Scottish Independence

djpbarry · 14-02-2014 1:54pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In other words, ignore democracy?

What do territorial claims have to do with "democracy"?

sfakiaman · 14-02-2014 2:35pm

djpbarry wrote: »

What do territorial claims have to do with "democracy"?

Apparently very little for the pro union side of the debate who would seem to favour gunboat diplomacy.

partyguinness · 14-02-2014 3:00pm

I live in England and I listen to BBC4 everyday back and forth to work.

As London starts to get down and dirty, I think the Yes campaign in Scotland needs to stay well clear of a slagging match via the media and concentrate on boots on the ground.

I actually don't think London really cares, it is just that no PM wants the UK to break up on their watch.

Personally, I cant see a 'Yes' vote as the Scots, IMO, are full of BS and have neither the ambition or courage to go it alone.

djpbarry · 14-02-2014 3:55pm

sfakiaman wrote: »

Apparently very little for the pro union side of the debate who would seem to favour gunboat diplomacy.

So Scotland's territory should be decided based on some sort of "democratic" polling of Scotland's population?

Madam · 14-02-2014 4:24pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I live in England and I listen to BBC4 everyday back and forth to work.

As London starts to get down and dirty, I think the Yes campaign in Scotland needs to stay well clear of a slagging match via the media and concentrate on boots on the ground.

I actually don't think London really cares, it is just that no PM wants the UK to break up on their watch.

Personally, I cant see a 'Yes' vote as the Scots, IMO, are full of BS and have neither the ambition or courage to go it alone.

Shame not all people who live in Scotland are actually Scottish eh? I do however agree with your first point:)

FTA69 · 14-02-2014 4:31pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I actually don't think London really cares, it is just that no PM wants the UK to break up on their watch.

Personally, I cant see a 'Yes' vote as the Scots, IMO, are full of BS and have neither the ambition or courage to go it alone.

They don't care about losing their domestic energy supply and a strategically important region? It is definitely in the interests of the British establishment to retain Scotland for a variety of reasons, hence the passionate unionist sentiment being expressed.

djpbarry · 14-02-2014 4:34pm

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't care about losing their domestic energy supply and a strategically important region?

The significance of fuel supply is really being over-stated in this debate. Production in the North Sea has been in decline for some time now.

Madam · 14-02-2014 4:41pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The significance of fuel supply is really being over-stated in this debate. Production in the North Sea has been in decline for some time now.

Oh thats why there's been such a high investment this year alone!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10565072/Investment-in-North-Sea-oil-and-gas-to-rise-sharply-say-analysts.html

FTA69 · 14-02-2014 4:51pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The significance of fuel supply is really being over-stated in this debate. Production in the North Sea has been in decline for some time now.

Regardless of the fact they're in decline, they're still landing a massive amount of oil on a daily basis from them. (And there is also massive potential for discovery.) Around 12 years ago they discovered the largest ever find in the entire North Sea just off the coast of Scotland. Considering wars are being fought in the Middle East over oil, and energy being one the key factors determining international politics today; I'd argue the issue of a domestic energy supply is definitely one of importance.

djpbarry · 14-02-2014 5:02pm

Madam wrote: »

Oh thats why there's been such a high investment this year alone!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10565072/Investment-in-North-Sea-oil-and-gas-to-rise-sharply-say-analysts.html

Did you even read that article?

Despite the positive outlook provided by investment and new production coming on stream, exploration for undiscovered oil reserves in the North Sea is falling behind, signalling that the offshore region is entering the final stages of its lifespan.

djpbarry · 14-02-2014 5:06pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Regardless of the fact they're in decline, they're still landing a massive amount of oil on a daily basis from them. (And there is also massive potential for discovery.) Around 12 years ago they discovered the largest ever find in the entire North Sea just off the coast of Scotland. Considering wars are being fought in the Middle East over oil, and energy being one the key factors determining international politics today; I'd argue the issue of a domestic energy supply is definitely one of importance.

I'm not saying it's not important, but it's not pivotal. Alex Salmond, in particular, is guilty of placing far, far too much emphasis on the oil issue. I mean, there is a reason why the UK is a net importer of crude oil.

partyguinness · 14-02-2014 5:06pm

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't care about losing their domestic energy supply and a strategically important region? It is definitely in the interests of the British establishment to retain Scotland for a variety of reasons, hence the passionate unionist sentiment being expressed.

I am sure there are figures out there, but I wonder how much of the overall energy supply comes from the North Sea? Personally I think any startegic value is over stated.

sfakiaman · 14-02-2014 5:07pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Regardless of the fact they're in decline, they're still landing a massive amount of oil on a daily basis from them. (And there is also massive potential for discovery.) Around 12 years ago they discovered the largest ever find in the entire North Sea just off the coast of Scotland. Considering wars are being fought in the Middle East over oil, and energy being one the key factors determining international politics today; I'd argue the issue of a domestic energy supply is definitely one of importance.

Certainly more than enough to ensure a sustainable future for Scotland.

Madam · 14-02-2014 5:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Did you even read that article?

Ooops - missed that bit:(

I still believe that companies who have invested can't/won't back out of the investment they've already made in Scotland and that includes renewable energy companies - will they run out of wind, solar or wave energy ?

Madam · 14-02-2014 5:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not important, but it's not pivotal. Alex Salmond, in particular, is guilty of placing far, far too much emphasis on the oil issue. I mean, there is a reason why the UK is a net importer of crude oil.

Politics?

partyguinness · 14-02-2014 5:24pm

Madam wrote: »

Ooops - missed that bit:(

I still believe that companies who have invested can't/won't back out of the investment they've already made in Scotland and that includes renewable energy companies - will they run out of wind, solar or wave energy ?

I agree. BP announced last week that an independent Scotland is of grave concern to them and they may have to look elsewhere (or words to that effect). Who are they kidding?

BP et al will get into bed with any country and any regime if it suits them. It's not like Scotland is going to float off into the sea and into a Marxist utopia.

If the Taliban or any other 'undesirable' were selling drilling licences they would be the first in line.

First Up · 14-02-2014 5:26pm

sfakiaman wrote: »

Certainly more than enough to ensure a sustainable future for Scotland.

Even the SNP acknowledges that the oil runs out around 2055 and will be a diminishing and increasingly expensive resource well before then.
If you are counting on oil or gas to secure Scotland's future you are deluded.

partyguinness · 14-02-2014 5:30pm

First Up wrote: »

Even the SNP acknowledges that the oil runs out around 2055 and will be a diminishing and increasingly expensive resource well before then.
If you are counting on oil or gas to secure Scotland's future you are deluded.

I think the whole debate around oil etc is a little peculiar. The vast majority of countires in the world do not have oil resources but that doesnt stop them asserting independence which is really what it should be about.

That is why I think there will be a 'no' winner. Personally I would like a 'yes' vote but why now? What is so different about 2014 than any other time in the last 200 years?

Surely if there was a genuine desire in Scotland for independence, it would have happened by now.

jmayo · 14-02-2014 6:10pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Certainly. There's a large naval base on the west coast of Scotland where all the ships if not the base itself would need to remain English.

There isn't really a choice for the Royal Navy as they need deep water and some form of mountains.
Where else in the Uk do they really get this.

Faslane is their nuclear sub base and has been a nuclear sub base since the polaris fleet in the 60s.
Coulport is the Royal Naval Armaments Depot and has been involved with Trident nuclear missile systems.
They have undergound storage bunkers.

sfakiaman wrote: »

Logically and morally Scotland owns a percentage of all UK assets and owes a percentage of UK liabilities based on population or tax paid basis. I'm sure Westminster will regard all military assets as British, arguing that its the British Army, unlike for instance Police Scotland which has a separate national identity. Scottish members of the armed forces may take a different view and I'm sure that if Westminster tried to annex Redford Barracks in Edinburgh that strong words might be said.

They wouldn't give a toss about Redford barracks or the likes of Fort George in Inverness.
Faslane and Coulport are the big ones they care about.

The British government and indeed all the major Westminister parties have upped the ante by telling Scotland that they aint going to be staying with the Bank of England if they vote Yes.
That is the biggest threat so far in this whole debate.

Lemming · 14-02-2014 6:25pm

jmayo wrote: »

The British government and indeed all the major Westminister parties have upped the ante by telling Scotland that they aint going to be staying with the Bank of England if they vote Yes.
That is the biggest threat so far in this whole debate.

Not so much a threat as captain obvious stating the obvious. As partial to Scotland as I am, on this Westminster are smack on the money. Among all of the rest of wee 'ecs wooly statements, insisting that Scotland can walk away from the union so it can be independent yet still tied with the bank of England completely undermines any desire for independence.

The words "cake" and,"eat" spring to mind. The only threat made has been by the snp saying it would default if it didn't have its way. Which isn't so much a threat as economic lunatic suicide

Iwasfrozen · 14-02-2014 6:50pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean remain British?

No English. This is in the unlikely event Scotland votes yes so there is no British any more.

Iwasfrozen · 14-02-2014 6:56pm

sfakiaman wrote: »

where all the ships if not the base itself would need to remain English
And there you have the Westminster thinking, its all English, besides if they want Trident back they can have it with Scotlands blessing.

Well yes. Both the ships and the base are England's. Scotland didn't pay for them. They couldn't even afford to maintain them.

Likely the ships would simply be moved and Scotland would have to buy the base.

Iwasfrozen · 14-02-2014 7:00pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That would be Faslane & Coulport where WMD are stored & deployed. These will have to be relocated to somewhere else in England, Wales or NI should Scotland become independent

Agreed. Scotland won't be allowed nuclear weapons and couldn't afford to maintain them anyway.

In other words, ignore democracy?

No, democracy should be respected but you have to remember the vote in Scotland only represents Scotlands desire. Scotlands will should be taken into consideration but it has to be balanced with England's to reach a compromise.

Lemming · 14-02-2014 7:02pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well yes. Both the ships and the base are England's. Scotland didn't pay for them. They couldn't even afford to maintain them.

Likely the ships would simply be moved and Scotland would have to buy the base.

There is also the minor issue of the Clyde shipyards which are currently being kept afloat by RN contracts. Those contracts would have to be moved south with immediate effect in the case of Scottish Independence due to UK law requiring that RN contracts are fulfilled within the UK. Such a situation would see the reversal of recent decisions to mothball Pompey and other UK drydock facilities with the Clyde losing out in a lump rather than piecemeal.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed. Scotland won't be allowed nuclear weapons and couldn't afford to maintain them anyway.

The US provide considerable funding per year iirc for housing nukes in Britain. Salmond has long been a proponent of Scotland being a non-nuke nation; which would see the loss of said weapons from Scottish territory anyway and both the funding brought by the US, and the loss to the local economy from base-closure that would come naturally. I cannot see Salmond rounding on something that both he and the SNP have long espoused as a goal in their vision of Scotland.

They've already threatened "to turn off the radar lights" for NATO unless they [the SNP] are allowed to get their way. Not a good way to ease into negotiations ...

No, democracy should be respected but you have to remember the vote in Scotland only represents Scotlands desire. Scotlands will should be taken into consideration but it has to be balanced with England's to reach a compromise.

Well that's just the thing; everything that's been heard to date is what Salmond wants; so we're now starting to hear from the other affected party (the rest of the UK) what they are willing to agree to as the basis for negotiation. It's a bit like saying you're going to have a party at a friend's house and you're going to have x, y, and z without ever asking your friend for their input and then being shocked when they turn around and tell you what they're willing to do is not what you're wanting them to do.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 14-02-2014 7:19pm

Lemming wrote: »

Well that's just the thing; everything that's been heard to date is what Salmond wants; so we're now starting to hear from the other affected party (the rest of the UK) what they are willing to agree to as the basis for negotiation. It's a bit like saying you're going to have a party at a friend's house and you're going to have x, y, and z without ever asking your friend for their input and then being shocked when they turn around and tell you what they're willing to do is not what you're wanting them to do.

I think people have to stop going along with what Salmond wants he will get. If as a nation Scotland decides on independence then from the years 2014-2016 then a lot of hard decisions will be made. I also believe in the case of a general election I don't believe Salmond would be in the position to dictate anything very few people I know have little time for him and I include a fair few members of the SNP in this.
What to many Scots are worried about is a Yes is a vote for Salmond its anything but

oscarBravo · 14-02-2014 7:25pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No English. This is in the unlikely event Scotland votes yes so there is no British any more.

...Wales?

Lemming · 14-02-2014 7:31pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I think people have to stop going along with what Salmond wants he will get. If as a nation Scotland decides on independence then from the years 2014-2016 then a lot of hard decisions will be made. I also believe in the case of a general election I don't believe Salmond would be in the position to dictate anything very few people I know have little time for him and I include a fair few members of the SNP in this.
What to many Scots are worried about is a Yes is a vote for Salmond its anything but

Pretty much anyone I know in Scotland, be it friends or family, all pretty much think that Salmond is a complete muppet and that whilst the idea of independence is a nice one, it's not a very tangible or pragmatic one.

What annoys me greatly is that Salmond is espousing this magnificent and incredibly one-sided wishlist and appears to be getting away with it because everyone is now focussing on "how mean & dirty" Westminister is to state the fiscal truth regards monetary union with the Bank of England. Never mind that, take a look at how much bullsh1ttery Salmond has put forth and how blinkered & dangerous a great deal of it is and that people are believing it to be true. It's not difficult to poke serious holes in many of his arguments he's put forward, and the only reason he's put some of it forward is because he knows that people will not buy the "yes" vote otherwise. If anyone is playing dirty it is very much him. For Scotland's well being, and for my friends & family's well-being, I am fvcking angered by that.

A Dub in Glasgo · 14-02-2014 7:53pm

^^^^

Interesting, a lot of people I know in Scotland does not think Salmond is a muppet at all, they recognise that he is a fantastic political operator. About 60% of those that I know are Unionists and are Labour voters. Maybe it is the company we keep

VeryOwl · 14-02-2014 7:55pm

Lemming wrote:

What annoys me greatly is that Salmond is espousing this magnificent and incredibly one-sided wishlist and appears to be getting away with it because everyone is now focussing on "how mean & dirty" Westminister is to state the fiscal truth regards monetary union with the Bank of England

It's apparent that Salmond wants to turn it into emotive anti-Tory/Westminster thing which is why he's so desperate for a TV debate with D.C. It's easier to sell that than actually discuss the important issues. I read the 'white paper' and it was thin on detail and fat with aspirational waffle.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

^^^^

Interesting, a lot of people I know in Scotland does not think Salmond is a muppet at all, they recognise that he is a fantastic political operator. About 60% of those that I know are Unionists and are Labour voters. Maybe it is the company we keep

Salmond isn't a 'muppet', just incredibly cynical. Tbh I've found most people here, even those sympathetic to independence, don't really like him.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 14-02-2014 7:56pm

Lemming wrote: »

Pretty much anyone I know in Scotland, be it friends or family, all pretty much think that Salmond is a complete muppet and that whilst the idea of independence is a nice one, it's not a very tangible or pragmatic one.

It is funny how different groups are most of my friends and family know that if we gain independence it will be a hard slog and it could take many years to see the full benefits but all of them believe it will be worth it in the long run.
What I do believe is there will be a lot more "Dirty Politics" in the coming months which I do feel is doing no side any good

Scottish Independence

Comments