An Independent Scotland?

Blank_Canvas said:
The trivia matters because Scotland couldn't support NATO in a seagoing defensive operational capacity. The devil is in the detail.
Click to expand...
And Luxembourg, which is landlocked, could? Or how about Iceland, which doesn't even have a navy?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The trivia matters because Scotland couldn't support NATO in a seagoing defensive operational capacity. The devil is in the detail.
Click to expand...


Tell me, and give specifics if you can, how Luxembourg does this?
 
FFS he's done it again!
 
Bernie174 said:
NATO is an alliance that has nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort. If Scotland prohibits these weapons from it's territory, in effect they row themselves out of the alliance.
Click to expand...
Norway prohibits nuclear weapons from its territory (*), but I don't see anyone demanding they leave NATO.

(*) In peacetime. That sounds like a reasonable qualification to me. If a country is actually at war, all sorts of things which were previously unacceptable may need to be reconsidered.
 
The North Sea is running dry!

Guess we'd better tell Total to stop building their new Terminal on Shetland
View attachment 19249
 
Steep said:
Horses**t! The BoE has no say in the matter and Mark Carney is on record as saying the BoE will do as requested after any negotiations.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware there is any agreement for a fiscal and monetary union? Let alone any negotiations. Giving up sovereignty over our own currency is a huge deal, big fat chance that and independent Scotland will be invited to do that. There is no benefit for the UK in it.

Sure they can use it, but cannot share it. Anyone believing that something as essential as that to independence will be sorted after a yes vote should take a long look in the mirror.
 
Steep said:

Tell me, and give specifics if you can, how Luxembourg does this?
Click to expand...

I don't know the specifics but they must meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they are contributors to the Alliance security as well as a beneficiaries of it. Again this is why the detail or "trivia" is so important.
 
I'm no history buff and make no claim to it's accuracy, but did find this comment elsewhere quite apt.

It was a Scotsman who fought for Union with England, James VI of Scotland to become James 1st of England.
Union was opposed in England including wealthy lords who saw it as an opportunity to get poorer.
He was so proud of the union, he stated "what god hath conjoined let no man separate" - ironic that it is Scotsman Salmond trying to undo his efforts.
Click to expand...
 
andy0306 said:
I'm no history buff and make no claim to it's accuracy, but did find this comment elsewhere quite apt.
Click to expand...

James the VI / I and just 104 other Scots made the decision to create the Union, a decision that caused mass rioting in Scotland.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I don't know the specifics but they must meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they are contributors to the Alliance security as well as a beneficiaries of it. Again this is why the detail or "trivia" is so important.
Click to expand...

Speaking of goals, you're moving the goal posts a bit here, you've been making very specific claims about Scotland's navy not being up to the task of supporting NATO thus making Scotland ineligible for membership. I asked how those criteria apply to countries like Luxembourg that have no navy at all.
 
StewartR said:
We've been over this many times. There are no exact rules which cover Scotland's situation because Scotland us already part of the EU. The common sense opinion is that the EU won't force Scotland out if they want to stay in, and won't force them to use the Euro if they don't want to.
Click to expand...
Except as a single entity Scotland is not part of the EU. We may very well have been over this many times but the question is still a legitimate one. There is no certainty that an independant Scotland would gain automatic membership of the EU and nobody will know for certain until Scotland becomes an independent country.
 
jakeblu said:
Except as a single entity Scotland is not part of the EU. We may very well have been over this many times but the question is still a legitimate one. There is no certainty that an independant Scotland would gain automatic membership of the EU and nobody will know for certain until Scotland becomes an independent country.
Click to expand...
And likewise, there is no certainty that we won't.
 
dejongj said:
I'm not aware there is any agreement for a fiscal and monetary union? Let alone any negotiations. Giving up sovereignty over our own currency is a huge deal, big fat chance that and independent Scotland will be invited to do that. There is no benefit for the UK in it.

Sure they can use it, but cannot share it. Anyone believing that something as essential as that to independence will be sorted after a yes vote should take a long look in the mirror.
Click to expand...
And you know this for a fact? How?
We can share it if the negotiations determine that is is best for both parties.
It has been done before, and can be done again.
 
Except as a single entity Scotland is not part of the EU. We may very well have been over this many times but the question is still a legitimate one. There is no certainty that an independant Scotland would gain automatic membership of the EU and nobody will know for certain until Scotland becomes an independent country.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the position, Scotland as a 'new' country would have to negotiate all of it's relationships.
However, it's got 18 months or so to do it in, and it will probably be fast tracked. BUT, under what terms? Would it have the same rebates it gets now as part of the UK? Would it have the same opt outs clauses we have? Probably not. I'm sure the UK is a pain in backside to Brussels (which is a good thing!), I can't see Brussels wanting that x2.
Again, I would put money on the SNP knowing they wont get the same terms & conditions, hence why they don't like answering questions fully and with supporting evidence.
 
Common sense will prevail in all things EU. Scotland more than qualifies for EU membership, has been a member for 40 odd years, 5 million Scots citizens are also EU citizens, 160,000 EU citizens live and work in Scotland. The EU will not say either way because they can't until after a vote is taken and outside of a few tame politicians not one EU country has said anything about stopping us. Spain has specifically said they have no interest in blocking Scottish membership.
Until an application is made no decision can be made but what will happen is that Scotland would either be fast tracked in or simply remain a member state because it's the path of least resistance.
 
Steep said:
Until an application is made no decision can be made but what will happen is that Scotland would either be fast tracked in or simply remain a member state because it's the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...

:arghh:
 
Steep said:
Common sense will prevail in all things EU. Scotland more than qualifies for EU membership, has been a member for 40 odd years, 5 million Scots citizens are also EU citizens, 160,000 EU citizens live and work in Scotland. The EU will not say either way because they can't until after a vote is taken and outside of a few tame politicians not one EU country has said anything about stopping us. Spain has specifically said they have no interest in blocking Scottish membership.
Until an application is made no decision can be made but what will happen is that Scotland would either be fast tracked in or simply remain a member state because it's the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...

"Common sense will prevail in the EU" - since when ?

I could quote 50 examples when it doesn't ! - the latest news this week is the ban of vacuum cleaners over 1600W - the Eurocrats are a joke if Scotland do gain independence ( which I doubt ) you're better off out of the EU.
 
Since you've moved on can I take it you're now happy that Scotland meets the requirements for NATO membership?

Re EU how about pragmatism? politicians are good at that.
 
Steep said:
Since you've moved on can I take it you're now happy that Scotland meets the requirements for NATO membership?

Re EU how about pragmatism? politicians are good at that.
Click to expand...

Never unhappy however, Scotland will have to apply and meet the requirements as I highlighted above. I don't doubt that they will qualify in time.
 
I am very nationalistic and very proud to be from Scotland but my head and unfortunately my heart also tells me we are forty years too late in this debacle. It screams Darien project to my deepest concerns and heavier than we can bear taxes if it succeeds. I truly think we lose either way. Yes vote means economic exposure. No means we stay the same but have lost quite a few headquarters and company interests as this uncertainty has gone on for so long. Big company leaders, learned economists and powerful politicians predominantly voicing and or leaning to the union being the safer option. This leads me to suspect my head led fears carry more weight than my fervid patriotic utopian dreams (which involve uncovering of untold wealth by some undiscovered assets and a resurgence of the world leading education system of years long past).
 
Last edited:
Well that debate rocked!
 
Have to wait on someone putting it on you tube
 
X100 said:
It screams Darien project to my deepest concerns .
Click to expand...

Glad you brought that up, a fiendish 'English' plot to destroy the Scottish economy, not much has changed in the last 300 years then...
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
And you know this for a fact? How?
We can share it if the negotiations determine that is is best for both parties.
It has been done before, and can be done again.
Click to expand...
Yet the discussion hasn't even been had, let alone any negotiations that may open this possibility. How can you possible vote yes on these loose unfounded promises. The issue I see is that either yes or no could be best, unfortunately the details haven't been worked out yet that could inform people with facts. So in that context, yes I know this for a fact.
 
Steep said:
Glad you brought that up, a fiendish 'English' plot to destroy the Scottish economy, not much has changed in the last 300 years then...
Click to expand...

Yes and no (again). The scheme was greed driven no doubt but the rewards would have been a great bounty could it have succeeded with longevity. Paterson aka Bank of England founder was the driver with a view to making the Panama Canal back then. How long before the Frenchman did the preconceived? The man was no fool but our countries ambitions came before adequate research. History repeating ?
 
StewartR said:
'English'? I'm sure those inverted commas are very deliberate. Do please elaborate.
Click to expand...

I'm not a historian but.. As I understand the events the Scottish parliament created the Company of Scotland to try to get Scotland on to the world stage in trade terms. They raised money in Scotland and Europe to fund the Darien Project, a trading colony in Panama to try and get out from under English trade domination. Unfortunately the English East India Company was very powerful and pressured the English government to intervene, they pressured European backers of the project to withdraw which left the colony high and dry and bankrupted many of Scotland's high (and low) heidyins. The 104 Lords who signed the act of union had all (I think) been hit hard by the project and they were basically bribed to sign by English interests.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I think that both Darling and Salmond shouting over each other wasn't good. The host was a week character and was unable to control the debate.
Click to expand...

It was terrible.

Darling had about 1 minute of his eight minutes because Salmond just talked all over him.

Darling clearly just wanted to bang his own head against a wall whilst Salmond seemed intent on looking smug.

They were poorly managed and the whole thing was a joke. It reminded me of when my wife and I have a 'domestic debate' lol
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
I'm not a historian but.. As I understand the events the Scottish parliament created the Company of Scotland to try to get Scotland on to the world stage in trade terms. They raised money in Scotland and Europe to fund the Darien Project, a trading colony in Panama to try and get out from under English trade domination. Unfortunately the English East India Company was very powerful and pressured the English government to intervene, they pressured European backers of the project to withdraw which left the colony high and dry and bankrupted many of Scotland's high (and low) heidyins. The 104 Lords who signed the act of union had all (I think) been hit hard by the project and they were basically bribed to sign by English interests.
Click to expand...
That's one way if looking at it I suppose this could be another

From Wikipedia

From the outset, the undertaking was beset by poor planning and provision, weak leadership, lack of demand for trade goods, devastating epidemics of disease and increasing shortage of food. It was finally abandoned after a siege by Spanish forces in April 1700.

Whilst the East India Company were not too pleased with the idea their intervention, causing some backers to withdraw, occurred before the expedition began.
 
dinners said:
It was terrible.

Darling had about 1 minute of his eight minutes because Salmond just talked all over him.

Darling clearly just wanted to bang his own head against a wall whilst Salmond seemed intent on looking smug.

They were poorly managed and the whole thing was a joke. It reminded me of when my wife and I have a 'domestic debate' lol
Click to expand...
I saw about 10mins at half time of the Liverpool game. My lad who studies in Scotland is home and he is interested in the debate. To be honest I thought it pretty childish. Salmond and the yes supporters seem to think it a victory that Darling admitted Scotland could use the pound if they wanted. Really I thought that was never in doubt! Have to say it was only slightly more depressing than the 2nd half
 
dinners said:
It was terrible.

Darling had about 1 minute of his eight minutes because Salmond just talked all over him.

Darling clearly just wanted to bang his own head against a wall whilst Salmond seemed intent on looking smug.

They were poorly managed and the whole thing was a joke. It reminded me of when my wife and I have a 'domestic debate' lol
Click to expand...

A question of point of view I think, for me Darling lost it right at the start with his repetition of his plan b question when he must have known Salmond was going to be ready for it.
At some points I was ready to shout at the tv screen "you'll put some ones eye out with that" at Darlings pointy finger. The Guardian poll for the debate gave it to Salmond by 71% to 29% which sounds about right to me.
 
jakeblu said:
I saw about 10mins at half time of the Liverpool game. My lad who studies in Scotland is home and he is interested in the debate. To be honest I thought it pretty childish. Salmond and the yes supporters seem to think it a victory that Darling admitted Scotland could use the pound if they wanted. Really I thought that was never in doubt! Have to say it was only slightly more depressing than the 2nd half
Click to expand...

I agree with you there, although Salmond did it masterfully it's not the point and not the argument, the point of course being CU but I think he did score over Darling when Darling refused repeatedly to answer questions.
 
jakeblu said:
That's one way if looking at it I suppose this could be another

From Wikipedia

From the outset, the undertaking was beset by poor planning and provision, weak leadership, lack of demand for trade goods, devastating epidemics of disease and increasing shortage of food. It was finally abandoned after a siege by Spanish forces in April 1700.

Whilst the East India Company were not too pleased with the idea their intervention, causing some backers to withdraw, occurred before the expedition began.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right but the fact remains that it was English interference that left so many Scots exposed and King James command that left the Darien colonists out in the cold when he ordered other English outposts to refuse aid to them. It was a foolish venture to begin with or at least it was a misguided one in that they tried to start a colony in a hostile area which was claimed by Portugal(?) The venture was desperately needed though, Scotland's merchants had to get get out from under the thumb of English traders or I think the country would have gone bankrupt anyway if more slowly.
 
Steep said:
A question of point of view I think, for me Darling lost it right at the start with his repetition of his plan b question when he must have known Salmond was going to be ready for it.
At some points I was ready to shout at the tv screen "you'll put some ones eye out with that" at Darlings pointy finger. The Guardian poll for the debate gave it to Salmond by 71% to 29% which sounds about right to me.
Click to expand...

And Salmonds repetition of the additional powers should it be a No?

All in all a poor debate on both sides, Darling pointing and not bringing much new to the table and Salmond deliberately using up Darlings minutes by not shutting up but that was not helped by a weak host. But despite Salmond still not answering questions directly i do think he won this one.
 
gman said:
All in all a poor debate on both sides, Darling pointing and not bringing much new to the table and Salmond deliberately using up Darlings minutes by not shutting up but that was not helped by a weak host. But despite Salmond still not answering questions directly i do think he won this one.
Click to expand...

Agree it was a poor debate and they both made me cringe.

In terms of the head to head - Salmond was always going to come over as being the dominant one.

He has the ability to look like he's just won a particular argument even when he hasn't. People respond to that and it's always been a strength of his.

With Salmond it's hard to cut through all the chortles, bluster and talking over everybody. It does get tiresome.

I couldn't give two hoots which one of them can debate, argue or mock the other the most convincingly.

It's not a public speaking or debating competition so I'd rather have had the chance to actually listen to what they both had to say in response to each other and to the audience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top