland becomes independent. Could The rest of the UK then finally remain on BST?
 
dejongj said:
What is the point of posting that without the context around it. Social injustice, sure about what? That the magic money tree doesn't really exist? That the Tories and rich are bad? I thought the yes camp told us several times that it isn't about that either, yet somehow it seems to constantly come back to that.
Click to expand...

It's a quote from last nights TV debate on STV.

Other great moments were, an audience member said iScotland couldn't defend itself without nukes. Patrick Harvey said "from whom?" and he replied "terrorists".
After which Ruth Davidson said "we needed to stay in the Union because Russia could invade us like they have the Ukraine and if Ukraine still had nukes Russia would never do it".
A doctor from the audience saying (re NHS privatisation) "If you want to be going to hospital in a Tesco van in 5 years, just vote no"
 
Just wondering, but what happens with the Crown Estates in Scotland (not the private estates)? Do they remain under the ownership of the English Crown?
 
A doctor from the audience saying (re NHS privatisation) "If you want to be going to hospital in a Tesco van in 5 years, just vote no"
Click to expand...


The NHS in Scotland is under the Scottish Parliaments control, not the UK's. So how will it make any difference (even if the statement had any validity for the entire UK!) voting yes or no?
Even ignoring the silly idea that the NHS would go in the rest of the UK, how would that happen in Scotland?
Silly scare mongering, as much as the previous comment! Although you're quoting it to suit your purposes, as I said, reality and the SNP, 2 things that wont ever meet.
 
Steep said:
It's a quote from last nights TV debate on STV.

Other great moments were, an audience member said iScotland couldn't defend itself without nukes. Patrick Harvey said "from whom?" and he replied "terrorists".
After which Ruth Davidson said "we needed to stay in the Union because Russia could invade us like they have the Ukraine and if Ukraine still had nukes Russia would never do it".
A doctor from the audience saying (re NHS privatisation) "If you want to be going to hospital in a Tesco van in 5 years, just vote no"
Click to expand...
So those who seen it may understand the context, yet already knew the quote. And those who did not see it still don't know the context.

What is the point? It really seem no actual discussion is desired.
 
Bernie174 said:
The NHS in Scotland is under the Scottish Parliaments control, not the UK's. So how will it make any difference (even if the statement had any validity for the entire UK!) voting yes or no?
Even ignoring the silly idea that the NHS would go in the rest of the UK, how would that happen in Scotland?
Silly scare mongering, as much as the previous comment! Although you're quoting it to suit your purposes, as I said, reality and the SNP, 2 things that wont ever meet.
Click to expand...

The NHS is totally under the Scottish governments control but it's paid for out of the block grant and when a cut is made down south that cut affects what comes to Scotland via the Barnet formula.
Ignore what you want, the Tories are privatising the NHS in England right now bit by bit, down in England Labour! are marching to save the NHS from privatisation, yet up here we're told by Labour it's all rubbish. What happens to the NHS in England has a direct knock on effect on our NHS because when their funding is cut Scotland's funding is cut and there comes a point when you can no longer keep taking money away from other services to support it.
 
I thought Labour up in Scotland were against Independence because they need the Labour seats up here to help them fight the Tories down south. If Scotland goes independent then no more Scottish Labour seats so doesn't that make them weaker in Westminster?
 
I agree there's cost cutting to be made in both NHS's. It's a bottomless pit which is out of control. That does not mean it's going to be privatised though.
I can remember in 1978, Labour saying it the NHS would be privatised if the Conservatives got in, after years of Tory rule it was no more private than it was before they were elected.
It's no more private now than it was when labour got in nor is it ever likely to be.
I understand that the Unions, and apparently the SNP love to do the scare stories on the subject, but come on, if you're going to use something, make sure there's something truthful in it!
 
It doesn't help that it's overwhelmed, most likely from huge immigration. But then if England does privatise it and Scotland don't but Salmond wants Scotland to be part of the EU with open borders plus wants to encourage immigration then won't people just start diverting from the private NHS in England to the "free" NHS in Scotland and we'll end up with the same quality and expense problem?
 
dejongj said:
If Scotland becomes independent. Could The rest of the UK then finally remain on BST?
Click to expand...
Funny enough I was saying, suggesting just that last night.
Either BST or GMT. (I'm sure there are pluses and minus to both) But Just leave the piggin clocks alone!
(on the strength of that alone I'd vote yes if I had the chance ;) )
 
Has any body bothered to have a look at the Army ,Navy and Air force if there is an Yes vote it looks like this alone could be a nightmare in sorting out. The more I read about it the more I thought thank god I am not Scottish and in the services it is so integrated I don't know how the hell it could be sorted out.
The best way if there was a yes vote would possibly be a shared Armed forces which I can't see happening for a minute though. Or Would a 15 year change over period allowing it to be slowly altered so none of our brave servicemen and women are affected I would be interested to hear other peoples point of view on this.
Regards
Richard
P.s :naughty: what's the chances in the next 25 years we don't see a move to Nuclear powered cruise liners and aircraft sort of makes you think trident wouldn't be such an issue then would it :runaway::exit:
 
There would be no effect on Scottish servicemen currently serving unless they choose to transfer. The UK armed forces are very international in their make up, Listening to a guy the other day who served with a Jamaican Corporal and a Fijian Sergeant under a South African officer.
There could be problems for rUK forces filling the gaps if large numbers of Scots service personnel choose to move but there won't be that many places to begin with, it's an important item but not top of the list.
No there couldn't be a shared force, UKs policy on foreign intervention is at odds with what the iScotland policy would be.
 
Steep said:
No there couldn't be a shared force, UKs policy on foreign intervention is at odds with what the iScotland policy would be.
Click to expand...
I can accept that, no problem.

But I'm not clear quite what you are saying, but should there be a yes vote,
is it the fact that there are enough Scottish regiments based in Scotland, to defend the country should the unthinkable happen,
or are you expecting all UK based Scottish service men (and regiments) to be pulled out of the then "existing UK"
to return to their home land?

(Oh and should we Brits consider rebuilding Vallum Aelium ?)
 
None of the above Cobra and bear in mind I'm not the person responsible, just sharing my opinion based on what I've heard.

The UK army as it stands has many nationalities so there should be no problem with Scots service personnel carrying on as they are (assuming there are no cuts because of the drop in tax income from iScotland). Scots Gov would create a Scottish Defence Force, initially with just a few thousand rising to 15,000 in 10? years or so. There will be serving Scots who want to transfer across and probably recently redundant Scots who'd want to join up, certainly enough to raise the minimum force we'd want to begin with.

It's been said before that it would be part of the plan to recreate the lost regiments, doing that on the current UK model would create a huge army that would be impossible to keep so as far as I know the plan is to have smaller specialist units within the SDF carrying on the old regimental names. The SDF is not intended to be a carbon copy of UK forces since the role 'we' see for them would not be the same.
 
Here's an excellent article in the New Statesman, clarifying some of the reasons why the referendum is taking place and explaining why Englandshire doesn't get it but needs to in terms of their own political future. It's quite long but a good read.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...w-bad-westminster-its-about-how-good-holyrood

I point your attention, those of you who keep banging on about currency and isolationism to this paragraph which I think sums it up nicely.

"To say Scotland will become more isolated by having its own seat at the international table holds little sway in Scotland. To threaten that a seat at the table will be refused or taken away serves only to strengthen Scottish resolve and breeds mistrust for any messages such protagonists want to convey. The same sentiment it seems is felt on the issue of the currency – with many Scots showing in polls they think the Westminster pact on a big NO to currency union is a big bluff."
 
Steep said:
There could be problems for rUK forces filling the gaps if large numbers of Scots service personnel choose to move but there won't be that many places to begin with, it's an important item but not top of the list.
Click to expand...

Don't think that would happen really. I know a few people in the forces and all the Scottish amongst them are very proudly British and are against independence. The ones I've spoken to have no intention of leaving the British army.

I would have thought defence would be quite high on the list of priorities to be honest. Scotland would have some assets worth defending.
 
Steep said:
Scots Gov would create a Scottish Defence Force, initially with just a few thousand rising to 15,000 in 10? years or so. There will be serving Scots who want to transfer across and probably recently redundant Scots who'd want to join up, certainly enough to raise the minimum force we'd want to begin with.
Click to expand...
Ah Ok I get it, (I think)
So they would start afresh by the sounds of it.
But anyone wishing to transfer could.
That assumes of course the "armed forces" would allow such transfers,
to what would effectively now be a foreign country / state or whatever

No worries just curious thats all :)
 
That's a good point Cobra, how the MoD would react to loads of Scots wanting to leave is an unknown although going back to my point about budget reductions and possible redundancies I can see a work around.
 
PaulF said:
Don't think that would happen really. I know a few people in the forces and all the Scottish amongst them are very proudly British and are against independence. The ones I've spoken to have no intention of leaving the British army.

I would have thought defence would be quite high on the list of priorities to be honest. Scotland would have some assets worth defending.
Click to expand...

There's a 2 hour long Youtube video of Scots veterans and ex forces talking about why they are pro indy, not least of the arguments is the one that they are/were sick of being sent to fight illegal wars while being lied to by their political masters.

We keep coming to that thing about Scotland needing to defend itself, and I ask you (again), from whom? In ten years we'll have a decent sized SDF capable of fulfilling the roles Scotland dictates and contributing to NATO properly, for that ten years while we build up out forces, exactly who is going to try and invade us? 21st century conflicts are not about mass wars (unless you have a load of oil the yanks want...erm...oops!) The real risk to security now comes from terrorism and most of us feel the best way to cut that risk is not to kill shedloads of people who just want to live their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top