RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !

Bob,
as far as I can understand, if the vote goes with the "Yes" bods, there will be negotiations with the UK government to give Scotland a share of the existing armed forces. So Scotland might get a couple of frigates and a few fishery protection boats and a squadron of aircraft. Keith

Reading the Scottish Parliament's White Paper on Independence (I've got to page 150, repetitive isn't it) the plan appears to be to set up a Multi-Service Scottish Armed Forces with around 15,000 personnel. This force will protect the coastline & safeguard the country and its off-shore interests from attack.

Interestingly, Norway - which also has a population of 5.3M and an extensive coastline - reportedly has 23,000 personnel under arms but also has Conscription. Norway can raise a force of around 83,000 at short notice because a large sector of the population has military training. Norwegians have never got over their surprise invasion by Germany at the beginning of WWII and don't intend to be caught out again.

Following a 'Yes' result in September 2014, The Scottish Parliament intends to have all negotiations and Infrastructure changes in place in time for an election in May 2016. That's 20 months, so I guess they'll be leasing hardware from someone.

I wonder who'll be banging on their door with the "Lease-Lend" papers . . :augie.

Bob.
 
The above borders are largely covered by the Schengen agreement so it's little surprise that they are non events. The exception is the UK Ireland border which, if memory serves me well, has indeed been the source of one or two minor issuettes over the years.
 
If the remainder of the UK votes to leave the EU to stem the flood of immigrants, amongst other things, what would be the point if they could come to a Scotland that has an open door immigration policy and simply walk over the border into England. Come on Toddy ask your political commissar to feed you a cut and paste for that scenario or even risk giving your own opinion if you like. We won't tell Eck what you think. Its OK.
 
I think the difficulty with discussing any of these items until after the vote is that it would effectively be a discussion between SNP and a Tory government because they are in power in the UK. The SNP would love to script the referendum as a choice between the UK Tories and independence because the unpopularity of the Tories in Scotland is about the only thing most Scots agree about. It is the only ace the SNP hold and Alex Salmond is desperate to play it. If the UK government was Labour or even Lib Dem I don't think there would be the same urgency on the part of the SNP to discuss these matter before the referendum in case the outcome undermined their case for separation.

The only hope the yes camp have of winning is to turn this into a choice between David Cameron or Alex Salmond. If that was what was being decided even right wing leaning Scots like me would be liable to vote for Eck because the posh boy and his clique are so alien to the natural Scottish psyche. But that is not what we are voting about. David Cameron may be gone after the next election. Independence is for life and if Alex Salmond does a Gordon Brown and demolishes the financial stability of the country in an effort to buy votes after independence we can't vote independence out of office the way we did Broon's government. Vote with your head not with your heart. Remember having financial security may not buy you happiness but at least you can be miserable in comfort.

Thanks for that... It helps answer a view that I have which is a many of the YES arguments I see are based on painting a dim view of what's in power today rather than what they will be - And it would appear that when it comes to painting a dim view any old sh1te will do which is not the best way to get my attention and have me see the serious arguments.

This point has got me thinking: the posh boy and his clique are so alien to the natural Scottish psyche

I've never really thought about that, why is it so out of sync? It must be true because the public vote matches this but the only Scott's Ive ever met have been those that I would have thought would do well under a Tory government - I'm obviously missing something, what is it?
 
Thanks for that... It helps answer a view that I have which is a many of the YES arguments I see are based on painting a dim view of what's in power today rather than what they will be - And it would appear that when it comes to painting a dim view any old sh1te will do which is not the best way to get my attention and have me see the serious arguments.

This point has got me thinking: the posh boy and his clique are so alien to the natural Scottish psyche

I've never really thought about that, why is it so out of sync? It must be true because the public vote matches this but the only Scott's Ive ever met have been those that I would have thought would do well under a Tory government - I'm obviously missing something, what is it?

I have always preferred right wing ideas and I think you are right about the hard working inventive Scots doing well under governments that encourage self sufficiency and prudence, to use a Gordon Brown term, with public spending. What they struggle with is the notion of politicians who are there because of their inherited wealth or who their "faither" was rather than through the sweat of their own brow. Interestingly the Tory party in Scotland is to try out an element of voter selection of its candidates at the next election primarily, I think, to tackle this notion. All voters in a constituency can register to take part in the process whereby they choose the Tory party candidate they would most like to see stand for office rather than one chosen by Tory party members. Unfortunately the choice will have to be made from a short list drawn up by the party but it is a start to try and re-engage with the mainstream electorate. Unfortunately the legacy of industrial decline in Scotland, which would have taken place inevitably under any government that could no longer afford to prop up industries which could no longer compete on a global scale, coincided with the reign of Margaret Thatcher and she compounded this by imposing a tax on Scotland a year before she imposed the same tax the rest of the UK. I think the ethos of the poll tax was sound but it replaced a property tax that only owner occupiers in the main knew they were paying. The vast majority of council house occupiers paid combined rent and rates and few could have told you how much rates they paid. Suddenly they were faced with a bill that, for anybody other than a rate payer, represented a new tax and into the bargain the English were not having to pay it. It was a gift to those who could label it as Scots being treated unfairly. Probably the ultimate crime in the book as far as a fair minded nation is concerned. It was a massive Tory own goal from which they have yet to recover.

As an aside they are cruising for a similar hit to their reputation with the bedroom tax just for the want of a bit of forethought. Most working Scots I have spoken to are against people being paid out of hard earned taxes to live in a house that is larger than they need. However they can see the absolute unfairness involved if there is no smaller home on offer. A small tweak of that policy to impose the reduction in benefit only on those who have refused a smaller house which has been offered would have widespread support because it is logical and it cannot be portrayed as being unfair.
 
All those borders are between EU countries....Scotland won't be....sadly this is how the pro independence campaign works....tell the same lies often enough and everybody forgets they are lies...

Schengen, not EU (e.g. Norway, Switzerland are in the Schengen area but not the EU) but your point still stands. Showing a problem free border between two countries which have abolished border controls is a bit slippery to say the least. There will be no point in an independent Scotland joining Schengen as its only common border would be with the UK (opted out of Schengen). I assume that's why the ROI is not a member of Schengen.

I personally hope Scotland chooses to remain within the UK. As Billy Connolly said before adopting a more calculated neutral position, this should be a time for coming together, not moving apart.
 
Schengen, not EU (e.g. Norway, Switzerland are in the Schengen area but not the EU) but your point still stands. Showing a problem free border between two countries which have abolished border controls is a bit slippery to say the least. There will be no point in an independent Scotland joining Schengen as its only common border would be with the UK (opted out of Schengen). I assume that's why the ROI is not a member of Schengen.

I personally hope Scotland chooses to remain within the UK. As Billy Connolly said before adopting a more calculated neutral position, this should be a time for coming together, not moving apart.

Is that the same Billy Connolly that resides in Los Angeles and is currently trying to sell his holiday estate in Deeside?
 
Thought for the day.........

One of your own thoughts ? :D

Or another spoon fed thought from a politician with his, or her, own agenda.

And can i add for neutralities sake the same applies to all sides.
 
Seems to me that........

them doon sooth and them among us frae doon sooth are daen the maist shoutin, agin'
us gettin oor hamelaund back .

Maks a Scotsman winder jist what braw stuff we hae up here that they frae doon there want tae keep in their ain control :rolleyes:

e'er sine the fraudulent jinine o' the "nations" there was niver a Scotland.
Listen tae a' the worldwide news reports etc, everything is Ingland, they took frae us a' and screwed us a' , even wanted us as cannon fodder throughoot the world 'cause there ain spines were to saft. Now they see the upsurge , Scotsmen and women wantin' tae staundup fir and hae control o' their ain.

Thanks tae mum nature they are doon souf, as o' their nervous crap will run intae the channel frae the erse o' there breeks.

But I love em dearly.......... aye right!

We have stood and said 'et tu Brutii' as they thrust the knife in deeper to often.
 
Seems to me that a majority of oor ain folk up here don't gee a flying fuck whit them doon sooth want. Wir gonae figer oot whits best fur wir ain pocket an vote tae keep hingin in wi oor neebors doon sooth.
 
Maks a Scotsman winder jist what braw stuff we hae up here that they frae doon there want tae keep in their ain control :rolleyes:
.
.
.
We have stood and said 'et tu Brutii' as they thrust the knife in deeper to often.

Of course there's stuff we want. Scotland has always punched above its weight within the United Kingdom in all fields of human endeavor except, arguably, Morris Dancing. However, the fact that a lot of FEBs like me still want you as part of the UK doesn't necessarily make unification bad for Scotland.

Would the USA have become the power it is today if the secession of the Southern States had been tolerated? I doubt it. The emergence of China as a major world power is a consequence of its immense borders which have been largely stable for years. Unified India is, arguably, the lesser for partition: certainly Gandhi thought so.

On the other hand, the USSR was shite. Oh, it's "Brute", by the way (not Bruti which implies more than one Brutus)...vocative singular. Really can't understand why we irritate you so much. :-)
 
Of course there's stuff we want. Scotland has always punched above its weight within the United Kingdom in all fields of human endeavor except, arguably, Morris Dancing. However, the fact that a lot of FEBs like me still want you as part of the UK doesn't necessarily make unification bad for Scotland.

Would the USA have become the power it is today if the secession of the Southern States had been tolerated? I doubt it. The emergence of China as a major world power is a consequence of its immense borders which have been largely stable for years. Unified India is, arguably, the lesser for partition: certainly Gandhi thought so.

On the other hand, the USSR was shite. Oh, it's "Brute", by the way (not Bruti which implies more than one Brutus)...vocative singular. Really can't understand why we irritate you so much. :-)

Catullus had the right of it ..." Atque in perpetuum, frater, ave atque vale."
 
Of course there's stuff we want. Scotland has always punched above its weight within the United Kingdom in all fields of human endeavor except, arguably, Morris Dancing. However, the fact that a lot of FEBs like me still want you as part of the UK doesn't necessarily make unification bad for Scotland.

Would the USA have become the power it is today if the secession of the Southern States had been tolerated? I doubt it. The emergence of China as a major world power is a consequence of its immense borders which have been largely stable for years. Unified India is, arguably, the lesser for pa:droolrtition: certainly Gandhi thought so.

On the other hand, the USSR was shite. Oh, it's "Brute", by the way (not Bruti which implies more than one Brutus)...vocative singular. Really can't understand why we irritate you so much. :-)

Catullus had the right of it ..." Atque in perpetuum, frater, ave atque vale."
 


Back
Top Bottom