An Independent Scotland?

lost said:
The biggest hurdle for the yes vote I believe is Alex Salmond and his attitude everything is going to be fine we will get everything we want. Sorry to say it doesn't wash. If he had come out and pointed out where there might be issues and the way you would deal with them and been totally honest I believe the yes vote would be well in front because people would have deemed him a honest politician ( there's not many of them about) not trying to fudge the figures to suit his own ends which is how it comes across to me. It's the same with the better together campaign in my mind, would I employ either group not a chance.
The problem for the people of Scotland is just who is telling the truth of what will happen the reality is no one can tell you. Are more Jobs going to suddenly spring up is the NHS going to find a magic wallet are the old going to suddenly get younger because the fountain of youth is discovered in Glasgow the harsh reality is no the rich will carry on getting richer the politician's will still be warming their backsides on their chairs and like always the common man will pick up the pieces if you don't believe me look back at history and you will see for yourself there is no Utopia. look how many leaders over the years have promised this. The question I would ask myself is will me or my children end up worse off than I am now or not.
;) Vote No and you will never Know
:naughty:Vote Yes and you could spend the rest of your life wishing you could turn back time.
:thinking: The choice is yours not ours all I hope is you don't live to regret it just maybe you could be the first country in history to build a Utopia that lasts :whistle:
Click to expand...

With all respest that's a perfect example of main stream media brainwashing.

A.S. is a politician, the Scots are well aware of what a politician is, and that he's no different but he still gets good approval ratings. Nobody up here in the yes camp ever mentions the word utopia, don't assume that we're all the blinkered idiots that msm make us out to be
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
Fair enough.

Unsure of your last sentence though. Whilst I do agree that both sides will work in good faith, I'm not sure we will all get the best deal.
Click to expand...

We'll get the best deal we can then. :)
 
big soft moose said:
but as I said before if Scotland were to follow that line , they would also find that legally none of the assets of the government are their's either, because they are all owned by HMG , and indeed even the oil agreements were signed between the oil companies and HMG (and most of the fields aren't in territorial waters) - so fine you can't default on a debt that isn't yours, but you can't also legally expect any assets that aren't "yours" either.

So Scotland could indeed walk away free and clear - to an impoverished future and swinging tax rises to pay for the basic assets necessary to run a state - if they want to take that route I suspect HMG would be delighted

of course in the real word once the political posturing is done Salmond wouldn't be so stupid, and a sensible break up plan would be agreed with both debt and assets being transferred in proportion
Click to expand...

Snipping on the phablet is hard so to the last sentence, yes.
 
StewartR said:
Something that's just occurred to me. If the referendum vote is Yes, there is a proposed timetable of something like 18 months to sort out the details before a target independence date in March 2016. But almost exactly half way through that period, there will be a UK general election. What happens if Labour get in? They might take a very different line on some of the substantive issues...
Click to expand...

I would hope that all political sides would have a spot on the negotiating team but yes I suppose their different attitude might lead to different priorities.
 
Last edited:
Neither, I try to correct misconceptions where I see them, answer genuine questions where I can
Click to expand...

If that were true, why do you ignore anything that shows the SNP & Yes side to being those doing the misleading?
If you addresed those, you wouldn't get the sniping. At the moment, you seem like a robotic mouthpiece for the SNP. You aren't correcting, you are just spouting dogma, and roll out the same dishonest answers Alex and Co spout, claiming everything that contradicts that is untrue.
It simply isn't.
Anyone who's an expert in any field is ignored, a professional soldier's comments that your plans for the Scots forces and amateurish being a good example.

It's no wonder that most of us with our eyes open can see the Scots signing away their state to a lemon. You might be happy to live in your own little world, where everything is good, but how about the Scots that have been seduced by the fiction?
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Anyone who's an expert in any field is ignored, a professional soldier's comments that your plans for the Scots forces and amateurish being a good example.
Click to expand...


I knew that's what's been eating at you. Your professional soldier wrote a report citing unsubstantiated and tampered evidence garnered from the Better Together website. The report was published by the extreme right wing pressure group who commissioned it because it suited their purpose not because it was good work well done.
 
I know some of you have been doubting my devotion to the cause ;) so to counter that and to clear up any doubt or uncertainty...

View attachment 20276

My duty done :)
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
If that were true, why do you ignore anything that shows the SNP & Yes side to being those doing the misleading?
If you addresed those, you wouldn't get the sniping. At the moment, you seem like a robotic mouthpiece for the SNP. You aren't correcting, you are just spouting dogma, and roll out the same dishonest answers Alex and Co spout, claiming everything that contradicts that is untrue.
It simply isn't.
Anyone who's an expert in any field is ignored, a professional soldier's comments that your plans for the Scots forces and amateurish being a good example.

It's no wonder that most of us with our eyes open can see the Scots signing away their state to a lemon. You might be happy to live in your own little world, where everything is good, but how about the Scots that have been seduced by the fiction?
Click to expand...

Steep said:

I knew that's what's been eating at you. Your professional soldier wrote a report citing unsubstantiated and tampered evidence garnered from the Better Together website. The report was published by the extreme right wing pressure group who commissioned it because it suited their purpose not because it was good work well done.
Click to expand...

And so the cycle continues :sleep:
 
PaulF said:
And so the cycle continues :sleep:
Click to expand...

You're right of course, but it's not my fault others can't see that my way is the right way :)
 
Steep said:
I know some of you have been doubting my devotion to the cause ;)
Click to expand...
Oh I can't believe that there is anyone left on TP, Huge, that doubted which "side" you were on :D

Steep said:
You're right of course, but it's not my fault others can't see that my way is the right way :)
Click to expand...
You're a persistent little b****r I'll give you that :thumbs:
But of course there are people out there, just as persistent as you on the "no side"
And there are those that (most likely) can't be arsed to vote.

I truly wonder which side apathy will favour.
We'll know soon enough of course. :)
 
Steep said:
It is my belief that if there is a yes vote there will be negotiations in good faith, of course both sides will try to get the best deal for them but in the end what we'll all get is the best deal for everyone.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, there is no best deal for everyone - everyone loses, but you're all too blinkered by this jealousy and hated of anything English.
Think you're the only place that get rules made in London, for Londoners affecting them? Try living in the south west. The only difference is we don't bleat about it constantly like a spoilt child.

Short term this is going to affect all the UK as the markets react. As the pound falls, it'll push up prices and jeopardise the rather flakey recovery we are having. For the Scots, they'll be uncertainty in the markets, they're spending is greater than their tax revenue and they'll be forced to borrow, probably not at an advantageous rate. They'll try to push that onto the financial institutions (that'll affect pensions) or sell their debt. I can forsee again the Bank of England owning Scottish debt as no-one else will take it on. However this will just lead to additional burdons as the debt repayment wiull no doubt be high. Instead of a managed debt the rest of the UK will have a neighbour with Spiralling debt.

Medium term, I doubt many large institutions will be happy to have this burden put upon them, because it will have to lead to increased taxation. It won't take much for them to be persuaded to move and so the spiral downwards continue.

Long term the Scots cannot continue this spending experiment and it'll just end up like Greece. The rest of the UK will recover slowly but it'll affect us all for years.

But hey - you carry on with your Rose Tinted glasses. Of course you'll be allowed to keep UK defence assets, not take on the debt that your bank ran up through greed, be entitled to 10% of all the contents of museums and all the other b******t ideas that have been touted.

Sorry but it's like two parents having a row but staying together for the benefit of the children. You might not like it but together is much better together and working at it, than trying to split the record collection.
 
Can I have the Pink Floyd bootlegs, please?
 
Byker28i said:
but you're all too blinkered by this jealousy and hated of anything English.
Click to expand...


Simply wrong, if you knew anything at all about what is going on up here you would know this, but perhaps you do know it and just prefer to spread lies, it's not the first time you've done it on this thread.
 
No Hugh, I'm not.
Although that article was contributed to by similarly qualified people.

No, what I am talking about was something you linked to, but didn't read, when you trumpeted that Scotland (in spite of not meeting the entry criteria) would just wander into NATO.
Go back and read it all, you'll find the officer concerned comments there.

But again, you miss the point, which does your cause no justice. It's clear that the SNP, as well as the No campaign are misleading the Scots. You say you are here to correc t, so why don't you correct the SNP's dishonesty?
 
Bernie174 said:
No Hugh, I'm not.
Although that article was contributed to by similarly qualified people.

No, what I am talking about was something you linked to, but didn't read, when you trumpeted that Scotland (in spite of not meeting the entry criteria) would just wander into NATO.
Go back and read it all, you'll find the officer concerned comments there.

But again, you miss the point, which does your cause no justice. It's clear that the SNP, as well as the No campaign are misleading the Scots. You say you are here to correc t, so why don't you correct the SNP's dishonesty?
Click to expand...

Good of you to acknowledge that the No campaign are misleading the Scots.

Scotland will more than meet the criteria for NATO membership, it's just that you won't accept that a lack of nukes and a massive naval fleet are not blocks to membership, iScotland will have more capability than some existing countries. When anyone points out that these other member countries have little or no armed forces of their own and bring nothing to the organisation other than geographical position 'you' ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument.

My point about the report is that if you base even one element on flawed data then the rest of the report is worthless, the only way to save it is to go back and do it again properly and honestly.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:

Simply wrong, if you knew anything at all about what is going on up here you would know this, but perhaps you do know it and just prefer to spread lies, it's not the first time you've done it on this thread.
Click to expand...

Saw an interview with an old Scottish lady on the TV,she was from the Highland,she said "That the Scottish people have very large chip on their shoulder,and they like to blame the English"

She didn't say which way she was voting :)
 
Steep said:

Simply wrong, if you knew anything at all about what is going on up here you would know this, but perhaps you do know it and just prefer to spread lies, it's not the first time you've done it on this thread.
Click to expand...

So in this discussion I spread lies whilst every thing you say is gospel truth?
Interesting.
 
Steep said:

Simply wrong, if you knew anything at all about what is going on up here you would know this, but perhaps you do know it and just prefer to spread lies, it's not the first time you've done it on this thread.
Click to expand...
I live up here, literally up the road from you, and see that exact attitude all too frequently. I'm quite ashamed at some of the behaviour, on both sides in fairness, but particularly the Yes campaigners
 
I think someone on the green team should be changing someones custom title from "Nutcrack Rapids" to "Mini Wee Eck" ;).
 
My point about the report is that one element on flawed data then the rest of the report is worthless, the only way to save it is to go back and do it again properly and honestly.
Click to expand...

Correct, except you've not produced anything that shows it to be flawed. You don't intend to spend the correct amount on defence, so you don't meet the criteria to join NATO.

The same point obviously applies to the White paper from the SNP. So we can presume, as it is full of flaws, you now acknowledge that is is worthless? Remember you words above Hugh...

if you base even one element on flawed data then the rest of the report is worthless
Click to expand...


You are again opting to not answer the point I asked though. Avoiding the question or point may well work for Salmond & Co, not for you. Acquiescence by silence is just that.
So, my point was, as I said, nothing to do with the report on Scotland's defence plans, it was that a professional soldier described them as amateurish. So given that expert opinion, do you accept that is the case, you are after all here to correct misinformation, so you say, and for the sake of balance and proof of your words, it's only right and proper you do so.
 
Bernie174 said:
You don't intend to spend the correct amount on defence, so you don't meet the criteria to join NATO.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what is the "correct" amount of defence spending which is required for NATO membership? I wasn't aware that there is an actual numerical requirement, but I'd be happy to be corrected.
 
I thought they wanted at least 2% of GDP but it's more of a request than a demand.
 
I think that only 4 countries contribute 2% of their GDP ….. the UK being one of them.

Before the latest set of "crises" the UK was planning to reduce that 2% (slightly)

how the 2% is measured is quite wide
 
Last edited:
I'm going from memory of very recent news where America wasn't happy that not enough countries in NATO were achieving the desired 2% of GDP. I would take this as something they'd like but not necessarily a requirement otherwise they'd be kicking most of the countries out. Besides, I would presume that having all these geographic locations would provide additional strategic value that may be more valuable to them than just their actual defence spend and therefore not making a big deal of it.
 
% of GDP is an odd way to measure it , because 2% of americas GDP is a lot more than 2% of ours - and 2% of ours is similarly a sight more than 2% of say Hungary's (when did we admit Hungary to Nato btw ? - thats got be asking for problems with Russia )

Thing about strategic location is tthat you don't actually have to be a NATO member to wind up with a nato base on your teritory - as i mentioned before Iceland is alledgedly neutral , but they've got ba dirty great Nato airfield at Keflavik , and a big Sosus base
 
Last edited:
What the NATO leaders agreed this week was an increase to 2%.
However, thats for Countries already inside the organisation.
Scotland does not exist as a separate state, and wont for at least 18 months. If it then exists, it needs to have a spend of 2%. The SNP wont be spending that, they'll be luck if they have a anything more than a small coastguard, let alone defence forces. Their white paper takes no account of manning, it assumes that they'll take over the Scots regiments. But, you can't transfer someone against their will from the British Army, it's a breach of contract. As far as the Navy & Air Force are concerned they have no maintenance tail, no training system and no chance of having the right mix of people to make it work. No command and control either.
In terms of technology, the US is a bit particular about transfer of certain bits and bobs to all and sundry, thats no issue to the UK, but Scotland doesn't have that trust.

Then there's the problem of nuclear weapons. as Hugh has said, it'll be written into the Scots constitution that they can't be in Scots territory, and the US decline to answer questions about those weapons, it sort of screws any form of co-operation which is one of the points about the organisation.

Worse than that, Hugh says that Scotland wont be involved in these little wars. Big problem with that one, Afghanistan was a NATO operation after an attack on the US. If Scotland cannot commit to that it can't be involved in NATO.
The reality is as Hugh says, there's flaws in the white paper, therefore it can't be trusted as a document, which is why he's avoiding answering any deep questions.

The Solider I mentioned was right, the SNP have just cherry picked what they think they want in terms of kit. They have not taken into account anything else, so, yes it's distinctly amateur.
 
Hypothetically what would happen if we gave the scots independence, and then a few years down the line invaded and conquered them by force of arms ? (which wouldnt be difficult given that their armed forces will be a complete joke and we'd have america /nato on our side)

course most people will say pah that will never happen - they probably said that in ukraine when they were given independence from the USSR too
 
big soft moose said:
Hypothetically what would happen if we gave the scots independence, and then a few years down the line invaded and conquered them by force of arms ?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't happen, we (you) are
far to f*****g polite
Click to expand...
As a polish friend stated, during a conversation, about something totally unrelated ;)
 
big soft moose said:
Hypothetically what would happen if we gave the scots independence, and then a few years down the line invaded and conquered them by force of arms ? (which wouldnt be difficult given that their armed forces will be a complete joke and we'd have america /nato on our side)

course most people will say pah that will never happen - they probably said that in ukraine when they were given independence from the USSR too
Click to expand...
You're a better argument for Yes than Steep is.
 
Bernie174 said:
Worse than that, Hugh says that Scotland wont be involved in these little wars. Big problem with that one, Afghanistan was a NATO operation after an attack on the US. If Scotland cannot commit to that it can't be involved in NATO.
Click to expand...


The gift that keeps giving, that's you.

Afghanistan is an ISAF operation, ISAF is NATO lead but consists of 49 nations, not all of whom contribute to the forces there.

NATO Nmembers are not required to take part in all operations, Germany and Poland both refused to take part in the Libya 'action' for example.
From http://www.cfr.org/nato/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-nato/p28287

There's no reason to my mind why iScotland should not contribute to certain operations in a non offensive capacity if we feel aggressive action is not mandated.
 
I still don't understand why the Tories are against independence - yes they may want it out of history etc... but losing Scotland means the will find it easier to win elections! If I was DC, I would be campaigning YES!
 
big soft moose said:
% of GDP is an odd way to measure it , because 2% of americas GDP is a lot more than 2% of ours - and 2% of ours is similarly a sight more than 2% of say Hungary's (when did we admit Hungary to Nato btw ? - thats got be asking for problems with Russia )

Thing about strategic location is tthat you don't actually have to be a NATO member to wind up with a nato base on your teritory - as i mentioned before Iceland is alledgedly neutral , but they've got ba dirty great Nato airfield at Keflavik , and a big Sosus base
Click to expand...
what has Hungary got to do with Russia anymore?
 
Yes yes Hugh, but I am still waiting for an answer from you.
You say you are here as a shining light of truth. Are you therefore going to condemn the SNP for it's dishonesty? Simple question, simple answer.
 
Steep said:
I know this will probably start another argument but... Legally there is no debt for us to take, what a Scots negotiating team would want to do would be called something fancy but would amount to us paying our share of the debt on a moral basis.

There's a couple of reasons why there is no legal debt for us to take on. Firstly the loans were made to the UK treasury and cannot be reassigned even in part to anyone else without being renegotiated with the lenders, probably at higher interest rates for all parties. Secondly and I've mentioned it before the treasury has accepted responsibility for all loans and guaranteed them in the event of a break up.

What that means is that iScotland could simply walk away free and clear because you cannot default on a debt that is not yours. Nobody thinks that's the right thing to do though and some compromise will be worked out. DC or more likely his replacement cannot play hardball on the issue because the cost to rUK would be crippling and that is in nobody's best interests.
Click to expand...

Scotland will not get away 'scott free' and will take their share of the financial debt make no mistake Hugh. Payment will be based on population plus a per capita share based formula.

Deeper prosperity based heavily on oil cannot be guaranteed by anyone and depends on a range of factors not under Salmonds control He believes that there are 24bn barrels of oil equivalents of reserves – which includes gas – still lying under the seabed and waiting to be exploited. You couldn't make it up. It's pure conjecture nothing more than a guess !

All three parties have stated that there will NO currency union !

Scotland will be responsible for their own benefits and taxes !

The sums don't add up - Scotland can't financially afford to be Independent........!

............. but wait !!!!!! You the Scottish Taxpayer will be able to afford it - but end up paying taxes way beyond inflation !!!!
 
cambsno said:
I still don't understand why the Tories are against independence - yes they may want it out of history etc... but losing Scotland means the will find it easier to win elections! If I was DC, I would be campaigning YES!
Click to expand...

Incorrect if you mean by losing the traditional Scottish Labour vote, as has been pointed out many times on this thread only twice in 60 odd years has the Scots vote decided an election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top