Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[nontabury]

2. Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation. May I point out to our Commonwealth cousins, the UN Security Council seat is de facto their seat too, the UK uses the veto to represent the best interests of the UK and the Commonwealth. If we didn't have it, then we would have to rely even more on the ever weakening US for protection. Australians in particular should be switched on to the currents developments in regards to defence in their country. Like it or lump it, the Oz government knows the country is highly vulnerable to invasion due to the vast size of the place, so they need to put up more deterrent signals to possible Chinese expansionism, hence the token presence of US marines in Darwin.

I am Australian, however both my parents families came from Scotland so I have genetic sympathy for the Scottish position, I do wonder though that independence wouldn't have been offerred unless they knew it wasn't going to happen.

The UK dumped Australian trade and hurt us economically (temporarily) when it joined the Common Market, it is perceived as being interested in Europe, not Australia. We also leaned in WW2 when the Japanese were knocking and couldn't get our troops back for homeland defence how things stood, also that The UK was no longer a world power that could project military might to Asia. We have moved towards the US ever since.

It will be interesting to watch what happens, if independence then I suspect there will continue a very close relationship in many aspects.

"The UK dumped Australian trade and hurt us economically (temporarily) when it joined the Common Market, it is perceived as being interested in Europe, not Australia. We also leaned in WW2 when the Japanese were knocking and couldn't get our troops back for homeland defence how things stood, also that The UK was no longer a world power that could project military might to Asia. We have moved towards the US ever since."

Correct in all regards, our abandonment of our Commonwealth countries when we entered the Common Market was a disgrace. I also believe we should have a British carrier fleet permanently stationed in Australia, however we have decided it's more important to spend £23 Billion a year on housing benefit.

In many regards our priorities are so far wrong it's a disgrace.

Agree it is a disgrace how we got our priorities wrong,we should have stayed with our commonwealth relations, and it's no wonder the countries broke, with the No of socialist benefits, that seem to encourage the work shy.then you talk about stationing a British carrier fleet off Australia,we can't afford it, but no problem as I believe an independent Scotland will station a Scottish navel fleet, along with numerous SAF squadrons all around the world.

[theblether]

2. Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation. May I point out to our Commonwealth cousins, the UN Security Council seat is de facto their seat too, the UK uses the veto to represent the best interests of the UK and the Commonwealth. If we didn't have it, then we would have to rely even more on the ever weakening US for protection. Australians in particular should be switched on to the currents developments in regards to defence in their country. Like it or lump it, the Oz government knows the country is highly vulnerable to invasion due to the vast size of the place, so they need to put up more deterrent signals to possible Chinese expansionism, hence the token presence of US marines in Darwin.

I am Australian, however both my parents families came from Scotland so I have genetic sympathy for the Scottish position, I do wonder though that independence wouldn't have been offerred unless they knew it wasn't going to happen.

The UK dumped Australian trade and hurt us economically (temporarily) when it joined the Common Market, it is perceived as being interested in Europe, not Australia. We also leaned in WW2 when the Japanese were knocking and couldn't get our troops back for homeland defence how things stood, also that The UK was no longer a world power that could project military might to Asia. We have moved towards the US ever since.

It will be interesting to watch what happens, if independence then I suspect there will continue a very close relationship in many aspects.

"The UK dumped Australian trade and hurt us economically (temporarily) when it joined the Common Market, it is perceived as being interested in Europe, not Australia. We also leaned in WW2 when the Japanese were knocking and couldn't get our troops back for homeland defence how things stood, also that The UK was no longer a world power that could project military might to Asia. We have moved towards the US ever since."

Correct in all regards, our abandonment of our Commonwealth countries when we entered the Common Market was a disgrace. I also believe we should have a British carrier fleet permanently stationed in Australia, however we have decided it's more important to spend £23 Billion a year on housing benefit.

In many regards our priorities are so far wrong it's a disgrace.

Agree it is a disgrace how we got our priorities wrong,we should have stayed with our commonwealth relations, and it's no wonder the countries broke, with the No of socialist benefits, that seem to encourage the work shy.then you talk about stationing a British carrier fleet off Australia,we can't afford it, but no problem as I believe an independent Scotland will station a Scottish navel fleet, along with numerous SAF squadrons all around the world.

You do realize that the housing benefit budget is larger than the defence budget don't you? Billions are being poured down a black hole in a story fit for a Shakespearen tragedy.

The 2002 Budget will go down in history as the day the UK committed financial suicide. Most of you don't know why.....go check it out.

I'm not trying to be smart or demeaning, there's a limit as to how much I can post here, some of the questions I'm being asked deserve 10,000 word answers. I have studied world politics, British politics and British history for years.

I can safely say that the last Labour government caused more deliberate damage to our country than any other in British history, ever........and it was deliberate, they have admitted it already.

I revile Tony Blair for his megalomaniacal weakness, but I hold Gordon Brown responsible. From literally day one he worked against Tony Blair and used the Treasury as a weapon against him. Blair was a weak little boy, Brown was and still is, a damaged, unstable tyrant.......he has caused more damage to our country than any other Prime Minister since Stanley Baldwin, another clown of the first order.

[Scott]

Let's try and stick to the topic of 'Britain and Scotland and Independence'. If you are going to use information that is not a part of the topic, please try and tie it into the topic so that its relevance is understood by everyone.

[nontabury]

THEBLETHER

You do realize that the housing benefit budget is larger than the defence budget don't you? Billions are being poured down a black hole in a story fit for a Shakespearen tragedy.

The 2002 Budget will go down in history as the day the UK committed financial suicide. Most of you don't know why.....go check it out.

I'm not trying to be smart or demeaning, there's a limit as to how much I can post here, some of the questions I'm being asked deserve 10,000 word answers. I have studied world politics, British politics and British history for years.

I can safely say that the last Labour government caused more deliberate damage to our country than any other in British history, ever........and it was deliberate, they have admitted it already.

I revile Tony Blair for his megalomaniacal weakness, but I hold Gordon Brown responsible. From literally day one he worked against Tony Blair and used the Treasury as a weapon against him. Blair was a weak little boy, Brown was and still is, a damaged, unstable tyrant.......he has caused more damage to our country than any other Prime Minister since Stanley Baldwin, another clown of the first order.

///////////////////////------------//////////////////

Oh,this is getting embarrassing,again I agree with you. I just wish you'd have mentioned

That Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Scottish.as we're a disproportional number in their cabinet's also in the numbers of Scottish Labour M.P,s in the then ruling party.What makes you think that a independent Scotland,governed by Scott's will be any different.

You seem to be making a sound reason why Scotland should remain in the Union.Will you please stop this,as you know, I along with many English people, want our independence,for which we have been cruelly denied for 305yrs. We are now relying on you, and like minded Scotsmen to grant us our wish,don't disappoint us.

What was the exact saying by a German General who said something like = the British soldier's are like lion's sent into battle by idiot's.

Edited October 30, 2012 by nontabury

[theblether]

Eh...first of all it was you who started it and!!! You'll need to get rid of the Welsh and Northern Irish too.

[folium]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Away from soapboxes and grandstanding the issue of the role of the Navy has been discussed on an earlier thread in which you took part, albeit very briefly and concisely.

You confuse what would be nice to have with what we can afford to have. If you take the time to look at the recent military reviews undertaken in the UK, eg SDSR & Army 2020, the emphasis is on assessing likely threats and structuring the military to be able to meet these, all within a very constrained budgetary environment. Iraq & Afghan have been hideously expensive and similar largesse will not be forthcoming for some considerable time. It would be marvelous to have a larger, better equipped military but given the weight of opposition (including yours it would appear) that has grown against foreign military interventions the military is in no position to argue for a larger slice of the pie especially given the current financial situation.

The idea of a Scottish government having a veto over the deployment of UK forces would be a total non-starter and would guarantee that a continuation of the current status quo in terms of the military is unlikely if Scotland were to go independent. Ironically Scotland came into the Union with 5 infantry regiments and 3 ships, and it would suit many people if they left with the same. The infantry are scheduled to lose 4 battalions by 2020 so if the five SCOTS battalions (all scaled down to a 450 establishment and 5 SCOTS at 120 company strength reflecting their poor recruitment and political fear of cap badge losses) were returned to Scotland there would be no need to disband the 4 English/Welsh infantry units. Similarly the Scots DG could also be returned and 2 English armoured regiments spared the chop. Many would thus be all in favour of Scottish independence, as the loss of Scottish regiments would almost exactly match the required cuts laid down in Army 2020, perhaps General Nick Carter has this in mind! The 3 ships would be the fishery protection vessels.

Ironically post-independence many Scots may opt to head south for a real military experience, rather than being part of the Salmond fleet or Braveheart militia. Much as the Irish Guards exists 90 years after Irish independence recruiting from Irish neighbourhoods around the UK and the Republic, so the Scots Guards would/will (?) play a similar role post separation in 2014.

So guns or butter? Welfare budgets are being addressed in the UK but the military will not be, nor should be, immune from cost cutting exercises. A post-independence Scotland will face a similar dilemma especially with the generous services currently on offer. It will be interesting to see Scottish priorities if independence occurs and the spending crunch begins to bite.

Faslane? Given the money invested there and the unique, UK based nuclear storage facilties at Coulport the likeliest option would be a job-saving (for 11,000 Scots), long term lease arrangement, though it would be amusing to go for a Kaliningrad oblast option.

You claim with "searing accuracy" that more is spent on Housing Benefit than the military....not so, see below for 2010-11 expenditure for instance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11

Staring back into history and wishful thinking of are of little relevance or practical value. Perhaps its a Celtic thing......

[bigbamboo]

Cos it's not all about the money.......it's all about looking after the poor and vulnerable, and giving opportunities to people......

Hence free care for the elderly, no prescription charges, and free University education among many others.

The idea of English kids being charged fees to enter Universities is mental........a 100 years of progressive politics washed down the pan.

Access to Uni shouldn't be dependent on Mummy and Daddy being able to pay the fees, it should be on ability. The idea of the elderly infirm losing all their savings and home to pay for geriatric care is cruel.

The idea of the sick being charged money for medicine in our country is repulsive.

So without getting into a long debate about the different social priorities, just take those three examples of how we put people and fairness first and ask yourself, who's got it right?

Actually, the majority of the things that you mention above, we no longer (thankfully) have in Australia.

One of the joys of being Australian is that we have embraced the compassion of the UK system (without mirroring it) yet have the spirit and entrepreneurial energy that the United States enjoy.

Universities are not free here ... neither should they be.

If you wish to study at University, it is a merit based system.

You can apply for a low interest government loan to attend and you repay this loan once you are earning a viable working wage.

Nor is the Healthcare system entirely free as that really fosters abuse of the system and no acknowledgement of the cost to the countries health budget.

There is a co-payment for medical services ... a very low co-payment to keep it affordable.

How is this relevant to the OP?

Well, if Scotland does eventually gain Independence, it will have to consider the model for it's social structure.

Just so long as Vegemite isn't compulsory too.

[David48]

Being mindful of what the Mod mentioned above about staying on topic.

Looking at the question you are considering ... New Zealand is looking to become part of Australia ...

I think we could learn a lot from the Scotland Independance issue ...

[nontabury]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Away from soapboxes and grandstanding

Ironically post-independence many Scots may opt to head south for a real military experience, rather than being part of the Salmond fleet or Braveheart militia.

.

Brilliant

[theblether]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Away from soapboxes and grandstanding

Ironically post-independence many Scots may opt to head south for a real military experience, rather than being part of the Salmond fleet or Braveheart militia.

.

Brilliant

Yes I love the irony

[folium]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Away from soapboxes and grandstanding

Ironically post-independence many Scots may opt to head south for a real military experience, rather than being part of the Salmond fleet or Braveheart militia.

.

Brilliant

Yes I love the irony

Thought it was the Iron-bru....

[theblether]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Away from soapboxes and grandstanding

Ironically post-independence many Scots may opt to head south for a real military experience, rather than being part of the Salmond fleet or Braveheart militia.

.

Brilliant

Yes I love the irony

Thought it was the Iron-bru....

Irn-Bru

Any chance of you doing that post again but this time leaving out the hyperbole?

[MAJIC]

I need to withdraw my mea culpa......I was right again, the interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90, in response to the Lawson Boom and overheating in the South East housing market.

This introduced the phrase"negative equity" to the British public.

So now it's your turn to apologize. Who's first?

Well heres my source,

http://en.wikipedia....Black_Wednesday

"interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90"

Sorry my records for that period I no longer keep, but I am fairly confident the interest rates were never 15% for that length of time, perhaps you could provide a source only to satisfy my curiousity.

From what I remember of that period the boom was pre 1988, 1989 made have seen a peak, but by 1990 there was no boom, in fact in many areas house prices had dropped back, hence the negative equity to which you refer.

I remember people walking out of houses and tossing the keys through the letter boxes.

I remember houses were virtually unsellable.

Strange but in some areas houses are worth at least 3 if not 4 times what they were worth back then.

I go back to my original statement, it was to do with the ERM fiasco and nothing whatsover to do with a housing boom, the housing boom came to an abrupt end as the cost of borrowing kept rising.

I'm pretty sure It was the ERM Fiasco when interest rates topped 15% in one day,under the guidance of then chancellor.Norman Lamont, and aided and abetted by George Souros,who took the UK for £12 Billion on that fateful day,and almost had the £ in freefall. Well that's my memory,of that disastrous day of incompetance.unless someone else saw it differently? named as I recall :Black Thursday.

Edited October 30, 2012 by MAJIC

[theblether]

I need to withdraw my mea culpa......I was right again, the interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90, in response to the Lawson Boom and overheating in the South East housing market.

This introduced the phrase"negative equity" to the British public.

So now it's your turn to apologize. Who's first?

Well heres my source,

http://en.wikipedia....Black_Wednesday

"interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90"

Sorry my records for that period I no longer keep, but I am fairly confident the interest rates were never 15% for that length of time, perhaps you could provide a source only to satisfy my curiousity.

From what I remember of that period the boom was pre 1988, 1989 made have seen a peak, but by 1990 there was no boom, in fact in many areas house prices had dropped back, hence the negative equity to which you refer.

I remember people walking out of houses and tossing the keys through the letter boxes.

I remember houses were virtually unsellable.

Strange but in some areas houses are worth at least 3 if not 4 times what they were worth back then.

I go back to my original statement, it was to do with the ERM fiasco and nothing whatsover to do with a housing boom, the housing boom came to an abrupt end as the cost of borrowing kept rising.

I'm pretty sure It was the ERM Fiasco when interest rates topped 15% in one day,under the guidance of then chancellor.Norman Lamont, and aided and abetted by George Souros,who took the UK for £12 Billion on that fateful day,and almost had the £ in freefall. Well that's my memory,of that disastrous day of incompetance.unless someone else saw it differently? named as I recall :Black Thursday.

Annoyingly for Folium we have confirmed that the interest rate was 15% during the dates I mentioned, I haven't looked into Black Wednesday to any extent however I've seen it written that the actual rate at the end of the day was 12%, with 15% being on the cards too.

Even more annoyingly for Folium, it was all off topic anyway as I was right in the first place.

[MAJIC]

I need to withdraw my mea culpa......I was right again, the interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90, in response to the Lawson Boom and overheating in the South East housing market.

This introduced the phrase"negative equity" to the British public.

So now it's your turn to apologize. Who's first?

Well heres my source,

http://en.wikipedia....Black_Wednesday

"interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90"

Sorry my records for that period I no longer keep, but I am fairly confident the interest rates were never 15% for that length of time, perhaps you could provide a source only to satisfy my curiousity.

From what I remember of that period the boom was pre 1988, 1989 made have seen a peak, but by 1990 there was no boom, in fact in many areas house prices had dropped back, hence the negative equity to which you refer.

I remember people walking out of houses and tossing the keys through the letter boxes.

I remember houses were virtually unsellable.

Strange but in some areas houses are worth at least 3 if not 4 times what they were worth back then.

I go back to my original statement, it was to do with the ERM fiasco and nothing whatsover to do with a housing boom, the housing boom came to an abrupt end as the cost of borrowing kept rising.

I'm pretty sure It was the ERM Fiasco when interest rates topped 15% in one day,under the guidance of then chancellor.Norman Lamont, and aided and abetted by George Souros,who took the UK for £12 Billion on that fateful day,and almost had the £ in freefall. Well that's my memory,of that disastrous day of incompetance.unless someone else saw it differently? named as I recall :Black Thursday.

Annoyingly for Folium we have confirmed that the interest rate was 15% during the dates I mentioned, I haven't looked into Black Wednesday to any extent however I've seen it written that the actual rate at the end of the day was 12%, with 15% being on the cards too.

Even more annoyingly for Folium, it was all off topic anyway as I was right in the first place.

Heres 'the whole sorry story of the ERM fiasco!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/16/newsid_2519000/2519013.stm

[MAJIC]

I need to withdraw my mea culpa......I was right again, the interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90, in response to the Lawson Boom and overheating in the South East housing market.

This introduced the phrase"negative equity" to the British public.

So now it's your turn to apologize. Who's first?

Well heres my source,

http://en.wikipedia....Black_Wednesday

"interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90"

Sorry my records for that period I no longer keep, but I am fairly confident the interest rates were never 15% for that length of time, perhaps you could provide a source only to satisfy my curiousity.

From what I remember of that period the boom was pre 1988, 1989 made have seen a peak, but by 1990 there was no boom, in fact in many areas house prices had dropped back, hence the negative equity to which you refer.

I remember people walking out of houses and tossing the keys through the letter boxes.

I remember houses were virtually unsellable.

Strange but in some areas houses are worth at least 3 if not 4 times what they were worth back then.

I go back to my original statement, it was to do with the ERM fiasco and nothing whatsover to do with a housing boom, the housing boom came to an abrupt end as the cost of borrowing kept rising.

I'm pretty sure It was the ERM Fiasco when interest rates topped 15% in one day,under the guidance of then chancellor.Norman Lamont, and aided and abetted by George Souros,who took the UK for £12 Billion on that fateful day,and almost had the £ in freefall. Well that's my memory,of that disastrous day of incompetance.unless someone else saw it differently? named as I recall :Black Thursday.

Annoyingly for Folium we have confirmed that the interest rate was 15% during the dates I mentioned, I haven't looked into Black Wednesday to any extent however I've seen it written that the actual rate at the end of the day was 12%, with 15% being on the cards too.

Even more annoyingly for Folium, it was all off topic anyway as I was right in the first place.

Here's the whole sorry story of the ERM fiasco!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/16/newsid_2519000/2519013.stm

[folium]

I need to withdraw my mea culpa......I was right again, the interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90, in response to the Lawson Boom and overheating in the South East housing market.

This introduced the phrase"negative equity" to the British public.

So now it's your turn to apologize. Who's first?

Well heres my source,

http://en.wikipedia....Black_Wednesday

"interest rate was 15% from October 89 - October 90"

Sorry my records for that period I no longer keep, but I am fairly confident the interest rates were never 15% for that length of time, perhaps you could provide a source only to satisfy my curiousity.

From what I remember of that period the boom was pre 1988, 1989 made have seen a peak, but by 1990 there was no boom, in fact in many areas house prices had dropped back, hence the negative equity to which you refer.

I remember people walking out of houses and tossing the keys through the letter boxes.

I remember houses were virtually unsellable.

Strange but in some areas houses are worth at least 3 if not 4 times what they were worth back then.

I go back to my original statement, it was to do with the ERM fiasco and nothing whatsover to do with a housing boom, the housing boom came to an abrupt end as the cost of borrowing kept rising.

I'm pretty sure It was the ERM Fiasco when interest rates topped 15% in one day,under the guidance of then chancellor.Norman Lamont, and aided and abetted by George Souros,who took the UK for £12 Billion on that fateful day,and almost had the £ in freefall. Well that's my memory,of that disastrous day of incompetance.unless someone else saw it differently? named as I recall :Black Thursday.

Annoyingly for Folium we have confirmed that the interest rate was 15% during the dates I mentioned, I haven't looked into Black Wednesday to any extent however I've seen it written that the actual rate at the end of the day was 12%, with 15% being on the cards too.

Even more annoyingly for Folium, it was all off topic anyway as I was right in the first place.

Dear me, another example of searing inaccuracy...

See my earlier post #241, which, if you had read it, confirmed the level of rates in 1989 and during Black Wednesday, and highlighted the limited impact of the house price correction on Scotland:

Posted 2012-10-29 16:50:14

"Talking of facts getting in the way of good stories, see below for interest rate chronology:

http://www.bankofeng...s/iadb/Repo.asp

Rates hit an all time high in Nov 1979 at 17.0%, with a second peak at 14.875% in Oct 1989.

Of equal significance is an overview of inflation rates in the UK:

http://safalra.com/o...ice-conversion/

The correlation between the two data sets is quite simple. The destructive levels of inflation seen in the 1970's in the UK and throughout the western economies, was to be combated via monetarist policy, namely the weapon of interest rates.

The fiasco of ERM, Black Wednesday, the brief spike to 15% interest rates etc played out in Sept 1992 and is thus not relevant to Blather's original claims.

Returning to which the idea that Scotland is exceptional in terms of being hit by issues emanating from London and the SE. This is still not convincing and a look at the nominal house price graph in the below link is informative:

http://www.moneyweek...ary-chart-14664

As can be seen while London and the average UK house prices materially crashed in 1989, Scotland barely saw a correction in house prices before 2008. The brutal impact of escalating interest rate repayments can partially be blamed on central government and banks but at the end of the day getting into an over-leveraged, over-geared financial position is an individual one often in the case of property on the premise that house prices are a one way street. On average in Scotland while nominal house prices continued to climb post 1989, real prices only returned to an upward trajectory once inflation was brought under control by the interest rate policy implemented by the dreaded government in London.

Over stretched mortgage slaves in the SE were thus harder hit in 1989. Perhaps Surrey should be seeking independence."

So wrong on all counts. BTW interest rated peaked at 14.875 in Oct 89 but I am not going to quibble over 125 basis points.

Edited October 30, 2012 by folium

[7by7]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Folium, don't you realise that childish remarks such as the above do you no favours?

People only see the childish insults, and not the arguments you have presented.

The Blether, I have to say that you, too, would be better served sticking to your arguments and not rising to folium's baiting.

[theblether]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Folium, don't you realise that childish remarks such as the above do you no favours?

People only see the childish insults, and not the arguments you have presented.

The Blether, I have to say that you, too, would be better served sticking to your arguments and not rising to folium's baiting.

I'll take that on board 7x7

The post before yours is a prime example, without looking back I'm pretty sure I had already established the 15% figure between 89 - 90, anyway I'm away to address a simple miscalculation once again.

edit......for the second time today I've changed my mind,

Edited October 30, 2012 by theblether

[SimonD]

@theblether and folium: give it a rest will you!

I have been following this 'debate' for the last few days and am astonished by the cheap shots being taken by certain members. The ignorance being displayed about the UK/devolved military establishment and its sustainability in particular - which itself is a debate which has been swinging back and forth for centuries - beggars belief. Your individual military service (or lack thereof) is not the issue. Neither is it the number of aircraft carriers we (cannot) afford to patrol far seas without infrastructure to support them, the aircraft to fly from them or the bodies to crew them.

If anyone wants a viable comparison for the likely size of Scottish armed forces post-independence then I would suggest you look at the Danish example, but that's not the point. An independent Scotland would be part of the larger NATO picture and would scale its commitment accordingly, as every other country in western Europe (bar the Swiss) has done since the end of WW2. I agree with the earlier point made about the 'guns or butter' decision. Scotland would be financially crippled if it had to create and maintain its own armed forces to the level proposed by some on here.

Anyway, I would like to get away from the current spat and throw a couple of questions into the mix:

1. Would an independent Scotland seek to retain HM Queen Elizabeth as head of state or elect/appoint their own?

2. Would an independent Scotland retain it's close ties with the remainder of the island of Britain (the UK would be consigned to the history bin without the kingdom of Scotland) or would it move to join the Scandinavian group of countries as has been mooted? What would be the social and financial repercussions of such a re-alignment?

Would anyone care to get back even remotely on-topic and stop bleating about what happened 20 years ago?

Edit: Written while theBlether was posting #289. Spare us any more point scoring between you and folium - it's not relevant and is getting tedious.

Edited October 30, 2012 by SimonD

[smokie36]

I agree. Stick to debating the issue, its not a game of tennis!

Us Scots are very good at tennis by the way.

[SimonD]

...

Us Scots are very good at tennis by the way.

And the Welsh are very good at setting fires...

[folium]

@theblether and folium: give it a rest will you!

I have been following this 'debate' for the last few days and am astonished by the cheap shots being taken by certain members. The ignorance being displayed about the UK/devolved military establishment and its sustainability in particular - which itself is a debate which has been swinging back and forth for centuries - beggars belief. Your individual military service (or lack thereof) is not the issue. Neither is it the number of aircraft carriers we (cannot) afford to patrol far seas without infrastructure to support them, the aircraft to fly from them or the bodies to crew them.

If anyone wants a viable comparison for the likely size of Scottish armed forces post-independence then I would suggest you look at the Danish example, but that's not the point. An independent Scotland would be part of the larger NATO picture and would scale its commitment accordingly, as every other country in western Europe (bar the Swiss) has done since the end of WW2. I agree with the earlier point made about the 'guns or butter' decision. Scotland would be financially crippled if it had to create and maintain its own armed forces to the level proposed by some on here.

Anyway, I would like to get away from the current spat and throw a couple of questions into the mix:

1. Would an independent Scotland seek to retain HM Queen Elizabeth as head of state or elect/appoint their own?

2. Would an independent Scotland retain it's close ties with the remainder of the island of Britain (the UK would be consigned to the history bin without the kingdom of Scotland) or would it move to join the Scandinavian group of countries as has been mooted? What would be the social and financial repercussions of such a re-alignment?

Would anyone care to get back even remotely on-topic and stop bleating about what happened 20 years ago?

Edit: Written while theBlether was posting #289. Spare us any more point scoring between you and folium - it's not relevant and is getting tedious.

Very happy to get back on topic.....

Re your 2 questions. Believe that the SNP have no plans at present to go down the republican route and I feel it would take a divorce as toxic as that with Ireland in 1922 to open up this possibility.

Re preserving ties with the rest of the UK (which would probably survive, as GB was the union of the Kingdoms of England &Scotland (Wales came along with England), while the UK was the union of the Kingdom of Ireland and GB. While the south went its own way in 1922, the continuing presence of NI means that the UK became the union of GB & NI. On that precedent the UK would remain as the united kingdoms of England and NI).....deep breath......the preservation of ties would depend on the nature of the separation, the financial terms (£ or €, debt obligations etc) and custody of assets (Faslane etc). Ie it would be like any divorce, painless or messy we might have to wait and see.

Interesting comment piece from the FT today;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/482a7a34-2283-11e2-b606-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Aopr1ShT

[nontabury]

I am sure that some people are honoured to be lectured by someone not only with such knowledge but someone who has seen active duty in the Army Catering Corps.

Folium, don't you realise that childish remarks such as the above do you no favours?

People only see the childish insults, and not the arguments you have presented.

The Blether, I have to say that you, too, would be better served sticking to your arguments and not rising to folium's baiting.

Ah,come on,let's not get to serious,a little humour is all to the good, I'm sure Theblether can cope with it,he certainly dishes it out on occasions.

I did in fact served in HM forces, in charge of cleaning the latrines,the experience has helped me no end,especially reading some of the bullSH-T on this forum.

[theblether]

I can confirm that I can take the abuse, I get enough of it on a daily basis to be used to it by now

On the link that Folium provided the issue was that the Independence debate was not yet serious, the article went on to say that although the SNP had it tough last week due to an EU issue, there is no way that the country would not be granted admission to the EU.

On the comments after the article it was noted that not having a serious debate at the moment is a core SNP policy.

Correct.

Go to the trouble of reading that article, that article is the most accurate reflection of the state of play that I have seen so far. The author knows there is something afoot but he can't put his finger on it.

I know what it is.......and seriously I'm not saying. It's in the best interest of the Independence debate to keep things on a low peep at the moment, the big guns will be rolling out starting around spring time 2014. When the big guns arrive it will change the debate dramatically and there is no way I'm letting the cat out of the bag however in the meantime I will say.......

It is SNP policy to watch the Coalition government choke to death on it's own vomit, and there is a knowledge that events can overtake the debate for and against the Independence argument.

Right.....I'm now leaving this debate, I've made my views clear that I support Independence but I expect defeat.......this time, the result will be far closer than most of you expect and the end result will be a serious problem for the Westminster government and a better deal for Scotland.

Realistically, Victory this time will be control of Corporation tax policy.

This is going to be a breathtaking fight, and you're in for some shocks. Roll on spring 2014, let the fun begin

[Scott]

I strongly suggest that you stick to comments about the content of the posts rather than the perceived views of the poster. Comments directed at other posters are off-topic, usually baiting and sometimes inflammatory.

Keep it civil. Keep it on topic.

[theblether]

Political genius Alex Salmond strikes again.............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20155813

Listen to David Cameron sing..........

" I'm caught in a trap, I can't get out "

He's just played straight into the SNP's hands.

[stoneyboy]

I think Scotland should have a border with big fences and barbed wire,and Scottish citizens should pay for a visa to enter England.

Edited November 1, 2012 by stoneyboy

[stoneyboy]

And they should have a new currency called the Scottish Dollar.

[StreetCowboy]

And they should have a new currency called the Scottish Dollar.

We already have a Dollar

SC