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

I like Scotland but, I am afraid that they are exchanging some hard times ahead im exhange for being completely independent. I think nations like Spain and China among others who have thier own independence movements are going try and make life hard on Scotland as a lesson for others. I hope that is not the case but, it seems very likely.

a reply to: flammadraco

For all the faults of the YES campaign, i certainly do not see why Scotland could not prosper - eventually. I just do not buy into their "land of milk and honey" argument that seems to spout out of every SNP member interviewed. That is what raises alarm flags for me.......

Scotland can do very nicely for itself........but it will be a long and painful process. That is what the Scottish voters should be told - the truth. That way, they can make an honest decision based upon hones facts, rather than the heavily distorted campaigns that both sides have been running.

The real question on the ballot boxes should be:

Scottish independence can be a very productive and ultimately lucrative option for our nation but involves a potentially multi decadel period of pain and misery. Given the reality do you vote Yes or NO...........or words to that effect.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: flammadraco

For all the faults of the YES campaign, i certainly do not see why Scotland could not prosper - eventually. I just do not buy into their "land of milk and honey" argument that seems to spout out of every SNP member interviewed. That is what raises alarm flags for me.......

Scotland can do very nicely for itself........but it will be a long and painful process. That is what the Scottish voters should be told - the truth. That way, they can make an honest decision based upon hones facts, rather than the heavily distorted campaigns that both sides have been running.

The real question on the ballot boxes should be:

Scottish independence can be a very productive and ultimately lucrative option for our nation but involves a potentially multi decadel period of pain and misery. Given the reality do you vote Yes or NO...........or words to that effect.

I'm not disputing the fact that Scotland will not prosper. I think given time it will, I don't believe it will prosper with a Socialist Government like the SNP as they tend to live on the never, never and will not reign in spending on things like out of work benefits as they would rather put taxes up on the working populace to pay for this.

Only time will tell and perhaps in a year from now we can revisit some of the things said in this and other threads to see who was talking "crud" and who knew what they were talking about.

a reply to: MrSpad

Is there anything worthwhile that doesn't have a 'price' ?

Their biggest 'enemy' will be themselves, as usual.

a reply to: Flavian


Optimism over pessimism.

Courage before fear.

originally posted by: Flavian
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.

So to say Scotland would have to accept debt would also mean the rUK would have to have a currency union.

The fact that its the UK's debt, its the UK's pound, its the UK's Bank would imply that by forcing us to take a share of the debt we must also get a share of the pound and the BoE? No?

The key factor here regards North Sea territory is that the Equidistant line is a last resort, used only when agreement cannot be obtained between 2 parties. There are other factors that must be considered first such as historical rights etc. For as long as Scotland has been a home nation of the UK and a sovereign state, the waters off of Scotland have been used by Scottish people for scottish people.

The oil fields debate is a non starter i suspect

originally posted by: flammadraco

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?

I am not denying there is a minority, of course there is. But that minority is on both sides. The MSM uses the negativity of the Yes side in every angle it can. This whole debate has been one sided by the westminster elite and it will be their downfall.

Will there be riots is its a No? Possibly, i don't know - i hope not but the chances are just as similar if its a yes vote.

For some reason, people are "hook, line and sinker" when it comes to MSM reporting...why i have no idea when its as clear as day that its biased. Its not democratic, its not fair.

The rest of the world also see this about the UK

EDIT TO ADD

Violence No Voters 1

and another separate incident for good measure

Violence No Voters 2

My point is that there are minorities on both. Its likely though that yes voters are more patriotic and hence more passionate.

When Scotland becomes it's own nation it will not be responsible for the enormous national debt created by London.

Scotland will also have oil rights and revenue.

Scotland will have prosperity because it will not have the need for a large army, a nuclear deterrent, international meddling, and all that sort. It will be a simple free nation taking care of it's own people.

originally posted by: jrmcleod


That's not exactly what International Law is stating;

The paper, written by legal experts at Dundee University, says the two newly separated nations could have a legal dispute of anywhere between three and ten years to decide which gets control of the seas off the east coast.

It also warns that the International Court of Justice would “likely” favour a more northerly line, which could push the reserves in the Fulmar oil field, 300 kilometres off the Fife coast, into English waters.

www.scotsman.com...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Unless they build a Scotch pipeline - one way ...
With a reciprocal - fuel return line.

See ! It can work !

It is all about the supply/demand thing ! ( scale of economy )

Excess fuel to be sold off at a discount rate .

Nessy will pick up the slack .

a reply to: Fromabove

Not true, Scotland will have to take its share of the UK debt which would be approximately £100, Billion for the Scots to pay. Despite Salmond saying he would not pay it if we don't share the Pound, would be economical and political suicide if Scotland refused to pay its sovereign debt as no bank or country in the world will lend Scotland any money and your credit rating will be trash.

Nigeria has massive oil reserves, does not mean the people are rich living in the lap of luxury.

And neither would i take his sole point of view but you must concede that she should not pass judgement like that whilst trying to report on an "impartial" debate.

She is a professional, there are police officers to handle that stuff, especially when she is on air.

originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: jrmcleod


That's not exactly what International Law is stating;

The paper, written by legal experts at Dundee University, says the two newly separated nations could have a legal dispute of anywhere between three and ten years to decide which gets control of the seas off the east coast.

It also warns that the International Court of Justice would “likely” favour a more northerly line, which could push the reserves in the Fulmar oil field, 300 kilometres off the Fife coast, into English waters.

www.scotsman.com...

Look, if you are going to quote something, please don't quote a newspaper that has already come out and voiced it stands with the "No Campaign".

I have taken the time out to prove to you through an very detailed academic study what would happen...and what was agreed by London the day before the Scottish Parliament came into existence.

Academic Review

a reply to: jrmcleod

Thanks for the links and that is disgusting, especially to attack a pregnant woman no matter what her political views. Not sure if i mentioned on this thread or another one but when you say patriotic, whilst I would agree that over 90% of the folk this is probably the case, you also have to add into that mix the "Celtic, Catholic" Yes supporters who hold more patriotism towards the Republic of Ireland than to Scotland. This can be seen quite clearly in towns such as Coatbridge where they fly the Irish flag.

That being said, and after watching a great debate on Channel 4 last night between the YES and NO campaign, someone bought up a very good point which was at the moment, no one on the YES side has had a bad word to say against each other whereas the NO campaign have had political leaders from all parties. If a YES vote wins, then this has been made up of the Greens, SNP etc. The Greens will be against oil exploration, The Nationalist will be against other parties and you will end up with just the same sh** we have in Westminster, whereby no one agrees and nothing gets done. This has not shown its ugly head yet, but it will come after the results are in and if the YES vote wins.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Fromabove

Not true, Scotland will have to take its share of the UK debt which would be approximately £100, Billion for the Scots to pay. Despite Salmond saying he would not pay it if we don't share the Pound, would be economical and political suicide if Scotland refused to pay its sovereign debt as no bank or country in the world will lend Scotland any money and your credit rating will be trash.

Nigeria has massive oil reserves, does not mean the people are rich living in the lap of luxury.

Look, let me explain.

UK Debt = England, Scotland, Wales, NI
UK Pound = England, Scotland, Wales, NI
UK Central Bank which secures UK debt = England, Scotland, Wales, NI

UK Debt = 8% to Scotland (£100billion) - 92% to the rUK (England, Wales, NI)
UK Gold = 8% to Scotland (approx 31 tonnes) - 92% to rUK (England, Wales, NI)
UK Pound = 0% to Scotland - 100% to rUK (England, Wales, NI)
UK Central Bank which secures UK debt = 0% to Scotland - 100% to rUK (England, Wales, NI)

By this train of thought, which YOU are suggesting, we have no choice but to take the debt which was accrued by the WHOLE UK but no share of the assets which were paid for by the WHOLE UK.

Because the pound as a currency and the Central Bank as a system cannot be quantified or divided it stands to reason that Scotland is entitled, with 8% representation to use it. This is why there will be a currency union. Its not Scotland defaulting on its debt, its Scotland defaulting on a UK debt that its not entitled to pay.

Any court on the planet would rule that if Scotland cannot get a share of the assets of the whole UK (England, Scotland, Wales, NI) then it would be entitled to pay none of the UK debt (Scotland, England, Wales and NI).

How can you not see this?

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: jrmcleod


That's not exactly what International Law is stating;

The paper, written by legal experts at Dundee University, says the two newly separated nations could have a legal dispute of anywhere between three and ten years to decide which gets control of the seas off the east coast.

It also warns that the International Court of Justice would “likely” favour a more northerly line, which could push the reserves in the Fulmar oil field, 300 kilometres off the Fife coast, into English waters.

www.scotsman.com...

Look, if you are going to quote something, please don't quote a newspaper that has already come out and voiced it stands with the "No Campaign".

I have taken the time out to prove to you through an very detailed academic study what would happen...and what was agreed by London the day before the Scottish Parliament came into existence.

Academic Review

My god, I used the Scotsman as I thought it would have been a YES, I don't delve into the political alliances the media has for every story I use as a source, would an American source be more to your liking?

a reply to: jrmcleod

What you say may be logical to you but that's not how it works in the real world unfortunately.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: jrmcleod

Thanks for the links and that is disgusting, especially to attack a pregnant woman no matter what her political views. Not sure if i mentioned on this thread or another one but when you say patriotic, whilst I would agree that over 90% of the folk this is probably the case, you also have to add into that mix the "Celtic, Catholic" Yes supporters who hold more patriotism towards the Republic of Ireland than to Scotland. This can be seen quite clearly in towns such as Coatbridge where they fly the Irish flag.

That being said, and after watching a great debate on Channel 4 last night between the YES and NO campaign, someone bought up a very good point which was at the moment, no one on the YES side has had a bad word to say against each other whereas the NO campaign have had political leaders from all parties. If a YES vote wins, then this has been made up of the Greens, SNP etc. The Greens will be against oil exploration, The Nationalist will be against other parties and you will end up with just the same sh** we have in Westminster, whereby no one agrees and nothing gets done. This has not shown its ugly head yet, but it will come after the results are in and if the YES vote wins.

You may be right but remember this, the whole independence thing began many many years ago when the SNP were elected into parliament. The promise was that Scotland would get a vote on independence and that promise has been maintained.

The problem i have is not that i dislike people its the fact that we are told we cannot rule ourselves, as if we are children of Westminster.

Sovereignty is the right of all people and to be told you cannot manage or you don't deserve it through fear is what drives me to vote yes.

I believe more so than ever now that with the powers of Social Media, people are no longer sheep like they used to be. Its more about opportunity that continuity. I see no positive future for the UK, i see only death, lies, despair and divides. I would rather fail but try than fail but not try.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: jrmcleod

originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: jrmcleod


That's not exactly what International Law is stating;

The paper, written by legal experts at Dundee University, says the two newly separated nations could have a legal dispute of anywhere between three and ten years to decide which gets control of the seas off the east coast.

It also warns that the International Court of Justice would “likely” favour a more northerly line, which could push the reserves in the Fulmar oil field, 300 kilometres off the Fife coast, into English waters.

www.scotsman.com...

Look, if you are going to quote something, please don't quote a newspaper that has already come out and voiced it stands with the "No Campaign".

I have taken the time out to prove to you through an very detailed academic study what would happen...and what was agreed by London the day before the Scottish Parliament came into existence.

Academic Review

My god, I used the Scotsman as I thought it would have been a YES, I don't delve into the political alliances the media has for every story I use as a source, would an American source be more to your liking?

Every paper in Scotland barr 1 is pro-union as are all the TV broadcasters. None support the Yes side because they are all owned by those that stand to lose the most in the event of a yes.

Nearly every story published online by these papers and broadcasters paints the yes campaign negatively.

Even Andy Murray voting Yes has sparked a lot of hate from the No camp including comments such as

"i wish you had died in Dunblane"...

I mean, come on!!!

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: jrmcleod

What you say may be logical to you but that's not how it works in the real world unfortunately.

Yes but by saying No, there will be no union, is blatant lies. If it goes to the International Court of Settlements or the Hague or wherever, the court will rule in Scotland's favour because they don't take emotion into it, they take fact.

England and Scotland will NOT go down this route because its silly to do so. There will be a union, end of story!