Friday Thread: If Scotland vote YES will TWH have to leave?

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

So the plan is all the people in those industries are going to be re-employed in a Scottish navy/naval base? Sounds good, how much will that cost then and who will pay for it?

Who do you think will pay for it? Here's some multiple choice options:
A) The Russians
The Americans
C) The English
D) The EU
E) The Scots

How much will it costs certainly a fraction of the bill for the replacement of Trident. Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Which one is it then? What's the plan? There must be one, right?

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Is that part of the plan as well? When it comes to oil it's "Scotland's oil, it's all ours" but when it comes to the Navy it's "Britain's navy, so we'll have our share"?

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Is that part of the plan as well? When it comes to oil it's "Scotland's oil, it's all ours" but when it comes to the Navy it's "Britain's navy, so we'll have our share"?

Territorial waters and all that. You never took geography at school did you?

UndercoverElephant

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Is that part of the plan as well? When it comes to oil it's "Scotland's oil, it's all ours" but when it comes to the Navy it's "Britain's navy, so we'll have our share"?

I doubt Scotland would want its full share, from what I see of the plans, the defence budget would just cover defending our borders. The UK defence budget has to cover the costs of being able to obliterate mankind and fight wars in far-flung places.

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

So the plan is all the people in those industries are going to be re-employed in a Scottish navy/naval base? Sounds good, how much will that cost then and who will pay for it?

Who do you think will pay for it? Here's some multiple choice options:
A) The Russians
The Americans
C) The English
D) The EU
E) The Scots

How much will it costs certainly a fraction of the bill for the replacement of Trident. Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Which one is it then? What's the plan? There must be one, right?

What Westminsters plan for relocating Trident? What's the plan? There must be one, right?

meanredspider

Just been checking the facts for Trident. The cost of Trident's replacement is about £15bn give or take. I guess Scotland's share of that will be about £1.5bn. To put that into perspective, Scotland's CURRENT NHS spend (with those nasty English in control) is £12bn per year. So, with my simple maths, dropping Trident will allow Scotland to increase its NHS spend by <1% over the 10-15 or so years that Trident takes to build. That's not a lot compared to the economic risks of using the English pound with no control.

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Just been checking the facts for Trident. The cost of Trident's replacement is about £15bn give or take. I guess Scotland's share of that will be about £1.5bn. To put that into perspective, Scotland's CURRENT NHS spend (with those nasty English in control) is £12bn per year. So, with my simple maths, dropping Trident will allow Scotland to increase its NHS spend by <1% over the 10-15 or so years that Trident takes to build. That's not a lot compared to the economic risks of using the English pound with no control.

Not sure where you got that figure MRS. The Guardian says 100 billion others 130 billion. It's a bargain at 15 billion better post that on the bargains thread.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Just been checking the facts for Trident. The cost of Trident's replacement is about £15bn give or take. I guess Scotland's share of that will be about £1.5bn. To put that into perspective, Scotland's CURRENT NHS spend (with those nasty English in control) is £12bn per year. So, with my simple maths, dropping Trident will allow Scotland to increase its NHS spend by <1% over the 10-15 or so years that Trident takes to build. That's not a lot compared to the economic risks of using the English pound with no control.

Not sure where you got that figure MRS. The Guardian says 100 billion others 130 billion. It's a bargain at 15 billion better post that on the bargains thread.

BBC - Trident Replacement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Just been checking the facts for Trident. The cost of Trident's replacement is about £15bn give or take. I guess Scotland's share of that will be about £1.5bn. To put that into perspective, Scotland's CURRENT NHS spend (with those nasty English in control) is £12bn per year. So, with my simple maths, dropping Trident will allow Scotland to increase its NHS spend by <1% over the 10-15 or so years that Trident takes to build. That's not a lot compared to the economic risks of using the English pound with no control.

Not sure where you got that figure MRS. The Guardian says 100 billion others 130 billion. It's a bargain at 15 billion better post that on the bargains thread.

BBC - Trident Replacement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

Interesting article. Yes 15 to 20 billion to purchase around 100 billion for its operational life that's keeping the subs running and staffed etc. Surprised they mention days to arm. Anyway a bit obscene to be spending that amount of cash while denying life prolonging drugs to some folk on the NHS.

Your figures are flawed as you haven't included the costs of running the 4 subs at the moment including all the ancillary stuff and the cost of setting up for the new subs and missile systems.

Sewinman

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As for doing away with an upper house, here's a list of countries with unicameral governments.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#National

Easy to look at the nutter-states, but Iceland, Norway, Finland and New Zealand look pretty OK to me. I would prefer to have something like the Law Lords to keep an eye on the legalities, though.

Sewinman wrote:

Where are you going to borrow money from? The banks have clearly showed that they view Scotland as uncreditworthy.

That's rubbish, S&P say we'd qualify for their "highest economic assessment". Plenty if oil, see.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26602997

That's not a credit rating though, is it. They can't give one because you have not even got a currency! That report also says Citi predicting your borrowing rate would be 1.25 percent above the cost of current interest rates. Ouch.

aberdeen_lune

Sewinman wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As for doing away with an upper house, here's a list of countries with unicameral governments.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#National

Easy to look at the nutter-states, but Iceland, Norway, Finland and New Zealand look pretty OK to me. I would prefer to have something like the Law Lords to keep an eye on the legalities, though.

Sewinman wrote:

Where are you going to borrow money from? The banks have clearly showed that they view Scotland as uncreditworthy.

That's rubbish, S&P say we'd qualify for their "highest economic assessment". Plenty if oil, see.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26602997

That's not a credit rating though, is it. They can't give one because you have not even got a currency! That report also says Citi predicting your borrowing rate would be 1.25 percent above the cost of current interest rates. Ouch.

Stop the press we can't have democracy in Scotland because we don't have a currency and the banks will only lend to us at a premium rate. Wow we better be scared and scurry into our poor hovels and do what the big boys in Westminster say.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

So the plan is all the people in those industries are going to be re-employed in a Scottish navy/naval base? Sounds good, how much will that cost then and who will pay for it?

Who do you think will pay for it? Here's some multiple choice options:
A) The Russians
The Americans
C) The English
D) The EU
E) The Scots

How much will it costs certainly a fraction of the bill for the replacement of Trident. Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Which one is it then? What's the plan? There must be one, right?

What Westminsters plan for relocating Trident? What's the plan? There must be one, right?

Spoke like a true Salmond supporter. So basically, there's lots of words and fluff but no actual plan. We'll invent that if/when we get there.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Is that part of the plan as well? When it comes to oil it's "Scotland's oil, it's all ours" but when it comes to the Navy it's "Britain's navy, so we'll have our share"?

Territorial waters and all that. You never took geography at school did you?

The UK is entitled to a share of an Independent Scotland's territorial waters - that's how the line goes isn't it?

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.

Is that part of the plan as well? When it comes to oil it's "Scotland's oil, it's all ours" but when it comes to the Navy it's "Britain's navy, so we'll have our share"?

Territorial waters and all that. You never took geography at school did you?

The UK is entitled to a share of an Independent Scotland's territorial waters - that's how the line goes isn't it?

Yes yes yes of course. Will it still be the UK though?

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Interesting article. Yes 15 to 20 billion to purchase around 100 billion for its operational life that's keeping the subs running and staffed etc. Surprised they mention days to arm. Anyway a bit obscene to be spending that amount of cash while denying life prolonging drugs to some folk on the NHS.

Your figures are flawed as you haven't included the costs of running the 4 subs at the moment including all the ancillary stuff and the cost of setting up for the new subs and missile systems.

Ok - let's include the operating cost for its operational life (20-30 years) at 5bn a year - 0.3% onto the current Scottish health budget. I'm sure if you were to talk in those sort of percentages to NHS staff in terms of pay rises you'd get short shrift.

And of course it's a choice. You have to believe that a nuclear deterrent is important in a world where more and more nutter states might or might not have nuclear weapons and leaders like Putin starts throwing his weight around. In those circumstances, Scotland is like those parents that didn't give their kids the MMR vaccine, relying on other people to take the risks in order to give them protection. With any deterrent that works, it's impossible to be certain that it has worked.

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

And of course it's a choice. You have to believe that a nuclear deterrent is important in a world where more and more nutter states might or might not have nuclear weapons and leaders like Putin starts throwing his weight around. In those circumstances, Scotland is like those parents that didn't give their kids the MMR vaccine, relying on other people to take the risks in order to give them protection. With any deterrent that works, it's impossible to be certain that it has worked.

Deterrent against what though?
If Putin decides to nuke us then I won't care if we have the capability to retaliate and it wouldn't gain him anything other than a nuclear waste ground.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Stop the press we can't have democracy in Scotland because we don't have a currency and the banks will only lend to us at a premium rate. Wow we better be scared and scurry into our poor hovels and do what the big boys in Westminster say.

Does it not worry you at all that you don't appear to know what exactly it is you're voting for and HOW it will work?

meanredspider

PBlakeney wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And of course it's a choice. You have to believe that a nuclear deterrent is important in a world where more and more nutter states might or might not have nuclear weapons and leaders like Putin starts throwing his weight around. In those circumstances, Scotland is like those parents that didn't give their kids the MMR vaccine, relying on other people to take the risks in order to give them protection. With any deterrent that works, it's impossible to be certain that it has worked.

Deterrent against what though?
If Putin decides to nuke us then I won't care if we have the capability to retaliate and it wouldn't gain him anything other than a nuclear waste ground.

The whole point of a deterrent is that you never use it and nor do your enemies use their weapons. We could argue forever about whether it's effective but since we're 70-odd years since the weapon was invented and it's only been used twice in anger, I have to believe that there's something to it. I don't know how many nations have actually completely and unilaterally given up nuclear weapons - would a Scotland be "the first"?

UndercoverElephant

I personally think it'd be a really great shot in the arm for world peace if one those who have neuclear weapons said, "actually no, there's no point owning them as we have no intention of ever using them."

It's not like they're any use to anyone, is it? I mean, I don't think the Americans even sold us the button to press to set them off when we bought the bombs.

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Stop the press we can't have democracy in Scotland because we don't have a currency and the banks will only lend to us at a premium rate. Wow we better be scared and scurry into our poor hovels and do what the big boys in Westminster say.

Does it not worry you at all that you don't appear to know what exactly it is you're voting for and HOW it will work?

Nobody knows as the question is should Scotland be an Independant country. If we vote yes then the negotiation starts. After a year or two we will have a much clearer picture. Just now we know the basic principles protect the NHS, free education, nuclear free etc.

meanredspider

The process would have been much better had there been FAR more clarity on what it actually meant. The trouble is if people decide, once the negotiation is done, that they don't actually like the reality that they've voted for, it's a bit tough isn't it? The expression "Pig in a poke" springs to mind.

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

The process would have been much better had there been FAR more clarity on what it actually meant. The trouble is if people decide, once the negotiation is done, that they don't actually like the reality that they've voted for, it's a bit tough isn't it? The expression "Pig in a poke" springs to mind.

Your a glass half empty type of bloke aren't you MRS.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Stop the press we can't have democracy in Scotland because we don't have a currency and the banks will only lend to us at a premium rate. Wow we better be scared and scurry into our poor hovels and do what the big boys in Westminster say.

Does it not worry you at all that you don't appear to know what exactly it is you're voting for and HOW it will work?

Nobody knows as the question is should Scotland be an Independant country. If we vote yes then the negotiation starts. After a year or two we will have a much clearer picture. Just now we know the basic principles protect the NHS, free education, nuclear free etc.

In my opinion, I don't see how I would decide if it should be an independent country if I didn't know how/if it would work if it was. How would I assure myself that the principles can be realised? Like I said earlier, a strategy (i.e set of principles) without a plan is just a pipe-dream.

How would Scotland be in any position to negotiate?

"We don't want the UK's submarines base here."..."ok, but it will take us many years to move it. We'll keep using it until then"
"We want the pound"...."Nope"
"We only want 5% of the UK's debt"..."sorry, you'll have 20%"
"We want all the oil"...."Hmm well most of it is in what would be your waters but it will take us some time to hand it over fully, during which time we'll keep depleting it"
"As Scotland is its own country.....all subsidies and benefits cease at day 1"
"We've decided Scottish vehicles will have to pay an entry tax to use roads in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from day 1....after all they are our roads not yours"

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Stop the press we can't have democracy in Scotland because we don't have a currency and the banks will only lend to us at a premium rate. Wow we better be scared and scurry into our poor hovels and do what the big boys in Westminster say.

Does it not worry you at all that you don't appear to know what exactly it is you're voting for and HOW it will work?

Nobody knows as the question is should Scotland be an Independant country. If we vote yes then the negotiation starts. After a year or two we will have a much clearer picture. Just now we know the basic principles protect the NHS, free education, nuclear free etc.

In my opinion, I don't see how I would decide if it should be an independent country if I didn't know how/if it would work if it was. How would I assure myself that the principles can be realised? Like I said earlier, a strategy (i.e set of principles) without a plan is just a pipe-dream.

How would Scotland be in any position to negotiate?

"We don't want the UK's submarines base here."..."ok, but it will take us many years to move it. We'll keep using it until then"
"We want the pound"...."Nope"
"We only want 5% of the UK's debt"..."sorry, you'll have 20%"
"We want all the oil"...."Hmm well most of it is in what would be your waters but it will take us some time to hand it over fully, during which time we'll keep depleting it"
"As Scotland is its own country.....all subsidies and benefits cease at day 1"
"We've decided Scottish vehicles will have to pay an entry tax to use roads in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from day 1....after all they are our roads not yours"

Well the negotiations will be fun. The issue with the oil is the people or governments don't deplete it. The oil companies extract it then flog it. It's the taxation the government get. This is all about respecting the democratic right of the Scottish people. If Westminster decides to exploit the people that would show them up badly.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The process would have been much better had there been FAR more clarity on what it actually meant. The trouble is if people decide, once the negotiation is done, that they don't actually like the reality that they've voted for, it's a bit tough isn't it? The expression "Pig in a poke" springs to mind.

Your a glass half empty type of bloke aren't you MRS.

Nope - I'm the kinda guy that likes to look where I'm going on a bike. Or, if I order something from the internet, I like to have some idea if it's any good first. There's plenty of things I take chances on but my job, mortgage, children's futures etc tend not to be in that list. Voting for the greener grass on the other side without having even seen it seems pretty stupid to me - especially when there's plenty to suggest that the grass is patchy, brown and full of weeds.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Well the negotiations will be fun. The issue with the oil is the people or governments don't deplete it. The oil companies extract it then flog it. It's the taxation the government get. This is all about respecting the democratic right of the Scottish people. If Westminster decides to exploit the people that would show them up badly.

No, it's about endless debating about what the democratic right of "the people of Scotland", versus the democratic right of "the people of the UK".

My point is I can't see how Scotland would be in a strong negotiating position. So voting yes is not only voting for an idea/set of principles/strategy without a plan, but it is voting for a strategy that is unlikely to be realised because Scotland doesn't have the power through negotiation alone to get everything it might need.

If I can summarise it "Alex has promised us loads of stuff, we don't know HOW he's going to deliver it, or how he's going to be able to negotiate the type of things we need to deliver it....but we'll have a crack at it anyway because we like the general idea".

Then the answer to anyone who questions HOW he is going to deliver it or who dares to suggest that the things he's promised can be delivered won't be delivered is "we won't be bullied by Westminster/banks/supermarkets/business or anyone else".

greg66_tri_v2.0

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

If Westminster decides to exploit the people that would show them up badly.

Do you really not get it?

If Scotland votes for independence, it is on its own. Westminster will negotiate independence not as some benevolent older sibling, but as a separate and independent nation. It will be like us now negotiating with Belgium. No favours, no kindness. Look after number one.

Westminster will act to protect the interests of the people of rUK. That's not you.

Exploitation? You decided to to leave. You keep what you can carry; anything else is a bonus.

cjcp

So a German living in Scotland can vote on Scottish independence, but a Scot living in England can't?

Is that right? That can't be right, surely.

Yep, no half measures; own currency, fresh application for EU membership (if that's what suits) etc.

pblakeney

YIMan wrote:

How would Scotland be in any position to negotiate?

Therein lies the rub as I have read it.

I dare say that Alex Salmond would like to negotiate and give firm details (or some at least) as that is the main argument for the NO campaign but no entity will negotiate with a Country that doesn't exist.
Ergo you have to be independent before negotiations begin and the vote to become independent is a leap of faith for any want-to-be Country.

Interesting times ahead either way.

pblakeney

cjcp wrote:

So a German living in Scotland can vote on Scottish independence, but a Scot living in England can't?

Is that right? That can't be right, surely.

Why ever not?
A vote for independence is made by those in the Country in question, not whoever thinks that they have an interest.
I know that if the vote is Yes then it will affect people in Britain so let's assume that the ex-pat Scot is in New Zealand. Or are you asking for everyone in the UK to have the vote? I think that this has been covered elsewhere.
i.e. England voting to leave would be acceptable. England voting to kick Scotland out would be different. The same result but a different principle.