[POLL] Should Scotland be an independent country?

[unixman_again]

One of the many quirks in the SNP's campaign - as I though that to be a Member of NATO, you need to either have Nuclear Weapons or be willing to store the from other Member states?

I'm not sure about that. Italy is a member of NATO but a nuclear free zone. If Scotland does eject Trident, I think the submarines should be parked along The Embankment in London; nice and convenient for the pollies to coo over! If Scotland does become independent, it does mean there will be a neighbour who might vote for the UK in the Eurovision Song Content. It will also put and end to the West Lothian question. On the other hand, I really don't care. It could be good for both parties or it could be bad, although I suspect the UK would be worse off, if it does happen.

[Gatt]

Have to admit that the NATO issue is a big grey area for me - don't know enough about it to make any form of argument

[Trapper]

As an Englishman living in England Alex Salmond would say my opinion does not matter - opposed to an Englishman living in Scotland, or like my Head a Scotsman living in England. Even who can have a vote is a ridiculous situation.

 

My personal opinion is that the UK is stronger with Great Britain. I understand the Scots hate being ruled by a bunch of toffs in Westminster. I live north of Oxford so I also understand this! The rest is ancient history and imho should bare no concern on the current vote for the future of Scotland.

 

What annoys me is the way the SNP are trying to cherry pick. They wanted Devo-Max, that's obvious, but as they can't have that as an option they want to cherry pick the best parts of being in the UK. Keep the Pound, keep the monarchy (until the half Scottish Queen dies), keep fiscal union, keep a closely related armed forces. Remove Trident (try removing the American's from the Holy Loch! - that won't happen if Scotland want NATO membership), be part of the EU with the same opt-outs as negotiated (by a Tory PM) at Maastricht.

 

I agree with the hardline the major UK political parties are taking. This isn't a vote for Devo-Max. This is a vote to become a totally independent country. If that passes for good or ill why should Scotland an rUK keep acting like we are in political union?

[Sdrawkcab]

Just to repeat myself again: Scotland getting independence does not mean an SNP government. A lot of the Scottish people I know who are going to vote yes are definitely not supporters of the SNP. A lot of them are just tired of being ruled by "English" Tories, since Scotland has traditionally been pretty much labour land (though not so much in the last election I suppose).

[ButterflyMoon]

If I was allowed to vote (am a Scot living in England) I would be a Yes vote. I am by no means into SNP by the same token not Labour or Conservative I just think we could do well independant. I also think that any of the English counties north of Watford Gap get a raw deal every bit as much as we Scots. The North East of England and Cumbria are prime examples of that. It is like living in forgotten regions as far as Westminster is concerned. If Independance can change that then am all for it.

[localzuk]

And you'd be moving back there too then it you could vote?

[ButterflyMoon]

Not sure of the relevance of your question @localzuk my work is here but am sure at some point I will be returning home probably when I retire in 5 years time.

[witch]

If I was allowed to vote (am a Scot living in England) I would be a Yes vote. I am by no means into SNP by the same token not Labour or Conservative I just think we could do well independant. I also think that any of the English counties north of Watford Gap get a raw deal every bit as much as we Scots. The North East of England and Cumbria are prime examples of that. It is like living in forgotten regions as far as Westminster is concerned. If Independance can change that then am all for it.

The far Southern/Western Counties (not the home counties and London) get ignored too, and at least the Scots (and the Welsh and N Irish)have their own assembly where they can vote for Scottish/Welsh/N Irish law and English MPs cannot.The English have NO independent assembly and our laws can be voted on by Scottish and other MPs to whom they don't even apply.That really isn't fair.

Also, we are currently, by law, one country, so I think we should ALL get to vote on whether Scotland should leave the UK or not @ButterflyMoon - I would be interested to hear what you think Scotland should do about a currency, membership of the EU and shouldering their portion of the national debt. Alec Salmond really doesn't seem to know.

Edited February 19, 2014 by witch

[ButterflyMoon]

I totally agree that England should have their own assembly/parliament same as the other countries in the union have. You are right @witch the southern areas are also ignored. There are huge tracts of this united land that are ignored in favour of the home counties and London. I suppose my question is why has this been allowed to happen. To answer as best I can your questions I think Scotland could have it's own currency, why not, there are many places just now in England where our notes are not accepted in shops etc. make it a proper Scots Currency with exchange rates etc. Probably far fetched I grant you. On a personal level I would like us out of the EU I think we all (the whole of the UK) suffer for being members of it. I have no idea about the national debt but would like to think that a fair share would be paid towards it. I may well be slated for all this but am not a political person just giving what I think are reasonable answers. Edited February 19, 2014 by ButterflyMoon

[localzuk]

Not sure of the relevance of your question @localzuk my work is here but am sure at some point I will be returning home probably when I retire in 5 years time.

 

The relevance is that if you were here in England, and could vote on a part of the UK leaving (whilst the rest of us English people couldn't), then by voting for Scotland to be independent you should have to live with the consequences.

 

I totally agree that England should have their own assembly/parliament same as the other countries in the union have. You are right @witch the southern areas are also ignored. There are huge tracts of this united land that are ignored in favour of the home counties and London. I suppose my question is why has this been allowed to happen. To answer as best I can your questions I think Scotland could have it's own currency, why not, there are many places just now in England where our notes are not accepted in shops etc. make it a proper Scots Currency with exchange rates etc. Probably far fetched I grant you. On a personal level I would like us out of the EU I think we all (the whole of the UK) suffer for being members of it. I have no idea about the national debt but would like to think that a fair share would be paid towards it. I may well be slated for all this but am not a political person just giving what I think are reasonable answers.

 

I'm kinda sick of people saying parts of the country get ignored. They don't. The country gets funding according to a) population and b) financial input into the economy of the UK. The South West, as much as I love it, is not a huge contributor to the coffers of the UK, when compared to London and the South East. My town could do with a much better transport link, but the cost of doing so would easily hit hundreds of millions of pounds - and there just aren't enough people here to justify it. The same can be said of other areas in the country...

 

The reason a lot of shops down here don't accept Scottish notes (or Northern Irish for that matter) is that they have a *much* higher counterfeiting level (Eg. in 2005 4455 Scottish £5 notes were removed from circulation, compared with 6000 English £5 notes. When you consider the difference in volumes of notes in circulation, that is a massive difference.).

 

With regards the EU discussion, I'd urge you to do some proper research on the value of being in the EU rather than going on what the media seem to be saying all the time. The UK doesn't suffer *at all* from being in the EU - we make a heck of a lot of money being a part of it, and the thought of not being part of it has already lead to a lot of businesses saying they would leave our country if we left it.

 

Scotland would suffer the same problem if it were to leave the UK. Large businesses with their homes there have already indicated that an independent Scotland would not be a home for them. Companies such as RBS.

 

The debt that Scotland would be expected to take on would be considerable, somewhere around £153bn if you were to go by population. Which, when you consider the GDP of Scotland is around £129bn, would put Scotland in a very bad position. If Scotland refuses to take on the debt, then credit agencies around the world have indicated they would take this as an indication that Scotland couldn't be trusted with its financial obligations and therefore give them a poor credit rating.

 

So, thinking Scotland could do a good job is a bad idea - unless there is a very thorough plan in place to ensure the country can survive properly. Something which is very much missing at present!

Edited February 19, 2014 by localzuk

[Stark]

I don't think they will be better off for it myself if that is how they go with their referendum and get their independence from the union. I will say also I am not against anyone wanting to leave it if that's the genuine will of the majority of a nations people (I personally don't think that a vote where you have a turnout of 20+% of a population is any sort of majority to win anything really and with the way voting has gone, that needs addressing a lot more I think than anything else when it comes to political will of the people, if you case a vote at the moment, its very little in the way of difference in government that is going to happen, but thats for another thread I think), I feel that the existing union has existed and served us all OK for a long time now too and I am saying that as a Welshman here. I do not fully get what seems to me to be the need to cast aside that union for what does seem at times like a bit of a half-baked concept that's trying to be pushed through urgently, especially as it could have quite damaging implications for a county and its people, there is nothing wrong with them delaying here and ironing out all of this stuff to give everyone a better idea of how it would go if Scotland does decide to go it alone, especially if as I think "if its going to happen it will happen" no matter if you agree or disagree with it.

 

I tend to think also pretty much what has previously been said, at it seems now, its not going to be a clean break and I don't think they can really cherry pick and choose what revenues to take if they do vote that way, especially so I believe as no doubt there would be existing contracts in place for a lot of things that are still central government based at this time and there is also a lot of undecided stuff like currency/military(NATO too)/Health Services which need a lot more discussion and debate on before making any decisions I think as I do not wholly understand a lot of the politicking about some of these issues, but it seems that the SNP want to rush through this debate to a vote while they have drummed up a bit of interest, which I think can only be a bit harmful for what their trying to achieve in the long run, though we all know that a vote can go either way when it hits the ballots.

 

Spain are bound to oppose any split though, based on what has been going on in the Basque movement with them over the years, thats a given.

 

I think overall I find myself just sitting back waiting to see what will unfold with this issue, its an interesting time for our countries tied histories here overall I think.

[GeekyPete]

Seems to me salmon wanted a straight Yes/No vote to keep it simple and focussed on the central issue. Fine, he got that. So no should be in and Yes should be out, All Out. There should be no more ties than we have with Australia or Canada, may be less. If they manage to secure EU membership then no more ties than France or Germany.

 

If there is a No vote the scots will still keep pressuring for more and more devolution. Personally I wish they would stay, I also think that there should be core issues that are decided in Westminster (like Defence, serious crime etc) by all 4 UK nations and then All 4 should have their own assembly to decide the rest. Why should scots have a vote on what the rest of us pay in taxes, or what level of healthcare we get when a welsh voter say, has no influence on those issues in Scotland. In a coallition government they can easily swing things to favour Scotland. Vote for higher taxes, to make living in Scotland look more attractive. higher business rates then reduce their own to attract jobs. There is a genuine conflict of interest in the present system that the scots are free to take advantage of that no one seems to be talking about. I really don't like the present system anymore. The scots make uncomfortable bed-fellows. I think the only way forward is to give them 100% independence. Once and for all. They may well prosper. They have the same population as Norway and they have one of the highest standards of living in world. Both countries have access to north sea oil and fisheries. But Scotland has a much more developed tourist industry. They should do well. They don't need us. Let them go and make their own way. But keeping the pound would mean that if it didn't work out we may well have to prop up the pound to keep Scotland from dragging us down with them. There is no upside to this. If their economy thrives it's too small to give us any real benefit. 4 million people to our 66 Million. They would keep any proceeds. Why should the English, the Welsh and the Irish underwrite that risk? For all Mr salmon's rhetoric on how well an independent Scotland will do, his stance on the pound gives the game away. If he really believed his own propaganda he wouldn't care about the pound.

[Trapper]

The SNP did want a third option - DevoMax. Honestly the last thing the SNP wanted was a straight yes/no referendum. DevoMax would have passed by a large popular margin it was rUK political parties that forced the straight in/out.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-scots-have-a-right-to-second-question-on-devo-max.18013865

Edited February 20, 2014 by Trapper

[ZeroHour]

I am just watching this thread letting you all vent your views before I deal with some mistakes in thinking

I live in Scotland so I will be voting but it appears I may be the only one here?

 

EDIT: All involved please try and post links when quoting statistics.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[RabbieBurns]

Im flying back for the 14th to cast my YES vote.

 

I may not live there currently, but I want to think that any kids I have, whether born here or in Scotland, will have a country to be proud of. Not one dictated upon from a city in another country.

[SYNACK]

Im flying back for the 14th to cast my YES vote.

 

I may not live there currently, but I want to think that any kids I have, whether born here or in Scotland, will have a country to be proud of. Not one dictated upon from a city in another country.

 

 

 

Can you not vote at the embassy or are you going to lend your physical presence to increase the weighting?

[Gatt]

Im flying back for the 14th to cast my YES vote.

 

I may not live there currently, but I want to think that any kids I have, whether born here or in Scotland, will have a country to be proud of. Not one dictated upon from a city in another country.

How does this work - I would be interested to know, since at the moment I cannot vote

 

I now live in England - will have done for 10 years this year!

However, even though I agree with what you've said about having a country to be proud of - I already do - I am proud of Scotland and to be Scottish, but I am equally proud to be British and of the UK..

Therefore, if I had a chance to vote, I would be voting NO. Scotland currently has the best of both worlds with being part of the UK, without breaking away. We are already part of NATO and the EU - with all the exemptions already in place, we already have a seat at the top table (as the SNP put it). We already enjoy a stable currency through the Pound Sterling. (though I wish the Scottish [and the NI] bank notes were more acceptable to the rUK).

 

Whilst I cannot predict the future, I strongly feel that a YES vote would be seriously detrimental to Scotland. If it could be guaranteed that we could keep GBP, stay in the EU with all the rights we currently have, etc then maybe I could have been swain.

 

But, in the here and now, that is looking highly unlikely to happen - the SNP want to get rid of Faslane and the Holy Loch naval bases -This threatens member ship with NATO (though like I said before - I need to do some reading on NATO)

The rUK has said that the chances of keeping the GBP as it is now, are very very slim - in fact the BoE Governor himself has stated concerns about how it could work and what Scotland would need to concede in order for it to even have a chance of working.

 

This pipe dream of being able to rejoin the EU as an independent nation with all the trimming that we currently have as part of the UK - is looking slimmer and slimmer, with some very top people saying that it cannot happen, not to mention the likes of Spain who are strongly suspected to veto the application - Didn't they do this with Kosovo who are still trying to gain EU membership. Spain are unlikely to accept a new independent nation when it is trying to prevent Catalonia and Basque regions from doing the same.

 

I love Scotland, my wife (English) loves Scotland (especially the scenery and climbing it's mountains) - and we always will. Hell we've been thinking about moving back up there, but not until we know the outcome of the referendum... If its a YES then we may not be that willing to move

 

Can you not vote at the embassy or are you going to lend your physical presence to increase the weighting?

I could easily get to Scotland to cast a vote - just don't see how when I am not on the Electoral Role in Scotland

 

 

*Bootnote: all this is IMHO*

[featured_spectre]

If Scotland does become independent...anyone want to take bets on how long before the US threat to invade and give it a proper democracy in return for its oil?

[Trapper]

10 minutes? Give or take?

 

[Gatt]

If Scotland does become independent...anyone want to take bets on how long before the US threat to invade and give it a proper democracy in return for its oil?

 

Can't see that happening at all...

[happymeal]

We had an indepth discussion about this over the weekend (My Brigade is Scottish, and I'm in a Liverpool/Manc Regt) and what it would mean financially, military, resource-wise for Scotland, as well as their attempts for the EU and NATO.

 

This is what we discussed - some parts I got clear answers, some raised more questions than answers (3am on Guard is NOT the best time for a debate...):

 

Financially - Their claim to the Pound won't hold up as much as Salamond wants to. His argument is that "We've put into it, we want to keep it", but it's the same as a couple splitting up (I've met someone new and I'm moving out - but I'll still come back to keep the money and food, and to share the bills, yeah?). It's also slightly embarrasing as they want to be independant but keep the old currancy. I remember being ridiculed as a child because I tried to pay for something with an English fiver instead of a Scottish fiver - they refused to take it - would the rest of Scotland take/accept/tolerate the English pound?

 

His only two other options that we could think of would be to either create a new currency and hope the inflation/exchange rate won't cripple them when dealing with trade abroad (and even at home), or "adopt" the Sterling in a similiar manner as Panama does with the Dollar and deal/accept with the slightly higher rates (The Bank of Scotland is currently able to issue both Sterling and Scottish notes for now?) if it happens. Panama's official currancy is the balboa, but in practice, it's all dollarised - I can't see such a practice sitting well with the SNP and the Yes party if they tried to follow suit.

 

If they were to adopt the Euro with or without being a Euro member, they'd still be in the same position of relying on a foreign financial institute to dictate the rate, as well as hoping it's stable enough not to collapse (See Greece, Cyprus and Spain as examples). Would the IMF support them if they don't have their own currency? Would the EU accept their membership if they didn't have their own currency?

 

I seem to remember that they also get subsidies from Wesminster (welfare and pensions too, but I can't find anything at the moment to back it up), but I can't remember what it's for and can't pull up any links right now - but an Independant Scotland wouldn't get those anymore.

 

We agreed that they wouldn't be able to keep the Pound because if they did, we'd be liable for their debts as well, which would decrease the Pound's value.

 

Resource-wise - from what I remember Scotland only has oil as their main export, followed by Whiskey and Financial Services (Someone said Irn Bru...not sure if he was serious or not.).

 

The Oil reserves in the North Sea have been declining over the past few years slowly, which means an Independant Scotland would be ok short-term, but long-term they would have a dwindling resource to bank against.

There are some untouched reserves off the coast of Scotland, but they're too small and unprofitable. There was a question about if all the oil/gas is sent to the Shetlands to be refined and transported, or if it's only a portion and the majority sent to Hemel Hempstead, etc - I can't get a clear answer on that one If that was the case - could they afford to do that? If it's not, can they continue with just that refinery?

 

Whiskey is still a strong export, but the Financial Services is a bit of a concern - if they went Independant and RBS has another blip (I'm using them as an example!), they wouldn't be entitled to another bailout from Westminster (£37bil - wikipedia ftw). This could lead to RBS having to sell off it's assets, as well as the UK Gov selling off/withdrawing it's 80% stake (through the UKFI). In effect, it would mean a lack of funding, no bailout, and potentially, the collapse of RBS and all ye souls under her. Unless Scotland could bail it out. (All this is in theory, and I'm happy to be shown otherwise). Would the UK still keep it's shares in RBS if Scotland went independant, or demand that Scotland pay for the shares to hand over control to Scotland instead of the risk being on the UK?

 

We were undecided how this would play out - they have a limited resource on their shores, so they would have to start looking at another sector eventually. The financial sector may be viable but still a big risk, and if their economy tanked because of it, the whole Independant attempt would be a mistake for the citizens. Again - I'm happy to hear other views on it, but the more I look into the Pro's, I find as many Con's.

 

EU Membership - Scotland said last year it was a certainity and no member-states would object. Spain have come out recently and said "Well, actually, it's a lot harder than that - don't hitch your wagon to us yet". Now Spain have their own internal problem with the Basque movement trying to declare independance - if they supported Scotland, they would have to recognise the Basque movements efforts and offer the same.

 

Turkey may object as well - although they're not a EU member, they're a part of the Council of Europe. They could appeal to countries that have good diplomatic ties with Turkey within the EU as they also have a similiar problem with the PKK who have been pushing for 30-40 years for autonomy for the Kurds.

 

The US may in theory support Scotland's push, but they may say "no" when they take into account our "special relationship", that they'll have to park their toys in HMS Raleigh (We'll go into that further down), etc. They're not in the EU, but sadly everyone seems to look for them for acceptance/guidance these days. Maybe they'll say yes, maybe they'll say no - either way, their words would carry weight.

 

Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain are likely to object - they still object to Kosovo being independant and may view Scotland in the same light.

 

Ireland may even object because of our history of popping our flag in their dirt, or it may support them to spite us (although it would mean they'd have to re-vist their view on NI as both are the will of the people - another debate for another day).

 

Russia and China could even weigh into the debate (despite not being NATO members, they are on the UN Security Council) - both countries have internal problems with seperatists and although support to Scotland would be a finger in the UK/British eye, it would mean that they would (in theory again) support claims for independance. Russia doesn't recognise Kosovo as independant - an independant Scotland would have to mean Russia re-visit their stance on Kosovo, which they won't do. China still object and refuse to view Taiwan as independant, and may lean on EU Members they have ties with to reject the bit - that part is subjecture, but we were thinking it might happen.

 

We're agreed that EU membership won't be automatic for them, and it will be a long drawn-out process for them.

[happymeal]

NATO - the criteria for membership of NATO which we currently have:

 

The Membership Action Plan (MAP) mechanism is the stage in the procedure for nations wishing to join where their formal applications are reviewed by the current members. The mechanism was approved in the 1999 Washington summit. A country's participation in MAP entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:[18]

 

* Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces

* Ability to contribute to the organization's defence and missions

* Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership

* Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it

* Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation

 

The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

 

Also Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty describes how non-member states may join NATO:

 

“The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.”

 

This article poses two general limits to non-member states. European states are eligible for membership and these states need the approval of all the existing member states. The second criterion means that every member state can put some criteria forward that have to be attained. In practice, NATO formulates in most cases a common set of criteria, but for instance Greece blocks the Republic of Macedonia's accession to NATO, due to the disagreement over the use of the name Macedonia. Turkey similarly opposes the participation of the Republic of Cyprus with NATO institutions as long as the Cyprus dispute is not resolved. The founding members of NATO are Belguim, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, US and the UK.

 

Nuclear weaponery isn't a criteria (From what I can see - NPT). They would have to apply for Partnership for Peace (aimed at building trust), then the Individual Partnership Plan, followed by the Intensified Dialogue, and then finally the Membership Action Plan (See here)

 

If Scotland went and got Independance, they would in effect not be a part of the UK and not be a NATO member (Despite Mr Salamond's claims they will be). They also wouldn't be covered by NATO either. They would have to apply independantly and prove they can satisify the criteria - this could take up to a decade (mostly building their military and proving they can work towards NATO objectives without leaving themselve un-defended). They could try with the Partnership for Peace before moving up in NATO, but again they could be blocked by any member.

 

We're agreed that Scotland would not automatically become a NATO member. It would be a long drawn-out process for them to apply and even longer before they're awarded the same rights as the UK (Fully-fledged members...hehehe). Just to draw an example - the Republic of Kosovo is STILL trying to apply for NATO membership, and they were declared independant in 2008 by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). How long would it take for Scotland?

 

Military - This one got more arguments that answers. There are two streams of thought for the bases currently in place, and three for the military:

 

Sovereign Base Areas - Army, RN and RAF bases are given SBA status meaning they can operate freely on them, but need permission to move off the bases (See Cyprus and Germany as an example). This would afford Scotland limited protection while they rebuild their military organisations.

 

Not given SBA status - the UK pulls ALL of it's assets back to UK borders and mothballs/dismantles/destroys it's camps. Scotland would then have to very quickly put their own assets in place - a limited boom for shipbuilding/aircraft building, and re-build their military. Depending on what was taken/done to the camps, they may have to rebuild or demolish which is pretty expensive, or just use them as is. Keeping in mind that UK Forces take their security pretty seriously, I can't see them leaving much behind that could be used.

 

That's the bases dealt with. We were (and still are) undecided on the military, so we've got three views:

 

Keep UK Forces on SBA, but train their own - Scotland keeps UK Forces within it's borders, while it trains their own military up.

This would mean they'd lose massive numbers because any Scottish-based Regiments/Brigades/etc part of the UK Forces would be re-branded/amalgamation with UK-based branches. Anyone with a Scottish background *may* be allowed to continue (in the spirit of the Gurkhas, Aussies, etc) but offered a discharge if they wanted to re-enlist in the new Scottish military. Would allow them to push for NATO/EU membership to a degree, building their military as well as being protected.

 

Keep UK Forces on SBA, use UK Forces instead of their own - I can't see that happening in honesty, but there have been occasions where neighbouring countries or countries with good relations have been used to help out (Iceland for example). I'm sure there will be a hefty fee, but again, I can't see them doing this especially with the SNP banging on about independance.

 

Remove UK Forces and SBA - UK Forces move back within their borders over a set period of time, forces nicknamed the Scottish Division (or falling under them) would either be amalgmated back with UK Forces, or disbanded (Personnel offered discharge, or posting). Bases would be mothballed or closed down/dismantelled/destroyed to prevent information being gather about UK Forces/usage. Scotland would be un-protected for a number of years and unable to deter/protect their borders and oil refineries as well as provide assistance to sailors/Coastgaurd. EU and NATO membership wouldn't be considered at this stage. Trident would be relocated to HMS Raleigh (in theory).

 

We're undecided on how this would play out, but the common theory is that we'll take out boys and toys and go home and leave Scotland to it. Diplomatically, we may leave a small contingent if Scotland request it, but we can't see them asking.

 

I personnally think we'll keep UK Forces on SBA's in Scotland, with a push to withdraw by a certain time.

 

 

Read, critque, go for it. I'm interested in what other people think will happen - just keep it civil

Edited February 20, 2014 by happymeal
Gremlins...just...gremlins. Nothing to see...

[TechMonkey]

Interesting points & comes back to the whole issue that there is so much not known and not investigated.

 

- If all British troops were withdrawn to within their borders then Scotland would be left with nothing/next to nothing. Yes it would be a boon to Scottish ship builders to have to build a few ships to create a Scottish Navy but it would instantly but a big red mark against the Scottish financial situation. As for dividing the forces I can see the argument would be that Scotland would like to cede from the Union and the forces are bound to the Union so they leave them behind, leaving Scotland having to build from scratch.

 

- NATO is another Salmond stick fingers in ears and sing question. How can they be in NATO with no forces/unknown forces?

 

- I can't see Scotland being blocked from the EU but I can see them having to join as a brand new country, from outside (which is another LA LA LA LA issue with the YES camp) where they will be obliged to work towards joining the Euro.

 

- I suppose Scotland could set themselves up like Switzerland, an armed populace so no standing army, with the unspoken knowledge that one, an invasion is unlikely, and two, the UK will step in to protect their own backyard. Could see it being a sore point if Scotland comment or interfere on international operations though.

[ZeroHour]

I think if we were to go independant its more of a divorce where we own a % of ALL uk assets. We are either entitled to take that % when we go or receive appropriate monies/discount of debt. We paid for part of everything that makes up the uk and we are entitled to it, this is not a case of we have to buy our own everything because we are handing back all we have paid for before. Not sure how it can't work this way.

I really think the UK gov is going about this all wrong, they are really putting peoples backs up with the threats rather than offering anything other than "stay the same" which to me is not ideal in many ways.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[witch]

Maybe the UK government isn't going about it the right way but I don't think Salmond is doing any better - all he does is rubbish everything the govt says and tells people that it isn't going to be like that instead of actually laying down how he sees it working.

I still think that as it is MY country that is being broken up, I should get a vote too.