Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JamboX2]

BAE aren't owned by the government and surely look to make their ships for the best price possible no? Korea I believe is making some RN vessels so why not the skilled Clyde workforce? I keep seeing better together saying we must vote no to preserve the Clyde shipyards but that would more than likely mean the closure of Portsmouth surely? Not very British in spirit in that is it? I'm sure the Portsmouth workers are praying for a Yes vote.

 

The Government owns shares in BAE though. BAE are a company reliant on British government contracts. Tonights BBC Scotland news pointed out as much when they said they'd failed to sell either the Type 45 or newer Type 26 Frigates to anyone other than the UK government in the former and only an agreement to build some Type 26s. They make excellent products which are the envy of many, but they are too expensive and purposefully aimed at the UK government as buyer.

 

The ship in Korea is a refueling tanker. At the time all other yards were on Type 45 and Carrier construction duty. The ship is not a warship but a support vessel. No UK warship has ever been built beyond her borders. That is a UK government precurement policy. That wont change, as it didn't when Ireland became independent, and Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

 

Got an uncle working at Rosyth, says they are all adament the Yards in Glasgow will downsize and Rosyth shut irregardless after the Carriers are done. Even quicker if Yes wins to him. The workers know who pays their wages, and it's not German, Saudi or South African buyers. That's as much a issue of the company selling to buyers with a product they actually want.

 

Back in the 90s eh? Changed days now. Daphne Broon knows how to toe the line. Scottish Labour have had a succession of weak leaders the past 10yrs. All 3 parties would be better, with better MSPs after independence. Or are you saying all the current Scottish Westminster MPs would either stay in London (shifting to rUK constituencies) or not bother running for Edinburgh?

 

Many may not win the selection vote. Not all the MSPs are poor. Would Hugh Henry or Douglas Alexander hold the seat at Holyrood they share between two Parliaments? Would Sheila Gilmoure or Sarah Boyack represent central Edinburgh? That'd be to rank and file members, and loyalties vary. Some may opt for the incumbent Holyrood MSP over the returning MP. Dare say similar issues will arise elsewhere, although I am adamant with a bigger government you need a bigger parliament to balance front and back bench numbers in the favour of back benchers. At Westminster there is equally as much deadwood in Labour and SNP ranks as there is in Holyrood, same for the LibDems, the Tories are pretty Scottish based as it is with 18 to 1 in favour of Holyrood. Yes, they'd come back to Scotland to stand and run in Holyrood, and yes they'd bolster the Scottish Labour ranks, but they'd bring with them a lot of ideas from UK Labour that are already in circulation, so it's 50/50. In saying that Miliband's attack on poor living standards is more direct and to the left than Salmond and some of his ideas.

 

I spoke of the McConnell and McLeish governments from 2001 - 2007. Good Scotland focused administrations which brought about Free Personal Care, Free Tuition fees (upfront), National Parks, new schools and hospitals, McConnell made a go at sectarianism as well - more than Eck has. Focused hard on Scottish infrastructure as well. So I still dispute your view of the Lab-Lib governments in devolution Scotland. This idea only the SNP can give us good "Scottish orientated" government doesn't stack up. However, Iain Gray and Joahnne Lamont aren't great shakes, Wendy Alexander would've been and wouldn't have been as caught out or timid as Gray. Sadly the SNP made her a scapegoat to an internal Labour issue she was cleared of by threatening to hold a semi-court in the Chamber of Holyrood to discipline her.

[blairdin]

 

 

Would your Yes, become a No, if there were cross party propsal on the table - for further devolution? Ifs and buts, I appreciate, but that may be something that is coming.

 

It may well do.

 

Scotland needs fiscal autonomy to build a tax system and welfare state that meets the needs of our people. Our needs are completely different to those that Westminster address. The bedroom tax is just the latest example. Fuel duty, where by the people with the fewest travel options in remote parts of Scotland get shafted the most is another. To me, that is key.

 

Our education system and NHS is already miles ahead of the rest of the country IMHO, and with fiscal autonomy that can only improve

 

On the flip side, defence in an independent Scotland is a concern. I'm against trident, but we still need armed forces and to me that is something we do better as the UK. There's many jobs that depend on it on both sides of the border.

Edited November 5, 2013 by blairdin

[TheMaganator]

Anyway.....how do you like these apples naysayers????

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

 

Very interesting reading as well as the q&a's at the foot of the article.

I'll pay as much attention to that as you would to a better together link. BFS is just a Yes mouthpiece

[Ulysses]

The right to bare arms - written centuries ago when times were entirely different but now so enshrined that it cannot be changed.

 

That's only a problem if you don't like citizens owning guns. A lot of Americans don't mind.

 

The problem (if there is one) with the U.S. Constitution is not that it is written - it's that the procedure for changing it is messy and complicated, which reflects the fact that the United States is a large federal nation. On the other hand, small countries don't need such complicated processes. For example, the process for amending the Irish Constitution is easy for Parliament or Government to initiate, but also has the democratic safeguard of needing to be approved by voters. To change the Constitution, Parliament has to approve a text of an amendment which is put to the voters in a referendum. If a majority of those voting say yes the change is written into the Constitution, and if they say no it isn't. The Constitution has been amended 25 times between 1972 and 2013 using this system.

[2NaFish]

That's only a problem if you don't like citizens owning guns. A lot of Americans don't mind.

 

The problem (if there is one) with the U.S. Constitution is not that it is written - it's that the procedure for changing it is messy and complicated, which reflects the fact that the United States is a large federal nation. On the other hand, small countries don't need such complicated processes. For example, the process for amending the Irish Constitution is easy for Parliament or Government to initiate, but also has the democratic safeguard of needing to be approved by voters. To change the Constitution, Parliament has to approve a text of an amendment which is put to the voters in a referendum. If a majority of those voting say yes the change is written into the Constitution, and if they say no it isn't. The Constitution has been amended 25 times between 1972 and 2013 using this system.

 

Is it the case that the irish constitution isnt held to the same degree of reverence as the american constitution too? 27 amendments- with 1 repealed - in 200 years comes from a complicated and convoluted system, but also from the awed respect it and its authors are given. I can't see scotland (or britain were it the case) viewing anything as sacrosanct as many americans do their constitution.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Anyway.....how do you like these apples naysayers????

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

 

Very interesting reading as well as the q&a's at the foot of the article.

And yet this nirvana wants to share a currency with its failing next door neighbour. Baffling.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

And yet this nirvana wants to share a currency with its failing next door neighbour. Baffling.

Not baffling at all really. Benefits rUK & Scotland. Try this one...

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/euro-pound-or-scottish-pound/

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

Is it the case that the irish constitution isnt held to the same degree of reverence as the american constitution too? 27 amendments- with 1 repealed - in 200 years comes from a complicated and convoluted system, but also from the awed respect it and its authors are given. I can't see scotland (or britain were it the case) viewing anything as sacrosanct as many americans do their constitution.

 

Spot on. Its a civic faith in America. Its untouchable. Even though Jefferson would later write he felt they'd tied their descendants to a flawed document.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

I'll pay as much attention to that as you would to a better together link. BFS is just a Yes mouthpiece

 

A mouthpiece he may be however; his blogs quote substantiated facts & quotes from former politicians like Tony Benn who admitted it was Scotland's oil that prevented the UK from going bankrupt for 30 years.

 

It's about trust & I don't trust the "let's just keep the same as we've got now" brigade.

[Ulysses]

Is it the case that the irish constitution isnt held to the same degree of reverence as the american constitution too? 27 amendments- with 1 repealed - in 200 years comes from a complicated and convoluted system, but also from the awed respect it and its authors are given. I can't see scotland (or britain were it the case) viewing anything as sacrosanct as many americans do their constitution.

 

I think it comes more from the complicated system of amendment. The last amendment enacted took 203 years to be adopted.

 

The courts in the U.S. have also displayed quite a creative and flexible way of re-interpreting the Constitution so that the law can move with the times.

 

Although we wouldn't quite do that "reverence" thing that the Americans do, the Irish Constitution is utterly sacrosanct. If the Constitution doesn't allow Parliament, Government or the courts to do something, then it simply does not get done unless and until the text is changed by popular vote. That's one of the reasons why we have been willing to respect and put up with the "interference in sovereignty" we get from the EU; all of our EU treaty obligations involve changes to the Constitution, so before the treaties can be signed they first have to be approved in a referendum. That is a bit of popular democracy that the UK lacks - but that an independent Scotland could have if it wished.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Not baffling at all really. Benefits rUK & Scotland. Try this one...

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/euro-pound-or-scottish-pound/

Not when it means your economic and fiscal policy is dictated by others.

[Das Root]

 

I'll pay as much attention to that as you would to a better together link. BFS is just a Yes mouthpiece

 

 

It's independent of the yes organisation, only affiliated as both have the same goals. Yes is more consumer while BfS is more corporate.

[Maple Leaf]

The right to bare arms - written centuries ago when times were entirely different but now so enshrined that it cannot be changed.

 

Nah, everybody has the right to roll up their sleeves anytime they want. Just kidding!!! The second amendment is very contentious, but amendments can be repealed, with the prohibition amendment being the best example.

[Das Root]

 

Not when it means your economic and fiscal policy is dictated by others.

 

 

It's not though and you know that. Same old same old

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Not when it means your economic and fiscal policy is dictated by others.

Blatantly, you didnt even read the link!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Blatantly, you didnt even read the link!

I have.

 

I disagree with it entirely.

[Coco]

So this makes it all 3 major parties in the UK rejecting a formal currency union post independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-pound-deal-very-unlikely-1-3174957

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So this makes it all 3 major parties in the UK rejecting a formal currency union post independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-pound-deal-very-unlikely-1-3174957

The biggest blessing in disguise an independent Scotland could ask for.

[JamboX2]

So this makes it all 3 major parties in the UK rejecting a formal currency union post independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-pound-deal-very-unlikely-1-3174957

 

Good the idea that we should tie ourselves to the UK economically come independence is ridiculous. It'd kill hope of delivering a real alternative economically from now.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Blatantly, you didnt even read the link!

 

Its just a blatantly bad choice come independence. If the Euro is not an option, why should a dreamed up "sterlingzone"?

 

After the eurozones near collapse the lesson being learned is tough fiscal rules are needed, to the extent that there is talk of a commission reviewing state budgets. Do you not think an already cautionary UK Treasury will look at this and demand if it is to happen to secure a fragile UK economy from any chance of Scottish profilgacy that tough rules on tax and spend be made? Or for that let the Scots undercut UK corporation tax?

 

You asked how can you trust the UK govt to deliver more devolution - when the track record of 20 years past is delivery of this. So how can you trust, when separate national interests play a role that they'll be open to this or want a loose system Salmond proposes? That doesnt add up to me.

 

[flecktimus]

Its just a blatantly bad choice come independence. If the Euro is not an option, why should a dreamed up "sterlingzone"?

 

After the eurozones near collapse the lesson being learned is tough fiscal rules are needed, to the extent that there is talk of a commission reviewing state budgets. Do you not think an already cautionary UK Treasury will look at this and demand if it is to happen to secure a fragile UK economy from any chance of Scottish profilgacy that tough rules on tax and spend be made? Or for that let the Scots undercut UK corporation tax?

 

You asked how can you trust the UK govt to deliver more devolution - when the track record of 20 years past is delivery of this. So how can you trust, when separate national interests play a role that they'll be open to this or want a loose system Salmond proposes? That doesnt add up to me.

 

The Irish undercut the Euro Zone corporation Tax and the Dutch negotiate very privately with large company's to also undercut the Euro Zone Tax system.

[Don Dan]

Will the cessation of ship building in Portsmouth and the continuation in Govan and Scotstoun affect the the Yes vote?

[Pans Jambo]

 

So this makes it all 3 major parties in the UK rejecting a formal currency union post independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-pound-deal-very-unlikely-1-3174957

IF Scotland wished, it could use the US or the Zimbabwean dollar! It's ridiculous to suggest that Scotland has to ASK to use Sterling.

 

What would Sterling be worth if we chose to use our own Scottish pound?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

IF Scotland wished, it could use the US or the Zimbabwean dollar! It's ridiculous to suggest that Scotland has to ASK to use Sterling.

 

What would Sterling be worth if we chose to use our own Scottish pound?

You don't have to ask to use any currency.

 

You have to ask to form a currency union. Not scaremongering, just facts.

 

 

[Das Root]

So this makes it all 3 major parties in the UK rejecting a formal currency union post independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-pound-deal-very-unlikely-1-3174957

 

 

Best tell the guy heading up No about that...

 

The SNP?s Kenneth Gibson, convener of Holyrood?s Finance Committee, said: ?Every time people in the No campaign talk about this issue they look very silly, because it was Alistair Darling himself - the chair of the No campaign - who said in a broadcast interview earlier this year that a sterling area between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is ?desirable? and ?logical?, which is indeed the case.

 

?If the No campaign leaders can?t keep their story straight, no wonder they are losing the plot.?

 

 

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Best tell the guy heading up No about that...

 

The SNP?s Kenneth Gibson, convener of Holyrood?s Finance Committee, said: ?Every time people in the No campaign talk about this issue they look very silly, because it was Alistair Darling himself - the chair of the No campaign - who said in a broadcast interview earlier this year that a sterling area between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is ?desirable? and ?logical?, which is indeed the case.

 

?If the No campaign leaders can?t keep their story straight, no wonder they are losing the plot.?

 

 

The No camp isn't a political party. What they think would be best if independent means nothing to the rUK.

 

[Das Root]

 

The No camp isn't a political party. What they think would be best if independent means nothing to the rUK.

 

 

Got you. So that will mean big Dave Cameron debating with Salmond given Darling has no idea what's going on post independence? No point insulting Scots with has ill informed speculation, completely agree.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Got you. So that will mean big Dave Cameron debating with Salmond given Darling has no idea what's going on post independence? No point insulting Scots with has ill informed speculation, completely agree.

There is no part of this debate that isn't speculation.

 

Any debate is about what we think should happen or what we would like to happen. No more. Same with the White Paper 'this is what we'd like to happen'.

 

 

 

[Das Root]

 

There is no part of this debate that isn't speculation.

 

Any debate is about what we think should happen or what we would like to happen. No more. Same with the White Paper 'this is what we'd like to happen'.

 

 

The white paper is from the current Scottish Government, so has more gravitas. I agree anything No put out is merely their thoughts and ideas, no real substance. If Darling...ie the guy in charge of No...is this wrong on such an important issue, how can we trust anything else that No say?

[TheMaganator]

The white paper is from the current Scottish Government, so has more gravitas. I agree anything No put out is merely their thoughts and ideas, no real substance. If Darling...ie the guy in charge of No...is this wrong on such an important issue, how can we trust anything else that No say?

 

Well, the White Paper is from the ?Scottish Government? but we all know that is merely the SNP. No other party had any input in it. It is the SNPs blueprint.

 

Dariling (assuming your quotes are correct) has said what he thinks would be logical and desirable for Scotland if we were Independent. The fact that Westminster has said that would not happen does not make him wrong, any more than it makes any of the Yes camp wrong for saying that is what they want.

 

Better Together does not have some secret BatPhone direct to No 10. If we are Independent the Scottish Government will attempt to get what is best for Scotland, the r UK govt will try and get what is best for r UK. The two will not necessarily be the same.

 

Darling does not want independence. It is for the Yes camp to display how they think it will work in practice. This White Paper should have been all but signed off months ago. This is what the SNP have been working on for their entire existence.

[Das Root]

 

 

Well, the White Paper is from the ?Scottish Government? but we all know that is merely the SNP. No other party had any input in it. It is the SNPs blueprint.

 

Dariling (assuming your quotes are correct) has said what he thinks would be logical and desirable for Scotland if we were Independent. The fact that Westminster has said that would not happen does not make him wrong, any more than it makes any of the Yes camp wrong for saying that is what they want.

 

Better Together does not have some secret BatPhone direct to No 10. If we are Independent the Scottish Government will attempt to get what is best for Scotland, the r UK govt will try and get what is best for r UK. The two will not necessarily be the same.

 

Darling does not want independence. It is for the Yes camp to display how they think it will work in practice. This White Paper should have been all but signed off months ago. This is what the SNP have been working on for their entire existence.

 

 

So the Scottish Government and Yes speak off the same page but No has no real contact with the PM or Westminster and is merely opinionating on why Scotland should not be independent with no knowledge of what the UK Gov will do after a No vote...or indeed a Yes vote.

 

Great news for Scotland, the people may as well read this thread to get their No info since Better Together have no idea

Edited November 6, 2013 by Das Root

[jambos are go!]

To me the strategy for Better Together is to ensure the debate is about Independence and its consequences and the YES campaign should not be allowed to switch that round and make the debate about staying in the the Union. It seems a winning strategy. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson IIRC correctly said Better Together have yet to make a mistake.

 

The question on the Currency as others have said is that if we remain in the Pound our economic policy will effectively be run from London. There is nothing inconsistent with what Darling has said. Scotland need the Sterling zone regardless on the Referendum result. Not having an influential seat at the decision making table is therefore a powerful arguement against a YES vote as many neutrals on here have pointed out. In the recent past we have had Brown, Darling and now Danny Alexander in pivotal roles at the Treasury.

[Das Root]

To me the strategy for Better Together is to ensure the debate is about Independence and its consequences and the YES campaign should not be allowed to switch that round and make the debate about staying in the the Union. It seems a winning strategy. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson IIRC correctly said Better Together have yet to make a mistake.

 

The question on the Currency as others have said is that if we remain in the Pound our economic policy will effectively be run from London. There is nothing inconsistent with what Darling has said. Scotland need the Sterling zone regardless on the Referendum result. Not having an influential seat at the decision making table is therefore a powerful arguement against a YES vote as many neutrals on here have pointed out. In the recent past we have had Brown, Darling and now Danny Alexander in pivotal roles at the Treasury.

 

 

As long as we all agree No camp is purely speculating on life after the referendum. Westminster could shaft Scotland with more policies that just do not help the population here, knowing full well nobody cares. And No could be saying..."it's all going to be grand"...while the Tories are dreaming up whatever they want to hit us with given they have no seats up here and their powerbase is England. No won't know anything about that

 

However, to clarify, Alexander did not confirm, he said "unlikely" and in politico speak that could change with the wind.

 

I hope we do have our own currency, we will be a stronger nation backed by assets with plenty to trade with on a global market. Good news imo.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Das Root

[Das Root]

.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Das Root

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

As long as we all agree No camp is purely speculating on life after the referendum. Westminster could shaft Scotland with more policies that just do not help the population here, knowing full well nobody cares. And No could be saying..."it's all going to be grand"...while the Tories are dreaming up whatever they want to hit us with given they have no seats up here and their powerbase is England. No won't know anything about that

 

However, to clarify, Alexander did not confirm, he said "unlikely" and in politico speak that could change with the wind.

 

I hope we do have our own currency, we will be a stronger nation backed by assets with plenty to trade with on a global market. Good news imo.

Are you suggesting that the Yes camp isn't just speculating?

 

They have their vision - but it will depend on negotiations & what the people want.

Edited November 6, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Das Root]

 

Are you suggesting that the Yes camp isn't just spectating?

 

They have their vision - but it will depend on negotiations & what the people want.

 

 

Yes are of course working with ScotGov, joint project so to speak. No are on their own.

 

No can only guess what Westminster will do, as you say they have no contact there. Yes know exactly what the Scottish Government will do as they do have contact there.

[TheMaganator]

Yes are of course working with ScotGov, joint project so to speak. No are on their own.

 

No can only guess what Westminster will do, as you say they have no contact there. Yes know exactly what the Scottish Government will do as they do have contact there.

What the Socttish Govt/Yes want and what they will get are two different things. They are speculating in their WP -'we want this and we want that' - what they will come out of the negotiations may be different to that.

 

This whole debate is speculation.

 

It is all uncertain - to suggest otherwise isn't really very credible.

 

p.s not saying you are suggesting that - but we hear all the time 'vote Yes for X, Y and Z' - it is all nonsense.

Edited November 6, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Boris]

What the Socttish Govt/Yes want and what they will get are two different things. They are speculating in their WP -'we want this and we want that' - what they will come out of the negotiations may be different to that.

 

This whole debate is speculation.

 

It is all uncertain - to suggest otherwise isn't really very credible.

 

p.s not saying you are suggesting that - but we hear all the time 'vote Yes for X, Y and Z' - it is all nonsense.

 

Such as?

[Das Root]

 

What the Socttish Govt/Yes want and what they will get are two different things. They are speculating in their WP -'we want this and we want that' - what they will come out of the negotiations may be different to that.

 

This whole debate is speculation.

 

It is all uncertain - to suggest otherwise isn't really very credible.

 

p.s not saying you are suggesting that - but we hear all the time 'vote Yes for X, Y and Z' - it is all nonsense.

 

 

Are financial projections pure speculation or guided based upon known variables and milestones?

 

Yes is guided, they only have two variables essentially. Will we win, will the SNP be reelected? Whatever the divorce package agreed their vision for Scotland will still take place as long as both variables are met.

 

No can only speculate as after the referendum they will have no further use, up until then they do not know what Westminster will do, they do not know who will be running the UK after the next election. They have far more variables to contend with but crucially no basis of fact to start from as they have no contact with UK GOV, so just theorise based upon experience and information in the public domain.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Such as?

'We want Trident immediately removed from Scottish waters'

 

'We want a Sterling zone'

 

We'll have to see what's in their WP but it's being billed as their prospectus, is it not?

[TheMaganator]

Are financial projections pure speculation or guided based upon known variables and milestones?

 

Yes is guided, they only have two variables essentially. Will we win, will the SNP be reelected? Whatever the divorce package agreed their vision for Scotland will still take place as long as both variables are met.

 

No can only speculate as after the referendum they will have no further use, up until then they do not know what Westminster will do, they do not know who will be running the UK after the next election. They have far more variables to contend with but crucially no basis of fact to start from as they have no contact with UK GOV, so just theorise based upon experience and information in the public domain.

 

I don't think that is true, is it?

 

Yes win, SNP re-elected - fine.

SNP want a sterling zone - dependent on agrement from r UK

SNP want Trident removed - dependent on agreement from r UK

 

So it matters not a jot what they want - it is dependent on what they can negotiate.

 

I want a ?10k pay rise - doesn't mean I'll come out of my annual review with that - whether or not it is realistic.

[Boris]

'We want Trident immediately removed from Scottish waters'

 

'We want a Sterling zone'

 

We'll have to see what's in their WP but it's being billed as their prospectus, is it not?

 

If Scotland becomes independent, they can move trident out regardless. Obviously once any new Scottish Govt have made that decision.

 

Re a Sterling Zone, that would need negotiation. But even then it is short term as I fully imagine a new Scottish currency evolving.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

If Scotland becomes independent, they can move trident out regardless. Obviously once any new Scottish Govt have made that decision.

 

Re a Sterling Zone, that would need negotiation. But even then it is short term as I fully imagine a new Scottish currency evolving.

If we move it out regardless you can kiss goodbye to civil negotiations & a sterling zone.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

I don't think that is true, is it?

 

Yes win, SNP re-elected - fine.

SNP want a sterling zone - dependent on agrement from r UK

SNP want Trident removed - dependent on agreement from r UK

 

So it matters not a jot what they want - it is dependent on what they can negotiate.

 

I want a ?10k pay rise - doesn't mean I'll come out of my annual review with that - whether or not it is realistic.

I don't think that is true either.

 

If the will of the Scottish people as part of a sovereign independent nation is to have trident removed from it waters and the worlds biggest stockpile of WMD's in the WORLD removed from its storage within our borders then that will happen with or without rUK's agreement!

 

Not so sure about the Sterling zone either. Scotland WILL use Sterling with or without rUK's agreement and they WILL negotiate for the Sterling Zone agreement to be made or rUK will simply be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

And you and they know it!

[Boris]

If we move it out regardless you can kiss goodbye to civil negotiations & a sterling zone.

 

What nice neighbours we shall have!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I don't think that is true either.

 

If the will of the Scottish people as part of a sovereign independent nation is to have trident removed from it waters and the worlds biggest stockpile of WMD's in the WORLD removed from its storage within our borders then that will happen with or without rUK's agreement!

 

Not so sure about the Sterling zone either. Scotland WILL use Sterling with or without rUK's agreement and they WILL negotiate for the Sterling Zone agreement to be made or rUK will simply be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

And you and they know it!

No one is saying Scotland can't use sterling. The problem is it won't be able to sell sovereign debt and fund government spending.

 

As for affecting the rest of the UK, the main demand for sterling is in the foreign exchange markets. Scotland won't affect that in any way.

[Das Root]

I don't think that is true, is it?

 

Yes win, SNP re-elected - fine.

SNP want a sterling zone - dependent on agrement from r UK

SNP want Trident removed - dependent on agreement from r UK

 

So it matters not a jot what they want - it is dependent on what they can negotiate.

 

I want a ?10k pay rise - doesn't mean I'll come out of my annual review with that - whether or not it is realistic.

 

 

 

But you know what you want, that's the point. No have no idea what Westminster does. The white paper is a clear vision on the future of an independent Scotland. No have nothing similar apart from "things SHOULD stay the same...vote no for this...maybe".

[Das Root]

If we move it out regardless you can kiss goodbye to civil negotiations & a sterling zone.

 

 

Quality. "take our nukes or we will never speak to you again...nah nah na nah nah"

[Das Root]

No one is saying Scotland can't use sterling. The problem is it won't be able to sell sovereign debt and fund government spending.

 

As for affecting the rest of the UK, the main demand for sterling is in the foreign exchange markets. Scotland won't affect that in any way.

 

 

I wonder, do you have any actual evidence or are you merely doing what the No campaign does?

[Rick Grimes]

 

If we move it out regardless you can kiss goodbye to civil negotiations & a sterling zone.

 

I think any divorce negotiations will be conducted with a bit less of the spurned lover approach you're suggesting...