An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
Surely that's up to us isn't it?
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the theiving parasites well away from us :p

We won't have the choice of whether or not they're corrupt, that's a foregone conclusion.
 
simon ess said:
No.

A qualified opinion is one that has no agenda - it is neutral.
Click to expand...

No, a qualified opinion is one where the person in question is qualified to give it.
 
dod said:
I'd rather have the theiving parasites well away from us :p

We won't have the choice of whether or not they're corrupt, that's a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

It's a problem that's come up already on this thread, our current crop of political leaders all came up through the WM school of politics and are tainted by it.
 
She disqualified herself by declaring her agenda.

Her opinion is in opposition to the opinion of those who are, by your measure, equally qualified.
 
Steep said:
I repeat, a qualified opinion, if an ambassador to NATO isn't in a position to know, no one is.
Click to expand...

I suspect the premieres of the other Nato states are much better placed to know - though as I said Nato strategy for a conflict in Europe (whether that's with Russia, Germany or who ever) is predicated on being able to keep the Atlantic open allowing reinforcement from America - and to do that you need Scottish air bases, ports, SOSUS , radar etc - its got b****r all to do with a liking for the scots or caring whether they are independent or ruled from whitehall
 
big soft moose said:
if you say so - because sterling's definitely more unstable than for example the Kenyan shilling (or whatever it is) :runaway: , and Sudan doesn't even have a functioning currency (well it does but its US dollars or cigarettes) , and I've seen what an utter s*** tip Malawi is first hand (although it was in considerably better shape than Mozambique was at the time). The uk economy may not be in great nick but we don't have to depend on foreign charities to provide schools, medical care , and running water.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_area

Surprised me how many countries were a part of it.
 
simon ess said:
She disqualified herself by declaring her agenda.

Her opinion is in opposition to the opinion of those who are, by your measure, equally qualified.
Click to expand...

There you go, her opinion is qualified, just because it's in opposition to others doesn't make it invalid.
 
Steep said:
It's a problem that's come up already on this thread, our current crop of political leaders all came up through the WM school of politics and are tainted by it.
Click to expand...

It's the politics that taints, not the location
 
Steep said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_area

Surprised me how many countries were a part of it.
Click to expand...

interesting - though it would appear that the main reason it didn't work long term was the increasing strength of the dollar as the worlds predominate currency (damn those yanks , if we'd won the war of independence it could all have been so different :lol: ) and the flight from sterling to the dollar.

Mind you a legislated currency area was never going to fly long term , that's only one step away from command economy which is always a bad idea
 
big soft moose said:
I suspect the premieres of the other Nato states are much better placed to know - though as I said Nato strategy for a conflict in Europe (whether that's with Russia, Germany or who ever) is predicated on being able to keep the Atlantic open allowing reinforcement from America - and to do that you need Scottish air bases, ports, SOSUS , radar etc - its got b****r all to do with a liking for the scots or caring whether they are independent or ruled from whitehall
Click to expand...

I don't see why that should be a barrier, it's about as likely as me winning the lottery that a major conflict is going to erupt in the North Atlantic in the next decade or two, plenty of time for iScotland to get up to speed. and as has been pointed out numerous times already, there are already member states who couldn't fight off determined attack by the Scottish football team on their own.
 
dod said:
It's the politics that taints, not the location
Click to expand...

indeed power corrupts, and absolute power is actually pretty neat ;)
 
Steep said:
I don't see why that should be a barrier, it's about as likely as me winning the lottery that a major conflict is going to erupt in the North Atlantic in the next decade or two, plenty of time for iScotland to get up to speed. and as has been pointed out numerous times already, there are already member states who couldn't fight off determined attack by the Scottish football team on their own.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its a barrier - what I'm saying is that Nato don't give a monkeys whether Scotland is part of the uk or not, so saying they'd happily admit Scotland is not a vote of confidence - its simply that Scotland has something they need (ie conveniently placed territory) any Nato vs x bloc conflict is going to be principally fought by the Americans so the size of scotlands forces are also irrelevant - but the US will need the worlds largest aircraft carrier aka the British isles to play ball - because they can't project convential force worth a damn from the American mainland
 
But it is just an opinion. An opinion coloured by bias.

You can believe whatever biased opinion that you choose.

But this whole thread is based on biased opinions.

It seems you are advocating that the Scottish people vote according to whichever biased opinion they prefer, or in another poster's case, according to their desire for an idealist experiment in the nature of democracy.

I've said before, I'm not bothered either way how the vote goes. I'm concerned that the Scottish people, in reality, have no idea what they are voting for other than the warm glow of nationalist pride.

Nowhere in this thread has there been any concrete vision of the future of an independent Scotland. There have been hopes, aspirations and the divisions of us v them. There has also been lots of fantasy and wishful thinking Nothing written in this thread could persuade me, were I Scottish, either way.

I would therefore vote in the light of global developments and the position of Scotland in the world today - not the days of post-colonialism or the days of early EU negotiations or the days when some nations were able to assert their standing in the global community as it, and its institutions, developed - all themes covered in this thread.

There is no point to independence. You won't be independent any more than Britain is now. There is no such thing. You will not and can not be independent of the EU, NATO, global finances and the free market.

A yes vote is a feel good today, regret it tomorrow vote.
 
mind you as I said above if Scotland didn't want to join that also wouldn't make any odds - Iceland is/was neutral but it doesn't stop them having an enormous US/Nato airbase at Keflavik forced on them (and various other installations) - basically we occupied it at the kick off of ww2 because if we hadn't the Nazi's would have done and we'd have lost the battle of the atlantic , and probably the war.

ditto the islanders at Deigo Garcia who were given no choice whatsoever about having an enormous nato fleet base imposed on them

and so forth , lots of other examples - guantanmo bay on cuba for example - a hangover from the American/Spanish war and the only Nato base on a communist country.
 
simon ess said:
What do you think plan B might be?
Click to expand...
There can be many. My own preference is for Scotland to recapture seigniorage, and issue money directly by the Scottish government (similar to "the Chicago Plan" postulated in the US). That may be utopian, but can certainly issue a currency with more normal parameters (i.e. primarily brought into being through debt issuance by private banks). I fully expect that rUK will want to keep Scotland in GBP, ideally with currency issued by the BoE - the perceived potential loss of oil backing would be otherwise too much a threat to the value of sterling. Scotland can simply peg the Scottish Pound to the GBP, as many countries do with the USD. On the worse side of the scale Scotland could look toward the Euro - we wouldn't have the "cheap money" bonanza that crashed the GIPSI countries, as Scotland has had low interest rates for a long time (what we rather need is higher interest rates to move assets to more affordable territory, and encourage some capital formation).

There are many paths - I could sit here and come up with Plan Z. But Salmond is in no-win - if he offers a Plan B he's "not confident", if he offers lots of plans he's "flip-flopping". I think he's doing the right thing by staring down rUK, knowing they will want to keep a currency union for the sake of sterling value. It makes sense for the people anyway. Anyway English money isn't legal tender in Scotland (and vice versa), but we get by. Why make things worse!
 
my favourite is for the uk to persuade/bribe Orkney and Shetland into declaring separate independence from Scotland , and the re-entering the union , thus claiming 90% of the oil with the backing of the uk military if the scots get bolshy ( a sort of Cameron does Putin vibe) , and leaving mainland Scotland well and truly up s*** creek without a paddle.

It will never happen of course, but it would be funny as f*** if it did , and after all Scotland has as much claim on the Islands as England has on Scotland (less in fact)
 
I'm happy to admit that I find high economics utterly baffling. But the mandarins of Whitehall and Edinburgh don't. They will know Salmond's plans all the way to Z.

Salmond's posturing to the media is an entirely different matter to what is really being discussed - and that has been my point.

Oh, and Scottish notes aren't legal tender in Scotland, but let's overlook that.
 
so true its worth saying thrice - flipping forum software
 
Moadib said:
Surely there can be no other kind of "opinion"? Everything that is expressed as an opinion, the person saying it has an intent.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - I totally agree.

In some cases the intent is to explain the most likely outcome. In some case the intent is to persuade people to share their particular point of view.

The trick is to try to separate one from the other.
 
Steep said:
I repeat, a qualified opinion, if an ambassador to NATO isn't in a position to know, no one is.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a former Ambassador?

That opinion would hold zero credibility or weight if NATO was to turn around and refuse Scotland. "But the former ambassador said so!" isn't legally binding on anyone.
 
Dave1 said:
I thought it was a former Ambassador?

That opinion would hold zero credibility or weight if NATO was to turn around and refuse Scotland. "But the former ambassador said so!" isn't legally binding on anyone.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself.
 
Here's another one showing the Yes camp aren't fooling everyone.

243mbgj.jpg
 
Qualified opinion.
Click to expand...

Is it a qualified opinion? Is she speaking for NATO? No, she's expressing her opinion nothing more. Has she taken a vote from current NATO members? No, of course not, it's a politicians opinion and thats worth? Nowt.

A Qualified opinion is that of the professional soldier, that is ALSO in the article, which says your defence plans are dangerous and amateurish. Which is what you have been told numerous times.
 
simon ess said:
I'm happy to admit that I find high economics utterly baffling. But the mandarins of Whitehall and Edinburgh don't. They will know Salmond's plans all the way to Z.

Salmond's posturing to the media is an entirely different matter to what is really being discussed - and that has been my point.

Oh, and Scottish notes aren't legal tender in Scotland, but let's overlook that.
Click to expand...
I agree (is that allowed in this thread?!). Sad to say, but any "truth" that comes out prior to the referendum will be by accident - until then every essentially single thing that is said will be to get you to vote the way the speaker wants you to vote. Many I know are really frustrated with that, "I just want someone to tell me the facts" - sorry (really!), but that simply is not going to happen.

Behind the scenes each camp will know each others' actual positions, as well as the compromises they will make (and the other likely to make) in order to maximise a Yes outcome and maximise a No outcome for themselves - but those will not be spoken of prior to the referendum. Statements like "there is no Plan B" is simply succumbing to the propaganda of No (just as there is Yes propaganda).
 
I don't think there is a 'knowing of facts' behind the scenes. It isn't in anyone's interested to hide things away, besides, all Governments leak like leaky things with extra big holes in it.

I really don't think the SNP have thought it through, and I don't think they really know what would happen if they win. In some circles I am sure they probably didn't think they had any chance anyway, hence they didn't need to think it through.

Even if you are right, not telling people is even worse than not knowing. The Scots are voting for probably the most important thing in Scotland's history. And they will never be allowed a second go by the SNP. To hide away information, even though some of it will be unpalatable would be outrageous, and tantamount to treason.
 
I think that Hugh may be Alex. But then, could be Nicola perhaps :exit:

Endless stream of posts that are SNP political broadcasts.
 
Last edited:
First they Ignore you

arclight said:
I think that Hugh may be Alex. But then, could be Nicola perhaps Then they laugh at you

Endless stream of posts that are SNP political broadcasts. Then they attack you
Click to expand...

Then you win
 
Steep said:
First they Ignore you



Then you win
Click to expand...
That's one of these quotes that gives everyone an excuse to say they are winning. Quotes are like stats. They can be bent any way.
 
3 out of 5 people if they expressed a preference would disagree
 
Steep said:
There's a 2 hour long Youtube video of Scots veterans and ex forces talking about why they are pro indy, not least of the arguments is the one that they are/were sick of being sent to fight illegal wars while being lied to by their political masters.

We keep coming to that thing about Scotland needing to defend itself, and I ask you (again), from whom? In ten years we'll have a decent sized SDF capable of fulfilling the roles Scotland dictates and contributing to NATO properly, for that ten years while we build up out forces, exactly who is going to try and invade us? 21st century conflicts are not about mass wars (unless you have a load of oil the yanks want...erm...oops!) The real risk to security now comes from terrorism and most of us feel the best way to cut that risk is not to kill shedloads of people who just want to live their lives.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone may try to 'invade' Scotland, but invasion is not the normal type of conflict these days. Would be quite easy to attack and oil rig for example.

Steep said:

Tell that to Iceland, the country has no standing army and only a coastguard, no navy and yet is still a member of NATO.
Click to expand...

But Iceland do have a treaty with the USA and until about 2007 had a US Base there too.

Steep said:
Nato members 'would welcome' Scotland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29045528

Nato would welcome an independent Scotland even if the country removed Trident, the former UK ambassador to the military alliance has said.

There so now you've been told!
Click to expand...

And the other bloke, the arguably more qualified former Supreme Commander of NATO thinks it may not be that simple, so now you've been told ;)
 
PaulF said:
Don't think anyone may try to 'invade' Scotland, but invasion is not the normal type of conflict these days. Would be quite easy to attack and oil rig for example.

But Iceland do have a treaty with the USA and until about 2007 had a US Base there too.

And the other bloke, the arguably more qualified former Supreme Commander of NATO thinks it may not be that simple, so now you've been told ;)
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware the Royal Navy has no presence in the North sea and how exactly would they prevent such an attack if they did?

Treaty with the U.S. doesn't qualify them for membership, likewise Greenland has no standing army and no navy, it's commitment is taken up by Denmark, another small country and non nuclear.

That other bloke is Sir Richard Shirreff who also said just a few days ago - "The reality is that Nato would be very hard pressed and they would find it very difficult to put into the field, at sea or into the air the means required, particularly on land I would assess, to counter any form of Russian adventurism."

"Certainly western Europe would not be able to defend in my view against Russia without significant support from the Americans.

"Nato would find it really difficult to get a division (20,000 people) out of the door in quick time.

"Because certainly in western Europe what we have seen progressively is a dismantling of military capability."

Lastly He said -

"Currently just four out of the 28 members spend more than the minimum target of 2% of GDP on defence."

NATO will not pass up the chance to have another friendly nation on it's books.

Source - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2735256/Downsized-Nato-fight-Russia.html
 
As far as I'm aware the Royal Navy has no presence in the North sea and how exactly would they prevent such an attack if they did?
Click to expand...

I didn't realise you were also the First Sea Lord?


And if someone decides to take over an oil ring, then those unpleasant men who's trade is swimmer/canoist will get something to do. If you get independence, if that happens you'll be coming begging for their help.
 
Bernie174 said:
I didn't realise you were also the First Sea Lord?


And if someone decides to take over an oil ring, then those unpleasant men who's trade is swimmer/canoist will get something to do. If you get independence, if that happens you'll be coming begging for their help.
Click to expand...

Yip - Fishery Protection Squadron currently provides oil rig security as well as fishery protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top