Scottish Independence?

Post Reply New Topic

I would miss their left of centre votes but the issue is ultimately upto them.

I'll 2nd that plus Lefebvre given a piss poor example. WTF do the Red Socks have to do with this UK matter apart from there owners owing my football club in England? Again another example of Lefebvre's shite knowledge of football!

I would be astonished to see a successful referendum on Scottish separation. If it has not successfully occurred in Québec, I see little basis for it to occur in Scotland.

The devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament has provided a strong level of Scottish control of Scottish institutions, and the devolution model can continue to deal with those matters that Scotland wants to take on. Independence will require taking on a whole range of expensive programs (e.g. defence and foreign affairs) in which Scotland is well served, and in which Scottish interests can be served through alternative means.

Unlike Québec, the national identity of Scotland is not bound up in a distinct language (the renaissance of Gaelic notwithstanding) which serves to create a closed, culturally distinct population. Unlike the example of Eire in the late 19th century, religious differences are insufficient to establish a distinction (particularly as Scottish adherence covers a wide range from the Roman Catholics on one side to the Wee Frees on the other).

What I would see happening is a drive from Edinburgh for further devolution of powers. I would not be surprised to see a drive for Scottish Agents-General to be posted to key British Embassies (particularly in Europe). I expect we may see some drive for currency and financial system management for Scotland to be devolved away from the Bank of England, and for a transfer of tax room from Westminster to Edinburgh. The SNP may well feel itself to be in a position to preserve in Scotland many of the programs that are being axed south of the border, provided that they have control of the fiscal policy levers to do so. Meanwhile Scots may well feel happier about such an arrangement where they see a more local link between their income taxes and VATs rather than a vast remittance to Westminster.

Very similar in fact. Salmond knows that he probably wouldn't win an independence referendum, but he'll endlessly beat the UK government round the head with more threats, manipulation and indulgencies, even though he knows that Scotland probably won't vote for independence.

He's a canny fella, but a socialist in 'independentist' (how can Scotland be an independent nation whilst being shackled to the ultimate colonial power in the EU?) clothing.

Not sure i'd call Salmond a Socialist. He's spent much of the last ten years praising the Irish Republic's ultra- Thatcherite Celtic tiger model. Not sure that Scotland will be going down that road now though when you look at the state of the Irish Economy.

I think you people of are forgetting a key issue regrading Scottish independence,
let me list the names of the four of them here:

• HMS Vanguard
• HMS Victorious
• HMS Vigilant
• HMS Vengeance

Thats right the UK's Vanguards that pack Trident II D-5 SLBMs

I can see that COULD be an argument against revolution - though if I lived on a right little tight little island I would think twice about nuking one end of it.

But how does it argue against seeking independence?

Home base of those subs is in Scotland.

Easy. Whip the nukes away and then give them their "independence".

Not exactly an exercise in cheap, re-homing nuclear subs.. even cursed ones.

Scrap f*****g trident. The ability to burn alive whole cities is one we can do without.

I use to think the same but what changed my mind was a chat with an nuclear technician about the differences between industrial nuclear materials used in power plants and weapons grade nuclear materials.

Scrap nuclear power plants first as that will make the world a hell of lot safer from nuclear weapons.

Funny thing about vessels--they're mobile. There are ample ports in England in which could serve as home ports for the RN submarine fleet. An independent Scotland would likely enter into a defence union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland in any event.

Where to begin? Lets see.. a huge part of the local economy exists because of the bases, with civilian workers in huge numbers relying on jobs there (and all their families etc etc.) I live near what used to be a major RAF airfield, and when that closed, it kicked the local economy square in the balls. Only recently has there been much of a recovery when the base was replaced with an airport..

Likewise, Nuclear weapons have certain rather obvious requirements not covered by a conventionally arranged base, in much the same was a a Nuclear power station has rather different requirements than a coal-fired one. One of the most obvious is that Faslane and Coulport are not next to a huge urban conurbation like, say Portsmouth, or the Port of London. They like these places to be fairly far away from other places for a big exploding reason. Likewise, by having these elements of our Navy AWAY from the main fleet bases, we minimize the risk of one accident irradiating the best part of the senior service, never mind the strategic aspects of it. To use my airbase example: the base used to be used for V-bombers in the 50s, and as such is not sat right on top of a major city. Large towns it seems were considered expendable though.

Also, whilst I'm not particularly expert on modern submarine requirements, but I would have thought that the servicing and dry-dock requirements for a nuclear submarine are as different as those between a U-Boat and a battleship, if only because of the "nuclear" nature of the vehicle. And "mobile" as they are, I suspect that one cannot fit the entire infrastructure of two or three naval bases into one, so you're over-simplifying massively about that mobility. You're also looking at stationing four vessels of a different type and ALL of the required infrastructure at a base that will already have an operating fleet and all of their requirements.

Most of this adds up to two factors though: One is the vast cost of moving the operations, and two is the potential risk to anywhere it ends up.

I agree with that tho out the three RN dockyards (Two in England), Clyde is better equipped to handle the Vanguards plus it is in a strategical safe location to keep them. After 2002 (also after a member of my left working for the MOD) Devonport was turned into a refuelling port of the Vanguards, Devonport can handle subs as there the home of the Trafalgar class subs. Portsmouth can't handle subs. Also in 2006 the MOD were looking into closing one of the three dockyards but a year later changed there mind. What with the spend cuts we got in the UK right now, our armed forces have been asked by the government to cut there cloth so a dockyard might become at risk of closing. Personally I think the RN would never close Portsmouth cos its naval history. Back in 2006 Devonport was the favour to be closed.

Also another issue is what happens if they stay in Clyde, Scotland gets independence & there head of government asks Westminster for the go codes for Trident?

Just because a movable asset is located in Scotland does not mean that it becomes an asset of an independent Scottish government. The Soviets may have done that with its constituent republics, but that does not mean that the same would hold true of the United Kingdom.

If the UK had launch silos peppered around the glens, then it might be a different story, but with a mobile launch platform, the weapons' home base is incidental to the question of who would control them after independence.