Scottish Independence yea or nay

A Dub in Glasgo

That is his view, not policy or a decision. What is a fact is the UK Government refusing to ask the EU and put an end to the speculation

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is his view, not policy or a decision.

Fair enough, but then if you came home and found your wife in bed naked with another man, that too would be inconclusive as you've not actually seen them doing the bold thing...

n-dawg

I'm glad to see this thread is back on track.

Like A Dub in Glasgow, I'm a Dub living in Glasgow and have been for 4 years. I'm going to vote yes for 4 reasons.

1) Generally I support the Green Party and they are campaigning for a yes vote

2) Currently UK citizens do not have the protection of a written constitution. Their only written human rights come from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Tories and UKIP would like the UK to pull out of. I actually find this quite scary (maybe I'm just being silly though) and feel that an independent Scotland would give its citizens and people who live/work there constitutional rights.

3) I do not like first past the post as a method of electing a parliament. It benefits the status quo and does not allow for a fair representation for minorities or small parties (Plus Gerrymandering is too easy). The Lib Dems attempted to change this 4 years ago but it failed. I can't see it changing in my lifetime unless I vote for independence.

4) I am discussed that the house of lords has even a small amount of say in my life. Meaningful reform of the house of lords will not happen as it benefits the big three parties in the UK way too much. Voting for independence is a way of removing their influence on my life.

Everything that is argued about in the press etc. to me is meaningless and will all change in negotiating after a yes vote. Scotland is a country full of intelligent, well educated, hard working people and in the long run will always be economically successful weather it stays with the UK or gains independence.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but then if you came home and found your wife in bed naked with another man, that too would be inconclusive as you've not actually seen them doing the bold thing...

Is Barroso the other man or the wife?

tipptom

n-dawg wrote: »

I'm glad to see this thread is back on track.

Like A Dub in Glasgow, I'm a Dub living in Glasgow and have been for 4 years. I'm going to vote yes for 4 reasons.

1) Generally I support the Green Party and they are campaigning for a yes vote

2) Currently UK citizens do not have the protection of a written constitution. Their only written human rights come from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Tories and UKIP would like the UK to pull out of. I actually find this quite scary (maybe I'm just being silly though) and feel that an independent Scotland would give its citizens and people who live/work there constitutional rights.

3) I do not like first past the post as a method of electing a parliament. It benefits the status quo and does not allow for a fair representation for minorities or small parties (Plus Gerrymandering is too easy). The Lib Dems attempted to change this 4 years ago but it failed. I can't see it changing in my lifetime unless I vote for independence.

4) I am discussed that the house of lords has even a small amount of say in my life. Meaningful reform of the house of lords will not happen as it benefits the big three parties in the UK way too much. Voting for independence is a way of removing their influence on my life.

Everything that is argued about in the press etc. to me is meaningless and will all change in negotiating after a yes vote. Scotland is a country full of intelligent, well educated, hard working people and in the long run will always be economically successful weather it stays with the UK or gains independence.

Spot on,all the veiled threats will change considerably if they voted yes,which I don't think there is a cat in hells chance though.

Sam Russell

I have a number of questions the Scots should answer for themselves before they vote.

1. Why was Margaret Thatcher not popular in Sctotland? (If in doubt, ask a miner, or if you connot find one, ask a shipbuilder!)

2. Why was Scotland chosen as the test bed for the Pole Tax?

3. Why are Britains nuclear subs based in Scotland?

4. Now for the Pound. Did you know that £10,000 invested in Deutch Marks 50 years ago would currently be worth €65,000. (Just using the exhange rate of the time.) Currently, that is worth £52,000. So staying with the pound over the last 50 years has meant a devaluation with respect to the German currency of over 80%. Why is staying with the British currency considered important or even wise?

5. The British Government are saying that Scotland will be forced out of the EU if they vote yes. But if they vote no, there will be a referendum in two years time to exit the EU anyway. If the Tories and UKIP have their way, Scotland will be out of the EU whether they like it or not.

6. Politics and economics in Britain favour the South East of England and, in particular, the City of London. Why do the No people think that will benefit Scotland?

7. How many members of the current cabinet and parliament went to Eton and Oxford? How many members of the Scotish assembly went to either?

Having considered all these points, vote as you see fit.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. Why was Margaret Thatcher not popular in Sctotland? (If in doubt, ask a miner, or if you connot find one, ask a shipbuilder!)

FYI, Thatcher was hated outside of the home counties. I currently live in Rotherham in South Yorkshire .... go do a google on the miners strikes and where the worst if it happened. Believe me when I say there was/is no love for her around these parts.

3. Why are Britains nuclear subs based in Scotland?

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. They could put it elsewhere, but it means moving tens of thousands of people for security reasons. It's not about "being nuked less"; nuked is nuked, and the rest of the country would get it in the neck anyway if it came to that.

What most people don't seem to remember, is that there were nukes based in England too. Robin Hood airport (Doncaster) which is about 20 miles from where I currently live, formerly known as "RAF Finningley", was home to the Vulcan nuclear bomber fleet. And based near a far more heavily populated area than Faslane I should add. The reason Faslane is still going and RAF Finningley is not is because the Vulcan bombers were retired with no replacements lined up.

tbradman

GaelMise wrote: »

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

True, but it also meant that Ireland could not vary its interest rates to fix economic problems (same as being in the Euro really). As others have pointed out, Scotland can continue to use Sterling or even print its own notes and peg them to Sterling just as Ireland did. But if England sneezes it means Scotland is in danger of catching pneumonia.

n-dawg

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

tbradman

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. The British Government are saying that Scotland will be forced out of the EU if they vote yes. But if they vote no, there will be a referendum in two years time to exit the EU anyway. If the Tories and UKIP have their way, Scotland will be out of the EU whether they like it or not.

That's an interesting point, assuming England does actually exit the EU, which just as big an unknown as Scotland splitting from England.

However other EU countries, specifically Spain has been making noises about opposing an attempt by Scotland to re-join in an effort to put pressure on Catalonia and the Basque region not to consider the same path to independence. So England's opinion may be the least of Scotland's worries.

Or you could take the view that Scotland would be better off out of the EU as well. In recent times, peripheral EU countries have not fared well, especially ones that use the Euro.

Hmmm I don't think my opinions are helping...

Lemming

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

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

Ignorant etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tbradman wrote: »

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

No different to today

Lemming

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.