Scottish Independence yea or nay

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I thought Salmond could have done better with the Trident jobs question, tens of thousands of defence jobs have already been cut by the UK so that this vanity project is kept alive. The MOD have already admitted that 520 civilian jobs are dependent on the Trident programme

http://news.stv.tv/politics/197151-labour-under-fire-as-row-erupts-over-extent-of-trident-jobs-threat/

Having not watched the second debate yet, it should be pointed out that the number of 520 mentioned is those jobs directly involved with Trident. The reality is that the local economy is also hugely dependent on the Faslane & Coulport facilities. Just look at what happens to local regions every time a base is closed/moved in either the UK or Ireland; job losses. Some will be hard to quantify as may well be death by one thousand cuts that happen several months afterwards from failing business, but that's the reality.

Just one other thing; to come back to something someone asked of me a few days ago (I couldn't reply as I was away all weekend getting a sun tan on Salisbury plains ... ). The removal of Trident from anywhere near Glasgow, or Scotland wont mean a jot if nukes start getting thrown about. Glasgow will still be hit. Scotland will still be hit. And that's regardless of whether they are part of the UK or not. Anyone that thinks this not to be the case does not understand what the M.A.D. doctrine actually entails. It is devastation on a global scale that is simply incomprehensible.

Richard

Ralphdejones wrote: »

What united kingdom ?

It would be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it'd be "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

It's a single kingdom which is united, not a state contain in two kingdoms (Scotland, England etc aren't currently kingdoms in their own right)

Take a look at the map

What's wrong with that?

How could they be, both politically and economically your neighbours will always effect things.

The NI peace process would not have gotten too far with that attitude.

They weren't just onlookers there, sharing a land border for a start.

The Corinthian

I'd be more interested in the cost of replacing all the flags. Wales might also kick up and demand that they're included in the revised Union Jack. This was a serious consideration around the time of Irish independence when the cost or replacing all the flags with versions that omitted the cross of St. Patrick was estimated at more than £2,000,000.

Sam Russell

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd be more interested in the cost of replacing all the flags. Wales might also kick up and demand that they're included in the revised Union Jack. This was a serious consideration around the time of Irish independence when the cost or replacing all the flags with versions that omitted the cross of St. Patrick was estimated at more than £2,000,000.

Don't forget Oz and NZ flags and perhaps a few more, but I think they will keep the UJ whatever the result. It's original significance will just be forgotten and consigned to history.

bpb101

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd be more interested in the cost of replacing all the flags. Wales might also kick up and demand that they're included in the revised Union Jack. This was a serious consideration around the time of Irish independence when the cost or replacing all the flags with versions that omitted the cross of St. Patrick was estimated at more than £2,000,000.

the welsh might kick up but i doubt they will change the flag tbh. Could be wrong. It would be a big cost though to do that

bpb101

Sam Russell wrote: »

Don't forget Oz and NZ flags and perhaps a few more, but I think they will keep the UJ whatever the result. It's original significance will just be forgotten and consigned to history.

they arent in the uk. They are in the commonwealth. if that was was the case we would be here all night naming countries.... However there a wikipedia page for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations#Current_members

Fratton Fred

bpb101 wrote: »

they arent in the uk. They are in the commonwealth. if that was was the case we would be here all night naming countries.... However there a wikipedia page for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations#Current_members

They both have the union flag on theirs though.

As, of course, does Hawaii.

bpb101

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They both have the union flag on theirs though.

As, of course, does Hawaii.

read that wrong. I thought he ment , they would want part of there flag into the uj

The Corinthian

I'd imagine for countries such as Australia, the inclusion of the Union Jack is historical and would not change, just as the flag of Quebec did not really change after the French revolution.

Sam Russell

Richard wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by zetalambda
adopting the Euro as their currency.

God help them.

Fifty years would be a long time for a currency union. The Euro was good for us till our looney Government let the ball drop. Sterling has not been very kind to those who hld it. In the last 50 years it has fallen by over 80% wrt the German currency and over the last 70 years has fallen to nearly 41.25% of its value then. (1US$=£0.25 in 1944, now 1US$=£0.60p)

The currency is short term and irrelevant over any mid to long term.

It would be better for the Scots to start with zero debt rather than Sterling - if that was what was on offer.

Richard

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd be more interested in the cost of replacing all the flags. Wales might also kick up and demand that they're included in the revised Union Jack. This was a serious consideration around the time of Irish independence when the cost or replacing all the flags with versions that omitted the cross of St. Patrick was estimated at more than £2,000,000.

In the event of a UI they would presumably have to do that as well.

Maybe a revised royal standard (i.e with something for Wales rather than Scotland) could be a national flag but its inclusion of the Irish harp might annoy people.

Ralphdejones

Will deep fried mars bars still be on the menu ?

A Dub in Glasgo

I have never seen anyone eat a deep fried Mars bar in my 21 years in Scotland!

Ralphdejones

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I have never seen anyone eat a deep fried Mars bar in my 21 years in Scotland!

I have seen people eating them loads of times in chippers in Glasgow. Right enough I've never seen anyone in Edinburgh at it, though I have seen them on a few chipper menus there. I'm more of a smoked sausage and chips man myself.

DarkyHughes

The Corinthian wrote: »

And what does that have to do with being an island? Couldn't one argue the same that majority of the people on the peninsula of Iberia wanted to be a nation? What you actually said was:

Didn't see anything about majorities in that post. Or self-determination. Just islands.

So, what's the big deal with being an island? It's not about self-determination, because you don't need an island for that. How about a straight answer?

We should have two socialist islands. The problem with the current UK is the inequality problem in places like N.Ireland,parts of England & parts of Scotland are regarded as having of a lower standard of people.

A "People's Republic of Britain" & a "Irish Democratic Socialist Republic" will solve all the historic & potential future problems between the two islands. We'll work closely with each other like good workers should & work on joint ventures. George galloway & Gerry Kelly will make good solid partners of the new states We'll trade with each other, Cuba, we'll support the idea of a Union of Soviet Mediterranean Republics (because people are getting p!ssed off around that region) & be a shinning example to the world.

The reason greedy fat cats like you want to divide Britain is because taking all those Scottish MPs out of Westminister will mean virtually a permanent Tory England & keep the lower classes on their knees forever. Us workers aren't that stupid, we will unite & raise a big red flag over Big Ben when we get power.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

We should have two socialist islands. The problem with the current UK is the inequality problem in places like N.Ireland,parts of England & parts of Scotland are regarded as having of a lower standard of people.

A "People's Republic of Britain" & a "Irish Democratic Socialist Republic" will solve all the historic & potential future problems between the two islands. We'll work closely with each other like good workers should & work on joint ventures. George galloway & Gerry Kelly will make good solid partners of the new states We'll trade with each other, Cuba, we'll support the idea of a Union of Soviet Mediterranean Republics (because people are getting p!ssed off around that region) & be a shinning example to the world.

The reason greedy fat cats like you want to divide Britain is because taking all those Scottish MPs out of Westminister will mean virtually a permanent Tory England & keep the lower classes on their knees forever. Us workers aren't that stupid, we will unite & raise a big red flag over Big Ben when we get power.

You want George Galloway in charge and then claim not to be stupid.

Really?

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You want George Galloway in charge and then claim not to be stupid.

Really?

Not sure were about I made either of those claims. I'd have in a ambassador role as he has good relations with Republican socialists from this island. The rest of the post is to complex for to understand.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Not sure were about I made either of those claims. I'd have in a ambassador role as he has good relations with Republican socialists from this island. The rest of the post is to complex for to understand.

It's not complex, it's bat**** crazy.

Soviet socialist republics don't work and the people of these islands are too clever to allow what you say to happen.

feargale

DarkyHughes wrote: »

We should have two socialist islands.

Good. How many candidates in the next general election?

DarkyHughes wrote: »

A[/B]"People's Republic[/B] of Britain" & a "Irish Democratic Socialist Republic"

"Republic" = Res Publica i.e. affairs of the people. While we're at the tautology, why don't we call it a "People's Popular Democratic Stalinist Socialist Workers' Republic of the People"?

DarkyHughes wrote: »

George galloway & Gerry Kelly will make good solid partners of the new states

Naw! Gerry has never been on a reality tv show.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

We'll trade with each other, Cuba, we'll support the idea of a Union of Soviet Mediterranean Republics

Don't forget the Socialist paradise of North Korea,

DarkyHughes wrote: »

(because people are getting p!ssed off around that region)

To tell you the truth, I'm getting a bit pissed off myself.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

we will unite & raise a big red flag over Big Ben when we get power.

Yes. We will be the new Nomenklatura, with special shops for the comrades stocking the best French wines, just as in the GDR.

Richard

DarkyHughes wrote: »

The reason greedy fat cats like you want to divide Britain is because taking all those Scottish MPs out of Westminister will mean virtually a permanent Tory England & keep the lower classes on their knees forever. Us workers aren't that stupid, we will unite & raise a big red flag over Big Ben when we get power.

No Scottish MPs would have given the Conservatives a majority at the most recent election, but all the other elections since at least 1979 would have had the same results, albeit with bigger Conservative majorities and smaller Labour ones.

If there's a demand for a red flag over "Big Ben" then it'll happen with or without Scottish MPs.

Richard

DarkyHughes wrote: »

We'll trade with each other, Cuba, we'll support the idea of a Union of Soviet Mediterranean Republics (because people are getting p!ssed off around that region) & be a shinning example to the world.

A Shinning example?

Iwasfrozen

Richard wrote: »

A Shinning example?

It begs the question though, why have two different socialist republics in the British Isles? Why not one? I thought the Marx didn't recognize borders anyway.

bpb101

just under 22 days remaining for dday. I think that one thing that is being overlooked in this referendum whether your pro union or pro Scotland. Alex salmond and the snp are giving Scottish people the opportunity to have their voice heard. Even if they dont want to separated. He is giving the chance for Scotland to decided.
thoughts?

tipptom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You want George Galloway in charge and then claim not to be stupid.

Really?

How much longer are you going to go on this thread calling people stupid?

Lemming

bpb101 wrote: »

just under 22 days remaining for dday. I think that one thing that is being overlooked in this referendum whether your pro union or pro Scotland. Alex salmond and the snp are giving Scottish people the opportunity to have their voice heard. Even if they dont want to separated. He is giving the chance for Scotland to decided.
thoughts?

The Scottish people get the opportunity to have their voices heard every four years. Just like everyone else. Nothing new about it.

bpb101

Lemming wrote: »

The Scottish people get the opportunity to have their voices heard every four years. Just like everyone else. Nothing new about it.

No they don't. "There more pandas in the zoo in Glasgow then Tories mps in Scotland" and yet there a torrie goverment.
However In the Scottish goverment elections,the snp said if you vote for us. We will call for a referendum and that's why they did. They seem to be only one listing to the Scots. If the scots don't wan indepences they don't have to have it but at least the have the chance to make that descision .more than what other parties are offering

Sam Russell

bpb101 wrote: »

No they don't. "There more pandas in the zoo in Glasgow then Tories mps in Scotland" and yet there is a Tory government.
However In the Scottish government elections, the snp said if you vote for us. We will call for a referendum and that's why they did. They seem to be only one listening to the Scots. If the Scots don't want independence they don't have to have it but at least they have the chance to make that decision .more than what other parties are offering

Labour do not want Scottish independence as it would hand the Tories a ready-made advantage in the rump of the UK.

The Tories do not want it because it diminishes the RIGHT TO RULE.

The SNP do want independence because that is what they are all about and they are correct that independence is right for the Scots now.

The Scots need the right to determine their own place in the world and shake of the dominance of the SE of England, and in particular the dominance by the financial sector in UK economics. The British economy has fared badly over the last 70 years, and also over the last 40 years. The financial crash took out the two Scottish banks RBS and BofS. That would not have happened if Scotland had been independent for the last 40 years (and run their country properly). If Scotland had entered the EU as a separate entity, it might be a different story now.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Scots need the right to determine their own place in the world and shake of the dominance of the SE of England, and in particular the dominance by the financial sector in UK economics. The British economy has fared badly over the last 70 years, and also over the last 40 years. The financial crash took out the two Scottish banks RBS and BofS. That would not have happened if Scotland had been independent for the last 40 years (and run their country properly). If Scotland had entered the EU as a separate entity, it might be a different story now.

That is complete speculation. What evidence do you have to support that?

bpb101

want to trow in a question. What turnout % is better for the yes and no.
what do you think the turnout will be.

A Dub in Glasgo

I think the turnout will be high although it is hard to call which side (if either) that will help

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think the turnout will be high although it is hard to call which side (if either) that will help

I would have thought a low turn out will favour the yes campaign.

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would have thought a low turn out will favour the yes campaign.

I don't think so, the yes campaign tends to have higher supporters amongst younger people, students, the unemployed, working classes etc. Basically people less likely to vote.

Affluent middle classes and the elderly, two of the groups who are most likely to vote also tend to be supporters of the Union. So I think a low turnout definitely favors the No side.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is complete speculation. What evidence do you have to support that?

It is not speculation, it is opinion.

By the way, Sterling (the currecy) has performed very badly during the last 70 years. The UK government has shut down much of Scotland's industry and now tells them they are being subsidised. Only the SE of England and London is not subsidised. All other regions have an equal or greater subsidy with NI topping the list.

OS119

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think so, the yes campaign tends to have higher supporters amongst younger people, students, the unemployed, working classes etc. Basically people less likely to vote.

Affluent middle classes and the elderly, two of the groups who are most likely to vote also tend to be supporters of the Union. So I think a low turnout definitely favors the No side.

i think actually that in this specific case its likely to be the other way around, with a low overall turn-out its probable that it'll be 'yes' people who bother, and 'no' people who don't. thats, imv, for a number of reasons - complacency about the result, the psychology that people get less excited about stuff they are against than stuff they are for etc..

for me the disturbing thing is that the closeness of the result will mean that whatever happens nearly half the electorate will be very unhappy about the direction their country takes - thats no recipie for social harmony whether its trying to build a new country or remain in the UK.

assuming a 'no' vote, it will be interesting to see how the promised 'devo-max' settlement to be brought in in the 2015-2020 Westminster parliament mitigates - or not - the gulf between the 'yes' and 'no' sides of civic, rather than political society.

A Dub in Glasgo

If they were serious about Devo-max or federalism, it would have been offered as part of the referendum. The UK Government and BT decided to remove that option.

If offered, it would have been the clear winner

bpb101

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If they were serious about Devo-max or federalism, it would have been offered as part of the referendum. The UK Government and BT decided to remove that option.

If offered, it would have been the clear winner

see polls before yes or no was the only option
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Three_option_polling

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not speculation, it is opinion.

By the way, Sterling (the currecy) has performed very badly during the last 70 years. The UK government has shut down much of Scotland's industry and now tells them they are being subsidised. Only the SE of England and London is not subsidised. All other regions have an equal or greater subsidy with NI topping the list.

Ok then, what do you base your opinion on? Or is it just speculation?

I lost my job a few years back (quite a few actually) because the company I worked for took advantage of government incentives to move to Bathgate. 1200 people in Berkshire lost their jobs.

400 ship builders in Portsmouth are currently losing their jobs, because their ship yard is being closed in favour of one in Scotland. Then there's the small question of why the British Government chose Scotland as the place to build its latest generation of naval ships.

Anyone in the Telco industry will tell you what a pain in the arse it is providing decent telecoms in the highlands and islands, but doing so is a condition of having a mobile licence, such is the governments concern about the more remote regions.

Yeah, coal, steel and car making all went, but those industries have (cars aside) have left the UK entirely.

People in Ireland seem to think Scotland is some desolate wasteland, but the reality is far different. Yes, a lot of it is remote, but compare road and rail links between Edinburgh and Inverness to those between Dublin and letterkenny, the contrast is assounding.

Richard

bpb101 wrote: »

No they don't. "There more pandas in the zoo in Glasgow then Tories mps in Scotland" and yet there a torrie goverment.
However In the Scottish goverment elections,the snp said if you vote for us. We will call for a referendum and that's why they did. They seem to be only one listing to the Scots. If the scots don't wan indepences they don't have to have it but at least the have the chance to make that descision .more than what other parties are offering

The majority of decisions affecting Scotland are taken at Holyrood which is ejected by the people of Scotland alone. So the whole "get the government you vote for" doesn't stand up.

If there was independence, Scotland would either:

• Informally use the pound, so couldn't control it's own economy. It would have to run at a surplus;

• Use the Euro and have its budget approved by the ECB;

• Use its own currency and have to borrow money on the international markets at a high exchange rate;

• Somehow secure a currency agreement with London and be in a similar situation to now.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cameron today

'Holyrood would get further powers "soon" if there is a "No" vote to independence, David Cameron has said.'

this is the guy who ensured that more powers were excluded from the Referendum question. Typeical bribery nonsense and the Scots might even fall for it although 15 out of 21 today in work were Yes so maybe he should be worried

EunanMac

Would a yes vote be overall a good thing or bad thing for Ireland, north and south ?
On one hand the status quo, better the devil you know than any possible unknown future unintended consequences for NI and all that, on the other hand, a yes vote might mean Ireland becomes less dwarfed by its neighbours and a little more equal.

Sam Russell

EunanMac wrote: »

Would a yes vote be overall a good thing or bad thing for Ireland, north and south ?
On one hand the status quo, better the devil you know than any possible unknown future unintended consequences for NI and all that, on the other hand, a yes vote might mean Ireland becomes less dwarfed by its neighbours and a little more equal.

Difficult to say, as it depends on the result of negotiations pre-independence.

If it is a choice of 'No debt or No pound' then I would go for no debt as the currency would look after itself if they could run a trade surplus.

If they can keep the RAF and Royal Navy bases, but paying rent, that could help.

If they could renogiate the fishing rights, that would help.

All of these would help us as it puts us in a better negotiating position.

NI - I'm not sure it matters other than to make their defficit more unmanageable and so could be cut. Not sure we could afford them to join us at present without help from Westminster or Brussels or both.

comongethappy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Difficult to say, as it depends on the result of negotiations pre-independence.

If it is a choice of 'No debt or No pound' then I would go for no debt as the currency would look after itself if they could run a trade surplus.

Ditto.

I'm not sure why making a Scottish pound unrelated to London is not their default choice.

Sure it would be weaker than Sterling right out the gate, but that could also be the making of the fledgling state as they are instantaneously cheaper to trade with than their southern neighbours.

Fratton Fred

comongethappy wrote: »

Ditto.

I'm not sure why making a Scottish pound unrelated to London is not their default choice.

Sure it would be weaker than Sterling right out the gate, but that could also be the making of the fledgling state as they are instantaneously cheaper to trade with than their southern neighbours.

Who would issue their currency? No debt would also mean no HBoS and RBS. Disasterous for Edinburgh as welll.

No debt just isn't going to happen.

A Dub in Glasgo

HBoS & RBS are British banks that are head quartered in Edinburgh. Most of their business is in England therefore if they are not British banks, they are as much English banks than Scottish banks

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

HBoS & RBS are British banks that are head quartered in Edinburgh. Most of their business is in England therefore if they are not British banks, they are as much English banks than Scottish banks

But they are owned by the UK government. If Scotland wants them, then a deal needs to be done on the debt.

I can actually see RBS being broken up further if that happens, with Nat West and Coutts staying with the rUK, RBS going to Scotland and a bun fight over which poor bastard gets ulsterbank. Probably rUK.

comongethappy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who would issue their currency? No debt would also mean no HBoS and RBS. Disasterous for Edinburgh as welll.

No debt just isn't going to happen.

Would a newly created Scottish central bank & mint not issue a new Scottish currency?

Richard

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Cameron today

'Holyrood would get further powers "soon" if there is a "No" vote to independence, David Cameron has said.'

All Westminster parties have guaranteed that. Don't forget that there have already been extra powers since the last UK general election.

I do think, however, that Cameron is best, for his sake, staying out of this. The way he speaks is likely to turn people off, even if what he is saying is correct.

A Dub in Glasgo

Richard wrote: »

All Westminster parties have guaranteed that

Guaranteed? Just like the Lib Dems guaranteed no tuition fees?

This hand has been played multiple times before

Fratton Fred

comongethappy wrote: »

Would a newly created Scottish central bank & mint not issue a new Scottish currency?

Which would be worth how much?

comongethappy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which would be worth how much?

Whatever the currency markets deem it.

Unless you know specifically?

I assume seeing as new currencies are created & not sent down by god, there is a mechanism for pinning a new currencies relative value before the market have at it.