Will an independant Scotland be part of NATO, UN treatise. Have a Military?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted
At the moment Scotland has a set budget (only portion of total spend) to pay for what it wants to provide. If independent could choose totally different budget over total revenue and expenditure.
I would happily pay more tax for better services.
Is not about blaming anyone.

Oh, I agree with you, most people would. Why then though do the SNP claim any shortfall is all the fault of Westminster, rather than maybe someone not balancing the books based on income and expenditure?

Anyway, in less than 24 hours it may be a moot point.

a reply to: starchild10

If half the country votes yes then this issue is not going away any time soon. Without the media bias and fear campaign independence would win hands down. People will not be happy that the referendum has been conducted in this manner.

The only morons that have been threatening violence are the better together orange numpties.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I would happily pay more tax for better services.

The Scottish government has been able to raise up to 3 pence in the pound on income tax for years and hasn't done it once for political reasons. Your own parliament has had the opportunity to tax your own 1% or whatever of high income people to help the poor if it wanted to - It chose not to, but I suppose that was Westminsters fault as well [/yawn]

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster), no currency to speak of and a need to come up with £145 Billion in cash reserves just to protect their economy should the banks (which Scotland is far more reliant on than the UK) go belly up again, just to mention a few. Tax hikes and spending cuts all round if they vote yes, so Defence is the obvious target for underspend.

I think joining NATO is the least of their worries.

OK had to comment on this thread simply because of the above quote and the nonsense contained within.

The Barnett Formula provides based on needs like the welsh get more in some areas, Scotland gets more in some areas but to say we receive more is lies. Scotland for the past 27 years has put more into the treasury than it has received back and over the past few years has had its budget reduced by 7% (in real terms). Scotland (excluding London and the SE) raises more GDP per head than ANY other part of the UK.

Scotland would be the 14th richest nation on the planet...yet we would be poor because of it.

North sea oil has produced more than the UAE and Kuwait put together...where has that gone??????????

To sit there and say Scotland is running at a deficit...EVERY nation in the UK runs at a deficit. God, ignorance is everywhere.

Scotland may have a "£450 million blackhole" in the NHS but London will have a £50billion blackhole ANNUALLY when the oil revenue stops going there. Not to mention they have to fund £100billion of Trident on their own and 2 pointless aircraft carriers to wage illegal wars. You point out that Scotland will have no currency union. This may be the case (unlikely) but if it is, we will be entitled to 10% of the UK gold reserves and 10% of the UK banks, including the BoE as its actually the Bank of the UK so you will soon find that for the next 18months we will be in a currency union and then "if we don't continue a union, which we will" we will have set up a central bank of our own with our own currency.

England will not want this because of the costs associated to them....WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP.

You say Scotland relies on the banks more than England...well that's just a bloddy joke - £1.2Trillion of debt....90% of the population. Yeah OK!

Will we be part of Nato? Yes...do i want to be? NO. We will though because strategically its to Nato's advantage. Will we have an army etc? Yes, enough to protect our North Sea assets and our borders. Thats all we want, thats all we need. Thats all anyone needs.

60% of Europes Oil
40% of Europes Fisheries
25% of Europes Renewables
5 million people
Full infrastructure in place

No Scotland, of course you cant be a successful, prosperous country because Westminster (1%) say so...oh yeah and the BBC.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I would happily pay more tax for better services.

The Scottish government has been able to raise up to 3 pence in the pound on income tax for years and hasn't done it once for political reasons. Your own parliament has had the opportunity to tax your own 1% or whatever of high income people to help the poor if it wanted to - It chose not to, but I suppose that was Westminsters fault as well [/yawn]

YES because we Don't have the power to REDUCE it too.

Go back to bed...

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster), no currency to speak of and a need to come up with £145 Billion in cash reserves just to protect their economy should the banks (which Scotland is far more reliant on than the UK) go belly up again, just to mention a few. Tax hikes and spending cuts all round if they vote yes, so Defence is the obvious target for underspend.

I think joining NATO is the least of their worries.

OK had to comment on this thread simply because of the above quote and the nonsense contained within.


North sea oil has produced more than the UAE and Kuwait put together...where has that gone??????????

I've got no skin in this but have to comment, a lot of the profit from the oil goes to the companies that invested in the technology and provided the hardware to actually drill for it. You think they do that for free?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster), no currency to speak of and a need to come up with £145 Billion in cash reserves just to protect their economy should the banks (which Scotland is far more reliant on than the UK) go belly up again, just to mention a few. Tax hikes and spending cuts all round if they vote yes, so Defence is the obvious target for underspend.

I think joining NATO is the least of their worries.

OK had to comment on this thread simply because of the above quote and the nonsense contained within.


North sea oil has produced more than the UAE and Kuwait put together...where has that gone??????????

I've got no skin in this but have to comment, a lot of the profit from the oil goes to the companies that invested in the technology and provided the hardware to actually drill for it. You think they do that for free?

I'm well aware of that but view it like a mortgage application. The more revenue your country generates, the more you can borrow. Whether or not they keep "physical profits" its about generated income. And the UK will be in for a rude awakening when Scotlands £130billion GDP is wiped off of it.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Soloprotocol

To back up what I was saying last night, just saw this in the news today;

He said: ‘Two young men aged in their 20s came up to me. I was talking to one of them normally, but then absolutely out of the blue the other just swung a punch at my head. I was a bit shocked and fell slightly backwards. I carry a white stick because I am half blind – they would have seen that.’
Police in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, said a man in his 70s had a No poster taken from his mobility scooter and replaced with Yes stickers as he was shopping.

What news...And what has the first story have to do with Independence..??

As for the story of a man in his 70 having his scooter "defaced" with YES Stickers... lol..Crime of the Century...Hang em High. Straw clutch much.?

No but the punch in the face is crime.

Seems that the YES campaign have a minority of folk who seem to become quite militant with anyone with opposing views to their own. A bit like you have been on ATS this week, when you declared a one man war against the English.

God help Scotland if the "No" Vote win as I can see people like you and other YES voters will firstly say "its a Fix" and then you'll probably start rioting in the streets. And whatever numpty decided to allow pubs in Scotland to stay open all night tonight needs their bloody head testing.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: starchild10

The only morons that have been threatening violence are the better together orange numpties.

Really, and your going to stand by that statement are you? So what does this mean "Vote Yes or Else"



Show us any news story where No Campaign have thrown eggs at peoples houses, smashed their windows, punched 70 year old men in the face, defaced property with graffiti as above at a polling station.

We can only go by what we are seeing around the World, and a minority of the Yes campaign seem to be thugs.

Here's hoping the Yes Campaign wins hands down today, as I for one am embarrassed to call myself British if these "Thugs" remain in the union.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: starchild10

The only morons that have been threatening violence are the better together orange numpties.

Really, and your going to stand by that statement are you? So what does this mean "Vote Yes or Else"

Show us any news story where No Campaign have thrown eggs at peoples houses, smashed their windows, punched 70 year old men in the face, defaced property with graffiti as above at a polling station.

We can only go by what we are seeing around the World, and a minority of the Yes campaign seem to be thugs.

Here's hoping the Yes Campaign wins hands down today, as I for one am embarrassed to call myself British if these "Thugs" remain in the union.

First of all...do you see the YT tag????????????????????

Well that stands for Young Team.

These are people who have NO say but want the fame...Enough Said...

a reply to: jrmcleod


I guess a lot post Independence would depend upon Salmond, et al. If he reneges of Scotlands share of national debt then i wouldn't count on much North Sea Oil at all - it may be "Scottish" waters but it is UK owned. Which is one reason i think it was a bloody stupid thing for him to come out with.......but that is different issue really.

The EU issue definitely won't go away for the YES camp and neither will currency issues. The thing that would concern me would be the complete lack of credible answers from the YES camp to these fundamental questions. Maybe it is my mentality and love of history but i have always been suspicious of any politician that promises the Earth but can't explain how it is paid for - history shows us this always ends badly.

On the other hand, the NO campaign has been so completely negative that you really couldn't blame people for voting YES just as a protest. If i a were Scot i would be deeply offended by the way this campaign has been handled.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Soloprotocol

To back up what I was saying last night, just saw this in the news today;

He said: ‘Two young men aged in their 20s came up to me. I was talking to one of them normally, but then absolutely out of the blue the other just swung a punch at my head. I was a bit shocked and fell slightly backwards. I carry a white stick because I am half blind – they would have seen that.’
Police in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, said a man in his 70s had a No poster taken from his mobility scooter and replaced with Yes stickers as he was shopping.

What news...And what has the first story have to do with Independence..??

As for the story of a man in his 70 having his scooter "defaced" with YES Stickers... lol..Crime of the Century...Hang em High. Straw clutch much.?

No but the punch in the face is crime.

Seems that the YES campaign have a minority of folk who seem to become quite militant with anyone with opposing views to their own. A bit like you have been on ATS this week, when you declared a one man war against the English.

God help Scotland if the "No" Vote win as I can see people like you and other YES voters will firstly say "its a Fix" and then you'll probably start rioting in the streets. And whatever numpty decided to allow pubs in Scotland to stay open all night tonight needs their bloody head testing.

And secondly, what about the stories of No voters kicking a pregnant Yes voter in the stomach, or the Sky news correspondant calling a Yes Campaigner a **ob?

Its very much 1 sided...

There is bad on both sides but the majority of voters are civil.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: jrmcleod


I guess a lot post Independence would depend upon Salmond, et al. If he reneges of Scotlands share of national debt then i wouldn't count on much North Sea Oil at all - it may be "Scottish" waters but it is UK owned. Which is one reason i think it was a bloody stupid thing for him to come out with.......but that is different issue really.

The EU issue definitely won't go away for the YES camp and neither will currency issues. The thing that would concern me would be the complete lack of credible answers from the YES camp to these fundamental questions. Maybe it is my mentality and love of history but i have always been suspicious of any politician that promises the Earth but can't explain how it is paid for - history shows us this always ends badly.

On the other hand, the NO campaign has been so completely negative that you really couldn't blame people for voting YES just as a protest. If i a were Scot i would be deeply offended by the way this campaign has been handled.

I understand these sentiments but you cannot ignore the facts that Scotland generates X and has X. We are given a lesser budget than we generate but we can still afford what we have here. Westminster too could have free education, prescriptions etc but they choose not to spend that way.

I too am cautious about Salmond but what i do know is that on Independence day there will be a general election in Scotland and for once, my vote will go towards a party that has policies that i want to see implemented.

As for the oil share, that is not UK waters, its a natural resource. International law will dictate it and what you will see is that the equidistant line will be incorporated...because its the law.

When other nations became independent from the UK, you didn't see the UK take its share of the sea or land? If we argue that Scottish waters will be taken away because they are the UK's, then why would we be left with 1/3 of the land mass...wouldn't we only be left with 10%?

This argument is ridiculous.

a reply to: jrmcleod

Agree about the both sides thing. Although i will stick up for Kay Burley (not something that i EVER thought i would say), as the guy she called a *#ob was poking her cameraman with a placard / stick at the time. Be fair mate, that is pretty "#*obby" behaviour!

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster), no currency to speak of and a need to come up with £145 Billion in cash reserves just to protect their economy should the banks (which Scotland is far more reliant on than the UK) go belly up again, just to mention a few. Tax hikes and spending cuts all round if they vote yes, so Defence is the obvious target for underspend.

I think joining NATO is the least of their worries.

OK had to comment on this thread simply because of the above quote and the nonsense contained within.


North sea oil has produced more than the UAE and Kuwait put together...where has that gone??????????

I've got no skin in this but have to comment, a lot of the profit from the oil goes to the companies that invested in the technology and provided the hardware to actually drill for it. You think they do that for free?

I'm well aware of that but view it like a mortgage application. The more revenue your country generates, the more you can borrow. Whether or not they keep "physical profits" its about generated income. And the UK will be in for a rude awakening when Scotlands £130billion GDP is wiped off of it.

That is kind of up for debate as according to unbiased economists Scotland is entitled to 8% tax as revenue. Anyhow, what will be will be, there are plus and minus points on both sides.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: jrmcleod

Agree about the both sides thing. Although i will stick up for Kay Burley (not something that i EVER thought i would say), as the guy she called a *#ob was poking her cameraman with a placard / stick at the time. Be fair mate, that is pretty "#*obby" behaviour!

Yes and i would concur with that had i seen evidence that he was doing what she said.

The very fact that she said "he LOOKS like a **ob" would imply that he had not done anything. Innocent until proven guilty. Show me the evidence that he was doing that...and please, not her word.

a reply to: jrmcleod

What i am saying that is that in the real world, Scotland will have a serious fight on its hands to gain control of the oil IF Salmond reneges on Scotlands share of the debt. That isn't patriotic rhetoric or fervour, simply a statement of "real politik". If Salmond backs out, all deals are basically off. That isn't saying they wouldn't be resolved but it wouldn't be a quick process, leaving a huge hole to be filled (hence me saying it was a stupid thing for him to say).

International law is certainly malleable where the right pressures are applied. Just look at Argentina - reneges on debt deals and now cannot get credit (or only at extortionate rates).

To say the argument is ridiculous is simply naive. It could become a very certain reality.

The point regarding an army is interesting.

An option could be a official 'militia'. Perhaps a U.S. version of the National Guard. "Weekend warriors", so to speak.

Cheaper than a standing army by far.

One has a partially trained base if a larger force is needed-to protect from an English invasion, cough, cough- and that base can be used to supplement the police in the event of terrorist activities....

originally posted by: jrmcleod


And secondly, what about the stories of No voters kicking a pregnant Yes voter in the stomach, or the Sky news correspondant calling a Yes Campaigner a **ob?

Its very much 1 sided...

There is bad on both sides but the majority of voters are civil.

Source please for the NO Voter kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach.

So what if the Sky News reporter called someone from the YES camp a "**ob. To be honest from what the world is seeing on their TV screens, some of them are being **obs. Don't blame the lass at Sky News, blame the **ob for acting as such.

I could copy and paste loads of news stories about the YES campaign militant action against the NO voters and I am sure i'll probably have more sources. You must admit though that a minority of the YES camp are a lot more vocal and menacing than the NO camp.

I guarantee, if the NO vote wins tonight, then there will be riots in Glasgow. Want to put a wager on it?

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: jrmcleod

Agree about the both sides thing. Although i will stick up for Kay Burley (not something that i EVER thought i would say), as the guy she called a *#ob was poking her cameraman with a placard / stick at the time. Be fair mate, that is pretty "#*obby" behaviour!

Yes and i would concur with that had i seen evidence that he was doing what she said.

The very fact that she said "he LOOKS like a **ob" would imply that he had not done anything. Innocent until proven guilty. Show me the evidence that he was doing that...and please, not her word.

I get your point, particularly as she is more irritating than a particularly nasty dose of Thrush, but all the cameras were pointing at her, not away from her - so difficult to verify either way. I certainly wouldn't just take his (the "knob" in question) word either.