Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Das Root]

 

 

 

Do you live comfortably ?

 

Whats that got to do with things? If he says aye you say...thanks to Westminster...and if he says no you say...would be even worse post independence, you're lucky you have Westminster

[Das Root]

 

 

 

Because they are all the same !

 

You can hardly believe a word they spout !

 

Manifesto's are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

Would you run for office to affect change?

[JamboX2]

 

 

Would you run for office to affect change?

 

Without a lot of support and cash its hard for an independent to do. Join a party and you'd need to tow the line.

[Das Root]

 

 

That paranoia doesnt match the work in Wales on further devolution. Nor do I think Westminster will screw the nut as Scots will have backed the Union. I think they'd get tougher after a Yes vote - bearing in mind the Union wont disolve till 2016 I dont see why they'd play to our best interests in those last two years.

 

I think it has become bad devolution 3.0 wasnt included on the ballot. I dont think it writes it off. If people in Scotland vote for it at Holyrood then moves are made to gain it. The SNP gain a mandate for a referendum and we get the s.30 order/Edinburgh Agreement and next years vote. Thats unique.in Europe. Catalonia would love that relaxed and open attitude.

 

I reckon more devolution is as possible and achievable as independence is.

 

 

It's not paranoia, it's an opinion. We have had our further work on devolution recently, no reason to expect continual changes year on year. It's independence or status quo imo.

 

Sure Holyrood will request more, especially if given the mandate to do so. No reason to expect Westminster to allow it if Scotland decides independence is not wished. We are just not represented at Westminster and not a priority.

[Das Root]

 

 

Without a lot of support and cash its hard for an independent to do. Join a party and you'd need to tow the line.

 

 

Like for instance the Scottish branches of the mainstream Westminster parties?

[Patrick Bateman]

It is relevant. If you live well and happily. House, car etc then you'll be less likely to vote for big changes to how our lives are governed.

 

Politicians lack an alternative because its down to an alternative emerging. The system and faces wont change come this. That means policies and attitudes wont change. That means muted change.

 

Why are someone's personal circumstances relevant to this debate? Because of someone's theory? Irrelevant. I'd be interested to see where the poster was going with that, though.

 

Independence isn't an alternative? Changing a political system won't change politics? Blackwhite thinking.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Of course, I'm pretty sure I've said it many times throughout this thread, but that could have been months ago. Scotland faces many challenges regardless of whether we vote yes or no. We will need to form any number of new institutions, potentially embassies and so on, so the scope for getting things wrong is huge, and in some instances, mistakes will undoubtedly be made, there will be areas on which we can improve. I don't see why you're concerned with the negatives over the positives. I am interested in going for things were the positives outweigh the negatives, but that's a personal choice.

 

The key thing for me is this; I believe that decisions effecting people are best made as close to them as possible. That's not just applicable to Scotland, but probably everywhere. If we vote No, we're endorsing a political system that returns Governments with little/no mandate in Scotland, an economic system which is massively indebted, and so on. The fear of independence would be far easier for me to accept if Westminster was efficient at managing the UK as a whole, let alone Scotland's affairs.

I'm concerned with the negatives because, to date, almost every single issue that has been raised has been dismissed by the SNP & Yes camp as scaremongering.

 

They're proposing a massive shake up but saying everything will be hunky dory. It's unrealistic, irresponsible & dishonest.

 

The Yes are coming out with all manner of reasons while it'll be great - forcing the No camp into challenging their assertions - only to be met with 'SCAREMONGERING??!!21?!'

 

The debate has been awful thus far and both sides are culpable.

 

There's a positive case to be made for Independence. There's a positive case to be made for the Union - but both have negatives and we should be honest about that.

 

The personal circumstances issue raised is relevant. It couldn't be more relevant. For an undecided voter who is doing well in life & isn't really that engaged in politics or the 'debate' - why would you risk voting Yes? As a bit of a generalisation those who support Yes feel Westminster has failed them, and they want more. If you're living comfortably & doing well you may not think Westminster has failed you & IMO will be less likely to vote Yes.

 

The majority of Yes voters I've met ( I admit, I haven't met many) all have struggles in their personal lives. They struggle to meet ends meet. They hope that independence will improve their lot - that's fair enough. I fear they'll be disappointed though.

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

Why are someone's personal circumstances relevant to this debate? Because of someone's theory? Irrelevant. I'd be interested to see where the poster was going with that, though.

 

Independence isn't an alternative? Changing a political system won't change politics? Blackwhite thinking.

 

1. Is the Holyrood system changing? No. It is merely becoming the top tier of governance. It appears reform of that is not proposed.

 

2. Independence is a constitutional alternative not a political one. Where is your evidence politics and political thinking will change? Yet to see any indication on day 1 we'll se radical departures on the underlying theories governing party thinking.

 

3. People vote mostly on how it will affect them as individuals and tgeir families. If Union has been good to you - nice house, secure job etc - then would you vote for radical constitutional change which will have reprecussions for the economy? I'd haxard a guess and say you wouldnt. Hence the line from Yes Scotland and the SNP on you being ?X's better off.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Like for instance the Scottish branches of the mainstream Westminster parties?

 

For instance:

- SNP backbenchers and NATO membership

 

Fwiw on the other 3 Scottish parties - do you not think as they aremembers of the UK parties also that they may have sympathy to the ideas of the UK side of their party? Labour MSPs back the energy price freeze, oppose 0-hours contracts and back a housebuilding program. Tories think there is an issue with public spending and our place in the EU. I'd hazard a guess and say such thinking would remain in these parties come a Yes vote.

 

Also, your evidence of these parties not pursuing their own aims is spurious. Labour up here and in Wales have done a lot different from England's Labour. That's devolution.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

It's not paranoia, it's an opinion. We have had our further work on devolution recently, no reason to expect continual changes year on year. It's independence or status quo imo.

 

Sure Holyrood will request more, especially if given the mandate to do so. No reason to expect Westminster to allow it if Scotland decides independence is not wished. We are just not represented at Westminster and not a priority.

 

No reason to expect Westminster will want a sterlingzone after independence either. In fact tgat is more unlikely than further devo.

 

All the parties now believe Calman has been overtaking by events. In Wales law making powers were sharply followed by Silks Commission on Welsh-devo. In Scotland its taken a back seat to independence. I think if you had a pro-devolution government you'd see moves to more power. In fact McLeish has said that in his time at the Scotland Office, and speaking to his successors, there was an opinion after 10 years more power would be considered. By 2009 independence dominated the scene and hence little progress made.

[reaths17]

Of course, I'm pretty sure I've said it many times throughout this thread, but that could have been months ago. Scotland faces many challenges regardless of whether we vote yes or no. We will need to form any number of new institutions, potentially embassies and so on, so the scope for getting things wrong is huge, and in some instances, mistakes will undoubtedly be made, there will be areas on which we can improve. I don't see why you're concerned with the negatives over the positives. I am interested in going for things were the positives outweigh the negatives, but that's a personal choice.

 

The key thing for me is this; I believe that decisions effecting people are best made as close to them as possible. That's not just applicable to Scotland, but probably everywhere. If we vote No, we're endorsing a political system that returns Governments with little/no mandate in Scotland, an economic system which is massively indebted, and so on. The fear of independence would be far easier for me to accept if Westminster was efficient at managing the UK as a whole, let alone Scotland's affairs.

 

if we get independence given the populace mainly sits on the west coast and they are solid labour, we in the east will be stuck with a government with little or no mandate.

 

just recently police scotland showed how different thoughts are with the prostitution/brothel fiasco when they impossed west coast form of policing on edinburgh.

[jack D and coke]

 

if we get independence given the populace mainly sits on the west coast and they are solid labour, we in the east will be stuck with a government with little or no mandate.

One of my biggest fears. It generally doesn't matter what labour do in some areas people will vote for them. Horrifying thought that we'd be stuck with endless labour government regardless of their running of things. One of the nats biggest reasons is having governments we don't vote for but imagine we did get the governments we voted for we'd have had a labour government for about 100 years in a row here. Truly petrifying.

[TheMaganator]

The below is a list of problems surrounding the 'Sterling Zone'.

Uly - it is taken from the FT but is not the full article (as far as I am aware) - if posting it breaks forum rules, I apologise, please delete

 

"On September 18 2014, Scotland will hold a referendum on independence. While Scottish voters alone will decide the result, it will affect the rest of the UK as well. Among areas where the impact will be felt are monetary and financial arrangements. The Holyrood government favours continuation of Scottish membership of the sterling area. It is not for me to decide whether that would be acceptable to Scots. But it is for me and other voters in the rest of the UK to decide whether such an arrangement would be acceptable to us. The answer should be no.

 

Experience since 2007 and, in particular, the eurozone crisis, has demonstrated three points. First, the central bank plays a central role in any financial crisis, as it is the only entity capable of managing liquidity risk. Second, it has to work in close harmony with the fiscal authorities, who are responsible for public outlays. Third, it must know to whom it is accountable.

 

Today, these arrangements are quite clear in the UK, particularly after the return of responsibility for supervision to the Bank of England. The bank, in turn, is accountable to the UK parliament and government. This is very different from the situation in the eurozone, where an exceptionally independent central bank floats above governments and is, in effect, unaccountable to anybody for its handling of affairs. It may help governments or let them drown, at its own discretion. One might like this arrangement or detest it. But it is entirely different from the situation in the UK, where the government is sovereign.

 

That would no longer be the case if, as is proposed, the sterling area was divided between two sovereign states: Scotland and the rest of the UK. Unless Scotland were to accept an entirely subordinate position, a new international treaty would need to be agreed between it and the residual UK. The terms of accountability for the bank would be established under such a treaty. The bank in turn would no longer beaccountable to one parliament and executive but to two. This would create a host of practical, political and constitutional problems, as Brian Quinn, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, makes plain in an important paper for the David Hume Institute, published in August.

 

First, how would the new regime regard the fiscal policy of the two states? Would there need to be fiscal rules, as in the eurozone? Would they be imposed on the rest of the UK as well as on Scotland? Who would enforce those rules?

 

Second, who would set the inflation target and appoint members of the Monetary Policy Committee? Who would judge whether it had done its job properly? What would happen if a target that proved acceptable to the rest of the UK proved unacceptable to Scotland?

 

Third, who would appoint members of the Financial Policy Committee? Would it consider that it is responsible for one financial system or for two? Would it need a separate mandate for macroprudential policy for Scotland? Would it be accountable for that policy to the Scottish parliament or to both parliaments? If it tightened up lending in Scotland, to whom would it be accountable?

 

Fourth, would the Prudential Regulatory Authority need to take account of the fiscal capacity of host governments? If the answer were yes, could it avoid recognising the size of the Scottish-based banking system, relative to Scotland?s fiscal capacity? Would it not have to impose higher capital requirements on banks based in Scotland than on those in the rest of the UK?

 

Fifth, who would represent this new sterling area?s interests in international negotiations? What would happen if Scotland and the rest of the UK did not agree?

 

Sixth, how would this sterling area manage a big crisis? Just imagine that, in October 2008, Alastair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer, had to negotiate the rescues of Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland, including where fiscal responsibility lay, with John Swinney, Scotland?s cabinet secretary for finance. Or rather do not imagine: it is too horrible.

 

Seventh, who would control activity by the bank as lender of last resort? If the bank felt obliged to undertake quantitative easing, which bonds would it buy and in what proportion? Would something like the UK?s Funding for Lending Scheme need agreement by both governments?

 

I wish the Scots to remain part of my country. But if they wish to leave, they should do so. The rest of the UK must, however, insist that the central bank stays entirely accountable to its own parliament and government, not to some complex and almost certainly unworkable binational contrivance. An institution accountable to two masters is simply unaccountable.

 

An independent Scotland may use the pound if it wishes. But the rest of the UK has surely not escaped the horrors of the eurozone only to create similar horrors for itself at home. It must retain control over monetary policy, financial regulation and crisis management. It must also be made clear: this is not negotiable.

 

 

 

 

[Boris]

.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Boris

[Boris]

if we get independence given the populace mainly sits on the west coast and they are solid labour, we in the east will be stuck with a government with little or no mandate.

 

just recently police scotland showed how different thoughts are with the prostitution/brothel fiasco when they impossed west coast form of policing on edinburgh.

One of my biggest fears. It generally doesn't matter what labour do in some areas people will vote for them. Horrifying thought that we'd be stuck with endless labour government regardless of their running of things. One of the nats biggest reasons is having governments we don't vote for but imagine we did get the governments we voted for we'd have had a labour government for about 100 years in a row here. Truly petrifying.

 

So why isn't Holyrood sitting with a Labour majority then?

[Ulysses]

The below is a list of problems surrounding the 'Sterling Zone'.

Uly - it is taken from the FT but is not the full article (as far as I am aware) - if posting it breaks forum rules, I apologise, please delete

 

 

**** me, that isn't exactly a quick read.

 

 

[reaths17]

So why isn't Holyrood sitting with a Labour majority then?

 

i think a lot of that goes down to people wanting a vote on independence and as party for this, the SNP were always gonna pick up spare votes. i dont think scotland as a whole is all that enamoured with salmond.

 

i also think that there is a general apathy with politics and a lotta people see no difference no matter who's in power so dont vote or have voted SNP in the hope independence cant be any worse, i might add, i dont think theres a whole lotta conviction behind many of these votes and the independence voting could get very changeable as the days go on depending on what comes out from the sides. there could be large swings either way, it could get really tight or lots of voters could sink back into apathy. any side that can wheel out somebody that people feel they can trust will start a landslide as it is , i see apathy playing a big part. even a party offering something that IS different from the current capitalist politics could sweep the floor, thats how uncertain this vote seems to me.

[Pans Jambo]

A lot of debate on here and it's generally good.

 

How about simplifying the whole debate seeing as the Scottish Government's White Paper hasn't been released as yet and UK Government cant tell anyone what will happen next week never mind in 1, 2, 3, 5,10 or 20 years down the road.

 

My crystal ball isnt working either so:

 

Step1 - Vote YES next year

Step 2 - Gain Independence and set England free from the scroungers that we are!

Step 3 - Grow a set and bloody get on with it instead of acting like a bunch of battered housewives that cant leave their doomed marriage because of the fear of the unknown!

 

Simple really

[TheMaganator]

A lot of debate on here and it's generally good.

 

 

 

Step1 - Vote YES next year

Step 2 - Gain Independence and set England free from the scroungers that we are!

Step 3 - Grow a set and bloody get on with it instead of acting like a bunch of battered housewives that cant leave their doomed marriage because of the fear of the unknown!

 

Simple really

Pans McAlpine.

[Das Root]

 

 

i think a lot of that goes down to people wanting a vote on independence and as party for this, the SNP were always gonna pick up spare votes. i dont think scotland as a whole is all that enamoured with salmond.

 

i also think that there is a general apathy with politics and a lotta people see no difference no matter who's in power so dont vote or have voted SNP in the hope independence cant be any worse, i might add, i dont think theres a whole lotta conviction behind many of these votes and the independence voting could get very changeable as the days go on depending on what comes out from the sides. there could be large swings either way, it could get really tight or lots of voters could sink back into apathy. any side that can wheel out somebody that people feel they can trust will start a landslide as it is , i see apathy playing a big part. even a party offering something that IS different from the current capitalist politics could sweep the floor, thats how uncertain this vote seems to me.

 

 

How does that work regarding Salmond given the SNP have a clear majority at Holyrood when the system was stacked so that could never happen?

[Pans Jambo]

Pans McAlpine.

[jambos are go!]

 

 

 

 

How does that work regarding Salmond given the SNP have a clear majority at Holyrood when the system was stacked so that could never happen?

 

Salmond needs to calm down and is increasingly seen as a loudmouth and a bully, particularly by Women and the Young. IMO. At the last Holyrood election the voters gave Labour a deserved bloody nose rather than gave the SNP the right to end the Union. IMO.

[davemclaren]

Salmond needs to calm down and is increasingly seen as a loudmouth and a bully, particularly by Women and the Young. IMO. At the last Holyrood election the voters gave Labour a deserved bloody nose rather than gave the SNP the right to end the Union. IMO.

 

They did give them the right to have a referendum though.

[Boaby Ewing]

Re that FT article - have the SNP ever argued any different?

 

An independent Scotland may use the pound if it wishes. But the rest of the UK has surely not escaped the horrors of the eurozone only to create similar horrors for itself at home. It must retain control over monetary policy, financial regulation and crisis management. It must also be made clear: this is not negotiable.

[TheMaganator]

Re that FT article - have the SNP ever argued any different?

 

An independent Scotland may use the pound if it wishes. But the rest of the UK has surely not escaped the horrors of the eurozone only to create similar horrors for itself at home. It must retain control over monetary policy, financial regulation and crisis management. It must also be made clear: this is not negotiable.

The SNP want a Sterling zone. The article shows the many reasons it likely won't happen.

 

The SNP, as they do, assert things and ignore or chastise those that pull them up or speak against them.

[Das Root]

 

The SNP want a Sterling zone. The article shows the many reasons it likely won't happen.

 

The SNP, as they do, assert things and ignore or chastise those that pull them up or speak against them.

 

 

As does every single political party everywhere.

[Das Root]

 

 

 

Salmond needs to calm down and is increasingly seen as a loudmouth and a bully, particularly by Women and the Young. IMO. At the last Holyrood election the voters gave Labour a deserved bloody nose rather than gave the SNP the right to end the Union. IMO.

 

 

But he did pull off the biggest single election win since devolution. Think what he could do if people actually liked him eh

[jambos are go!]

They did give them the right to have a referendum though.

They did give them the right to have a referendum though.

Indeed. But Wendy Alexader offfered them a referendum before that and they declinedI IIRC.

[Das Root]

 

Indeed. But Wendy Alexader offfered them a referendum before that and they declinedI IIRC.

 

On Wendy's terms I would imagine. Better to hold and have it just as you like it.

[JamboX2]

On Wendy's terms I would imagine. Better to hold and have it just as you like it.

 

No, merely said "bring the bring on the bill and we'll support it through". Had the SNP done that in 2008, and acted with conviction and courage of their ideas, then their manifesto commitment of a vote in 2010 would've happened. It was simply a case that they were stunned by the act and weren't ready - in other words it didn't suit them. Had Labour stuck to it Salmond would've looked a fool by 2011, as it was never coming, the lack of backbone was embarrasing imo. http://www.scotsman.com/news/wendy-bring-it-on-1-1166724

 

In 1997, the day after Yes-Yes won the SNP revealed their strategy, Salmond said by governing in Scotland on some issues we can win the future vote to govern all our affairs. Simply put, 2007-11 was stage 1. Stage 2 is now, the campaign to win the vote. I reckon the likes of Alex Neil etc were right - hit hard and sharp, make a big splash early and win a referendum. As that 07-11 government went on we saw big u-turns - the Euro to the ?, the beginnings of the NATO flip - and managerial, "don't upset anyone" governance.

 

Alexander's gamble, in my opinion would've paid off for her, Labour and the Unionists - afterall Alexander is a fervent devolutionist. The SNP leadership was not prepared to act and move for their big goal in 2008 - not even in 2010. They have since shown a lack of preparedness since the real campaign began and have often helped cause Yes Scotland to be on the back foot. Should Yes loose they'll be culpable for a lot of the blame imo.

Edited November 8, 2013 by JamboX2

[Pans Jambo]

Knew they (the UK Government at Westminster) has lied about quite a lot of things to the Scot's over the years but it's true to say that they have undervalued the oil & gas revenues available in order to suppress Scottish nationalism and they are doing exactly the same thing now.

 

In 1974, there was a report done for the UK Government about the value of oil and it said that if Scotland went it alone, it would have a surplus of funds "to an embarrassing degree".

 

Dennis Healey (Yes the ex-Chancellor of the exchequer with the big eyebrows who is now Baron Healey and sits in the house of lords) knew about this and now admits that the UK is very worried that Scotland might take the oil from the UK should we gain independence.

 

See quote's below:

 

 

Scotland would prosper under independence thanks to North Sea oil and Westminster politicians are "worried stiff" about losing revenues from offshore production, according to a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Baron Healey of Riddlesden, the former Denis Healey, said the UK Government had "underplay[ed] the value of the oil to the country" over fears of the political potency of Scottish nationalism at the time.

The Labour peer's comments came in an interview due to be published in Holyrood magazine on Monday and summarised in the Sunday Post.

Referring to Westminster politicians, Lord Healey said: "I think they are concerned about Scotland taking the oil. I think they are worried stiff about it.

"I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it, they should have it and we would just need to adjust. But I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent."

The intervention by Baron Healey, who served as Chancellor under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, will be greeted by nationalists as a vindication of their long-running criticism that Westminster politicians concealed the truth about North Sea energy revenues and the prosperity they could bring to an independent Scotland.

The question was explored by economist Professor Gavin McCrone, who was tasked by Edward Heath's Conservative government in 1974 with analysing the economic value of the offshore resource. His completed report was submitted to the Labour government which had replaced Mr Heath's administration in the intervening period and of which Lord Healey was a senior member.

The report concluded that an independent Scotland which enjoyed control over a share of North Sea oil "would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree" and that "Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds".

Fearing the political ramifications of the report's contents, the government classified it and it entered into public circulation only in 2005 under freedom of information legislation.

Lord Healey, now 95, told Holyrood magazine: "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher.

"We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and, really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional five per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that."

The question of oil was a hot topic in Thursday's Scotland Tonight debate on the economics of independence. North Sea production made up 17% of Scottish GDP in 2011 and brought in ?11.2bn to the Treasury in 2011/12.

The Scottish Government's inaugural Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin in March 2013 advanced a post-independence scenario which could see "oil and gas production in Scottish waters generating ?57bn in tax revenue between 2012-13 and 2017-18".

However, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions warned in a report the same month that "to suggest some sort of new oil-tax revenue boom is about to emerge is not readily supported by the evidence". It added that there would not be "a return to anything like the level of revenues seen in the early 1980s".

Edited November 9, 2013 by Pans Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

"Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds".

 

Yes we are doomed!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

"Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds".

 

Yes we are doomed!

Indeed, have a petrocurrency!

[The Comedian]

Interesting if true.

 

[The Comedian]

Brilliant article by Kevin McKenna...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/independence-not-burning-scotland-boats?CMP=twt_gu

 

Last week in Scotland showed that there are still many in our midst who loathe and fear their own kind. There are those, including Davidson, Robertson and Carmichael, whose hatred and fear of independence is such that they would punish their own country by destroying part of its industrial infrastructure. And there are others who would seek to portray an independent Scotland as a sectarian backwater.

And then there are the rest of us ? both nationalist and unionist ? who would strive to nationalise our shipyards and make them viable and competitive in all circumstances. None of us recognises the other, self-loathing Scotland that discriminates against its own.

[jack D and coke]

Brilliant article by Kevin McKenna...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/independence-not-burning-scotland-boats?CMP=twt_gu

 

[/font][/color]

Excellent stuff that.

[Coco]

Brilliant article by Kevin McKenna...

 

http://www.theguardi...oats?CMP=twt_gu

 

[/font][/color]

 

Terrible article. The point about future defence procurement is nothing to do with destroying industrial infrastructure - it is about choices for a foreign Government. If the Scottish yards are so good with their 400 years of history - why don't they make commercial shipping any more? He talks about Galloway's wonderful arguments for staying in the Union but doesn't mention what any of them were. And tabloid histrionics throughout - the usual 'scaremongering' nonsense with regard to any opinion about post-independence which suggests that there could be significant challenges.

 

The debate on here is so much more interesting than that sort of rabble rousing tripe. Nuanced and with some respect for different viewpoints. There is no doubt going to be a lot more of these tabloid style analyses in the next year though.

[Das Root]

 

 

Terrible article. The point about future defence procurement is nothing to do with destroying industrial infrastructure - it is about choices for a foreign Government. If the Scottish yards are so good with their 400 years of history - why don't they make commercial shipping any more? He talks about Galloway's wonderful arguments for staying in the Union but doesn't mention what any of them were. And tabloid histrionics throughout - the usual 'scaremongering' nonsense with regard to any opinion about post-independence which suggests that there could be significant challenges.

 

The debate on here is so much more interesting than that sort of rabble rousing tripe. Nuanced and with some respect for different viewpoints. There is no doubt going to be a lot more of these tabloid style analyses in the next year though.

 

 

Hopefully the Scottish yards will diverge in their building criteria. Good luck though for rUK building anymore ships, however I bet they place their next order in Asia at a knock down price

[Coco]

Hopefully the Scottish yards will diverge in their building criteria. Good luck though for rUK building anymore ships, however I bet they place their next order in Asia at a knock down price

 

Which is of course exactly the point. The UK will have the choice to build its own or from any foreign maker it likes. That might mean Glasgow - or might not. Nothing to do with destroying industrial infrastructure.

[jambos are go!]

Brilliant article by Kevin McKenna...

 

http://www.theguardi...oats?CMP=twt_gu

 

[/font][/color]

 

This is a YES supporter trying to counter a bad news issue for the campaign. Anyone with half a brain would realise the prospect of Uk Defence work will diminish to some extent if we leave the Union

[Patrick Bateman]

Perhaps an independent Scotland would stop handing out billions of pounds to an industry that can't survive without subsidies here, despite thriving in other countries nearby. The importance of shipbuilding to Scotland is massively overstated, and whilst it needs to be protected to an extent, the idea that we should reject self-determination for the sake of a few contracts (that we already pay towards as tax payers) is so risible that it barely merits discussion.

[JamboX2]

Perhaps an independent Scotland would stop handing out billions of pounds to an industry that can't survive without subsidies here, despite thriving in other countries nearby. The importance of shipbuilding to Scotland is massively overstated, and whilst it needs to be protected to an extent, the idea that we should reject self-determination for the sake of a few contracts (that we already pay towards as tax payers) is so risible that it barely merits discussion.

 

It's about as flippant and risible as your attitude towards thousands of industrial jobs of well skilled workers.

 

Independence is nothing to fear, but these Yards have to diversify it's order books either way the vote goes to survive. If that means state support, then imo, they deserve it. A nation which has oil, fishing and offshore renewables needs ship building to service these industries. Diversification is the way forward. Should we vote yes, and they struggle I'd argue they be nationalised, and then moved into private or worker ownership over time with diversification at the heart of the business.

[Patrick Bateman]

It's about as flippant and risible as your attitude towards thousands of industrial jobs of well skilled workers.

 

Independence is nothing to fear, but these Yards have to diversify it's order books either way the vote goes to survive. If that means state support, then imo, they deserve it. A nation which has oil, fishing and offshore renewables needs ship building to service these industries. Diversification is the way forward. Should we vote yes, and they struggle I'd argue they be nationalised, and then moved into private or worker ownership over time with diversification at the heart of the business.

 

I don't believe the Government should continue to spend tens of billions of pounds to secure a few thousand jobs in an industry that thrives elsewhere. The argument from the No side is 'Vote no, so we can continue to subsidise this inefficient industry' at the cost of self-determination, which is plainly a non-argument. But then, that's something I've come to expect from better together.

[JamboX2]

I don't believe the Government should continue to spend tens of billions of pounds to secure a few thousand jobs in an industry that thrives elsewhere. The argument from the No side is 'Vote no, so we can continue to subsidise this inefficient industry' at the cost of self-determination, which is plainly a non-argument. But then, that's something I've come to expect from better together.

 

I think this is an issue that wouldn't matter if we were a continental nation. It's a major one being an Island one. We should retain the sovereign capacity to build ships. The yards need to diversify. They need assistance from government. Money to help aid that. Why waste millions letting highly skilled folk go onto the dole queues? We seem willing to pump cash into renewables and subsidise that till it becomes profitable in its own right, but we aren't to maintain sovereign ship building capacity? We're an island nation, to not have shipyards is bonkers to me. Having to rely on others in this area would be shocking.

 

Governments can use derrogations of EU law to give contracts to the yards and prioritise them over others. Other EU nations do this in lots of aeas and get away with it. I always wonder why we as Scots and Brits never ever use procurement smartly to benefit our own. It's a nonsense and it's something we should do in relation to our yards.

[Das Root]

 

 

Which is of course exactly the point. The UK will have the choice to build its own or from any foreign maker it likes. That might mean Glasgow - or might not. Nothing to do with destroying industrial infrastructure.

 

 

And weigh up the question that has caused them to use these shipyards since post WW2...defence security. Scotland may be a foreign country post independence but it is slightly less foreign than an asiatic country. And just think all those workers papped out of Portsmouth might have a cross border contract if the Scottish shipyards get the contract. That would be some positive PR for Westminster.

[Das Root]

 

 

This is a YES supporter trying to counter a bad news issue for the campaign. Anyone with half a brain would realise the prospect of Uk Defence work will diminish to some extent if we leave the Union

 

 

To some extent could equal nothing...could equal all contracts going to Scottish shipyards as rUK no longer has the capability.

 

Simply put, you just don't know so why paint as negative a picture as possible?

[Rick Grimes]

This is a YES supporter trying to counter a bad news issue for the campaign. Anyone with half a brain would realise the prospect of Uk Defence work will diminish to some extent if we leave the Union

 

 

Its lucky that in an independent Scotland we'll cease to have any coastlines or need for ships then....

[Das Root]

 

 

 

Its lucky that in an independent Scotland we'll cease to have any coastlines or need for ships then....

 

 

Ha yep, forget that the newly formed government of our independent nation will need a ship or two.

[Patrick Bateman]

So how about that independence poil? Finished 60% Yes, 40% No according to those who have decided on their voting intentions. That's pretty decisive stuff.

[Das Root]

So how about that independence poil? Finished 60% Yes, 40% No according to those who have decided on their voting intentions. That's pretty decisive stuff.

 

 

 

Shows Kickbackers are of a sensible sort.