Scottish independence

Marlow wrote: »

How on earth did you get the notion that they do that at all?

Greenland is danish territory. The Royal Navy would get kicked out, if they came up there.

The danish navy actually even keeps portoguise and spanish trawlers at bay to protect Greenlands fishing grounds for the locals.

/M

Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. Not as relevant as it was during the cold war, but defending that is pretty much the UK's main role within NATO should it all kick off with Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap

Capt'n Midnight

Marlow wrote: »

How on earth did you get the notion that they do that at all?

Greenland is danish territory. The Royal Navy would get kicked out, if they came up there.

The danish navy actually even keeps portoguise and spanish trawlers at bay to protect Greenlands fishing grounds for the locals.

/M

The Denmark Strait is between Iceland and Greenland. It used to be a lot more important for defence with underwater microphones and stuff. Iceland used it for leverage when they kicked out the Royal Navy in three separate Cod Wars. Then the Russian Boomers got longer range missiles so they could hide under Arctic ice. They didn't need to get into the Atlantic to nuke the US anymore.

The Danish Navy is also responsible for keeping Scottish trawlers out of Faroese waters.

The Royal Navy doesn't keep Faroese trawlers out of Scottish waters because they are allowed fish there.

Marlow

Aegir wrote: »

The Royal Navy does a lot more than protects the Greenland/Iceland gap.

How on earth did you get the notion that they do that at all?

Greenland is danish territory. The Royal Navy would get kicked out, if they came up there.

The danish navy actually even keeps portoguise and spanish trawlers at bay to protect Greenlands fishing grounds for the locals.

/M

Johnson taking back control and telling the people in Scotland it does not matter what they think or who they vote for, the Tories will not allow an independence referendum

https://twitter.com/libby_brooks/status/1192453576313987073

bob mcbob wrote: »

Once again
- Uk not getting ships built abroad -
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/support-ships-likely-to-be-built-overseas/

those ships aren't actually warships, so normal EU procurement rules apply.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

so Scotland picks up 8% of the national debt and 8% of the Military? 1/4 of an aircraft carrier maybe and one and a bit type 45 destroyers? Of course it will have a navy, but it is unlikely to be anything like as big as the rUK navy and regardless, the UK is not going to get military ships built in a foreign country.

The Royal Navy does a lot more than protects the Greenland/Iceland gap. I would hazard a guess and say 80% of the fleet is south of Carlisle at the moment, if not south of Gibraltar.

They already have them, Fisheries is devolved function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fisheries_Protection_Agency

Once again
- Uk not getting ships built abroad -
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/support-ships-likely-to-be-built-overseas/

- You only need aircraft carriers if you are (or have pretensions to be) a world power

- As for hazarding a guess about the navy's deployment - well you even admit it yourself.

bob mcbob wrote: »

A couple of points to this -
1 Not all the ships built in Scotland are military
2 SNP want to stay members of Nato (just remove trident) so Scotland will require a Navy (I assume that as the Tories insist that Scotland picks up a representative share of the national debt, it can also pick up the same share of the UKs assets )
3 The Royal Navy will not actually need that many ships as they will no longer be responsible for guarding the strategically important Iceland gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap#Importance_to_the_Royal_Navy

4 Shipbuilding technology can also be used by other emerging technologies such as floating wind farms

so Scotland picks up 8% of the national debt and 8% of the Military? 1/4 of an aircraft carrier maybe and one and a bit type 45 destroyers? Of course it will have a navy, but it is unlikely to be anything like as big as the rUK navy and regardless, the UK is not going to get military ships built in a foreign country.

The Royal Navy does a lot more than protects the Greenland/Iceland gap. I would hazard a guess and say 80% of the fleet is south of Carlisle at the moment, if not south of Gibraltar.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will need fishery protection vessels, whether they are in the EU or Nato or not, but especially if they are not.

They already have them, Fisheries is devolved function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fisheries_Protection_Agency

arctictree

What about 'English Independence'? Maybe time for a debate on that?!

Capt'n Midnight

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Maybe rUK will hold on to the sub bases as part of the the withdraw agreement.
A bit like the old treaty ports from our own independence.

But that withdrawal agreement when ever it will be will be one tough negotiation.

This is a minor issue.

You don't even need a base. The US navy supported it's subs from ships for over 30 years there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch#US_Navy_at_Holy_Loch

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

A couple of points to this -
1 Not all the ships built in Scotland are military
2 SNP want to stay members of Nato (just remove trident) so Scotland will require a Navy (I assume that as the Tories insist that Scotland picks up a representative share of the national debt, it can also pick up the same share of the UKs assets )
3 The Royal Navy will not actually need that many ships as they will no longer be responsible for guarding the strategically important Iceland gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap#Importance_to_the_Royal_Navy

4 Shipbuilding technology can also be used by other emerging technologies such as floating wind farms

They will need fishery protection vessels, whether they are in the EU or Nato or not, but especially if they are not.

Bobtheman

derrymcorry wrote: »

At the SNP conference in Aberdeen today Nicola Sturgeon said that they were preparing for a second independence referendum at the end of next year. She also said that Westminster couldn't stop it and Scotland was being taken out of the EU despite the electorate voting to remain. She said that Scotland is an economically viable independent nation.

What do you think about Scottish independence? Do you believe that it would be in the best interests of the Scottish people to become an indpendent country within the EU?

I, as an Irish republican, would be delighted to see an indpendent Scotland as I believe they could be our best friend within the EU now with England gone.

Also, think about the benefits that Scottish independence could have for Irish reunification.

The brexit referendum was perfectly legal ad there is no Federalist arrangement in the UK. For instance in the US you need x amount of stated to change the Constitution not a plurality. All that being said I think the scots should go but whether the English will make that easy or hard is open to question plus I'm not sure the Spanish would welcome the scots into the EU given their Catalan issues .

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-economic-statistics-2017/pages/7/

A couple of points to this -
1 Not all the ships built in Scotland are military
2 SNP want to stay members of Nato (just remove trident) so Scotland will require a Navy (I assume that as the Tories insist that Scotland picks up a representative share of the national debt, it can also pick up the same share of the UKs assets )
3 The Royal Navy will not actually need that many ships as they will no longer be responsible for guarding the strategically important Iceland gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap#Importance_to_the_Royal_Navy

4 Shipbuilding technology can also be used by other emerging technologies such as floating wind farms

4068ac1elhodqr

The odds for this are a 50:50 split (equates to 1.83 in bookie margin terms).

It'll be close and could really go either way, Scotexit might fill the papers and newspapers for many years.
To speed it up faster simply get Channel4/STV to run Braveheart every Friday night.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-economic-statistics-2017/pages/7/

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Any evidence of those 7000 jobs?

Take this quiz

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/status/1191082274105831430

7.2 Key economic points

In 2017 Shipbuilding generated £572 million in GVA: accounting for 0.43% of the overall Scottish economy and 11% of the marine economy GVA. Shipbuilding provided employment for 7,700 people (headcount), contributing 0.3% of the total Scottish employment and 11% of the marine economy employment.

Aegir wrote: »

easy to be flippant about 7000 jobs when one of them isn't yours

Any evidence of those 7000 jobs?

Take this quiz

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/status/1191082274105831430

Maybe rUK will hold on to the sub bases as part of the the withdraw agreement.
A bit like the old treaty ports from our own independence.

But that withdrawal agreement when ever it will be will be one tough negotiation.

Jim2007 wrote: »

They account for 0.15% of the Scottish economy and the employment levels fluctuate dramatically do to the nature of the Industry. So probably worth it.

easy to be flippant about 7000 jobs when one of them isn't yours

Sam Russell

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

There are a few sites in England. Like I said, it will cost a lot of money.

Portsmouth? Greenwich? Falmouth? I don't think so.

They need deep water, with different deep water routes out from the base. They have no alternatives, except to give up nuclear weapons altogether which could save loads of dosh, and since they would be a smaller country with much reduced GDP and reduced international reputation, it might suit them. After all, they are just place holders for USA military might.

Jim2007 wrote: »

There actually very few locations and none in England. Apart from Scotland, Cork and Killary provide the best natural defence for a navy.

There are a few sites in England. Like I said, it will cost a lot of money.

Jim2007

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

There are several alternatives. All of them costly but the UK will put up the cash if they need to.

There actually very few locations and none in England. Apart from Scotland, Cork and Killary provide the best natural defence for a navy.

Jim2007

Aegir wrote: »

as long as they come with all the shipbuilding and other jobs that were moved to Scotland, I doubt any one wold be too upset.

They account for 0.15% of the Scottish economy and the employment levels fluctuate dramatically do to the nature of the Industry. So probably worth it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yeah and maybe you can have your nuclear weapons and submarines back

as long as they come with all the shipbuilding and other jobs that were moved to Scotland, I doubt any one wold be too upset.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Where will they be based?

There are several alternatives. All of them costly but the UK will put up the cash if they need to.

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

I don't own any but I'm sure England will be happy to take them back. It's not much leverage for Scotland.

Where will they be based?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yeah and maybe you can have your nuclear weapons and submarines back

I don't own any but I'm sure England will be happy to take them back. It's not much leverage for Scotland.

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

IndyRef in 2021 followed by years of negotiations before independence happens. I'd demand a high price from the SNP if I were England. Citizenship rights for Scots who still consider themselves British, free trade, a share of North Sea oil.

Yeah and maybe you can have your nuclear weapons and submarines back

Gerrybadry wrote: »

It looks like there will be an IndyRef2 by 2021.

IndyRef in 2021 followed by years of negotiations before independence happens. I'd demand a high price from the SNP if I were England. Citizenship rights for Scots who still consider themselves British, free trade, a share of North Sea oil.

Gerrybadry

It looks like there will be an IndyRef2 by 2021.

bob mcbob wrote: »

Great you accept that in FPTP, 37% is an acceptable level of the peoples votes to bring forward legislation that fundamentally alters a nations future.

you only need one MP to introduce legislation. Getting it accepted by parliament is a different matter. The number of votes a party receives is irrelevant.