Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal

Can i just say that anyone who thinks Gordon Brown is an ambassador for scotland is seriously misguided.

The guy sold out years ago..... whats wrong with you fools... i mean people...

I hear the renminbi is the currency of the future maybe we could adopt that, sterling along with the dollar are soon to go bye bye who says we would want that eh ?

Originally posted by Zecharia
Can i just say that anyone who thinks Gordon Brown is an ambassador for scotland is seriously misguided.

The guy sold out years ago..... whats wrong with you fools... i mean people...

why? out of that huge conversation did you pull out that little statement about the past two prime ministers. It was more of a ironic joke.

Originally posted by ZechariaI hear the renminbi is the currency of the future maybe we could adopt that, sterling along with the dollar are soon to go bye bye who says we would want that eh ?

Your missing the point, its more to do with debt. No great costs if they keep the currency. (or as freeborn pointed out, allowed to keep the Sterling. I didn't think of that, the negative side.)

If they joined the Euro again subsidies costs of the new currency through euro funding.

reply to post by tdk84

why? out of that huge conversation did you pull out that little statement about the past two prime ministers. It was more of a ironic joke.

I pulled that out because it has arose in the thread several times and know one has pionted out this fact, as if we should feel more equal beacause we had a Scottish prime minister.

I do not wish to go into the EU debate again, i have already made my feelings clear earlier in the thread and i fear it would still fall on deaf ears.

Originally posted by Freeborn
But to be fair, some of that 'state funded investment' came from Scottish tax payers - the bigger issue will be the division of the oil fields themselves - I really can't see the rest of the UK simply handing over all of them, certainly not those in English territorial waters - I suspect any negotions would be heated and interesting.

Thats kinda what I mean, you got this state funded investment, so they should be entitled to what they proportionally put in? Well I think that's how the rest of Britian will look at it or as you put it the rest of the UK wont simply hand it over.

Tough.
Don't see how they can claim total independance yet maintain the London centric and controlled Sterling as their currency - that's not independance as far as I can tell.
That's being reliant on someone else - what would Scotland do if Bank Of England policies or the UK governments fiscal and economic policies were contrary to Scotland's - do they really want 'us' controlling 'their' currency?

Besides which, it's looking at it arse about face - it's not really would an independant Scotland want to retain Sterling but rather does the UK want a foreign nation to use it's currency?
What happens if Scotland's economy goes tits up, like it quite easily could, do we want that to be able to effect Sterling?

I didnt think of that, the negatives of letting them keep it. A new country would be very volatile. I guess this is the sort of thing that would be brought up in negotiations of oil feilds lol. As you point out these things dont come cheap.

Obviously there will be a transitional period - and what sort of detrimental effect could that have on the Scottish economy?
Already it is reported that investors are reluctant to invest their money in Scotland due to the uncertainty over it's future.

I hadnt heard that, not good. Not the greatest time for reluctant investors during this economic climate. I never considered the damage this referendum brings. No doubt effecting the rest of the UK.

It's not up to the SNP.

I guess not.

Well, they'll have to do it pretty damned fast as they won't be part of the UK and will have to apply for membership of the EU.
The SNP are deluding themselves and misleading the Scottish public - it has clearly been stated that an independant Scotland will have to apply for membership just like any other non-member nation and certain, strict criteria must be met.

Regardless of NATO membership the UK would always help protect Scotland - blood is thicker than water.

True,

Yes we would... but is it fair, they would be effectively piggy backing of us and Europe. Again I guess this would come down to negotiating the oil fields for services... maybe.

And whilst were on the topic I forgot about the fact EU wanted to have some say on those oil fields, currently we have enough political clout to tell them where to stuff it, would a independent Scotland? Assuming they join the EU.

Tough - divorce doesn't come cheap.

lol eloquently put

How can an independant Scotland be part of the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation?

Or is this a case of the SNP cherry picking what parts of being British they want to keep.
Sorry, but independance is independance in my book - all or nothing - and if they have to lose some things they want to keep - tough - we are all adults, we all know you can't have thing's both way's.

I see what your saying, but again they proportionaly invested into this mega "world" institute.

Exactly.
I firmly believe that we have strong cultural ties and it will be easier, but not easy, to effect real change if we stand together.
Better Together.

Totally agree.

Unfortunately I can see the debate focussing on the few things that divide us rather than the many things that unite us.

Yes I think your right. But I'm hoping the majority will see sense. The problem is this influx of youngsters which in my mind will be thinking one thing. Do these youngsters try for southern jobs, i know unemployment is very high up north? These Scottish youngster's have recently reaped the rewards from labours huge funding of free higher education, health care etc. Stupid to vote against these benefits?

But at the end of the day Scotland will do as Scotland see's fit - and that's as it should be - I just wish we ALL had the same opportunity.

agreed

Originally posted by Zecharia
reply to post by tdk84

 

I pulled that out because it has arose in the thread several times and know one has pionted out this fact, as if we should feel more equal beacause we had a Scottish prime minister.

Fair enough.

I do not wish to go into the EU debate again, i have already made my feelings clear earlier in the thread and i fear it would still fall on deaf ears.

And what about, the Currency, Defence, Oil, BBC, inherited Debt, the ability to fund such debt, Kids Voting etc

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by tdk84

 

Who knows.

As I have stated previously, The Shetland and Orkney Islands have already intimated that if they vote against independance but the majority of Scotland votes for independance then they will give serious consideration to requesting to remain within The Union.

How would the UK respond to that - especially considering our stance over The Falklands?

Would any other parts of Scotland follow suit?

How would the rest of Scotland respond?

It would be interesting to say the least.

I'd imagine they would respond exactly the same way and say its upto the people of those locations to choose.

No doubt other locations would also follow suit, I believe recent polls have said 29% want out.

Interesting but as mentioned... bad. We need Scotland as much as they need us.

And what about, the Currency, Defence, Oil, BBC, inherited Debt, the ability to fund such debt, Kids Voting etc

The debt is make believe, created through the fractional reserve. If it was down to me id have the cartels hung up and the debt wiped. Completely start afresh if you like. I think the currency debt and oil has already been covered in the thread with plausible outcomes along with the defence divi up.

And i believe the kids are allowed to vote because they are easy to manipulate.

So, independence will come about, through a vote, in two years...or I should say if the vote passes. Somehow I am still skeptical

Imagine: Hey Brits, the colonies want Independence. Okay America, we'll vote on it in a few years.

Eh, not likely to happen.

Originally posted by Zecharia
And I believe the kids are allowed to vote because they are easy to manipulate.

Exactly, how has this been allowed to happen?

On a separate note, interesting that out of the 8 Oil refinery's in the UK only one is located in Scotland? I then found this map.



Looks like a lot of that are in British waters? Does Scotland just have an untapped resource?

reply to post by tdk84

Exactly, how has this been allowed to happen?

Probably because it will help the same power groups retain their control through manipulating the young voters..

Alex Salmond is just another plumb looking to fulfill his own political prowess and is not for the good of the people either.

There is still lots of oil in most of the wells its developing new tech to reach further which is the problem, demand requires supply so they will get every last drop i have no doubt. Oh and i count 3 rigs in scottish waters buddy.

Maybe gold could be the savior i hear scotlands first gold mine is to re open.... oh wait more lands pillaged

Scotlands gold

Originally posted by tdk84
A thoughts just occurred to me... I hope this doesn't cause some sort of 'Republic of Scotland' leaving behind a majority who wish to stay in the UK?

I think as it stand the majority want to remain in the Union with greater powers. A little independent state for the minority?

Without the ability to conveniently blame our grievances on the 'wicked english' we'd be back tearing each other apart like we have for most of our history.

I struggle to see any long term good in this at all.

Even if the vote goes the way i want there will be lots of angry young men in the other camp wound up by 2 years of intense nationalist rhetoric. Its hardly likely to be conducive to peace and happiness.

reply to post by filosophia

So, independence will come about, through a vote, in two years...or I should say if the vote passes. Somehow I am still skeptical

Sceptical or not the vote is going ahead and whatever the outcome one thing is certain - it's Scotland's choice and no-one else's.

Imagine: Hey Brits, the colonies want Independence. Okay America, we'll vote on it in a few years.

What has it got to do with America?

For the record, it's the nationalist SNP, who allegedly want independance, who have been dragging it out and wanting the referendum to take place as late as possible - I think the vast majority of the UK want it held as soon as practically possible to put an end to the uncertainty.

Eh, not likely to happen.

What, the referendum or a Yes vote?

Last nights Question Time for anyone that missed it.



And a Newsnight special from Wednesday night.

Originally posted by Zecharia
reply to post by tdk84

 

Exactly, how has this been allowed to happen?

Probably because it will help the same power groups retain their control through manipulating the young voters..

Alex Salmond is just another plumb looking to fulfill his own political prowess and is not for the good of the people either.

There is still lots of oil in most of the wells its developing new tech to reach further which is the problem, demand requires supply so they will get every last drop i have no doubt. Oh and i count 3 rigs in scottish waters buddy.

Maybe gold could be the savior i hear scotlands first gold mine is to re open.... oh wait more lands pillaged

Scotlands gold

Already bought and owned by an Australian mining co. (and bank) I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Murdoch was involved with that somewhere down the line. I believe the land involved was once owned by his ancestors. I personally have investigated the directors and CEO of Scotgold to no avail. There is a Mr Simon Rothschild (banker) in there but to my knowledge his surname is a mere co-incidence.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by sapien82

 

Personally (and I know there is history that would probably put paid to the idea) but I think the best option for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would be to band together in a Union of the Isles, with a Federal type Government with home rule for ALL (not just Wales, Scotland and Ireland - England is totally disenfranchised in the current set up), all within a Direct Democratic system where the people actually have a voice and the politicians have to listen.

The last time we all banded together, we ruled the world. We all have far more in common with each other than anyone on the continent and as shown recently, the UK was still very willing to bung a few quid to the Irish when they were in trouble, as they are good friends and neighbours.

But, that's just my pipe dream. Just getting people interested in changing the status-quo now, everything else withstanding, is nigh on impossible. Most barely even understand how Parliament is supposed to work, hence the totally bastardisation of it by the "mainstream" parties in the last 100 years.

You see, this is why we are different. I have no desire to 'rule the world' - you ask why someone would find the union flag offensive, you refer to 'Braveheart' romanticism, but seem to have a strangely romantic view of your empire. How many defenceless people's of the world were slaughtered under your union flag when you were busy ruling the world? Personally, I find the flag offensive as its not referred to as the 'Butcher's Apron' for no reason.

It would be interesting if you asked your 'good friends and neighbours' Ireland what they think of the Union flag.

To say that Scotland wanted and were not forced into this union is quite simply untrue and a rewriting of history on your part.

I do agree with a later post of your in which you question English patriotism. I've often wondered why there hasn't been more a movement for England to break away from the union......perhaps a desire to cling on to the first part of your empire? It's only been fairly recently that we have seen the flag of St George become proudly displayed across England, a good thing in my opinion.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
If the Scots do get independence would we still share certain thing such as the armed forces. Or would all the Scottish regiments be 'sent home' and vice versa for the Union?

We still have an Irish regiment that recruits from the Republic, so I see now reason to hand over the Scots regiments. Scotland would have to build it's own forces, not pinch ours.

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
Also, what about the Navy, will that be diced up so Scotland get 20% of it? I'm pretty sure the Nuclear Deterrent would be shared amongst the nations, all the effort that has been implemented by Scotland and the rest of the Union is huge. Also, is there anywhere us 'British' could host the Subs if we retained 100% control of them (Humber, Severn, Cumbria, Tyneside)?

The Royal Navy is a direct descendent of the English Royal Navy. Nothing really changed with the Union as far as they were concerned. Again, they would need to build their own ships, not pinch ours. That much has been stated by both sides.

As for the Subs, they are built in Cumbria and our SSN's are based at Devonport (Europe's largest naval base). They have only just recently announced that the SSN's would be based at Faslane in Scotland as of 2017, but with independence that plan would be scrapped and I would imagine those that are already based there (the SSBN's) would move South.

As for the Nukes, Salmond has said he is against nuclear weapons and we certainly won't be handing them over in any case. It would be the same as the Ukriane, or Kazakhstan in the former USSR. They had old Soviet nuclear weapons for a period, but handed them back to Russia.

Again, how very arrogant of you.

You will not hand over Scotland's regiments if the Scottish people vote for independence?

I was under the impression that much of the British Navy fleet was built on the Clyde in Glasgow? Yet all this time this has been the English Navy? Was it only English taxpayers that paid for this navy?

Regardless, you are entirely welcome to keep 'Your' ships and regiments and continue to fight your foreign wars and reap the rewards that may bring. I want no part.

You see, without intention you have summed up pretty much why there now exists in Scotland such a movement for independence, the most important decisions relating to the country are being made in London by very arrogant people who have little interest in the goings on outwith the South East corner of England.

Originally posted by Zecharia
reply to post by tdk84

 

Probably because it will help the same power groups retain their control through manipulating the young voters..

Alex Salmond is just another plumb looking to fulfill his own political prowess and is not for the good of the people either.

yeah I guess, all comes to power & money.

There is still lots of oil in most of the wells its developing new tech to reach further which is the problem, demand requires supply so they will get every last drop i have no doubt. Oh and i count 3 rigs in scottish waters buddy.

Refinery's not rigs. One refinery in Scotland.

Again, how very arrogant of you.

You will not hand over Scotland's regiments if the Scottish people vote for independence?

I was under the impression that much of the British Navy fleet was built on the Clyde in Glasgow? Yet all this time this has been the English Navy? Was it only English taxpayers that paid for this navy?

Regardless, you are entirely welcome to keep 'Your' ships and regiments and continue to fight your foreign wars and reap the rewards that may bring. I want no part.

You see, without intention you have summed up pretty much why there now exists in Scotland such a movement for independence, the most important decisions relating to the country are being made in London by very arrogant people who have little interest in the goings on outwith the South East corner of England.

Why are you arguing with these stupid statements.

Obviously the military will be split proportionally. The greater question is what % of currently military personal would want to leave the current setup. They joined for a certain lifestyle that would obviously change.

You also make it sound like the English love going off fighting these "foreign wars". Get real, the public perception is identical to that of Scotlands.

One of the things I do agree with you are that the most important decisions are being made in London. Recent governments have tried to appease this fact by throwing a load of money at you. You can look at all the stats at the per head spending being a lot higher in Scotland.

Obviously things need tweaking, but not with a referendum for independence and current polls shows this is the majority perception in Scotland too. Not sure how the youth voting would swing this though. Scotland needs Britain as much as Britain needs Scotland.

Originally posted by tdk84

Again, how very arrogant of you.

You will not hand over Scotland's regiments if the Scottish people vote for independence?

I was under the impression that much of the British Navy fleet was built on the Clyde in Glasgow? Yet all this time this has been the English Navy? Was it only English taxpayers that paid for this navy?

Regardless, you are entirely welcome to keep 'Your' ships and regiments and continue to fight your foreign wars and reap the rewards that may bring. I want no part.

You see, without intention you have summed up pretty much why there now exists in Scotland such a movement for independence, the most important decisions relating to the country are being made in London by very arrogant people who have little interest in the goings on outwith the South East corner of England.

Why are you arguing with these stupid statements.

Obviously the military will be split proportionally. The greater question is what % of currently military personal would want to leave the current setup. They joined for a certain lifestyle that would obviously change.

You also make it sound like the English love going off fighting these "foreign wars". Get real, the public perception is identical to that of Scotlands.

One of the things I do agree with you are that the most important decisions are being made in London. Recent governments have tried to appease this fact by throwing a load of money at you. You can look at all the stats at the per head spending being a lot higher in Scotland.

Obviously things need tweaking, but not with a referendum for independence and current polls shows this is the majority perception in Scotland too. Not sure how the youth voting would swing this though. Scotland needs Britain as much as Britain needs Scotland.

Clearly I wasn't referring to any public perception as the OP is about government and the possible change thereof.

It does seem that successive UK government's have loved nothing more than fighting illegal wars. An independent Scotland would have nothing to do with that. It would then be up to the voting populous of whatever union remains to have their government alter their foreign policy. Good luck.

It does seem that successive UK government's have loved nothing more than fighting illegal wars. An independent Scotland would have nothing to do with that. It would then be up to the voting populous of whatever union remains to have their government alter their foreign policy. Good luck.

Yes they love illegal wars & what makes you think Scotland wouldn't be involved? I'd imagine Scotland would try their darnedest to be part of NATO and the EU. Such a potentially young country would do its best to keep relations as high as possible.

Defence and wars are such a tiny % of the greater issue's.