Scottish Independence yea or nay

Lemming · 21-08-2014 5:35pm

n-dawg wrote: »

Because Faslane was carefully selected in the 1960s due to its location miles away from population centres and having sheltered deep-water access to the Atlantic

Faslane is 30km from Glasgow

RAF Finningley/Robin Hood airport is 6.5 miles away from Doncaster and 23.6 miles away from where I live. What's your point?

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 5:38pm

You said it is not near any population centres... its right beside Glasgow!

Ignorant etc. · 21-08-2014 5:43pm

Think it will be an overwhelming no vote to be honest. The Scots are too canny at the end of the day. I know finance has been debated until its blue in the face and no-one is exactly sure whether Scotland will be better off with or without the rest of the UK. However, I do think the Scots will go with the status quo at the end of the day because its the secure option. You know what you are getting with it. Whilst yes is an unknown. I also think the Scots are wise enough to look at Ireland, and Ireland's successes and problems over the years. I don't wish to offend anyone, but Ireland does have a boom and bust style economy, whereas the UK economy is, generally, more stable. There's also the fact that no-one quite knows what kind of agreement would be put in place between Scotland and the UK if independence became a reality. Would Scotland enjoy the special privileges that Ireland and the UK share, in an agreement far stronger than that between either country and the EU? Or would Westminster be bitter about the split and leave Scotland to fare for itself? What about the ease of getting jobs in England? Scotland and Wales aren't exactly overwhelmed with employment opportunities. At the moment, if a Scot wants to work in London, Birmingham or Manchester he just gets a job there and goes. No need to sort out National Insurance Numbers, no need to get involved in a different tax system, and if he wants to go back home for the weekend he doesn't need to exchange his money. I think Scotland stands to lose at least as much as it would gain and at the end of the day the Scots won't go for that.

Lemming · 21-08-2014 5:44pm

n-dawg wrote: »

You said it is not near any population centres... its right beside Glasgow!

What's your measurement of distance then. What's your definition of "near".

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 5:50pm

Lemming wrote: »

What's your measurement of distance then. What's your definition of "near".

Close enough that if one went off accidentally it would take take most of Glasgow with it.

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2014 5:55pm

n-dawg wrote: »

Close enough that if one went off accidentally it would take take most of Glasgow with it.

Nukes don't go off accidentally.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-08-2014 5:58pm

Lemming wrote: »

What's your point?

I think it obvious, have a look at a map

and how do you think the Nuclear convoys get to Aldermaston? Yes, right through Scotland's biggest city

Helensburgh is a sizable town and that is about 10km away

Lemming wrote: »

because the Vulcan bombers were retired with no replacements lined up.

Exact same thing should happen to Trident

Spending tens of billions on this vanity project and the UK cannot even equip her soldiers with proper gear!

tipptom · 21-08-2014 6:14pm

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Think it will be an overwhelming no vote to be honest. The Scots are too canny at the end of the day. I know finance has been debated until its blue in the face and no-one is exactly sure whether Scotland will be better off with or without the rest of the UK. However, I do think the Scots will go with the status quo at the end of the day because its the secure option. You know what you are getting with it. Whilst yes is an unknown. I also think the Scots are wise enough to look at Ireland, and Ireland's successes and problems over the years. I don't wish to offend anyone, but Ireland does have a boom and bust style economy, whereas the UK economy is, generally, more stable. There's also the fact that no-one quite knows what kind of agreement would be put in place between Scotland and the UK if independence became a reality. Would Scotland enjoy the special privileges that Ireland and the UK share, in an agreement far stronger than that between either country and the EU? Or would Westminster be bitter about the split and leave Scotland to fare for itself? What about the ease of getting jobs in England? Scotland and Wales aren't exactly overwhelmed with employment opportunities. At the moment, if a Scot wants to work in London, Birmingham or Manchester he just gets a job there and goes. No need to sort out National Insurance Numbers, no need to get involved in a different tax system, and if he wants to go back home for the weekend he doesn't need to exchange his money. I think Scotland stands to lose at least as much as it would gain and at the end of the day the Scots won't go for that.

Not taking any offence but England has had massive boom and bust periods and the Scots are well used to it more than anybody in the UK.
Ireland had a big boom and bust recently,before that we just ambled from being piss poor to poor back to piss poor.

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2014 6:17pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think it obvious, have a look at a map

and how do you think the Nuclear convoys get to Aldermaston? Yes, right through Scotland's biggest city!

Would that be Aldermaston in Berkshire, around 20 kilometres from Reading, Basingstoke and Bracknell?

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 6:18pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nukes don't go off accidentally.

Just because it has never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. I work in physics and realise the odds are very low of it happening but....

To add to this the military are not held to the same safety standards as civilian nuclear facilities. And the public cannot get access to safety reports like we can with a civilian facility. Even this year a story broke that there had been a minor nuclear leak in Dounreay that was covered up by the MOD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26475169

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2014 6:23pm

n-dawg wrote: »

Just because it has never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. I work in physics and realise the odds are very low of it happening but....

To add to this the military are not held to the same safety standards as civilian nuclear facilities. And the public cannot get access to safety reports like we can with a civilian facility. Even this year a story broke that there had been a minor nuclear leak in Dounreay that was covered up by the MOD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26475169

And your point is?

As I pointed out above, these things are actually made in the south of England, close to several major towns.

The subs that they are on, spend the majority of their time nowhere near Scotland, that's the whole point of them.

The only relevancy faslane has, is how many jobs will go when the Royal Navy pull out, if Salmond has his way.

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 6:25pm

To add to my previous post...

If you were an aggressive nuclear power who for whatever reason wanted to attack Britain the first place you would nuke would be Fastlane/Coulport so as to destroy as much of you enemy's nuclear weapons. That in itself endangers Glasgow by having the weapons there.

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 6:30pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And your point is?

As I pointed out above, these things are actually made in the south of England, close to several major towns.

The subs that they are on, spend the majority of their time nowhere near Scotland, that's the whole point of them.

The only relevancy faslane has, is how many jobs will go when the Royal Navy pull out, if Salmond has his way.

They are stored/serviced in Coulport. Salmond has said that faslane will be the main base for the scottish army/navy so not that many jobs will be lost in the area.

As A Dub in Glasga said, there shouldn't be any nukes anywhere in Britain! They only have them so that they can keep pretending to themselves that they are important in the modern world.

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2014 6:34pm

n-dawg wrote: »

To add to my previous post...

If you were an aggressive nuclear power who for whatever reason wanted to attack Britain the first place you would nuke would be Fastlane/Coulport so as to destroy as much of you enemy's nuclear weapons. That in itself endangers Glasgow by having the weapons there.

Of course, that's why they aren't in London. An aggressive nuclear power wouldn't target London if all the nukes are in Glasgow.

Or Portsmouth, Aldershot, Plymouth, High Wycombe, most of east Anglia and Brize Norton.

The people of Lossiemouth must be pretty pleased as well.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-08-2014 6:42pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would that be Aldermaston in Berkshire, around 20 kilometres from Reading, Basingstoke and Bracknell?

I didn't think there was another one

Its Only Ray Parlour · 21-08-2014 6:48pm

n-dawg wrote: »

As A Dub in Glasga said, there shouldn't be any nukes anywhere in Britain! They only have them so that they can keep pretending to themselves that they are important in the modern world.

A country with nukes is a country you don't want to invade. Nukes are the reason why World War Three will never happen, most likely.

Fratton Fred · 21-08-2014 6:54pm

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

A country with nukes is a country you don't want to invade. Nukes are the reason why World War Three will never happen, most likely.

They definitely mean ww four will never happen.

Sam Russell · 21-08-2014 8:50pm

tipptom wrote: »

Not taking any offence but England has had massive boom and bust periods and the Scots are well used to it more than anybody in the UK.
Ireland had a big boom and bust recently,before that we just ambled from being piss poor to poor back to piss poor.

Compared to Germany, Britain has done very badly in the last 50 years. Their currency is worth less than 20% on the German currecy over that time. Even the US has done better, dollar/Pound rates 1948 $4=£1, then $2.8 until 1968 (I think) then $2.40 , now $1.63. It did fall the $1 =£1 in 1983 (again I think).

They have gone from bust to boom to bigger bust, funded by devaluations, and national debt.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-08-2014 8:53pm

tbradman wrote: »

But if England sneezes it means Scotland is in danger of catching pneumonia.

No different to today

Lemming · 21-08-2014 9:26pm

n-dawg wrote: »

To add to my previous post...

If you were an aggressive nuclear power who for whatever reason wanted to attack Britain the first place you would nuke would be Fastlane/Coulport so as to destroy as much of you enemy's nuclear weapons. That in itself endangers Glasgow by having the weapons there.

I hate to burst your bubble; but Glasgow would get hit anyway. It's a major city; not to mention a major ship-building centre for the UK.

Sam Russell · 21-08-2014 11:14pm

Lemming wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble; but Glasgow would get hit anyway. It's a major city; not to mention a major ship-building centre for the UK.

Not major any more - only make ships for the shrinking Royal Navy.

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 11:23pm

Lemming wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble; but Glasgow would get hit anyway. It's a major city; not to mention a major ship-building centre for the UK.

Does this not strenghten the case for a yes vote, as an independent Scotland would be fair less likely to end up in a war than the UK?

If Scottish independance eventually causes there to be one less nuclear power in the world. That alone will have done so much for humanity.

n-dawg · 21-08-2014 11:28pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not major any more - only make ships for the shrinking Royal Navy.

And only bits of ships at that.

errlloyd · 21-08-2014 11:30pm

Any Scottish person in the country who doesn't should be struck from the register. How you could simply not turn out for something as monumental as this.

bpb101 · 22-08-2014 12:23am

scots are really trowing out their promo videos on youtube. Uploading every few days

heres one of their best ones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NclkfOjQle0

bpb101 · 22-08-2014 12:36am

lads, As for Scotland not being in the eu and they will have to reapply is just a stupid reason to vote no. If (and i hope) scotland do vote yes. on the 19th of September, they arent tossed out and told fend for yourself . it wont be till march 2016 that they will be independent. a year and a half is more than enough time to send a letter to the eu and say "any chance of being a member" (even if they send the letter through an post :pac:)

Money. Yes , they wont have control over the pound , but as it stands (and dub in Glasgow please correct me if im wrong) but you dont have a say atm and if you join the euro you wont have a say in it either.

is there a scot here(With a vote) who will be voting no( sorry if you have already spoken up and i missed you. Can you outline your reasons.

Iwasfrozen · 22-08-2014 12:40am

bpb101 wrote: »

scots are really trowing out their promo videos on youtube. Uploading every few days

heres one of their best ones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NclkfOjQle0

Good to see the Yes side are getting more desperate.

On the other hand we've now crossed a threshold. According to You-Gov the No vote is at 51%, the Yes at 38% and the Don't knows at 11% which means that the No vote is now higher than the Yes and Don't knows combined.

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

Granted polls differ and aren't always accurate but it seem to be a good indication of where this referendum is going.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-08-2014 8:01am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the other hand we've now crossed a threshold. According to You-Gov the No vote is at 51%, the Yes at 38% and the Don't knows at 11% which means that the No vote is now higher than the Yes and Don't knows combined.

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

eh? It has been like that for the last 12 months

image post

Richard · 22-08-2014 12:31pm

GaelMise wrote: »

Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.

Remind me how that went.

Manach · 22-08-2014 12:40pm

As a tangential FYI there is an interesting Slashdot discussion on the topic of Scotland and nuclear weapons: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/22/0151253/would-scottish-independence-mean-the-end-of-uks-nuclear-arsenal
"The referendum on Scottish independence on September 18th affects more than just residents of the United Kingdom. All of the UK's nuclear deterrent is located in Scotland, and Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have pledged to safely remove and permanently ban nuclear weapons from Scottish territory within the first term of a newly independent parliament."

Iwasfrozen · 22-08-2014 1:27pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not major any more - only make ships for the shrinking Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy is growing...

The Corinthian · 22-08-2014 1:30pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Royal Navy is growing...

Which Royal Navy? Dutch?

Sam Russell · 22-08-2014 1:34pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Royal Navy is growing...

Are they going into horticulture or aquaculture?

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 1:41pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they going into horticulture or aquaculture?

Your obvious attempts to belittle Britain don't really add to your arguments.

In actual numbers, the Royal Navy is smaller than ever, but the ships are bigger and way way more advanced than ever.

It is still one of the largest blue water fleets in the world.

Sam Russell · 22-08-2014 3:46pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your obvious attempts to belittle Britain don't really add to your arguments.

In actual numbers, the Royal Navy is smaller than ever, but the ships are bigger and way way more advanced than ever.

It is still one of the largest blue water fleets in the world.

It is less than 10% the size of the USA's navy - so small. Smaller the USA, China, Russia, Japan and about the same size as France, Korea, etc.

No aircraft carriers, no Harriers, etc.

Watch HMS Pinafore to see how it works, or even Carry On Sailor.

comongethappy · 22-08-2014 4:18pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is still one of the largest blue water fleets in the world.

In tonnage perhaps.
Aside from sub's, their surface fleet is weak.

The type-45 gun boats @ €1.5bn a pop epitomise their folly.
No planes, no aircraft carrier, no cruise missile capability.

I suppose its off topic, but an independent Scotland being shot of her majesties dwindling military capability is no loss.

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 4:52pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is less than 10% the size of the USA's navy - so small. Smaller the USA, China, Russia, Japan and about the same size as France, Korea, etc.

No aircraft carriers, no Harriers, etc.

Watch HMS Pinafore to see how it works, or even Carry On Sailor.

So the fifth largest in the world then.

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 4:55pm

comongethappy wrote: »

In tonnage perhaps.
Aside from sub's, their surface fleet is weak.

The type-45 gun boats @ €1.5bn a pop epitomise their folly.
No planes, no aircraft carrier, no cruise missile capability.

I suppose its off topic, but an independent Scotland being shot of her majesties dwindling military capability is no loss.

That reminds me of when Dunphy used to call Ronaldo rubbish.

comongethappy · 22-08-2014 5:14pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That reminds me of when Dunphy used to call Ronaldo rubbish.

Its a joke Bill!

Seriously though.... If the president of Argentina cast her heavily mascarad eyes over the Falklands, there is next to nothing Britain could do about it.

A helicopter carrier & their fleet of billion-pound gunboats can't stop them.

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 5:19pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Its a joke Bill!

Seriously though.... If the president of Argentina cast her heavily mascarad eyes over the Falklands, there is next to nothing Britain could do about it.

A helicopter carrier & their fleet of billion-pound gunboats can't stop them.

Seriously?

Their ancient air force and navy wouldn't make it anywhere near the islands in the first place.

That's before their airfields and naval base discover that you were, in fact, wrong about the Royal navy's cruise missiles.

comongethappy · 22-08-2014 5:22pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wrong about the Royal navy's cruise missiles.

What surface vessel can fire them?

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 5:31pm

comongethappy wrote: »

What surface vessel can fire them?

The type 45 destroyer, supposedly. But the Astute and Trafalgar class submarines have them all for now.

One of which is in the south Atlantic.

comongethappy · 22-08-2014 5:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The type 45 destroyer, supposedly. But the Astute and Trafalgar class submarines have them all for now.

One of which is in the south Atlantic.

The Type 45 can't fire UK tomohawks or French Sea-Scalp cruise missiles.
Its Aster launch tubes aren't big enough..... To save money apparently!
Ad to that its lack of ASW capability, they spent €1.5bn on a boat whose only offensive weapon is its 4.5 inch gun.

Le Sam Becket would give it a run for its money.... Offensively they aren't far apart.

But we digress

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 7:18pm

comongethappy wrote: »

The Type 45 can't fire UK tomohawks or French Sea-Scalp cruise missiles.
Its Aster launch tubes aren't big enough..... To save money apparently!
Ad to that its lack of ASW capability, they spent €1.5bn on a boat whose only offensive weapon is its 4.5 inch gun.

Le Sam Becket would give it a run for its money.... Offensively they aren't far apart.

But we digress

Digress? That's not the word I would use.

Google "air defence destroyer", then go back under your bridge.

Iwasfrozen · 22-08-2014 11:14pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is less than 10% the size of the USA's navy - so small. Smaller the USA, China, Russia, Japan and about the same size as France, Korea, etc.

No aircraft carriers, no Harriers, etc.

Watch HMS Pinafore to see how it works, or even Carry On Sailor.

lol Russia doesn't even have a blue water navy any more. China is trying to develop one.

The British have less ships than both of them but they're far more advanced. Actually you mention Britain has no aircraft carriers, you obviously don't know about the two Queen Elizabeth Class ships in development.

Iwasfrozen · 22-08-2014 11:19pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Its a joke Bill!

Seriously though.... If the president of Argentina cast her heavily mascarad eyes over the Falklands, there is next to nothing Britain could do about it.

A helicopter carrier & their fleet of billion-pound gunboats can't stop them.

It's funny that you think Argentina would attack a NATO country.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-08-2014 11:24pm

Away from militarism, the Yes campaign signed up their millionth pledge which was met with much derision from the unionists when set in 2012!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28894313

bpb101 · 22-08-2014 11:34pm

lads , cant even keep up with these post. were on Argentina attacking nato. Lord. well . at least were away from ireland.

shipbuiding for the royal navy i doubt would take a big hit. They arent going to set up a ship building site in wales or england. Its still be easier for them to buy the ships off scotland .

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-08-2014 11:52pm

Better Together for who exactly?

Iwasfrozen · 23-08-2014 1:01am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Better Together for who exactly?

Better together for everyone.

I'm glad to see despite the lies being peddled and spinned by the nationalists most Scottish people are not going to throw the future stability of their country into jeopardy.

Scottish Independence yea or nay

Comments