World Politics

[King Of The Wolds]

What would be your vote Englishman?

Actually, the fact that I'm English isn't relevant. I should have said as somebody who lives in England. And whether I live in England or, even more so, if I lived in Scotland, my vote would be no.

You say the return of the nuclear warheads, essentially a shared resource currently, in that they're there to protect English and Scottish people, is non-negotiable. What about other shared resources? Is the English keeping those things non-negotiable also? How about health, pensions, tax, DVLA, etc. records which are currently maintained and supported on central infrastructure? How about the contracts of civil servants currently providing those services from Scottish locations? How about all military equipment, personnel and intelligence? How about services delivered in Scotland but from central, English based offices - government agencies, industry watch dogs, etc.?

If they're non-negotiable, things could get very difficult in Scotland. And if Cameron plays hard ball - and why wouldn't he, in order to please a vengeful English electorate, disappointed with the decision of the Scottish people to desert us - things could get *very* messy for you. Dragged out arguments in European courts, long periods of time with key support services being delivered by immature, quickly established organisations, big bills payable to London for the delivery of other services you can't do without and can't provide yourself quickly enough are all things I can easily envisage. Comparing the unpicking of a modern day superpower in this technological age with one from the early 1900s just has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

 

[laurel1969]

According to last polls looks like majority of Scots want to continued to be oppressed (ie. Subsidised at an extra £1300 per head compared to the english) by those terrible Englishmen.

Its good that it is only the Scots voting. At least its one thing the Scots won't be able to blame on the English.

 

[Hawkwood]

Actually, the fact that I'm English isn't relevant. I should have said as somebody who lives in England. And whether I live in England or, even more so, if I lived in Scotland, my vote would be no.

You say the return of the nuclear warheads, essentially a shared resource currently, in that they're there to protect English and Scottish people, is non-negotiable. What about other shared resources? Is the English keeping those things non-negotiable also? How about health, pensions, tax, DVLA, etc. records which are currently maintained and supported on central infrastructure? How about the contracts of civil servants currently providing those services from Scottish locations? How about all military equipment, personnel and intelligence? How about services delivered in Scotland but from central, English based offices - government agencies, industry watch dogs, etc.?

If they're non-negotiable, things could get very difficult in Scotland. And if Cameron plays hard ball - and why wouldn't he, in order to please a vengeful English electorate, disappointed with the decision of the Scottish people to desert us - things could get *very* messy for you. Dragged out arguments in European courts, long periods of time with key support services being delivered by immature, quickly established organisations, big bills payable to London for the delivery of other services you can't do without and can't provide yourself quickly enough are all things I can easily envisage. Comparing the unpicking of a modern day superpower in this technological age with one from the early 1900s just has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

I guess the Government would move the building of future Royal Navy ships to English yards. I'm sure Cammell Lairds and the people of Merseyside would love the extra work and jobs.

 

[ToreBear]

Sadly an independent Scotland means likelihood of perpetual right-wing government in the UK

I think there could be a realignment of right and left. But if conservative voters who want Scotland in the Union start to blame the conservatives for Scotland leaving, things might change quickly.

Really good post. I hope you aren't too dismayed when I say the YES campaign are holding up Norway as the best example why Scotland would be a thriving country on its own (maybe that's because we are all probably half Norwegian anyway, pesky Vikings)

Thank you! No I'm not dismayed at all, I have followed the debate since perhaps 2005-2006 or something, and am quite aware of the arguments of both sides.

And I agree that there is no reason why Scotland can't stand on it's own feet and be successful. And yes Scotland can have a lot of similarities to Norway and the other Nordic countries.

 

[King Boonen]

Actually, the fact that I'm English isn't relevant. I should have said as somebody who lives in England. And whether I live in England or, even more so, if I lived in Scotland, my vote would be no.

You say the return of the nuclear warheads, essentially a shared resource currently, in that they're there to protect English and Scottish people, is non-negotiable. What about other shared resources? Is the English keeping those things non-negotiable also? How about health, pensions, tax, DVLA, etc. records which are currently maintained and supported on central infrastructure? How about the contracts of civil servants currently providing those services from Scottish locations? How about all military equipment, personnel and intelligence? How about services delivered in Scotland but from central, English based offices - government agencies, industry watch dogs, etc.?

If they're non-negotiable, things could get very difficult in Scotland. And if Cameron plays hard ball - and why wouldn't he, in order to please a vengeful English electorate, disappointed with the decision of the Scottish people to desert us - things could get *very* messy for you. Dragged out arguments in European courts, long periods of time with key support services being delivered by immature, quickly established organisations, big bills payable to London for the delivery of other services you can't do without and can't provide yourself quickly enough are all things I can easily envisage. Comparing the unpicking of a modern day superpower in this technological age with one from the early 1900s just has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

Until there is an agreement after a Yes vote in the referendum all public services will be delivered as they are now. Scotland will not leave the union the instant the result is announced, so most of what you have written is FUD.

 

[ToreBear]

I believe that 16, or even 15 year olds have a vote? Whatever, I saw an interview with some youngsters of that age. They were quite frighteningly ignorant about actual issues, and sounded like they were voting 'yes' as a lark. I'm not pretending that these three were somehow representative for all Scots of that age, but honestly, they were embarrassingly inarticulate. All of which leads me to question the wisdom of giving people that young a vote.

You should be careful in drawing conclusions about what teens think from what they say when interviewed by a journalist. As a teen I would be more concerned with how I presented my self than the policies that I'm questioned about. I.e. now everyone is going to see that big zit, or I better act dumber than I am so my friends don't realize how smart I am etc.

For all we know they could have arrived at their conclusions through a sound process of weighting arguments for and against.

This is what Salmond is saying now in his final rallying cry:

"We need this, we need this to happen. This time isn't about me, it isn't about the SNP or the Labour party or the Tories or any political party. It's about you, it's about your family, your hopes, your ambitions. Don't let them tell us we can't. "


Like I said. Its all about manipulating emotions with no substance. Who are the unspecified 'they'? The vote-less, unimpowered English or the Scottish majority who are saying No?

Nice try Salmon, but the thinking Scot isn't buying your rabble-rousing schtick.

I think you are only noticing one side of the argument. Remember a lot of the no campaign is about creating fear for what happens if there is a yes vote.

So:
Vote yes, because all your troubles will be over and we will be happy.

vs.

Vote no, because it will be horrible what happens the day after.

Hope and fear.


Don't worry, if they vote yes and England becomes horrible. Just move to Scotland.

 

[python]

I guess the Government would move the building of future Royal Navy ships to English yards. I'm sure Cammell Lairds and the people of Merseyside would love the extra work and jobs.

according to one informative article i linked to earlier

How Does The British Military Split With An Independent Scotland?
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-does-brit...otland-1682076

the nuclear component could face the following:

... for the U.K., having to move its four Vanguard nuclear submarines based at Faslane and the nuclear weapons based in Culport would represent a logistics nightmare and jeopardize Britain's standing within NATO. As things stand, the U.K. wants to base its entire submarine fleet in Faslane, including the new Astute class subs, but should Scotland vote for independence, the submarines would stay in Plymouth and Portsmouth, England. The U.K.’s nuclear ballistic missile-carrying subs would be homeless because the facilities to host them do not exist in the rest of the U.K.

@ferryman...i am well aware of a firm intention to eject the nuclear military capability in case the yes vote prevailed. clearly, the (r)UK, faced with the firm position, would have no choice but to comply. what i meat by a bargaining chip is the yet undetermined cost of relocating and finding home for the subs in the quote above. it would hardly be unexpected that the uk negotiators in the transition talks that should take 15 months or so will bring up the issue and attempt to negotiate it along the myriad of other economic and financial divorce matters to be settled.

 

[TheSpud]

Until there is an agreement after a Yes vote in the referendum all public services will be delivered as they are now. Scotland will not leave the union the instant the result is announced, so most of what you have written is FUD.

Indeed, and its during the negotiations that things could get tricky:

Cameron : "Now about your allocation of the national debt"

Salmond : "Oh, we're not taking that"

Cameron : "Oh, really? Now then, did I mention that our pension and public sector payment system will no longer cover Scotland from next month?"

Salmond : "You can't blackmail me"

Cameron : "Oh yes, and we're not going to let RBS relocate to London, so you'll be needing some pretty heavy reserves (Sterling or otherwise) to support them. What's that? You don't have any - looks like you'll have to borrow them from the money markets (if you can)"

Salmond : "You wont get your share of the Oil revenue then"

Cameron : "Ah yes, I was meaning to mention that. I've just seen that the Shetland Islands have announced their intention to hold a vote on becoming part of the UK again, based on overwhelming public support. "

Salmond : "They cant do that"

Cameron : "Well, the elected council have announced it, in fact they've asked us if the Navy can protect their territory and Oil reserves in the run up to the referendum. You wouldn't deny them their right to hold a vote would you?"

 

[laurel1969]

I think you are only noticing one side of the argument. Remember a lot of the no campaign is about creating fear for what happens if there is a yes vote.

So:
Vote yes, because all your troubles will be over and we will be happy.

vs.

Vote no, because it will be horrible what happens the day after.

Hope and fear.


Don't worry, if they vote yes and England becomes horrible. Just move to Scotland.

Yes, that is a fair point regarding the campaigns, hope and fear sum it up.

However, what you need to remember is the outcome of the vote is not Hope vs Fear, its Change vs the Status Quo, and the status quo is already not bad for the Scots. The future of an independent Scotland has no guarantee of being as good.

Also this vote is not Scots vs English, its Scots vs Scots.

 

[Jagartrott]

The future of an independent Scotland has no guarantee of being as good.

How do you measure that? Perhaps people will be less wealthy, but happier?

 

[laurel1969]

Perhaps people will be less wealthy, but happier?

You obviously haven't met many Scots

Obviously, the impact on me will be minimal if Scotland parts, other than my taxes might go down a little. But deep down, I think they'd be crazy to go at the moment, especially with Salmon at the helm. I'm pretty sure most Scots will demonstrate a similar view.

 

[ferryman]

All indications are that it is going to be a very comfortable No vote in the Scottish Independence vote. Fair enough, can't argue with that, huge disappointment but that's democracy. Good luck now to Cameron et al to get those promised extra powers past their back benchers. Interesting times lie ahead for the continued Union.

My prediction right here is that if the Conservatives win the next General Election and UKIP continue to rise forcing a vote on EU membership, there will be another Indy vote in Scotland in the next 5 years which will result in a YES vote.

As I said interesting times lie ahead.

l

 

[richtea]

Python, I've never had a run in with you... until now.

There is NO bargaining over Trident. It is gone from Scotland in 6 years after a yes vote. Whether the UK want to keep it after that is their decision.

The whole problem with the debate over independence is this colouring of the waters with policy matters. A future Scottish government could easily change tack on this issue if they felt the benefits of retaining Trident exceeded the costs - voting yes does not imply a binding commitment on this or any other policy issue.

 

[ferryman]

The whole problem with the debate over independence is this colouring of the waters with policy matters. A future Scottish government could easily change tack on this issue if they felt the benefits of retaining Trident exceeded the costs - voting yes does not imply a binding commitment on this or any other policy issue.

I agree in principle but this is one that really they (the SNP) could not have (in theory it looks like now) backed down on. Of course if Labour took control after a YES vote (as they are the only other credible opposition to the SNP), they could. I doubt it though but posible, no way with the SNP though.

 

[del1962]

I agree in principle but this is one that really they (the SNP) could not have (in theory it looks like now) backed down on. Of course if Labour took control after a YES vote (as they are the only other credible opposition to the SNP), they could. I doubt it though but posible, no way with the SNP though.

Don't the SNP lose its reason to exist if Scotland goes independent?

 

[ferryman]

Don't the SNP lose its reason to exist if Scotland goes independent?

No, it's just a political party like any other but had an independence vote as part of its manifesto, hence the Indy vote. It's likely they will have a landslide win in the next Scottish election. And now will continue to be represented in Westminster (and whisper it, have a vote on English matters) That's fair eh

 

[ferryman]

Don't the SNP lose its reason to exist if Scotland goes independent?

Let me expand further Del, to probably dismay you. It means every Scottish MP in Westminster (mostly Labour) and there are a lot, have a vote on all things UK. The Scottish Government is SNP led at the moment (with a few MPs in Westminster) but also have a vote on all things Union. At the moment SNP rule Scotland (different Government from the UK, Labour could win the next Scottish Gov't vote but unlikely). Now that it is a No vote we are left again with this ridiculous situation with a win/win situation for Scotland in the eyes of others. And I don't blame them. I'm looking forward to the backlash.

 

[Sciocco]

Let me expand further Del, to probably dismay you. It means every Scottish MP in Westminster (mostly Labour) and there are a lot, have a vote on all things UK. The Scottish Government is SNP led at the moment (with a few MPs in Westminster) but also have a vote on all things Union. At the moment SNP rule Scotland (different Government from the UK, Labour could win the next Scottish Gov't vote but unlikely). Now that it is a No vote we are left again with this ridiculous situation with a win/win situation for Scotland in the eyes of others. And I don't blame them. I'm looking forward to the backlash.

If you can't vote yourselves out, get yourselves kicked out!

Your day will come Scotland.

 

[ferryman]

Actually, the fact that I'm English isn't relevant. I should have said as somebody who lives in England. And whether I live in England or, even more so, if I lived in Scotland, my vote would be no.

You say the return of the nuclear warheads, essentially a shared resource currently, in that they're there to protect English and Scottish people, is non-negotiable. What about other shared resources? Is the English keeping those things non-negotiable also? How about health, pensions, tax, DVLA, etc. records which are currently maintained and supported on central infrastructure? How about the contracts of civil servants currently providing those services from Scottish locations? How about all military equipment, personnel and intelligence? How about services delivered in Scotland but from central, English based offices - government agencies, industry watch dogs, etc.?

If they're non-negotiable, things could get very difficult in Scotland. And if Cameron plays hard ball - and why wouldn't he, in order to please a vengeful English electorate, disappointed with the decision of the Scottish people to desert us - things could get *very* messy for you. Dragged out arguments in European courts, long periods of time with key support services being delivered by immature, quickly established organisations, big bills payable to London for the delivery of other services you can't do without and can't provide yourself quickly enough are all things I can easily envisage. Comparing the unpicking of a modern day superpower in this technological age with one from the early 1900s just has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

Don't be ridiculous, more than half the services you quoted for Scotland are already provided outwith England and the rest could be dealt with easily in an Independent Scotland. Why do you care if Scotland votes YES.

 

[ferryman]

First vote in, Clakmananshire. 56/44 No. Looks like it's going to be a long night for YES.

 

[ferryman]

If you can't vote yourselves out, get yourselves kicked out!

Your day will come Scotland.

It will. But not tonight

 

[TheSpud]

First vote in, Clakmananshire. 56/44 No. Looks like it's going to be a long night for YES.

So, having failed to deliver independence, should Salmond resign as SNP leader? And will he?

 

[Amsterhammer]

The writing appears to be on the wall.......

 

[ferryman]

So, having failed to deliver independence, should Salmond resign as SNP leader? And will he?

I know for a fact that he will after his term is over in the Scottish parliament. I like wee Nicola though

 

[ferryman]

The writing appears to be on the wall.......

Aye, but wait for Dundee and Glasgow...my home city of Edinburgh will be a big NO