Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Scottish Independence

This is a discussion on Scottish Independence within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by RobWilliams And EU membership (wanting to have more autonomy and yet join the EU don't really go ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 12th, 2014   #46
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Beatmaster's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 506
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
And EU membership (wanting to have more autonomy and yet join the EU don't really go hand in hand), NATO membership, currency, defence, economy, all areas which have yet to be discussed with any sort of basis in truth and reality.

Indeed, significant areas have already indicated their willingness to either leave Scotland or create seperate companies in Scotland which would mean increased prices to cover the overhead.
True however keep in mind there are other EU nations that have larger population but do not have nearly as much of the potential Scotland has in the long run, so even if the overhead drives up prices, this will normalize when time passes.
Its to early to say anything about this, for the simple reason if the industry does leave Scotland but Scotland adopts a favorable tax regime then in time investors and other key elements will return.
As mentioned before Scotland does have enough opportunities to be successful in the long run so when time passes Scotland can achieve way more then its size and population justifies and i think that this is something we cannot deny.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/sco...ndum-countdown
Beatmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2014   #47
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 407
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatmaster View Post
Maybe so, But then again i am not claiming i am right.

Imo the issue is not what you or me think, the issue is what London does and what Scotland does and how this will play down.

The union is not just being attacked from the outside, its being broken from the inside out by the very people that "value" the union.

Both sides are spreading rubbish and both sides have valid points, but one question remains: Give London one good reason to actually say that Salmond has some valid points? Knowing that if Scotland breaks away that the rest of the UK will suffer arguably the biggest loss.

And its not about me being right or wrong, it does not matter.
if you are right and this Salmond guy is full of shit, then the only way he can do that is because London lets him... So seeing eye to eye and making hard agreements between both sides seems to be the only solution that will save the union in the long term, because as long both sides do not see eye to eye you will see another referendum in some years assuming this one fails.

And given the huge amount of voters who seem to swing to the yes vote, would that not be reason enough for London to start doing some thinking on their own?
Its easy to say that Salmond and his idea's might be based on a fairy tail and maybe you are right, maybe this is all rubbish.
But from a Scottish pov this rubbish seems to be more valid then Londons it "rubbish".

And there is nothing anyone of us here on DT are going to change about that.
Let me ask you a question. You're not Scottish as you say, but you're British right? How would you see the City of London moving to a principality, such as Monaco?

Now, I'm not saying that Scotland shouldn't have independence, but the obvious move by 'Westminister' (not London as you keep saying) after this vote (assuming No succeeds) will be more devolution of powers away from rUK anyway.. We are beyond the point, as demonstrated by this vote.

Last edited by Nick underscore; September 12th, 2014 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Typo
Nick underscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2014   #48
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatmaster View Post
Yeah little teasers like a kid gets a piece of candy... But for the Scots there is nothing to gain, losing their jobs, losing health-care, losing education programs and so on.

Health care has been fully devolved for fourteen years - if they're losing anything, they need to look closer to home than London.



And has the SNP ever laid out plans to salvage Scots ship builders in the event of an exit, or are we still on the pantomime response of "oh no, we won't" ?
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2014   #49
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Beatmaster's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 506
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick underscore View Post
Let me ask you a question. You're not Scottish as you say, but you're British right? How would you see the City of London moving to a principality, such as Monaco?

Now, I'm not saying that Scotland shouldn't have independence, but the obvious move by 'Westminister' (not London as you keep saying) after this vote (assuming No succeeds) will be more devolution of powers away from rUK anyway.. We are beyond the point, as demonstrated by this vote.
Me British? Hell no i am a happy Dutchman lmao.
Beatmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2014   #50
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,619
Threads:
Scotland would be viable as an independent country. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. But the chance of it being anything like what the SNP claims is approximately zero - & that's the point. It won't be spectacularly rich & fast-growing.

People have been fooled. They're being told, for example, that Scottish shipbuilding will thrive - but right now, it survives on orders from the Royal Navy, & that only buys from Scotland because it's in the UK. Salmond says the RN will continue to buy its ships from Scotland. The RN, the MoD, & everyone else involved says otherwise, & EU rules would make it very difficult. One can give preference to one's own shipyards, but not to those of another country.

And so on. I'm accustomed to dishonest politicians, but I'm not used to British politicians telling such bare-faced lies.

A couple of Scottish products have been mentioned.

Gas & oil: doesn't make any difference to the EU if Scotland is in or out. It'll still have to sell its gas & oil. It'll need the money. And it's not going to last forever. Production & revenues are going down. The Scottish government's predictions of income have consistently been far too high, & there's no reason to believe their predictions for post-independence income are any more accurate.

Wind power. Not really an export market. It's subsidised at the moment, so exports would be a drain on the economy, not a money-maker. And even if prices come down to be competitive against other sources of electricity, it's hard to export it over long distances, because of transmission losses - & the erratic nature of wind makes it ill-suited to exporting. And again, being an exporter of a product EU countries want doesn't buy you membership. The price of the product doesn't come down if you're in the EU.

An independent Scotland would probably be a middling prosperous W. European country. Nothing wrong with that: it's comfortable. But it's not what the pro-independence campaign is promising, which is another Norway, but with bigger & better financial & manufacturing industries. And there'd be heavy transition costs.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #51
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
Threads:
Oh no you don't...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
Scotland says it's automatic, the EU disagrees and Spain and I think Belgium will actively veto Scotland's membership on the grounds of them having their own problems with regions wanting to split away.
Sincerely, Belgium vetoing this is about the last thing that's likely to happen. This article at the beginning of the thread is a nice passive/aggressive bit of political banter.

It strikes me as really telling that the Brits who are so quick to interpret every UK poll showing discontent of the EU as the proof something is terribly (if not morbidly) wrong with Brussels' authority, see a poll where half the voters of Scotland saying "we've had enough with you lot" as telltale of Scottish political immaturity and not, as I think is the case, as a classic contest vote with the condition of the nation they live in and the political misdeeds of British authorities.

The fault is not in the stars, as it were, but perhaps in yourselves...

Back to Belgium, as the point was elegantly made earlier, if Flanders were to want its independence, it would have to take its proportion of Belgian debt and assets.

I for one, and many others, would warmly welcome this neo-nazi state's formation so its disgusting pull of the country to the far right would end. The economic reality about Belgium is though the Flemish deny this, the wealthiest part of the country is Brussels, NOT Flanders. And the ridiculous rule that has allowed Flemish commuters to come work in Brussels but pay taxes in Flanders would immediately be abolished after Flanders split off. They can go to hell trying to take Brussels as a capital, as it's 85% French speaking and much of the rest is international (EU), not Flemish. They can therefore take their far right voting population, their per capita of the debt, I'd even let them take all the military junk they've foisted on the Belgian military as they've monopolized the leadership positions for thirty years and have wrecked the Belgian military with their piss poor management of it. Belgium would be wealthier per capita without them and able to start anew with its leaner forces. In fact, those plans exist and frankly represent a more projectable force that could coordinate very well with France and Germany and even reequip quickly on leased gear from recently stored materials made available in both those countries in recent budget reductions.

Back to Scotland, I think the fear of independence is normal anxiety by the English because the basing rights would naturally be negotiable and not the maddening problem described. The Scots can't be told the oil and gas in NS are running out after the UK just showed rating agencies that their reserves were larger than thought. You can't argue one thing and it's exact opposite. Naturally, RBS would move. It's 80% or more owned by the UK taxpayers so it should be where the majority live. It also needs the largest last resort lender possible (BoE) because it's management has proven to be somewhat less than prudential, hasn't it?

Aren't there large Scottish 'labelled' and recruited units in the UK military? Wouldn't their staff, colors and traditions be inherited by Scotland in a split? Wouldn't these still train and project together with UK forces? I would be a bit surprised if Scotland voted to split off as I think the polls reflect a protest sentiment about London-centric pols more than any real animosity for Britain as a project. But if this happened, I can't believe the apocalyptic vision suggested by some. Scotland would be richer per capita initially but it couldn't turn into Norway without prudent management for decades... And why would it be so tragic if some RAF and RN units were Scottish? Yes, projection would require more political consultations but within an alliance that's part of the cost of doing business, right?
FirstSpear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #52
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 689
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstSpear View Post
Aren't there large Scottish 'labelled' and recruited units in the UK military? Wouldn't their staff, colors and traditions be inherited by Scotland in a split?
Not necessarily. Those people might choose to stay with the UK military - they have British nationality. And certainly the equipment would not be Scottish, as it was paid for centrally and therefore owned by the UK state.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #53
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #54
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
2007yellow430's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California
Posts: 160
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.
Exactly. And if the banks leave, watch the economy fall on its face. Businesses need money sources and if the large banks go, that source drys up. This would be a disaster of great magnitude.
2007yellow430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #55
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 306
Threads:
I was wondering if anyone knows if Scotland does vote for independence what are their armed forces going to be called. Would it be the Scottish armed forces or the Royal Scottish armed forces. Because as every member of the UK armed forces pledges to serve Queen then country and the Queen is head of the UK armed forces then they have a oath to this country.
the concerned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #56
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
Systems Adict's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 854
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
I have to ask, seeing how the internet considers Scottish an obscure language, what is a 'guddgel' ?
1st, I have to correct my spelling, it SHOULD read GUDELL.

A Gudell is another way of saying "it' s right old mess !"
Systems Adict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #57
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,619
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.
Absolutely. The Scottish state would suddenly find its credit rating would make Argentina look good. It'd be dependent on cash receipts to make payments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstSpear View Post
... I can't believe the apocalyptic vision suggested by some. ...
There shouldn't be an apocalypse, but the SNP has suggested that it'd trigger one in a fit of pique, if the UK refuses (perfectly reasonably) to enter a currency union.

That suggests to me that Scotland would not be a well-managed country.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #58
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.
Oh, I agree completely that if they go their own way they will HAVE to take a chunk of the UK's debt but that is also where, in the pre-split negotiation, there would have to be an initial "allotment" of all assets, with the immobile ones essentially being assigned a value against with some fraction of debt is assigned.

In theory, the Scots would, if let's say population was used as the initial guide for fractioning, "inherit" 5/65th of all debt and assets, (1/13th) so although they'd own all the mineral rights on their territory, they might have to 'buy back' the majority of any UK owned drilling gear in place... Where the proverbial rUK couldn't get too cute about this is the Scots might be assigned one of RN's nuclear subs in theory which in practice rUK would have to also buy back. Of course all the back and forth 'buying' is 'only' in the form of taking on additional existing debt.

So, in the end, the Scots would have a fair chunk of debt but because the UK is no Norway in terms of prudential management, it might take them decades to improve their balance sheet enough to start their own sovereign wealth fund and so on... SNP dreams notwithstanding...

I don't really believe the oaths taken pre-independence by commissioned officers would be the issue as I'd expect some royal decree releasing all who chose to serve Scotland from this oath. Remember the royals like to vacation there so they wouldn't want to piss off the locals any more than absolutely necessary... Now, about those royal castles...
FirstSpear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2014   #59
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,619
Threads:
Two classes of royal castles & houses:
1. "Crown" i.e. state property. Will belong to whatever country they're located in.
2. Personal property of monarch. No change in status.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #60
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Two classes of royal castles & houses:
1. "Crown" i.e. state property. Will belong to whatever country they're located in.
2. Personal property of monarch. No change in status.
As to number two, you can be assured the taxes will be rocketing upwards as the economic train wreck damage is fully appreciated.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31 PM.