I was thinking along the same lines but why would Putin rent something he could take?Salmond might offer to rent one of the RAF bases that would be surplus post independence to Putin, in exchange for them giving him protection .
I was thinking along the same lines but why would Putin rent something he could take?
They are obsolete wherever they are.
Steve.
The thing is this isn't a vote that will just effect Scotland so why should only residents get a vote. I live in Devon but I bet if its a yes vote me and my children will be effected.I was talking to my Mum about this last night. She was born in St Andrews but has lived in England since she was 3, but she's very Scottish as she grew up as the youngest of 11 Scottish children lol
She was telling me that anyone who has lived in Scotland for the last 3 months can vote, but someone born in Scotland but doesn't currently live there cannot vote !!
She's a bit miffed about that hahaha
Why is it a one time irreversible thing? We've been independent before, then not independent for 300 years. Who's to say we won't be part of another union in the future? Maybe if Scotland really prospers, you could be in one with us
Well, for starters, Lyon and Texas are not countries, whereas Scotland is. Big difference.The thing is this isn't a vote that will just effect Scotland so why should only residents get a vote. I live in Devon but I bet if its a yes vote me and my children will be effected.
The nations of this little island working together as one has work for centuries. We have fought and won wars to keep it that way. Why screw it up because people don't like being told what to do by London. I don't like being told what to do by London, and I'm sure Lyon doesn't with Paris, Texas by Washington etc.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
You're right. It will be fascinating to watch how long a country without any kind of army and that keeps banging on about how much oil it has will remain independent.
Well, the last time a small country with lots of oil and no army got invaded, there was plenty of help available to boot out the invaders. Why would it be any different just because it's Scotland?
Soon be time for another try thenActually, we tried back in the 1980s!
Steve.
So they do extend help to non member countries? Just incase anyone invades before we receive our own membership.NATO, mostly.
So they do extend help to non member countries? Just incase anyone invades before we receive our own membership.
I think their "help" to non members comes with a few conditions.
What would those conditions be? Any idea? Considering we've been a member for years, and would still have nukes on our soil, I don't see them worrying too much about conditionsI think their "help" to non members comes with a few conditions.
You're missing the point. Scots keepo moaning about being told what to so by people way down in London, its the distance.Well, for starters, Lyon and Texas are not countries, whereas Scotland is. Big difference.
Like the non members divide their oil on a 99:01 split in favour of nato, in return for help you mean?
Sounds about right.Like the non members divide their oil on a 99:01 split in favour of nato, in return for help you mean?
It's not the distance. It wouldn't matter if the UK parliament was in Manchester, or Carlisle.You're missing the point. Scots keepo moaning about being told what to so by people way down in London, its the distance.
Another example of the yes campaign wanting to take but not giveWell, the last time a small country with lots of oil and no army got invaded, there was plenty of help available to boot out the invaders. Why would it be any different just because it's Scotland?
Also, I think they get charged for the bombs NATO drop on them. Then NATO gets to choose which government they elect next.
So why do Scots keep banging on about how can people all the way down in London know what they need??It's not the distance. It wouldn't matter if the UK parliament was in Manchester, or Carlisle.
b*****ksAnother example of the yes campaign wanting to take but not give
Because that's where it is. Scotland, run by Scots, for Scots, in Scotland. Not London, Manchester, Carlisle etc.So why do Scots keep banging on about how can people all the way down in London know what they need??
We'll be a member anyway, so it's all a pretty pointless discussion.Also, I think they get charged for the bombs NATO drop on them. Then NATO gets to choose which government they elect next.
What would those conditions be? Any idea? Considering we've been a member for years, and would still have nukes on our soil, I don't see them worrying too much about conditions
A non issue I think.
We'll be a member anyway, so it's all a pretty pointless discussion.
I lose track of who "we" are and also what plans are real and which are media hype. I thought:
1. A future independent Scotland was dedicated to becoming a non nuclear power "immediately".
2. I can't see any sensible outcome where Scotland declares itself non nuclear but allows England's leased nukes on their soil. Certainly everybody seems to agree that allt he jobs at Faslane are basically gone if it goes "yes".
3. Scotland have stated their desire (in the event of a yes vote) to join NATO but, like many things, it's unclear how that could actually happen. NATO is a nuclear power and likes to stick its weapons wherever it wants. A very real question would be "what's in it for NATO?" if Scotland applied to join.
Don't get me wrong - I think we (the UK) should get rid of al nukes and if necessary withdraw from NATO. But I don't see plausible plan to do that at the moment.
The last thing that Scotland wants is to come cap in hand to RUK for help if it all goes pear shaped. So we will do whatever it takes to ensure that it works. For us, failure is not an option.Fine. But when it all goes wrong, which it will, I hope we don't take them back. Otherwise its a case of the Scots thinking they can do better without the rest of the UK and screw what happens to them but if it goes wrong don't worry they'll take us back if it goes wrong.
There is so much we don't know eg currency. How rude to say they don't want the UK but they want our pound. How are they going to protect yourselves if something kicks off with a tiny army. What about the 8000 jobs lost when they removed trident? Even they're national bank is part owned by us and is going to leave Scotland in the case of an yes vote. Salmond is blagging it and doesn't have a clue.
The best thing for Scotland and the rest of the UK is the UK and I wish Scots would stop their whinging about the problems that the rest of us also have to put up with and instead of wasting tax payers money on this petty vote use it to help rebuild the UK as a whole.
1:The nukes can't disappear overnight, so I'd imagine we might be members until the nukes have actually gone. Don't really know?
2: who knows what will be negotiated to allow a currency union
3: a similar arrangement to Ireland would work. It works well for both Ireland and nato, according to the nato website. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51979.htm#
Because that's where it is. Scotland, run by Scots, for Scots, in Scotland. Not London, Manchester, Carlisle etc.
Yeah, in all this, it's the don't knows that are worrying. If you want to play the us and them game - they aren't your nukes and they aren't ours either. The UK lease them off the US. I suspect the US will just take them away along with all the jobs though this may take a few months (an article in the Telegraph says the US Defense Department are basically unaware of the vote so who knows? I think they are busy ATM).
We don't lease the nukes, they are UK property, designed and built here (at Aldermaston). What is leased, is the actual Trident delivery system (the missile the nuclear warhead is attached to).
Unlike Scottish Banks (RBS) etc which will be run from London !
Are all UK nuclear missiles actually on submarines. So we could in theory move them out of Scotland on Friday morning?