Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

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.

The thing about that is that making life difficult for Scotland by NOT agreeing would only serve as nail in the coffin for Sterling given that The Scottish pound would probably be worth twice as much as Sterling (given our oil, Whisky, renewables, tourism, life sciences, banking, food production, less national debt etc and only 5.25 million people).

Sterling would be devalued at a nose bleed rate and who in the rUK would vote for that?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

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

The empirical evidence is being demonstrated by the single currency. The only way a currency bloc can work is to run similar fiscal policies alongside the single monetary policy.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

The thing about that is that making life difficult for Scotland by NOT agreeing would only serve as nail in the coffin for Sterling given that The Scottish pound would probably be worth twice as much as Sterling (given our oil, Whisky, renewables, tourism, life sciences, banking, food production, less national debt etc and only 5.25 million people).

Sterling would be devalued at a nose bleed rate and who in the rUK would vote for that?

But that's the point. Let the market find the natural level for both and offer the flexibility of policy. If either devalues, so what? It is only a reflection of the trading positions of both countries.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

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

I agree. But it was suggested above that we could just move Trident out. That won't bode well for the negotiation if we simply just move them, will it?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

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!

Why would it be in r UKs interests to be Scotland's lender of last resort.

 

Using sterling is fine. A sterling zone is totally different.

 

You are just making head in the sand assertions.

[Marvin]

I live down South so voted as if I was still living in Craigshill - NO. I am against breaking up the union. In my opinion England needs Scotland as much as Scotland needs England.

[Das Root]

The empirical evidence is being demonstrated by the single currency. The only way a currency bloc can work is to run similar fiscal policies alongside the single monetary policy.

 

 

The key word being "similar", thanks Geoff.

[Das Root]

I agree. But it was suggested above that we could just move Trident out. That won't bode well for the negotiation if we simply just move them, will it?

 

 

Why not? Impetus is then on rUK not dragging things out. While it also shows Scotland is prepared to negotiate strongly for what's needed. Sends a good message, while rUK cannot force Scotland to look after it's nukes.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Why would it be in r UKs interests to be Scotland's lender of last resort.

 

Using sterling is fine. A sterling zone is totally different.

 

You are just making head in the sand assertions.

 

A quote from Business for Scotland

 

If you were to take oil, whisky and food exports out of the sterling zone, the balance of trade deficit could cause sterling to sink like a stone, and so would the English economy. Not only would that be bad for Scotland, but it would be bad for our friends in England and that is reason enough ? we will still be from Britain (it is an island) after independence, and England will probably always remain our best friend, and trading partner. The rUK would also need to purchase between 30-40% of its energy from Scotland (oil and gas included).

 

Head in the sand eh?

 

 

[TheMaganator]

Why not? Impetus is then on rUK not dragging things out. While it also shows Scotland is prepared to negotiate strongly for what's needed. Sends a good message, while rUK cannot force Scotland to look after it's OUR nukes.

 

It wouldn't bode well for fairly obvious reasons:

 

Day 1 of independence:

Scotland to r UK - hey guys, we're sending Trident down to your waters now? You don't mind, do you?

rUK to Scotland - erm, yes we do mind

Scotland to rUK - do you mind if we form a currency union with you with the Bank of England being lender of last resort?

rUK to Scotland - erm, yes we do mind, actually - remember you being a walloper over Trident...

 

Trident will be in Scottish waters for years. There is nowehere set up to house them in rUK yet. If Yes win and if the Scottish people decide they want Trident out then rUK will need to build a Faslane to house them. That wont happen overnight. Any Scottish government will not just move them out either. That would be childish. Apart from anything else, they are also Scotland's responsibility.

 

More importantly - are there any polls showing that Scots want rid of nukes? I haven't seen any. It seems to be assumed by the Yes camp that we dont want them. The SNP often talk of the 'people of Scotland'. It is quite clear they do not speak for the people of Scotland on this issue. They don't even spak for all of their party as there are SNP Members who are pro-nuke.

[TheMaganator]

A quote from Business for Scotland

 

If you were to take oil, whisky and food exports out of the sterling zone, the balance of trade deficit could cause sterling to sink like a stone, and so would the English economy. Not only would that be bad for Scotland, but it would be bad for our friends in England and that is reason enough ? we will still be from Britain (it is an island) after independence, and England will probably always remain our best friend, and trading partner. The rUK would also need to purchase between 30-40% of its energy from Scotland (oil and gas included).

 

Head in the sand eh?

 

Does that quote take into account the removal of the cost of Scotland from the equation?

[Das Root]

It wouldn't bode well for fairly obvious reasons:

 

Day 1 of independence:

Scotland to r UK - hey guys, we're sending Trident down to your waters now? You don't mind, do you?

rUK to Scotland - erm, yes we do mind

Scotland to rUK - do you mind if we form a currency union with you with the Bank of England being lender of last resort?

rUK to Scotland - erm, yes we do mind, actually - remember you being a walloper over Trident...

 

Trident will be in Scottish waters for years. There is nowehere set up to house them in rUK yet. If Yes win and if the Scottish people decide they want Trident out then rUK will need to build a Faslane to house them. That wont happen overnight. Any Scottish government will not just move them out either. That would be childish. Apart from anything else, they are also Scotland's responsibility.

 

More importantly - are there any polls showing that Scots want rid of nukes? I haven't seen any. It seems to be assumed by the Yes camp that we dont want them. The SNP often talk of the 'people of Scotland'. It is quite clear they do not speak for the people of Scotland on this issue. They don't even spak for all of their party as there are SNP Members who are pro-nuke.

 

 

So rUK will play the big bully and force Scotland to hold all their nukes (and they are theirs, no chance they will say "hey, you guys have a bunch, share and share alike"), then say no chance for a currency union.

 

Basically it's their ball and we can just take the scraps Cameron offers. Nice neighbours indeed

 

Take it though you are pro nuclear weapons?

[jambos are go!]

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

 

Did you watch the Scotland Tonight debate between Dennis Canavan and Ian Davidson ?. Canavan did nor refute Davidsons' assertion that the SNP policy was to get Trident out of Scotland when it was save to do so and that might take 25 years. Did anyone else here that? Now that is a helluva long time and UK policy on Trident might well change and the System be defunct or replaced. The committment may well be a non promise or a meaningless committment. I favour getting rid of Trident on cost grounds.

 

However, over the last couple of weeks we have seen all hell let loose over threats to Grangemouth and Govan and the impact on Scottish jobs. As I understand it the potential cumunlative job losses are about half those that will be lost if Faslane closes. Roughly 4000 to 8000. Might be wrong. Faslane and Trident will be kicked into the long grass even if there is a YES vote. IMO

 

An aside. I once spoke to senior official in the Scottish Government who told me that the top of their risk register for a major infrastructure disaster in Scotland was not Faslane. It was Grangemouth!!

[TheMaganator]

So rUK will play the big bully and force Scotland to hold all their nukes (and they are theirs, no chance they will say "hey, you guys have a bunch, share and share alike"), then say no chance for a currency union.

 

Basically it's their ball and we can just take the scraps Cameron offers. Nice neighbours indeed

 

Take it though you are pro nuclear weapons?

To be fair, DR, That is not what I said. You suggested that we'd throw the toys and Trident out the pram on day 1 (not in so many words, but that is how this started) - I merely said that this would be a negotiation and that if we act unreasonably we can expct the same back.

 

It is not rUK bully boy tactics at all. If we start acting in bad faith why shouldn't we expect the same back?

 

They are ours too - there is no getting away from that. Whether or not you or I like it, we have a share of the responsibility for them.

[Das Root]

To be fair, DR, That is not what I said. You suggested that we'd throw the toys and Trident out the pram on day 1 (not in so many words, but that is how this started) - I merely said that this would be a negotiation and that if we act unreasonably we can expct the same back.

 

It is not rUK bully boy tactics at all. If we start acting in bad faith why shouldn't we expect the same back?

 

They are ours too - there is no getting away from that. Whether or not you or I like it, we have a share of the responsibility for them.

 

 

They're nukes, not a chance rUK would want another country holding it's nuclear arsenal. And remember it's 9%, that's a small drop in the bucket so very little responsibility is ours.

 

Scotland would be within it's right to ask for all submarines to be put to sea during the negotiating period, these subs do not need a permanent berth, I would wager only 1 at a time is ever there apart from an emergency repair situation.

 

What certainly wouldn't happen is a demand from rUK that no negotiations would take place if Scotland did turf out the nukes, Scotland on the other hand could ask for immediate concessions to allow them to remain during the negotiating period. We hold all the cards here, rUK knows that.

[Ulysses]

 

 

A quote from Business for Scotland

 

If you were to take oil, whisky and food exports out of the sterling zone, the balance of trade deficit could cause sterling to sink like a stone, and so would the English economy. Not only would that be bad for Scotland, but it would be bad for our friends in England and that is reason enough ? we will still be from Britain (it is an island) after independence, and England will probably always remain our best friend, and trading partner. The rUK would also need to purchase between 30-40% of its energy from Scotland (oil and gas included).

 

Head in the sand eh?

 

Whisky is big news in Scotland, but minor in a UK context. All distilled spirits combined account for 1.8% of UK exports. That's about the same value as exports of waste treatment services.

 

Scotland accounts for something in the region of 10-12 per cent of UK food exports. Even if you treat Scottish sales to the rUK as exports, Scotland's food exports are (by way of example) a good bit less than Ireland's.

 

In 2012, the UK exported less oil and gas than it imported. The rUK would not need to buy any of its oil and gas from Scotland. It would buy on the world markets at prevailing prices in USD.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Whisky is big news in Scotland, but minor in a UK context. All distilled spirits combined account for 1.8% of UK exports. That's about the same value as exports of waste treatment services.

 

Scotland accounts for something in the region of 10-12 per cent of UK food exports. Even if you treat Scottish sales to the rUK as exports, Scotland's food exports are (by way of example) a good bit less than Ireland's.

 

In 2012, the UK exported less oil and gas than it imported. The rUK would nout need to buy any of its oil and gas from Scotland. It would buy on the world markets at prevailing prices in USD.

 

The international trading currency for oil is USD however; why would the rUK not buy oil from an independent Scotland given that they share the same currency and are on the doorstep?

They do now (Grangemouth supplies most of the north of England and almost 100% of N.I.)

Unless it was cheaper to do so elsewhere, it would definitely look like toys being flung oot the pram!

It's not loo roll & Mars bars. It's a highly sought after commodity.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Whisky is big news in Scotland, but minor in a UK context. All distilled spirits combined account for 1.8% of UK exports. That's about the same value as exports of waste treatment services.

 

Scotland accounts for something in the region of 10-12 per cent of UK food exports. Even if you treat Scottish sales to the rUK as exports, Scotland's food exports are (by way of example) a good bit less than Ireland's.

 

In 2012, the UK exported less oil and gas than it imported. The rUK would not need to buy any of its oil and gas from Scotland. It would buy on the world markets at prevailing prices in USD.

Also Uly, Whisky is ?4.5 billion in exports to the current UK economy which is around 25% in total of all food & drink that is exported from the UK.

Not to be sniffed at!

Edited November 6, 2013 by Pans Jambo

[syndicalist]

Also Uly, Whisky is ?4.5 billion in exports to the current UK economy which is around 25% in total of all food & drink that is exported from the UK.

Not to be sniffed at!

Not to be sniffed at, but around 5% of public expenditure in Scotland.

[The Comedian]

Bad news for the lad's in the various yards with BAE cutting 1775 jobs. I served my time in a shipyard myself.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24831779

 

It's a tight spot for Westminster, in that, it's agreed the Type 26 order would be built at Govan but apparently Navy vessels cannot be built in a foreign country. With the possibilty of a newly independent Scotland surely that's a consideration before decimating Portsmouth?

 

Alternatively decimating the Clyde would hand a major boost to Alex Salmond so what do people see happening?

 

Interestingly that blowhard Ian Davidson has been canvassing the Govan area with the line that a YES vote would destroy Scottish shipbuilding. It's not looking to rosy in it for many of the people behind the doors he chapped.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Not to be sniffed at, but around 5% of public expenditure in Scotland.

Sorry chief, I'm not understanding that. Can you explain?

[AlphonseCapone]

Random question, giving how long the SNP have been preparing for this (assuming they weren't suprised by their own success) and also considering Salmond is quite an intelligent strategist, does anyone think that the white paper will actually contain quite a few suprises which contradict some of positions the SNP have took so far?

 

Guess what I'm thinking, is the white paper a document that has been set for a while or will it be a document that's being changed right now to proposals have appeared to be most popular I.E. scrap the idea of keeping sterling after seeing a fair bit of criticism towards that idea?

 

Obviously no one will know till it comes out but just wondering about opinions as like him or not, eck is usually pretty shrewd but so far he has disappointed me, I'm expecting more from him.

[TheMaganator]

Random question, giving how long the SNP have been preparing for this (assuming they weren't suprised by their own success) and also considering Salmond is quite an intelligent strategist, does anyone think that the white paper will actually contain quite a few suprises which contradict some of positions the SNP have took so far?

 

Guess what I'm thinking, is the white paper a document that has been set for a while or will it be a document that's being changed right now to proposals have appeared to be most popular I.E. scrap the idea of keeping sterling after seeing a fair bit of criticism towards that idea?

 

Obviously no one will know till it comes out but just wondering about opinions as like him or not, eck is usually pretty shrewd but so far he has disappointed me, I'm expecting more from him.

 

 

I think they will have been surprised by their 2011 success TBH. The parliament was supposedly set up so no side (ie the SNP) could obtain a majority.

 

Their policy on currency has changed before and may do again. They have said before that Sterling was a milestone around the neck of Scotland and that we should join the Euro. That obviously changed when it became clear to everyone (many knew all along) that currency unions, without political unions are useless ? and that is where the Euro is. Which makes using Sterling in a sterling zone a strange choice (but, ultimately, the best choice of an awful bunch).

 

I think they are now too close to the referendum to make any major policy shifts. They have already (rightly IMO) been accused of making it up as they go along. A major policy shift now would be damaging.

 

There is no doubt Eck is a great politician. He has made mistakes since winning in 2011 though. I do not think he is the politician he used to be ? but then again never before has one man (party) been under so much scrutiny. He will not last long after the referendum, I do not think. His followers (and there are many) will not and have not critised him publically during this campaign ? I disagree with any Politian being given this much free reign over such a period but there we go. The Yes camp are as close as they will ever be to achieving their goals so I can understand them not wanting to do anything to jeopardize that.

 

They have already had their big policy shift with NATO & the ? during this campaign. I do not think they can afford anymore.

Edited November 6, 2013 by TheMaganator

[jumpship]

I think the reason this white paper is taking so long. This white paper will be water tight,not just contributions from the SNP, Leading experts from around the world have contributed to this paper. The SNP have been making friends in all the right places.

 

Im pretty confident this white paper will more than answer everyone's questions...

[Das Root]

I think the reason this white paper is taking so long. This white paper will be water tight,not just contributions from the SNP, Leading experts from around the world have contributed to this paper. The SNP have been making friends in all the right places.

 

Im pretty confident this white paper will more than answer everyone's questions...

 

 

Though I would imagine some will look for any possible negative and focus the discussion on that. The paper should be about answers and a clear path to independence, to help those undecided to a positive decision.

 

[modedit]

[Ulysses]

Also Uly, Whisky is ?4.5 billion in exports to the current UK economy which is around 25% in total of all food & drink that is exported from the UK.

Not to be sniffed at!

 

It's trivial. The notion that excluding distilled alcohol from the UK's exports would cause a run on Sterling does not stand up to analysis.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm intrigued by the British press' treatment of the shipyard closures, as though Scotland is receiving massively favourable treatment ahead of the Independence referendum. Going by the figures, 940 jobs will go in Portsmouth and 835 jobs will be lost on Clydeside. Apparently losing 105 jobs less is 'pandering'? Have I missed something here?

[Ulysses]

 

 

The international trading currency for oil is USD however; why would the rUK not buy oil from an independent Scotland given that they share the same currency and are on the doorstep?

They do now (Grangemouth supplies most of the north of England and almost 100% of N.I.)

Unless it was cheaper to do so elsewhere, it would definitely look like toys being flung oot the pram!

It's not loo roll & Mars bars. It's a highly sought after commodity.

 

You said the rUK would need to buy energy from Scotland. I merely pointed out that this is not true. The rUK can buy energy from Scotland, or from elsewhere, depending on prices and availability.

 

Even if Scotland has oil reserves, it can only sell those on the market at prevailing rates in USD. If Scotland undercuts those prices it loses revenue unnecessarily. If Scotland over-prices it loses sales unnecessarily.

[The Comedian]

I'm intrigued by the British press' treatment of the shipyard closures, as though Scotland is receiving massively favourable treatment ahead of the Independence referendum. Going by the figures, 940 jobs will go in Portsmouth and 835 jobs will be lost on Clydeside. Apparently losing 105 jobs less is 'pandering'? Have I missed something here?

 

We have 3 patrol craft to build though. Not exactly massive.

[Maroon Sailor]

 

 

We have 3 patrol craft to build though. Not exactly massive.

 

And an unsigned contract for thirteen Type 26 Frigates which is dependant on the 2014 vote.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Maroon Sailor

[Maroon Sailor]

I'm intrigued by the British press' treatment of the shipyard closures, as though Scotland is receiving massively favourable treatment ahead of the Independence referendum. Going by the figures, 940 jobs will go in Portsmouth and 835 jobs will be lost on Clydeside. Apparently losing 105 jobs less is 'pandering'? Have I missed something here?

 

Typical English attitude.

 

Heard one bloke on the radio today complaining that Scotland have been sucking on the breast of England for too long.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Maroon Sailor

[Patrick Bateman]

Typical English attitude.

 

Heard one bloke on the radio today complaining that Scotland have been sucking on the breast of England for too long.

 

Which is, of course, an utter fabrication. Even unionist politicians don't try claiming the subsidy junkie nonsense. I have to say, the shipbuilding industry has been in decline for decades now, you'd have to wonder why they haven't tried to bring in more commercial work. I don't agree with governments continually spending billions of pounds to maintain a few thousand jobs, particularly when those skilled workers can make other stuff too.

 

The media narrative in this is clear; be grateful for this 'handout' from Westminster and ignore the fact Scotland contributes more than it gets back. Nobody is buying this, surely?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Typical English attitude.

 

Heard one bloke on the radio today complaining that Scotland have been sucking on the breast of England for too long.

That's not a typical English attitude anymore than it's a typical nationalist attitude to hate the English.

 

Both are the position of the moron.

[Das Root]

 

 

Typical English attitude.

 

Heard one bloke on the radio today complaining that Scotland have been sucking on the breast of England for too long.

 

 

Is he saying England is one big set of boobs?

[Maroon Sailor]

 

 

 

 

Is he saying England is one big set of boobs?

 

Well he certainly came across as a bitter and twisted tit

[sarissa]

I think the reason this white paper is taking so long. This white paper will be water tight,not just contributions from the SNP, Leading experts from around the world have contributed to this paper. The SNP have been making friends in all the right places.

 

Im pretty confident this white paper will more than answer everyone's questions...

With the combined forces of of Westminster political parties, the Treasury, the Scottish and London-based TV and news media all set to examine it in every minute detail and criticise any discrepancy they find, you can bet it will have to be water tight.

[Maroon Sailor]

 

That's not a typical English attitude anymore than it's a typical nationalist attitude to hate the English.

 

Both are the position of the moron.

 

He also said that the English should have a vote on Scottish independence and that it would be a YES vote.

 

That's a typical English attitude. Don't hear the Welsh or Northern Irish bleat on about that.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Maroon Sailor

[Greenbank2]

Which is, of course, an utter fabrication. Even unionist politicians don't try claiming the subsidy junkie nonsense. I have to say, the shipbuilding industry has been in decline for decades now, you'd have to wonder why they haven't tried to bring in more commercial work. I don't agree with governments continually spending billions of pounds to maintain a few thousand jobs, particularly when those skilled workers can make other stuff too.

 

The media narrative in this is clear; be grateful for this 'handout' from Westminster and ignore the fact Scotland contributes more than it gets back. Nobody is buying this, surely?

 

The shipbuilding industry in this country, for vessels of any significant size, is limited to naval craft because yards in other countries are technically superior and cheaper. Shipbuilding, and the defence industry in general, is the deluded folly of little englendar governments who still believe "Britannia Rules The Waves". I would feel sad for those employed by BEA and other companies solely reliant on defense hand outs should there be a massive cut back, but instead of spending our taxes on egotistical vanity projects like aircraft carriers and nukes, just think how that cash could be used to better all our lives in an independent Scotland. Cut defense sending to the core and use the money to invest in industries that make a positive contribution to everyone's lives - and the former defense employees will soon see their skills being utilised there.

[Maroon Sailor]

 

 

 

The shipbuilding industry in this country, for vessels of any significant size, is limited to naval craft because yards in other countries are technically superior and cheaper. Shipbuilding, and the defence industry in general, is the deluded folly of little englendar governments who still believe "Britannia Rules The Waves". I would feel sad for those employed by BEA and other companies solely reliant on defense hand outs should there be a massive cut back, but instead of spending our taxes on egotistical vanity projects like aircraft carriers and nukes, just think how that cash could be used to better all our lives in an independent Scotland. Cut defense sending to the core and use the money to invest in industries that make a positive contribution to everyone's lives - and the former defense employees will soon see their skills being utilised there.

 

How we going to defend ourselves ?

[Das Root]

 

 

 

How we going to defend ourselves ?

 

From who? Though I suspect Nato membership has its perks.

[sarissa]

How we going to defend ourselves ?

Well we're not going to be defending ourselves in the Falklands or the Indian Ocean or Afghanistan or similar places for a start.

[Maroon Sailor]

 

Well we're not going to be defending ourselves in the Falklands or the Indian Ocean or Afghanistan or similar places for a start.

 

Says who ?

 

Then again how can we if we have no Defence.

 

We'll become sitting ducks for any crackpot willing to chance their arm.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Maroon Sailor

[JamboX2]

On the shipyard issue;

 

The decision is both economic and political. The Clyde and Rosyth are larger yards. Rosyth is the only yard big enough to service these new carriers. The Clyde is a concentrated are with two yards. It is also a bribe for the UK government - look we saved the yard, here's 15 years of contracts, vote no. That should be no surprise.

 

It's a sin that the Yard in Portsmouth and Bristol face closure. And this is where I agree with Nicola Sturgeon. In her retort to Phillip Hammond she made a lot of the sameold comments. Then she said something unheard of in this debate - these yards MUST diversify order books. Although I take that with a pinch of salt - her government made orders for a Calmac ferry in Germany and opened up a fishery vessel order to competition - she is right. The yards on the Clyde could build a ferry or a few large trawlers, Portsmouth could build a few oil support vessels and so on. Why wont they? Ownership. The yards are run by BAE. A company solely building military hardware. When it was Kvaener on the Clyde they were more open to other orders. That like of diversification is a headache. One which needs to change. One which will need to happen int he next decade as I don't think the size of this Type 26 order will be what it is said to be now.

 

It is also the case that it is cheaper to build abroad. Norway maintains good yards through state aid. In the EU you cannot just give yards money or cherrypick them orders to keep going - although you can bend the procurement rules to suit national companies. There's more space also. In Glasgow the Yards historically, and now, are hemned in by urban sprawl. In America, Germany, France and now Korea and China, you have huge amounts of space to expand yards. With modern construction methods you need that space to build - compartments moving about, mass production and on site producers, make it cheaper. But it's cheaper because there's room to build that way. Not like here where the carrier flight deck is made in Bristol, the engines in Manchester, the control tower in Portsmouth and the rest at the Clyde and Rosyth. It'd all be built in Bremen or Norfox in Germany and America. It's therefore more expensive and not as competative.

 

It's good the Clyde is being kept, and Rosyth too. But I feel for these hundreds of men who have no job security at the end of next year in Portsmouth and Bristol. It's a sin. A betrayal of the workers by Government and BAE. Maybe, just maybe the Unions are spot on here, and Sturgeon - diversify them and maybe change management. There's North Sea Oil, a North Atlantic fishing fleet, ferrys and all other areas to go into and build ships for, offshore wind and wave power will need servicing ships. Diversify and save jobs. Lack of imagination again to me.

[jambos are go!]

The White Paper needs to give details. If it basically says that a whole lot of things will be up to the first independent Holyrood to decide it will pilloried by all and sundry. That's what you get for arguing about loose change on the economic and other matters front and not saying Independence or Bust. Warts and all. I'm a Unionist who nonetheless respects the Independence or bust brigade and has no time for those who try to break the Union by electoral bribes on the back of questionable economics.

[Das Root]

 

 

Says who ?

 

Then again how can we if we have no Defence.

 

We'll become sitting ducks for any crackpot willing to chance their arm.

 

 

We could just build a massive fence round the whole place and stick up a few "beware of the dog" signs. Combine that with reminding everybody the real James Bond is Scottish on our Facebook page and that should stop every crackpot having a go.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Now and again, everyone on here seems to forget that yes will lose

[Das Root]

Now and again, everyone on here seems to forget that yes will lose

 

 

Really. Ah crap, better close the thread.

[Maroon Sailor]

 

On the shipyard issue;

 

The decision is both economic and political. The Clyde and Rosyth are larger yards. Rosyth is the only yard big enough to service these new carriers. The Clyde is a concentrated are with two yards. It is also a bribe for the UK government - look we saved the yard, here's 15 years of contracts, vote no. That should be no surprise.

 

It's a sin that the Yard in Portsmouth and Bristol face closure. And this is where I agree with Nicola Sturgeon. In her retort to Phillip Hammond she made a lot of the sameold comments. Then she said something unheard of in this debate - these yards MUST diversify order books. Although I take that with a pinch of salt - her government made orders for a Calmac ferry in Germany and opened up a fishery vessel order to competition - she is right. The yards on the Clyde could build a ferry or a few large trawlers, Portsmouth could build a few oil support vessels and so on. Why wont they? Ownership. The yards are run by BAE. A company solely building military hardware. When it was Kvaener on the Clyde they were more open to other orders. That like of diversification is a headache. One which needs to change. One which will need to happen int he next decade as I don't think the size of this Type 26 order will be what it is said to be now.

 

It is also the case that it is cheaper to build abroad. Norway maintains good yards through state aid. In the EU you cannot just give yards money or cherrypick them orders to keep going - although you can bend the procurement rules to suit national companies. There's more space also. In Glasgow the Yards historically, and now, are hemned in by urban sprawl. In America, Germany, France and now Korea and China, you have huge amounts of space to expand yards. With modern construction methods you need that space to build - compartments moving about, mass production and on site producers, make it cheaper. But it's cheaper because there's room to build that way. Not like here where the carrier flight deck is made in Bristol, the engines in Manchester, the control tower in Portsmouth and the rest at the Clyde and Rosyth. It'd all be built in Bremen or Norfox in Germany and America. It's therefore more expensive and not as competative.

 

It's good the Clyde is being kept, and Rosyth too. But I feel for these hundreds of men who have no job security at the end of next year in Portsmouth and Bristol. It's a sin. A betrayal of the workers by Government and BAE. Maybe, just maybe the Unions are spot on here, and Sturgeon - diversify them and maybe change management. There's North Sea Oil, a North Atlantic fishing fleet, ferrys and all other areas to go into and build ships for, offshore wind and wave power will need servicing ships. Diversify and save jobs. Lack of imagination again to me.

 

Four Royal Fleet Auxiliary support tankers are being built in South Korea at a cost of ?452m. These will replace the ageing single hull tankers currently in service and the first ship is due out in 2016.

 

This went out to tender in 2012 but no UK firm made a final bid to take part.

 

Why did the UK government not put something together to make sure these ships were built in the UK ?

[JamboX2]

Well we're not going to be defending ourselves in the Falklands or the Indian Ocean or Afghanistan or similar places for a start.

 

The Danes, Norweigians, Belgians, Greeks, Portuguese, Dutch and even the Irish and Lithuanians have sent troops across the world since 1990. Be it Peacekeeping or NATO. The Danes and Norweigians operate in the Indian Ocean in anti-piracy operations under the NATO-UN banner. The Irish have sent troops to the Congo and Darfur. Lithuanians and Danes and Belgians and Dutch all served with distinction in Afghanistan. You'd be surprised where NATO membership or UN peacekeeping will take you. An independent Scotland in NATO would most likely follow suit. Afterall Salmond has said he'd have sent jets and support staff to the Libya mission when it happened.

 

I'm intrigued by the British press' treatment of the shipyard closures, as though Scotland is receiving massively favourable treatment ahead of the Independence referendum. Going by the figures, 940 jobs will go in Portsmouth and 835 jobs will be lost on Clydeside. Apparently losing 105 jobs less is 'pandering'? Have I missed something here?

 

I'd argue 3 open yards in Scotland and the two in England which build surface ships closing is a big thing to English workers. It's a big win for the Scottish yards that they'll be staying open. The job losses are lamentable and horrendous to me too, but the Yards will be open and working on reduced numbers on the Clyde and Rosyth. More than can be said for Filton and Portsmouth PB.

 

Random question, giving how long the SNP have been preparing for this (assuming they weren't suprised by their own success) and also considering Salmond is quite an intelligent strategist, does anyone think that the white paper will actually contain quite a few suprises which contradict some of positions the SNP have took so far?

 

Guess what I'm thinking, is the white paper a document that has been set for a while or will it be a document that's being changed right now to proposals have appeared to be most popular I.E. scrap the idea of keeping sterling after seeing a fair bit of criticism towards that idea?

 

Obviously no one will know till it comes out but just wondering about opinions as like him or not, eck is usually pretty shrewd but so far he has disappointed me, I'm expecting more from him.

 

It'd be daft if there were no hidden gems, as you say it's a political document, not to have a wee sweatners would be naively bonkers on the SNP's behalf. I'd expect an outline of a plan b on currency though. Again, stupid not to include that. I'd expect some of the same old, and some wee gems. Whether it attracts the voters is another matter of course. But I too an looking forward to hearing and reading what it has to say.

 

And yes, the SNP were surprised by the scale of their victory. Hence the shock at Bill Walker getting elected in a Labour safe seat and his subsequent quick booting when "it" all came out. Put it this way, there were some pleasantly surprised new MSPs that Friday morning in 2011.

 

So rUK will play the big bully and force Scotland to hold all their nukes (and they are theirs, no chance they will say "hey, you guys have a bunch, share and share alike"), then say no chance for a currency union.

 

Basically it's their ball and we can just take the scraps Cameron offers. Nice neighbours indeed

 

Take it though you are pro nuclear weapons?

 

It's in their national interest, as determined by their leaders, to retain Trident come independence. I'd imagine the deal would be sweatened, ie you can have slightly less debt or a few extra "assets" than we were looking to get, maybe Salmond's Sterlingzone. However, it'll be a slow removal as it has to go somewhere. A new base, as specialised as Faslane will be needed for it.

 

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.

 

No it can't. Simply because you cannot simply sail Trident out to sea and then leave it bobbing about. Faslane is a highly specialised dock, designed to service Trident and the hunter-killer submarine fleet. It's not conventional in any means as a base. It's not a naval Dreghorn barracks, interchangeable for use. Should Yes win, the UK will need to replace Faslane elsewhere - likely, as mooted, a secluded Northern Irish or Welsh or North West of England alcove (mainly for easy access into the North Atlantic). Until that time it will sit and work fom Faslane. An independent Scotland would be foolish to say "get it out by friday please", especially one wanting NATO membership. Afterall Trident removal wont be a UK-Scotland matter. The Americans and French - who also maintian the NATO nuclear umbrella for all NATO members - will be monitoring and exerting political pressures on Scotland to act with a "level" head in relation to this, especially with NATO membership vote to go through.

 

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.

 

That was in the Eurozone, which due to competiting tax rates, massively different spending and borrowing levels and overpriced and inflated economies near collapsed. The Treasury will have watched, and did watch, this closely. I doubt they will allow such radical tax competition within a Sterlingzone should it come to pass. Which I hope it wouldn't. If we are to be independent, let it all be in our own back and effort. Not by shirking the truly difficult decisions and choices.

[JamboX2]

Four Royal Fleet Auxiliary support tankers are being built in South Korea at a cost of ?452m. These will replace the ageing single hull tankers currently in service and the first ship is due out in 2016.

 

This went out to tender in 2012 but no UK firm made a final bid to take part.

 

Why did the UK government not put something together to make sure these ships were built in the UK ?

 

I think you are getting at my procurement law question?

 

Firstly, to avoid that it has to be a "grey" ship. A ship which is armed. That is national security, that is exempt from the whole issue of competition. These yards were not grey ships, as they aren't armed. The fleet auxiliary is support ships, as you say. Not armed except for side arms. Not a grey ship.

 

Secondly, you could bend the rules. There are derogations to allow local yards an "upper hand". I don't have them to hand to list, but it can be done.

 

My thinking on the reason why a UK yard never got it? Well our yards for the past 10-15 years have been very busy. Type 23 frigates, Type 45 destroyers and the two carriers have been keeping yards busy. On top of that a few patrol ships. Maybe it was overcapacity at the time of order. But I agree, when possible rules must be bent to save our yards. The Scottish government could've done the same on that ferry they wanted. We suck at this in the UK. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Dutch and Denmark are very good at bending EU rules to suit them.

Edited November 6, 2013 by JamboX2