Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Medium of Death wrote:
We can go back through history and look at ancient borders but we aren't. Scotland has well defined borders. We're not talking about the break up of a single country as many people claim, these are different countries that are severing a union.

Wonderful. Now are you advocating, that if say, to run with the previous example, 75%+ of the population in each of the six southernmost constituencies vote to remain British, they should be forcibly absorbed into a new Scottish state? Would you support the borders of old school 'Scotland', (at an arbitrarily picked point in time because as I've pointed out, those border territories changed hands a number of times) trumping the right to democratic self-determination?

If they want to remain British that's fine, I'm sure if the split is a drastic as as you're hypothetical there might be some kind of agreement. I doubt the split will be anywhere near as clear cut as 75% so there's no real point in focusing on it.

These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.

Probably a more realistic split might be 60 to 40. In that case what do you do with all the people that voted Yes? Have them banished to Britain when that was never part of the vote? I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.

You'd think in such a "destiny defining" vote, they might have actually thought about this kind of thing before now... you know, when they were in the planning stages, not after the fact and it is too late.

 Medium of Death wrote:


Probably a more realistic split might be 60 to 40. In that case what do you do with all the people that voted Yes? Have them banished to Britain when that was never part of the vote?

Let me clarify.

If it was something like 52/48% in favour of Union/Independence, I'd argue that a series of re-votes/campaigning should take place in order to help cement which way things should go. You'd also possibly look at which geographical locales voted which waywithin each constituency, and try and sketch out a new border that took into account as many sensibilities as possible.

If it's 60/40 in favour of Union? I'd say they stay as part of Britain, the same way as I'd say they should be part of a new Scotland if they voted 60/40 in favour of independence.

I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.

But this is the the thing. If we're in a situation whereby only half the population wants independence, why should that trample the democratic rights of the other half? There's no right/wrong answer there. Frankly, I think we need to see at least a 55-60% yes vote before we look at establishing an independent Scotland. And if certain regions are more Pro-Union and joined with Britain at the border, it makes perfectly good democratic sense to retain them.

But such a thing would knock supposed economic projections on the head quite possibly. Which means that it might not all be milk and honey, which would mean that less people might be interested in an independent Scotland to begin with, as its economic forecast looks grimmer and grimmer.

In the same way that Darling should be able to stand up and say that Scotland could quite possibly do alright for itself on its own, Salmond needs to come out and say that actually, his economic projections are very shaky and based on a vast number of variables and 'what-ifs' going his way.

The amount of economic speculation that seems to hover around the 'Yes' campaign simply makes me uneasy. I don't have an issue with Scotland going independent if that's what it wants. It's the thought of my countrymen being conned into a vast, nation-changing decision based on speculative and occasionally deceptive information that disturbs me.

 Medium of Death wrote:

These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.

Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".

I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Sadly it's not the bridge we're currently crossing.

My thoughts, just do it already if you want to vote.
The constant coverage at times with no real new info is annoying.

If they want indepoence fine, we can live and no sky falling on us. Just don,t expect the English pound and take a share of debt.

If not take it as a answer and don,t dredge it up again in a few years and cause this all over again.

Basically let's get past this and get on with running the country however it ends up.

i am english, but if i was scots i would vote for independence like a shot. i would move to an independent scotland like a shot - hell, i'm already looking for work up there anyway, even as a subject nation it's still a nicer place to live than south east england. most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey Please don't use this term on Dakka. Reds8n " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS. that makes me really angry. in general anything that the english upper classes are against can be considered to be a good thing. so good luck scotland, choose yes!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.

Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".

I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).

are you from the shetlands?

i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.

it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!

The English upper classes are strongly against capital letters.

Just saying...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkney was independent of Scotland until the late 15th century.

 daddyorchips wrote:
i am english, but if i was scots i would vote for independence like a shot. i would move to an independent scotland like a shot - hell, i'm already looking for work up there anyway, even as a subject nation it's still a nicer place to live than south east england. most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS. that makes me really angry. in general anything that the english upper classes are against can be considered to be a good thing. so good luck scotland, choose yes!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.

Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".

I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).

are you from the shetlands?

i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.

it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!

Where do you draw the line though? The Cornish are watching this with keen interest with an eye on some sort of self rule / devolved power. Will the Isle's of Man & Scilly be wanting to go down the same route? If Scotland does vote Yes, how do you tell these other interested parties that their claims are invalid?

 daddyorchips wrote:
most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey Please don't use this term on Dakka. Reds8n " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS.

Our last prime minister was Scottish, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Fallon and Danny Alexander are all from Scotland and members of the cabinet (along with the Secretary of state for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael) and Vince Cable was educated in Scotland. It's utter nonsense to say that "the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks" as much as it is to say the Scots all hate the English. I think your view is colored more by a hatred of those you consider "posh". I have seen no evidence at all of "scots are patronised and talked down to" by any news paper.

 daddyorchips wrote:

are you from the shetlands?

i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.

it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!

Kind of. I lived there for several years when I was younger. (Also, it's Shetland or The Shetland Islands, not the Shetlands Some of them get very upset about it)

Ye, people from Shetland see the Scots the same, and from what I know/hear many people see Westminster as something quite a way away, but generally leave them alone. Scotland, however, are seen by some, or at least were last time I talked to people, was seen as stealing oil and fish from waters Shetlanders felt were theirs.

I can seriously see at least a large minority wanting independence, but the Scots government would never allow it.

BBC news reported tonight that 54% of English residents want an English parliament.

I would quite like no politicians anywhere...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
BBC news reported tonight that 54% of English residents want an English parliament.

I'm not sure why you don't just have votes for issues that only affect England being participated in by MP's in England. They've talked about it for a while but I've never seen anything done about it.

Another argument doing the rounds again seems to be that we'd be abandoning people to Tory rule and that sticking together will bring change. Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, on why sticking together to bring change is a positive argument but isn't going to happen.

OK, I'm sure I have folk to respond to who'll have taken further issue with my last post, I'll get to that later on when I have more time, but this...I don't have words.

The following is an official, sanctioned, broadcast-on-the-TV and everything referendum video by Better Together No Thanks, the No campaign here. It is intended, I think, to appeal to women. It ever so slightly misses the mark;




When your brain eventually resets, enjoy #patronisingBTlady on Twitter.

EDIT: Oh yes, and I've just learned that in an extra thick layer of Irony Icing - today is National Women's Equality Day

What I want to know is, what happens to my security clearance?
I'm a defence contractor working overseas, I lose my clearance, I lose my (well paying) job.
If Scotland gains independence, what happens to it?
Also, Border posts.
As I understand it, the UK is not a signatory of the Shengen Agreement (free movement in Continental Europe)
All new members of the EU are required to sign up to it.
If the Yes vote comes in ahead, and the planned EU membership goes through, Scotland will be required to sign up.
this means there will have to be the same border controls as when moving between the UK and France, for example.

 marv335 wrote:
What I want to know is, what happens to my security clearance?
I'm a defence contractor working overseas, I lose my clearance, I lose my (well paying) job.
If Scotland gains independence, what happens to it?
Also, Border posts.
As I understand it, the UK is not a signatory of the Shengen Agreement (free movement in Continental Europe)
All new members of the EU are required to sign up to it.
If the Yes vote comes in ahead, and the planned EU membership goes through, Scotland will be required to sign up.
this means there will have to be the same border controls as when moving between the UK and France, for example.

I can't really speak to your security clearance, you'll retain UK citizenship(confirmed by Home Secretary), and there's been nothing said about the UK requiring Scots serving in the official military to leave, but it's a pretty specific issue and one I imagine it will be difficult to get a clear answer on given the UK government's position of no prenegotiations. Do you know if there is anyone working for your company with the same clearance from non-UK Commonwealth countries? Since Scotland would remain within the Commonwealth for at least the first parliamentary term following 2016(if the SNP are elected they say they'll keep the monarchy, and even if we elected a republican party, they'd still need time to organise and hold a referendum, time to set up elected head of state etc etc so the Queen would remain head of state for at least seven more years), that might well be your best guide to how it would affect you.

As for borders; the proposition from the Yes campaign is that we would negotiate the same Schengen opt-out that the UK and Ireland currently have with the EU, and would then join the Common Travel Area which currently exists across the British Isles. Given the UK's strident opposition to Schengen, and the fact that any attempt to actually police the land border between Scotland and England would be monstrously expensive if possible at all as there are very few natural barriers along its length, it's reasonable to expect the UK government will back that plan, particularly given that the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland looks like this:




And as for the EU, they've no reason to oppose that plan either, given that Scotland would share no land borders with a Schengen state and so would need passport checks etc to travel to and from regardless since the only ways to get there from a Schengen state are by plane and boat, so to the EU the situation is the same whether Scotland adopts Schengen or adopts a relationship to rUK akin to the one Ireland has now.

 Ketara wrote:


The economy seems to be doing alright. I won't pretend to be an economist, and for a time, was won around by sebster's listing of economic reasons as to why austerity was bad. After some discussion with an academic on Keynesian economics though, I now also understand why Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily apply so much any more to our economy, so I'm torn as to whether austerity is a good or bad thing. The one thing I do know for sure is that whilst probably better educated than the average punter on the whole thing by now, I still don't really have much of a right to an opinion on the subject (or at least, one worth listening to).

I freely admit that my preference against austerity is ideological, but that's because I also believe that economics is not a science per se, more like politicised mathematics. In practical terms you could make almost any economic system "work", from the most rabid Objectivist-Libertarian neoliberal dream to the most utopian Anarco-Syndicalist society, providing you have enough people that want the outcomes that form of economic system would generate and who are willing to deal with the side effects. The UK is certainly experiencing GDP growth, but the question is whether the source of the growth is sustainable(and there are indication's a large part of it is being generated by yet another unstable housing bubble in the Greater London area), and whether the effects of that growth are the ones you want to see. If you subscribe to neoliberal economics, then undoubtedly Osborne & Co have turned a corner; the financial services sector are back on their roll, the stock and commodities trading markets are up, and there will undoubtedly be more growth to come given the growing private sector involvement in the NHS and the UK government's determination to fight against even the lightest of light-touch regulation on the City, however; the vast majority of the populace are not seeing any benefit in their own lives from the current GDP growth. Inequality is now at the highest levels it has been since the Victorian era, and the Bank of England recently had to change it's cutoff point before it would consider raising interest rates from 7% to 6.5% unemployment because the bulk of "new jobs" which have been created are zero-hours contracts or people forced off benefits and into precarious and unproductive "self-employment", and so these jobs are not providing anything like the benefit to capital flow which they should if they were proper full-time reasonably-paid jobs.

Austerity is merely the new name for Thatcherism, so whether it's good or not depends entirely on whether you think Thatcherism was a good idea or a bad one.

Do you regard an inability to Scottish MP's to vote on domestic English affairs as being unfair, despite the reverse being true? If so, I'd be genuinely curious to hear a reasoned argument as to why.

As a democrat, I don't actually see it as unfair at all, indeed the SNP's MPs abstain from any vote in Westminster on a devolved issue and I think that's perfectly appropriate. As a Scot considering things in the context of Scotland within the United Kingdom, however, it's not quite that simple. The funding we get is directly proportional to how much England spends on policy areas which are devolved, so while technically in terms of policies themselves some things are "England only", and while I specifically and vociferously condemn the way the Westminster parties have used their Scottish MPs to railroad through unpopular policies that would otherwise not have passed, in practical terms even "England only" issues have a bearing on devolved Scottish governance; if you cut education spending, or health spending, or the policing budget etc etc, there is a proportionate reduction in the size of the Scottish Block Grant, indeed it has been reduced by over 7% since the beginning of the current WM government.

So yeah, I think excluding Scottish MPs from voting at WM on devolved issues is something that should happen, but it has to be acknowledged that even if it's the right thing to do, it is still functionally a reduction in our representation. Of course if we vote Yes there won't be a problem at all

This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the Labour nonsense was England "imposing" on Scotland or the like, just one illustration, like the example of the House of Lords stripping power over renewables to prevent the Scottish Government opposing the Coalition's fracking plans, that the Scottish Parliament exists only by the sufferance of WM and so it would be inadvisable for anyone to vote No without understanding that they can reduce the scope of the parliament as well as increase it.

And I absolutely agree about local governance, it's atrocious across the whole UK right now but actually slightly worse than the average in Scotland; hell we have a Local Authority that contains more landmass than bloody Belgium! A more European style of local democracy with much smaller municipalities with much greater local control over policy and budgets, coupled with land reform to break up the ludicrous unproductive shooting estates and free that land for more productive use(replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax should sort that one out, and swaps out a regressive tax for a progressive one into the bargain) are both very popular ideas in the Yes movement and with myself as well, but those kinds of reforms aren't what Labour are interested in, they just want to take the powers Holyrood has now and hand them out to the existing Local Authorities without actually changing their structures.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

(note that I'm NOT referring to posters in this thread like Yohdrin so its not intended as a personal attack...unless of course he's an actual formal member and activist of the Yes Campaign and/or SNP?)

I don't know if you could call me a "formal" member of the Yes Campaign, not very many people are, the vast majority of those campaigning are doing so off their own backs and in self-organising self-funding local groups, and I'm not a member of the SNP or indeed any political party, but I am campaigning for a Yes vote and I do work with the local branches of the Radical Independence Campaign and Green Yes, so I suppose that makes me an activist. I'm certainly not hiding the fact I'm partisan on the issue, my avatar and sig rather give me away I think

I will say I don't accept the idea that the things you mention are dishonest or "blackmail"; they're negotiating positions. The debt, the timescale for Trident removal, access to our waters and resources for the EU, access to our territories and bases for NATO - these are the cards in our hand, just as acceptance of a currency union, how supportive or otherwise the UK gov will be when Scotland is seeking international recognition & membership of various organisations etc, those are the UK government's hand. Every so often one side reminds the other what cards they have to play, but it's hardly "blackmail".

 Crimson wrote:
My two cents (Euro cents, I know which currency I have) as an complete outsider who has nevertheless closely followed the media and other online discussions relating this matter.

Frankly, it seems to me that Salmond's vision for Scotland is based on hot air and wishful thinking. He constantly keeps promising things that are in no way in his power to promise, and some of which seem pretty darn unlikely to go in the way he says. Currency Union, easy EU membership and the oil profits are all things with huge uncertainties. Whilst there certainly have been some exaggeration from 'Better Together', overall they seem way more honest. It is easy for the Yes-campaign to be positive, when they can carelessly make all sort of fanciful promises of how everything will magically be awesome, and then No-side gets labelled as negative scaremongers when they point out that maybe it will not be quite that easy after all.

Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your characterisation of the debate, but especially with the idea that Better Together are more honest. The No Campaign have claimed Scottish citizens would be denied access to transplants and be refused treatment at specialist rUK hospitals despite the fact that A; both the transplants service and the hospitals in question have flatly refuted their claim and B; they're baseless regardless since the Scottish NHS has been independent since its inception and so the agreements we have with NHS England and NHS Wales are already exactly the same as the ones we have with almost all European nations and there's no reason for them to change. They've claimed that the UK subsidises Scotland's public spending when in fact the taxes we send to the UK exceed the spending we receive by £700 per-person per-year on average. They've claimed that Juncker unequivocally stated Scotland would be thrown out of the EU, and they kept saying that even after he specifically refuted their claim and stated the remarks to which they were referring had nothing to do with Scotland and that we were a special case. They've claimed that voting for independence is tantamount to abandoning people in the rest of the UK to a perpetual one-party(Tory) right-wing state, when in fact if you remove Scottish votes from the totals at every election going back to 1945 the result would only have been changed three times(the tiny Labour majority in the 1964-66 government would have been a hung parliament, the Labour government of 1974 that lasted mere months would have been a Tory minority government, and the 2010 elections would have been a small Tory majority instead of a hung parliament). They've claimed that Orkney and Shetland would vote to remain within the UK or to become independent from either state, and take all the oil with them despite the fact that there's no polling or indeed any evidence at all that there's an appetite for such a course of action among the islanders(when it comes up in the press it's invariably raised by Tavish Scott, a Unionist Lib Dem politician), and that even if it were to happen, they would be considered "enclaves" within Scotland's territorial waters and thus their basic maritime borders would encompass very little if any of the oil reserves. I could literally keep going for pages, the Better Together campaign have been rampantly dishonest on virtually every subject under the sun.

As for Salmond, putting aside the fact that the Yes Campaign is more than Salmond and the SNP, the man is a former oil economist, being advised by a panel of independent internationally renowned academics who not only back his position on the currency union but in fact came up with it in the first place, and the Scottish Government view on the EU has been deemed perfectly plausible by everyone from Prof David Edwards(a veteran of the European court system and a firm Unionist) to Graham Avery(honourary Director General of the EU Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK's own accession). The man is a politician so he's certainly obfuscated or exaggerated sometimes, but the idea that the case for independence is just a fantasy wishlist hastily scrawled on the back of a napkin just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Furthermore, to me it seems that Scotland has pretty good deal currently overall, they benefit from economic strength and international prestige of UK, while having a partial autonomy that gives them power to offset some of the possible undesired effects of the Westminster policies (of course the exact specifics of that arrangement is something that certainly is worth debating, I'm sure improvements could be made.) I don't think many people in UK quite realise, what sort of influence a great power like UK has. Finland is a country of five million people, about the same as the independent Scotland would be. I can tell you that in the international arenas country of that size has great difficulty of getting their voice heard; Salmond is utterly deluded if he thinks he could get a same kind of deal from EU than UK currently has. Whilst I find it unlikely (but not impossible) that Scotland would be completely denied the membership, it will be the EU dictating the terms. Big countries like, France, Germany and UK can get all sorts of exceptions that smaller countries can only dream of (Cameron has said he want to negotiate even better deal, seems a bit greedy to me, but it is quite possible that he will get it.) Then there is the matter of financial strength. Whilst I by no means think it would be a (complete) disaster, the idea that Scotland would economically be better off as an independent country is a fantasy. A bigger country with a bigger economy is always much more stable than a smaller one, and they have much more options to deal with problems as they arise. This also relates to the international influence, decisions made by bigger economies or international institutions will affect smaller countries, yet they have little or no power to affect these decisions. This is also good to remember when talking about sovereignty gained via independence: independent or not, policies of bigger players will still affect you, but at least by being part of UK, you have some (limited) say to the policies of one of the big players.

As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.

I'll just direct you to the Wee Blue Book link in my sig for this block, because it explains and refutes it much more eloquently and more quickly than I could.

 Ketara wrote:
One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-

-The No party does want to concede that there is a possibility of a Yes vote because it damages their position &
-The Yes party does want to discuss it, because they have absolutely no official negotiation power over the process/final terms of dissolution, and the odds are that the final settlement will be far less advantageous then they're painting it to be. If people started working that into the voting equation, it would probably hit their ability to gain votes quite severely.

The whole currency issue is the first thing of that nature that's actually hit the headlines, but it's far from the only thing. Points of negotiation that would have to be considered:-

-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)

Scotland would, Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics estimates the cost of setting up the infrastructure of an independent Scottish state, that being defined as any costs for infrastructure over and above those we would have had to pay for through taxation regardless as part of the UK's planned system infrastructure upgrade in the next parliamentary term, could be as little as £200million, up to perhaps £600million, although in his view the lower end of that scale is more likely. Where exactly that cash comes from? Depends on the negotiations. It's widely expected that some of the physical assets to which Scotland would be entitled a share will be things the UK will want to keep, in which case they would either pay out a cash equivalent directly, reduce our share of the debt proportionally, or the Scottish negotiators would opt to forgo some of them to get a deal on something else. So we might pay for it by borrowing, by reallocating tax money as a result of policy changes, or the UK might pay for it as part of the negotiated deal.

-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so). Just to illustrate for a moment:-



Most of the southern half of Scotland votes Conservative/Labour. If these areas wish to stay British, and strongly (say, 65% plus), there's absolutely no way that Parliament will cede them to the new state of Scotland. And if Scotland loses a third of its landmass, what does that do to their predictions about the economy? Most of the remaining non oil related Scottish industry and population is based in those areas.

Scotland's historical border with England is actually one of the oldest stable borders in the world, indeed apart from a few quibbles-at-swordpoint over small areas around Berwick and Carlisle during the 1400's, it's existed in its present form since at least 1237. There could be issues if any one region were to vote overwhelmingly to remain within the UK, but there's no suggestion that's the case currently, and political party is becoming less and less important as a predictor of referendum voting intentions(I believe we're up to around a third of polled Labour voters say they will vote Yes, and only around half were definite Nos, although that's from memory so let me double-check before you hold it against me, heh). I suspect either side will struggle to get above 60% of the vote in any particular region, and in the context of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement surrounding the referendum(national polity, straight majority vote), there shouldn't be any problems defining the border, although obviously nothing's impossible and if things get a bit bizarre that's a bridge we'll have to cross then.

-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?

Yes, No, and because that's the way UK "citizenship"(it always rankles me when the UK government talk about us being "citizens" - constitutional or not we live in a Monarchy, we're "subjects") works ie by right of birth. To expand; by virtue of having been born within what was at the time the borders of the UK, any Scot who presently holds a UK passport, or who wished to claim one, could do so(indeed we'll remain UK citizens unless we officially renounce that status), that was confirmed by the Home Secretary a few months back. The terms for acquiring a Scottish passport will be somewhat more complex simply because right now, there's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen"; as I understand it, anyone born in Scotland who lives here on the day of independence automatically becomes a citizen and is entitled to a Scottish passport, anyone who has permanent leave to remain in the UK and who is resident in Scotland on the day of independence will be offered Scottish citizenship and if they accept can claim a passport, any UK citizen who was born in Scotland but who resides elsewhere will be entitled to claim Scottish citizenship and a Scottish passport just as they could now regards their UK citizenship and passport, and the plan is to extend that to one generation of progeny ie if at least one of your parents meets the above criteria you are also entitled.

-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?

Well, they can either parcel off some of their equipment, or compensate us with a population share of that equipment's value either with a direct payment or by reducing our liability to the UK debt by the same amount. Division of assets is a well established process; geographical assets are assigned to whichever of the states controls the territory the asset exists within, unfixed and overseas assets are divided on a per-capita basis. Realistically, there will probably be some combination of equipment transfer and other compensations in terms of the hardware, the personnel side of things will be more complex. It's expected that Scots currently serving in the UK armed forces will be offered the option of moving into the Scottish Defence Force, and those that choose to remain will be allowed to do so, just as any other citizen of a Commonwealth nation can serve in the UK armed forces. How that will shake out in practice in terms of how many make the switch is anyone's guess.

-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.

Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.

Times change. To begin with, it has already been confirmed by the UK Defence Secretary that the second carrier will be completed at Rosyth, so at that point the old "complex warships" line doesn't really hold up anymore. The simple fact of the matter is, the UK doesn't have anywhere capable of building the Type 26, it would cost BAE vast sums of money to bring Portsmouth back up to the level necessary, and they've already indicated they're not going to bother even trying;

“A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scots yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm had ‘no contingency plans’ to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotstoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned the Ministry of Defence will have to ‘deal with’ a Yes referendum victory.”

If the UK want to keep BAE as their shipbuilder, the Govan yards are where BAE will build the ships.

That aside, even if the UK government were to take leave of its senses and somehow insist that BAE get Portsmouth back to capacity and fork out the vast sums of cash it would take to revamp their dockyards, the SDF is planned to include(from memory) at least 2 frigates, five or six patrol ships, several minesweepers, a pair of non-nuclear subs, and assorted other small coastal vessels, and that's just for the Faslane base, there will likely be a third frigate and a couple more patrol ships for the East coast base. There's sufficient work there to keep the present yards going while proposals are implemented to diversify the Clyde into a mix of warship, merchant, and energy industry vessels as well as wind turbine manufacture and other associated industries.

And on this point, allow me to get a little saucy; I think it's pretty rich for people to trot out shipbuilding as being at risk from independence - under the Union Scottish shipbuilding has gone from a globally-renowned industry employing over 34,000 people in 1972 to a tiny handful of anemic yards employing less than 6000, and most of those made totally reliant on defence contracts. Compare and contrast the Norwegian shipbuilding industry; 25 yards building new vessels, 50 additional yards repairing and upgrading existing vessels, over 90,000 jobs, building a diverse array of ships of all sizes for all sectors. Independence is a chance for us to save our shipbuilding industry by giving it the support to diversify away from the military contracts that have sucked the life from it.

EDIT: Oh and one last point; the Scottish Government and local council appear to have brokered a deal between the administrators and Jim McColl's Clyde Blowers Capital as preferred bidder to save Fergusons Shipbuilders. When we have the powers, we're perfectly capable of managing our own industry - I'd like to see us have the same options when it comes to other parts of the economy and other industry sectors.

-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.

These are just a few of the issues. There are far, far more, but absolutely no-one in either side wants to discuss them. Which I find more than a little vexing, as I believe it really would affect people's opinions on the issue.

In the run up to the 1979 referendum on the Scottish Assembly, there were months and years of wrangling, blocking, renegotiating, backtracking and so on regarding the powers, procedures, and parameters of the new assembly before they finally called the vote. In 1997, they did things differently - the vote was held first, the mandate was established first; the referendum took place in September 1997, the Scotland Act 1998 was introduced to Westminster early in that year, '98, with the basic framework for the parliament and powers, and by November the negotiations and wrangling was finished and the bill passed. The Parliament opened in May '99.

Once the mandate is established, the posturing and mountainous insurmountable problems just become things to be discussed and settled, and its in the interests of all parties to get it done & dusted as quickly as possible. Scotland will want its negotiations with the UK to go smoothly so they're not unduly distracted from the negotiations with the EU, the UK will want it to go smoothly because they will want to minimise the impact to the "prestige" which they love so dearly, and both sides will want to get everything sorted out before the Almighty Markets start getting jittery. There will be sticking points, horse trading, all the rest, but I think the Scottish Government's projected timeframe of 18 months is perfectly plausible if slightly on the ambitious side(I'd have gone with 24 months just to be safe, but 18 months is the average for these "civilised disentanglements" and there are as many academic experts who agree that it's reasonable as there are calling it wildly optimistic, we'll have to wait & see).

 Yodhrin wrote:


So yeah, I think excluding Scottish MPs from voting at WM on devolved issues is something that should happen, but it has to be acknowledged that even if it's the right thing to do, it is still functionally a reduction in our representation. Of course if we vote Yes there won't be a problem at all

....

And I absolutely agree about local governance, it's atrocious across the whole UK right now but actually slightly worse than the average in Scotland; hell we have a Local Authority that contains more landmass than bloody Belgium! A more European style of local democracy with much smaller municipalities with much greater local control over policy and budgets, coupled with land reform to break up the ludicrous unproductive shooting estates and free that land for more productive use(replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax should sort that one out, and swaps out a regressive tax for a progressive one into the bargain) are both very popular ideas in the Yes movement and with myself as well, but those kinds of reforms aren't what Labour are interested in, they just want to take the powers Holyrood has now and hand them out to the existing Local Authorities without actually changing their structures.

That's fair. I think that ultimately, a certain amount of devolution from Westminster in general is desirable. I don't have an issue with the central Government retaining control of foreign policy, defence, the judiciary/criminal/civil law, etc but I start to think that things like all council related activities, active policing, the NHS, and suchlike should be farmed out to regionally elected Parliaments that take decisions for everything else on the ground. It would be a good way of incorporating other territory into our national governing process as well. So individual Parliaments for London/Wessex, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Orkneys/Shetlands, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc etc.

I will say I don't accept the idea that the things you mention are dishonest or "blackmail"; they're negotiating positions. The debt, the timescale for Trident removal, access to our waters and resources for the EU, access to our territories and bases for NATO - these are the cards in our hand, just as acceptance of a currency union, how supportive or otherwise the UK gov will be when Scotland is seeking international recognition & membership of various organisations etc, those are the UK government's hand. Every so often one side reminds the other what cards they have to play, but it's hardly "blackmail".

See, I would be inclined to say that claiming these issues are cards in Scotlands hand is waaaay overstating things. Ultimately, Her Majesty's Government will decide a timescale, what resources will be parcelled out, and so on. Whilst a Scottish delegation can say, 'We would like this to occur', should Britain choose to ignore it, that's more or less the end of the matter. If Britain chooses to retain the Trident bases until 2028 whilst granting independence everywhere else in the meantime, Scotland will have no choice but to accept it. Bar hastily forming a new army and invading, there is little they can do.

Having said that, I see no reason for these things not to be settled reasonably amicably. An independent Scotland will not get everything it wants initially, because quite frankly, Mr Salmond and his party want the moon and the sun besides, but that does not mean that things won't be worked out over a period of time in a reasonable fashion, so long as all parties remain realistic and accepting of each others needs/concerns.

For example, I would expect an independent Scotland to not quibble over retaining trident until 2029 or so in a small exclave for practicality's sake. Likewise, I see no point in Britain not backing Scotland's acession to the EU, and pushing for it to be done with relative speed. I do not see a currency union occurring (because quite frankly, regardless of what Scotland wants, the polls indicate the democratic majority of the rest of Britain are against it), but common border policy makes sense for all. Scotland won't get most of the physical assets of the military, but I see no reason for us not to pass over two or three of the Type 23 Frigates, providing Scotland can find enough crew willing to transfer out of the British Navy to crew them.

 Crimson wrote:

As for Salmond, putting aside the fact that the Yes Campaign is more than Salmond and the SNP, the man is a former oil economist, being advised by a panel of independent internationally renowned academics who not only back his position on the currency union but in fact came up with it in the first place,

I really wish he would stop talking about 'Scotland's right to the pound' then. It's not a divisible asset in that way, and talking about it like it is makes the man look like a fool and his economic plans rubbish. Regardless of Scotland's desire for a currency union, most of us in the rest of Britain aren't interested. And if that's the case, then that's that. No further room for debate. Scotland can use a currency with Queen's head on it and call it a pound, but it won't be backed by the Bank of England. Democracy in action.

Scottish Government view on the EU has been deemed perfectly plausible by everyone from Prof David Edwards(a veteran of the European court system and a firm Unionist) to Graham Avery(honourary Director General of the EU Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK's own accession). The man is a politician so he's certainly obfuscated or exaggerated sometimes, but the idea that the case for independence is just a fantasy wishlist hastily scrawled on the back of a napkin just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Agreed. But the SNP's projected idea of gravy all the way seems exceedingly overly optimistic, and the likelihood from my reading so far is that there will be economic pain at first until things settle down.

Scotland would, Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics estimates the cost of setting up the infrastructure of an independent Scottish state, that being defined as any costs for infrastructure over and above those we would have had to pay for through taxation regardless as part of the UK's planned system infrastructure upgrade in the next parliamentary term, could be as little as £200million, up to perhaps £600million, although in his view the lower end of that scale is more likely. Where exactly that cash comes from? Depends on the negotiations. It's widely expected that some of the physical assets to which Scotland would be entitled a share will be things the UK will want to keep, in which case they would either pay out a cash equivalent directly, reduce our share of the debt proportionally, or the Scottish negotiators would opt to forgo some of them to get a deal on something else. So we might pay for it by borrowing, by reallocating tax money as a result of policy changes, or the UK might pay for it as part of the negotiated deal.

That seems fair. For example, Scottish taxpayers would have contributed to the new Queen Elizabeth's after all, yet would not be able to gain ownership of them (and talk of 'shares' in war machines in ludicrous). I'd have no issue with a contribution to such things being calculated and deducted from the Scottish side of the national debt or suchlike.

Scotland's historical border with England is actually one of the oldest stable borders in the world, indeed apart from a few quibbles-at-swordpoint over small areas around Berwick and Carlisle during the 1400's, it's existed in its present form since at least 1237. There could be issues if any one region were to vote overwhelmingly to remain within the UK, but there's no suggestion that's the case currently, and political party is becoming less and less important as a predictor of referendum voting intentions(I believe we're up to around a third of polled Labour voters say they will vote Yes, and only around half were definite Nos, although that's from memory so let me double-check before you hold it against me, heh). I suspect either side will struggle to get above 60% of the vote in any particular region, and in the context of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement surrounding the referendum(national polity, straight majority vote), there shouldn't be any problems defining the border, although obviously nothing's impossible and if things get a bit bizarre that's a bridge we'll have to cross then.

A reasonable response. But should a border region gain say, 65% or more in favour of remaining as part of the Union, would you personally have an issue with the aforementioned region being retained as part of Britain? It would be their democratic decision after all.

Yes, No, and because that's the way UK "citizenship"(it always rankles me when the UK government talk about us being "citizens" - constitutional or not we live in a Monarchy, we're "subjects") works ie by right of birth. To expand; by virtue of having been born within what was at the time the borders of the UK, any Scot who presently holds a UK passport, or who wished to claim one, could do so(indeed we'll remain UK citizens unless we officially renounce that status), that was confirmed by the Home Secretary a few months back. The terms for acquiring a Scottish passport will be somewhat more complex simply because right now, there's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen"; as I understand it, anyone born in Scotland who lives here on the day of independence automatically becomes a citizen and is entitled to a Scottish passport, anyone who has permanent leave to remain in the UK and who is resident in Scotland on the day of independence will be offered Scottish citizenship and if they accept can claim a passport, any UK citizen who was born in Scotland but who resides elsewhere will be entitled to claim Scottish citizenship and a Scottish passport just as they could now regards their UK citizenship and passport, and the plan is to extend that to one generation of progeny ie if at least one of your parents meets the above criteria you are also entitled.

Well reasoned. But I still believe that I should be entitled to claim a Scottish passport. It's part of my mother nation (Britain), and whilst I can understand and agree with people being born in Britain after independence having no right to one, I disagree that I should fall into the same category.

Times change. To begin with, it has already been confirmed by the UK Defence Secretary that the second carrier will be completed at Rosyth, so at that point the old "complex warships" line doesn't really hold up anymore. The simple fact of the matter is, the UK doesn't have anywhere capable of building the Type 26, it would cost BAE vast sums of money to bring Portsmouth back up to the level necessary, and they've already indicated they're not going to bother even trying;

Barrow is entirely capable of building the Type 26, and Portsmouth and Appledore are large enough to create the vast majority of the component parts, which could then be transported to Barrow for completion (like the Russian Mistral Class Carriers being put together in France). What's more, allowing Scotland to tender for British contracts would mean that under EU law, Britain would have to allow every other EU country to tender as well. Who would then proceed to undercut Scotland. Barrow's size is also enough that minimal expansion would make it capable of turning out Queen Elizabeth Carriers or new LPD's.

Make no mistake, Scottish independence would be the death of British naval contracts for Scotland. It would be quite the rejuvenation for Barrow though.

There's sufficient work there to keep the present yards going while proposals are implemented to diversify the Clyde into a mix of warship, merchant, and energy industry vessels as well as wind turbine manufacture and other associated industries.

And on this point, allow me to get a little saucy; I think it's pretty rich for people to trot out shipbuilding as being at risk from independence - under the Union Scottish shipbuilding has gone from a globally-renowned industry employing over 34,000 people in 1972 to a tiny handful of anemic yards employing less than 6000, and most of those made totally reliant on defence contracts. Compare and contrast the Norwegian shipbuilding industry; 25 yards building new vessels, 50 additional yards repairing and upgrading existing vessels, over 90,000 jobs, building a diverse array of ships of all sizes for all sectors. Independence is a chance for us to save our shipbuilding industry by giving it the support to diversify away from the military contracts that have sucked the life from it.

It won't happen. The reason the British shipbuilding dominance collapsed just under a decade ago is because everyone else started building merchant shipping and liners cheaper than the Scottish could/would do it for. Independenc won't solve that, and I doubt that Scottish contracts will ultimately be sufficient to keep them going.

It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.

The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.

Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.

Are you meaning to tell me that ships weren't just built on the Clyde?

Surely the Norway example is relevant because they come up a lot in the independence debate with regard to oil. So shipbuilding is just another parallel. "What could have been" and all that.

Industrial relations is a pretty good point about Britain generally. It certainly was interesting listening to a bunch of old socialists complain about privatisation and closing of industries when they could be held as partially responsible for dragging their heels so frequently as to almost bring the country to a halt. Certainly my parents and a few of older friends/acquaintances don't remember their industrial action with such fond memories.

Then again Jimmy Reid's a great example of somebody with socialist principles making industrial action work well for shipbuilding without compromising relations.

I'm not personally bothered about whether shipbuilding gets going again. It's been gone so long now it would take a good while to get up to the standard it used to be at. It's also a highly competitive market to essentially be re-entering. I'm sure there are other options for creating jobs around Scotland.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.

The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.

Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.

This, in a nutshell. The only reason shipbuilding has survived thus far is because despite vast cuts to the Royal Navy,, there is a certain basic level beneath which the Royal Navy will not fall if it wants to maintain it's power & prestige. If you pay any attention to the history of shipbuilding at all, you'll note that the British Government has actually worked quite hard to maintain shipbuilding capacity in the country in several cases over the last half a century. It's quite simply not to our advantage as an island nation to allow those skills to vanish.

Increasing unionisation unfortunately seriously dented our ability to compete though, and we lost substantial ground to South Korean builders who didn't insist on three blokes doing a third of one minor job each to preserve employment. The people who actually ordered ships increasingly complained that the industry was so inefficient and expensive that it became daft to order a British ship anymore, despite the high level of workmanship. The result being that the defence contracts ended up being the only thing keeping shipbuilding going. If the Royal Navy wasn't around, the industries would have collapsed along with the car industry, the mining industry, and all the other unsustainable industries back in the seventies.

But we've sort of levelled out now. You've got the new Type 26 contracts due to be issued, and we'll need a few helicopter carriers/LPD's in the next decade or so, with Illustrious and & Ocean being retired. And by the time those are finished along with the Elizabeth's in 2025-30, the Albion class will need replacing, and the Merchant Auxiliary vessels shortly afterwards. In other words, the current level of shipbuilding now is sustainable. It isn't going anywhere. There are enough defence contracts to maintain the status quo.

An independent Scotland though? Even if they give the industry a short boom at the start, I reckon it'll be about two years before people start pressuring the defence budget as being unnecessary, discussing outsourcing to Norway to save money and put it towards the NHS, etc. If you don't have the Royal Navy, you have no purpose for large scale defence projects. You also have no need to maintain domestic capacity for defence purposes. Ultimately, it might take five or ten years, but a Scottish Government will open up the bidding from elsewhere, and that will be that, much like the rest of the world. Scottish shipbuilding will wither and die.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, the industry is not huge anymore, and there's no reason to prop it up without the RN. But it should be recognised that this is a fairly certain consequence of independence, whereas it most likely will not occur otherwise.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.

The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.

Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.

This, in a nutshell. The only reason shipbuilding has survived thus far is because despite vast cuts to the Royal Navy,, there is a certain basic level beneath which the Royal Navy will not fall if it wants to maintain it's power & prestige. If you pay any attention to the history of shipbuilding at all, you'll note that the British Government has actually worked quite hard to maintain shipbuilding capacity in the country in several cases over the last half a century. It's quite simply not to our advantage as an island nation to allow those skills to vanish.

Increasing unionisation unfortunately seriously dented our ability to compete though, and we lost substantial ground to South Korean builders who didn't insist on three blokes doing a third of one minor job each to preserve employment. The people who actually ordered ships increasingly complained that the industry was so inefficient and expensive that it became daft to order a British ship anymore, despite the high level of workmanship. The result being that the defence contracts ended up being the only thing keeping shipbuilding going. If the Royal Navy wasn't around, the industries would have collapsed along with the car industry, the mining industry, and all the other unsustainable industries back in the seventies.

But we've sort of levelled out now. You've got the new Type 26 contracts due to be issued, and we'll need a few helicopter carriers/LPD's in the next decade or so, with Illustrious and & Ocean being retired. And by the time those are finished along with the Elizabeth's in 2025-30, the Albion class will need replacing, and the Merchant Auxiliary vessels shortly afterwards. In other words, the current level of shipbuilding now is sustainable. It isn't going anywhere. There are enough defence contracts to maintain the status quo.

An independent Scotland though? Even if they give the industry a short boom at the start, I reckon it'll be about two years before people start pressuring the defence budget as being unnecessary, discussing outsourcing to Norway to save money and put it towards the NHS, etc. If you don't have the Royal Navy, you have no purpose for large scale defence projects. You also have no need to maintain domestic capacity for defence purposes. Ultimately, it might take five or ten years, but a Scottish Government will open up the bidding from elsewhere, and that will be that, much like the rest of the world. Scottish shipbuilding will wither and die.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, the industry is not huge anymore, and there's no reason to prop it up without the RN. But it should be recognised that this is a fairly certain consequence of independence, whereas it most likely will not occur otherwise.

Again though, your analysis rather falls apart when you take Norway into account; they have extensive worker involvement in management and more than half of the population are unionised, and their regulatory regime is extremely strict, but their shipbuilding industry employs more than 10 times as many workers than is the case in Scotland and operates dozens more yards of all types and sizes. At the same time, the UK's shipbuilding industry has been in a constant state of decline that tracks along pretty much the same lines as the nation's general deindustrialisation, a period which has seen the British labour market becoming more and more "flexible", anti-trade union laws implemented, and a generally downward trend in both worker representation generally and union membership in particular, ie all the things we were told business needed to save jobs.

That says to me that, like the desindustrialisation of other sectors, the decline of shipbuilding is the result of ideological politics and incompetence; it was decided first that labour and business must be liberalised, and that was done, but with no real plan in place to transition those sectors or the workers within them into new and more productive formats or other sectors. Without an industrial policy to steer and support shipbuilding it first became reliant on government military contracts, and then saw its decline accelerated as the Royal Navy contracted.

The decline of British industry and the rise of our present low-wage service economy is often presented as an Act of God, an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of "dinosaur" businesses bowing to the march of progress and global capitalism, and that the adversarial relationship between labour vs capital & government was a result of workers unable to accept the unavoidable, but you can look out across the continent and see example after example of nations responding to those same pressures with responsible industrial policy which resulted in the same industries undergoing carefully managed declines to a new sustainable level over time rather than helped over the edge of the cliff by a Minister with a pitchfork, the surplus labour being retrained or steered into other industries with similar skill requirements rather than chucked on the dole and left to rot, because there was a different political dynamic at play. The result is that those industries still exist and flourish, their workers are better paid than ours, their jobs more secure, their representation greater, and yet somehow, despite the dogma of neoliberalism, those workers are more productive, their countries are still wealthy, their businesses still grow, rates of entrepreneurial endeavour are still high.

So if the inevitability of the decline is questionable, why should we not also question the supposed inevitability of its continuation, or at least the notion that we must accept the status quo and not aspire to better?

 Ketara wrote:


That's fair. I think that ultimately, a certain amount of devolution from Westminster in general is desirable. I don't have an issue with the central Government retaining control of foreign policy, defence, the judiciary/criminal/civil law, etc but I start to think that things like all council related activities, active policing, the NHS, and suchlike should be farmed out to regionally elected Parliaments that take decisions for everything else on the ground. It would be a good way of incorporating other territory into our national governing process as well. So individual Parliaments for London/Wessex, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Orkneys/Shetlands, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc etc.

And if any of that sort of thing was on offer, I'd be voting No, but given that the UK establishment's response to the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union entirely was to insist that the referendum be a single-question Yes-No affair, specifically ruling out any kind of "devo-max" third question, and over the course of the campaign to offer nothing more than minor alterations to the amount of tax the SG raises and a few token, potentially totally unworkable in practice, welfare powers and has nothing to say about expanding democracy in the rest of the UK at all, it seems difficult to believe the UK establishment is going to suddenly become extremely enthusiastic about federalism in the wake of a No vote.

Actually to be fair, I should say that I would be voting No if that sort of offer was on the table, AND the UK government were committed to disarmament rather than renewing Trident, because even with the maximum-est of devo-max, staying in the Union while defence powers lie with a Westminster obsessed with maintaining their thermonuclear penis extender isn't appealing.

See, I would be inclined to say that claiming these issues are cards in Scotlands hand is waaaay overstating things. Ultimately, Her Majesty's Government will decide a timescale, what resources will be parcelled out, and so on. Whilst a Scottish delegation can say, 'We would like this to occur', should Britain choose to ignore it, that's more or less the end of the matter. If Britain chooses to retain the Trident bases until 2028 whilst granting independence everywhere else in the meantime, Scotland will have no choice but to accept it. Bar hastily forming a new army and invading, there is little they can do.

Having said that, I see no reason for these things not to be settled reasonably amicably. An independent Scotland will not get everything it wants initially, because quite frankly, Mr Salmond and his party want the moon and the sun besides, but that does not mean that things won't be worked out over a period of time in a reasonable fashion, so long as all parties remain realistic and accepting of each others needs/concerns.

For example, I would expect an independent Scotland to not quibble over retaining trident until 2029 or so in a small exclave for practicality's sake. Likewise, I see no point in Britain not backing Scotland's acession to the EU, and pushing for it to be done with relative speed. I do not see a currency union occurring (because quite frankly, regardless of what Scotland wants, the polls indicate the democratic majority of the rest of Britain are against it), but common border policy makes sense for all. Scotland won't get most of the physical assets of the military, but I see no reason for us not to pass over two or three of the Type 23 Frigates, providing Scotland can find enough crew willing to transfer out of the British Navy to crew them.

I think you're rather overestimating the UK's "clout" in this instance. Technically speaking the UK would have the means to run roughshod over Scotland during the negotiations, hell they could technically refuse to pass legislation acknowledging the referendum result at all, under Parliamentary Sovereignty they can do whatever the hell they like about anything at all, just as Scotland could technically refuse to take on a share of the UK's debt without actually defaulting on anything; but given the Edinburgh Agreement, given the precedents generated by previous divisions of states, and given international pressures(you think the developed world would react well to obstructionism by the UK government given the stance of the UK on the situation in Ukraine?), the idea that they could actually do those things in reality just doesn't stack up, just as the idea Scotland would actually walk away from all the debt doesn't stack up - it's posturing.

And no, "Her Majesty's Government" will not be deciding how much of anything, as I said the precedents are well established; geographic assets divide by territory, unfixed assets divide per-capita, one side does not simply dictate to the other. There will be quibbles over what exactly constitutes an unfixed asset no doubt(UK will claim only actual physical reserves of currency in the BoE constitute an asset, Scotland will argue that the BoE in totality is an asset due to its holding title on a third of the UK's government debt etc), and there will be disagreement on whether we get certain physical things or per-capita compensation for them instead, but overall they'll follow the precedents because they know the damage it would do to them internationally if they don't.

As for Trident; not happening. Trident will be gone from Scotland by 2022, because anything else would be political suicide - removing Trident is one of the biggest reasons many people have for supporting independence in the first place, it is reviled, and every organisation involved in the Yes campaign including the SNP has committed to its removal by the end of the first independent parliamentary term. When it comes to the negotiations, the Scottish Government will be walking in with a report from CND and university academics that details how the Trident system itself could be deactivated and out of Scottish waters within two months, and all warheads gone from the depot within six. Now if a sovereign independent Scotland said to the UK, "you have six months to remove Trident", what is their play there? Refuse, and have the EU's biggest nuclear stockpile sitting under the control of another, newly annoyed, country of just a few million people? Go full-Putin, invade, and annex a big chunk of the land and homes just outside Scotland's most populous city? That's why Trident removal is a card in our hand, because it can take place in the context of the UK having seven years to discuss alternatives and plan/build new infrastructure if they wish to, or in the context of them being told, in more diplomatic terms of course, to GTFO as fast as their subs will sail them, and they have no answer to that demand that isn't at least as damaging to the UK as it would be to Scotland.

International relations work on a mixture of posturing and tacit understanding that countries will "do as they would be done by" - how does the UK fare if it decides to go against the result of a democratic referendum it consented to? If it decides to dictate the terms of the dissolution rather than negotiate in good-faith? If it decides to override the right of another sovereign state to decide whether nuclear weapons reside on their soil? Again, I am not, and nobody I've ever heard in the Yes campaign including Alex Salmond even in his most optimistic happy-happy-joy-joy rhetoric mode, claiming that this will be easy, or that Scotland will run rings about the UK, or that we'll get everything we want, but this idea that post-Yes we'll have to abase ourselves and plea for the mercy of the Mighty and Beneficent rUK Government because we're just a poor wee country with no bargaining position at all is one that's been brought up again and again over the course of this campaign and it's a nonsense.

Agreed. But the SNP's projected idea of gravy all the way seems exceedingly overly optimistic, and the likelihood from my reading so far is that there will be economic pain at first until things settle down.

Are you doing your reading in the Telegraph by any chance? Kidding, kidding. To address the point seriously; I don't accept that the SNP are promising sunshine and rainbows.

“We know that tackling these issues isn’t straightforward – building a better country isn’t be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate. Independence isn’t about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and water. It’s about working hard, and taking the right decisions, so that over time we can build a fairer and more prosperous country.”

That's the First Minister speaking in June this year. He's said similar things many times in the past, and many times since, the bolded phrase is a favourite of his. The idea that the SNP or the Yes campaign more broadly are selling hollow utopianism is a fiction, a narrative peddled by Better Together in the media because they have no positive case of their own to make(or lack the wherewithal to make it) and so rely on exploiting people's cynicism of politics and politicians to allow them to cast an aspirational message about building a better future with our own hands as mindless, baseless optimism.

As for economic pains; “An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK...”. That article there in that notorious bastion of wooly leftism and rabid Scottish Nationalism......the Financial Times. Now certainly if all the predictions of doom from Better Together's rogue's gallery of the wealthy, powerful, and land-owning come true we'd be in some real trouble - but funnily enough the Tories paraded almost exactly the same lineup(no really; Standard Life, Ian Wood, the CBI, it's like Groundhog Day at Better Together's press office) in front of us with the same dire warnings when they were campaigning against the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in the '97 referendum, yet in the years since there's been a puzzling lack of companies fleeing screaming across the border as they swore they must do before the vote, so you'll forgive me if I look on their prognostications with somewhat more skepticism this time round.

A reasonable response. But should a border region gain say, 65% or more in favour of remaining as part of the Union, would you personally have an issue with the aforementioned region being retained as part of Britain? It would be their democratic decision after all.

I think that if one of them did come out with a 2/3 majority as you suggest, that would be sufficient justification to organise and hold a second regional referendum prior to independence day in 2016, which would ask the specific question of whether they would rather stay in the UK given the rest of the country has voted to leave, and the result of that second referendum should be just as binding on all parties as this one will be. This is actually a question I get asked quite a lot, although they usually use Orkney or Shetland, it always seems to surprise folk when I say I'm all for it. Democracy is democracy, I'm not an ideological nationalist myself, I'm voting for independence because that's the choice we've got before us and I would rather have more democracy than less; I support self-determination for all as a matter of principle not just in the case of existing "nations" without a state.

Well reasoned. But I still believe that I should be entitled to claim a Scottish passport. It's part of my mother nation (Britain), and whilst I can understand and agree with people being born in Britain after independence having no right to one, I disagree that I should fall into the same category.

Hmm, I can understand that. I'm at a meeting next week with a guy from English-Scots for Yes, I'll bring it up with him and try and figure out if there's an actual impediment that would need to be overcome for that to happen or if it was just overlooked, if there's something that could be done about it they're one of the best groups to advocate for it.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Again though, your analysis rather falls apart when you take Norway into account.....snip.......support shipbuilding it first became reliant on government military contracts, and then saw its decline accelerated as the Royal Navy contracted.

Sorry, but you're quite inaccurate on this one. I'm not saying that 'Union structure' per se was the problem, but rather the actions of the individual unions. And even then, I'm specifically referring to the death knell for the industry as opposed to entire decline process, which spans a far longer unit of time. If you're going to understand the decline in British shipbuilding, you basically have to roll as far back as the 1920's and take it from there. It doesn't just fit into the standard Thatcherite/industry argument. Suffice to say, the subject is extensively documented by many academics (my PHD I'm starting next month is on private Industry and warship construction, so I do know something about it), and can't simply be broken down into an ideological issue to be explored within a paragraph or two. I'd recommend S. Pollard's work, and Hugh Peebles initial analysis of Clyde shipbuilding to begin with if you're genuinely interested in exploring the subject further.

For now though, I'll simply leave that subject alone as things stand, as if I answer, I won't get away with anything less than several thousand words.

And if any of that sort of thing was on offer, I'd be voting No, but given that the UK establishment's response to the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union entirely was to insist that the referendum be a single-question Yes-No affair, specifically ruling out any kind of "devo-max" third question, and over the course of the campaign to offer nothing more than minor alterations to the amount of tax the SG raises and a few token, potentially totally unworkable in practice, welfare powers and has nothing to say about expanding democracy in the rest of the UK at all, it seems difficult to believe the UK establishment is going to suddenly become extremely enthusiastic about federalism in the wake of a No vote.

The reason Devo-max was ruled out was because whenever anyone offers you free stuff, you take it. Devo-max would have been the guaranteed win option, which was why Salmond was so hacked off when he was informed it wasn't on the table.

I think you're rather overestimating the UK's "clout" in this instance. Technically speaking the UK would have the means to run roughshod over Scotland during the negotiations, hell they could technically refuse to pass legislation acknowledging the referendum result at all, under Parliamentary Sovereignty they can do whatever the hell they like about anything at all,

I'm glad you agree.

The rest of your paragraphs on Trident, what Scotland could choose to do after independence, and so forth are really all beyond the scope of my original point. That point being that Britain will try to accommodate an independent Scotland where possible, because there's no ill will, and we want everything to work out, but ultimately, just like Scotland, Britain will look to its own interests and act accordingly. And Britain has most of the cards in their hand, because they can create infinitely more trouble for an independent Scotland than an independent Scotland can create for it.

I mean, saying you won't take on part of the national debt isn't really that big a deal. Not compared to the damage the UK could inflict back.
When it comes to the negotiations, the Scottish Government will be walking in with a report from CND and university academics that details how the Trident system itself could be deactivated and out of Scottish waters within two months, and all warheads gone from the depot within six. Now if a sovereign independent Scotland said to the UK, "you have six months to remove Trident", what is their play there? Refuse

Yes. In a nutshell. You just say, 'We will be retaining control of the base as independent British territory, and a narrow strip of ocean leading in and out, as this is what our national security concerns currently require. We will operate it as an exclave, and will hand it over to the Scottish Government in 2028 when Trident is retired, and new facilities have been constructed elsewhere'.

To throw your own words back at you, what is Scotland's play there? Invade? Talk about not taking on national debt again? To reiterate, Britain can do far, FAR more economic and political damage to an independent Scotland if it chooses to start playing games and making waves. So it wouldn't happen. Everyone will sit down at the table, people will lay out what's most important to them, and we'll all try our best to come to an accommodation that works for everyone.

But by all means, if you can list all the bargaining advantages that an Independent Scotland will have over Britain, I would be interested to hear them. I can think of about three, I'd like to hear more.

Are you doing your reading in the Telegraph by any chance?

The Times, Reuters, the BBC, and occasionally the Guardian.

“We know that tackling these issues isn’t straightforward – building a better country isn’t be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate. Independence isn’t about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and water. It’s about working hard, and taking the right decisions, so that over time we can build a fairer and more prosperous country.”

That's the First Minister speaking in June this year. He's said similar things many times in the past, and many times since, the bolded phrase is a favourite of his. The idea that the SNP or the Yes campaign more broadly are selling hollow utopianism is a fiction, a narrative peddled by Better Together in the media because they have no positive case of their own to make(or lack the wherewithal to make it) and so rely on exploiting people's cynicism of politics and politicians to allow them to cast an aspirational message about building a better future with our own hands as mindless, baseless optimism.

No, I'm taking it from various other statements by Salmond. The ones where he assumes oil will retain its output for an extended period at a high value, the ones where he talks about how Britain is 'holding back' Scottish industry, how he can fix the NHS, the pensions, and practically everything so long as you vote for independence.

I think that if one of them did come out with a 2/3 majority as you suggest, that would be sufficient justification to organise and hold a second regional referendum prior to independence day in 2016, which would ask the specific question of whether they would rather stay in the UK given the rest of the country has voted to leave, and the result of that second referendum should be just as binding on all parties as this one will be. This is actually a question I get asked quite a lot, although they usually use Orkney or Shetland, it always seems to surprise folk when I say I'm all for it. Democracy is democracy, I'm not an ideological nationalist myself, I'm voting for independence because that's the choice we've got before us and I would rather have more democracy than less; I support self-determination for all as a matter of principle not just in the case of existing "nations" without a state.

See, that's good. On that understanding, I would have absolutely no issue with Scottish independence. I fundamentally disagree that we stick to a historical border over the right to self-determination, and it often seems that many pro-yes candidates do not agree.

Interestingly the Norwegians are already planning their graceful exit from the oil extraction industry because they know it will inevitably decline in the coming decades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The thing that puzzles me is Salmond's insistence on joining a currency union controlled by Westminster. A central bank, your own currency and therefore control of the interest rate is one of the most obvious things an independent government can use to influence the national economy.

Most of the other things are already in the Scottish parliament's hands, or would be strongly influenced by the EU framework. Thus Salmond seems to be rejecting his potentially strongest tool. He doesn't to have a firm back-up plan if a currency union were refused (which I believe it would be).

I think Salmond expects it to be an equal partnership when by any fair calculation Scotland would always be the junior member in any currency union. As with so many things Salmond seems to believe in democracy, fairness and equality only as long as it suits his cause. I don't believe there will be a currency union, but if there is, it takes away one of the major tools of a country to influence it's economy.

The interesting thing I see is that the Yes camp are now talking of walking away from liabilities as well as assets, which is nonsense about the currency representing all, or even a major, asset. What they are not saying is how they will also then have to find a way to fund many things such as pensions, how they will lose rights to all assets held by the MoD, NHS etc if they walk away. They are relying on people not understanding that assets are more than just liquid assets and include lots of capital assets, land, etc. They assume that they will automatically take over all crown estate lands in Scotland, and that MoD property will automatically revert to the new government. I think they will find that it is not as simple as looking at the government debt and saying "you own lots of money". It is like a divorcing couple arguing over the credit cards and forgetting the value of the house.

 Steve steveson wrote:
It is like a divorcing couple arguing over the credit cards and forgetting the value of the house.

I wouldn't go that far, I think most things can be settled quite amicably.

However, it should be noted that the Government is far more likely to be made of people like me, who will assume that they have to justify whatever bargains are made with an independent Scotland to the electorate, and will thus be keen to drive an agreement broadly in line with British opinions and priorities.

In other words, we'll be happy to push for an opt out for Scotland from the Schengen agreement in Europe, because it would be a real pain to have to set up border stations. But there won't be a common currency, because the electorate is broadly against it. Which means that we won't really feel the need to push for Scotland to get an opt-out from the Euro, they'll have to do that one on their own. Trident may or may not be moved quickly, depending on the MOD's evaluation of the feasibility and cost.

If Salmond insists the EU gives him an opt out of the euro in exchange for fishing access(as I believe he mentioned), I think he will quickly learn just how little the EU listens to prospective small country nations with six million inhabitants demanding special privileges. They'll most likely wait him out until economic pressure forces him to buckle under and accept the euro.

I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.

Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.

Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.

To be fair on the Greek, that would be a very very small part of the issue considering all the corruption that ended up siphoning tons of money from the government like it was water, not to mention poorly balanced budgets, all the issues with the economy, the issues with the government in hand..

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
To be fair on the Greek, that would be a very very small part of the issue considering all the corruption that ended up siphoning tons of money from the government like it was water, not to mention poorly balanced budgets, all the issues with the economy, the issues with the government in hand..

If only they could have split into their original city states again! That would have fixed all the issues caused entirely by those out of touch people in the so-called "capital"!