Scottish Independence
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As to number two, you can be assured the taxes will be rocketing upwards as the economic train wreck damage is fully appreciated.
I wasn't referring to oaths so much as simple legal protections for service personnel on both sides - no-one should be compelled to transfer against their will to a foreign country (on either side) There may be compelling reasons for any particular person to stay (or go)
The force structure doesn't really break down neatly or correctly for a portion to go to Scotland - the basics, rifles, body armour and personal kit, yes, some of the light vehicles. The heavier stuff, that's going to be a harder bargaining situation and this is where things get interesting as they will certainly be entitled to bases they either won't want or will find expensive to keep running and may be pressed to accept a full market value for a base that realistically, they don't really want.
Faslane is slated to become a conventional base for instance, for what would be the entire Scots surface fleet - but it's not ideally sited to protect their oil and gas fields. The SNP *have* to make it work or the entire area becomes an economic disaster zone - so that's one economic embuggerance to work with. The pattern is repeated across a number of other areas.
The rUK may be able to scare up several large and expensive chunks of assets which will legally have to be transferred to the Scots and might find that this mops up a bigger financial impact than they'd expected. That may leave the issue of larger mobile units to become a moot issue.
What about refitting the covered building halls at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead?
t68
Well-Known Member
If the yes vote gets its way the remaining UK elements whilst not ideal should look at the impending new infrastructure upgrade as a mini stimulate's package it should mean a mini boom for the construction industry with all money remaing in the UK system
Indeed. Cammel Laird could potentially build everything short of carriers, & we won't need to build any more of them for a long time. We can get them maintained in an existing repair dock, e.g. in Belfast.
Hmmm...
I thought that most of the plot around Harland's facilities in Belfast had been sold on & turned into industrials estates / housing, etc.
Cammel Laird is the logical choice for rUK, as Swan Hunters site was raped & pillaged in 2007 after it closed. Portsmouth is out, as BAE have 'shut it' (no doubt with assistance with UK Govt), & repair facilities still exist on the Tyne, then there's Plymouth.
The issue has always been about dry docking facilities & most of the big ones are all North of the Border (Greenock, the Upper Clyde, Rosyth & at a push Nig Bay / Aberdeen).
Anyway, I am literally sick to the back teeth with this bleeding thing. The pettiness of individuals, how comments are being twisted & yet still the YES campaign are ramming the "We'll be better getting rid of Engerland" rubbish down peoples throats. With still no explanation of how it's all going to work.
Yes social media is a wonderful tool for perpetuating scandal & lies. The latest one in the last hour is " Make sure you take a pen to the polling booth, as they only have the little pencil on the string & pencil lines can be rubbed out !"
JEEZ !
Gimme strength & roll on Thursday, so I can vote & get this over with...:ar15
t68
Well-Known Member
How does that work voting on a workday, is that the norm in the UK as all Australians generally vote on a Saturday majority of the nation works m-f
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #70
Pretty sure some of it is a film studio.....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Where would you get that idea from? I wonder...
On a more serious note, I myself do have to really wonder about the motivations behind the leadership for the Yes vote.
Apart from the usual BS and "honesty" from politicians, given the number of things which Salmond & the SNP have indicated would be non-issues (NATO & EU membership, currency, share of UK national debt, etc) and the fact that several of them are outside the control of an independent Scotland, I have to wonder what their real endgame is.
With important issues involving sovereignty like maintenance of a credible defence force, support of needed national infrastructure, and indeed even national identity, from my POV more realistic plans should be getting brought up and discussed. For instance, who would be the Head of State? Does an independent Scotland devolve back into the Kingdom of Scotland, or does the SNP wish for Scotland to become a republic? IIRC a senior SNP member had voiced that Scotland should be a republic, and if this is part of the plans of the Yes vote leadership... Then perhaps people should be paying more attention to what they are not saying.
EDIT: Additional comment for historical perspective. Except for the period from 1649 to 1660 when the Lord Protector or a committe of Parliament ruled, Scotland has shared a monarch with England and Ireland (including Wales and what is now just Northern Ireland) since 1603, when a Scotish king, James VI inherited the crown of England and Ireland, becoming James I and VI ruling the countries in a personal union.
I think that the plan is for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and her Heirs and Successors to remain Head of State. That would work because she is Head of State for the likes of Canada, NZ, Australia etc. A Governor General would have to be appointed and that would be a Scottish Govt decision and the name would be submitted for Royal approval. The Queen Mother was Scottish I believe and the Queen has a very strong personal affinity with Scotland. Also in the historical perspective, as you stated, it was James VI of Scotland who became James I of England, Ireland and Wales on Elizabeth Is death and he had the Act of Union of the Two Crowns enacted in 1603, but the actual Act of Union between England and Scotland was passed by the English Parliament in 1706 and the Scottish Parliament in 1707 forming a single Parliament and a new country, Great Britain.
Now if the Yes vote succeeds what form of Govt the new Scottish nation would eventually decide upon would be interesting. Would it stick with the current Westminster system or will it have some other form? Personally I believe that the current system would be best because that is what people are familiar with and is what they have had for centuries. they know it well and know that it works.
On whether Scotland should ceded from the UK, my personal view is NO because I believe that any perceived benefits would be grossly outweighed by actual detrimental, if not some deleterious, negative impacts upon Scotland.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I brought up the Head of State issue because of things which have appeared in the news in the past six months or so.
SNP minister: 'Independent Scotland may not keep the Queen' - Telegraph
Republican plot to ditch the Queen after Yes vote - The Scotsman
As for Scotland staying within the UK... I personally of the opinion that the whole of the UK is greater than the sum of the parts, and should Scotland become an independent nation, both the rUK and Scotland will end up weaker than many might anticipate based off the overall current power/strength of the UK.
Just fire Portsmouth back up, it'd still be warm. For maintenance, there are a couple of really big dry docks in the North East, and the facilities at Pallion may even be better for construction than Portsmouth.
Here's one of the big docks
ABLE Seaton Port | Able UK
The dock plus Sampson and Goliath are registered historic places so I'm sure they are going anywhere soon, I'm sure the other facilities needed to support CVF could be built there is necessary.
However I think the vote is going to be a NO, after all the major companies this week announcing they will move south I thing the folk who have decided will come down firmly on the NO side.
The SNP have been very specific about retaining the Queen as head of state - rather cynically so in fact as they know the familiar touches will help capture the centre/centre left vote who may not share core SNP values - ie, most of Scotland. Which is why the SNP has also campaigned on retaining the pound - they want all the creature comforts of home combined with the dynamism of a Scottish economy freed from the tyrannical yoke of an uncaring "Westminster". Never mind that they had 14 years of rule by Labour with a Scottish PM for several of those years.
Me too. Whilst there was a case before the 17th Century now there are three or four centuries of a single national and cultural history between them, so you just can't severe that with a tick in a ballot box. Don't get me wrong, I'm Maori and Irish catholic and we have our own history with English and British colonialism, but there is a shared identity under the British empire and the Scots forged that with the English. Purely on the military side there is even a stronger identity, especially in the British Army and how many times have pipers lead British troops into battle.
I agree fully that Scottish secession would weaken the rUK in many aspects. On the defence front it would have very serious implications. Also the same could be said on the financial and economic fronts and even in foreign diplomacy as the UK could be perceived as a lesser nation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Are there pockets in Scotland opposed to separation? If separation is on the table then perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of partition to those regions in Scotland that don't want to leave the UK.
Several? Blair was born in Scotland, & spent some of his childhood & half his teens there. His father was of English parentage, but raised in Scotland by Scots. His mother was an Ulster protestant with a Scottish stepfather. Most of his secondary education was in Scotland.
Despite his accent, Blair's background's much more Scottish than English, & I remember there being remarks about the UK being governed by Scots when he was PM, because of the number of 'em in the Cabinet - far more than their share of the population. Eight out of 22 in 1997-2001, including most of the top jobs. It then dropped to six, which is still three times Scotland's share of population.
Brown had half as many Scots in his cabinet.
I learn something new every day - I was thinking of Gordon Brown of course, didn't realise El' Tony was of Scots extraction.
So, just over 13 years of rule by a parliament they'd voted in, and two PM's plus a Scots cabinet. Other than that, they've never had a look in, poor things.
So, just over 13 years of rule by a parliament they'd voted in, and two PM's plus a Scots cabinet. Other than that, they've never had a look in, poor things.