The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I don't find those straight forward:

• That's the unknown at the moment though, will the Queen be head of state?
  
• Again, another unknown, will we have our own armed forces or none at all. They've said in the past they might still share them with the rest of the UK
  
• I suspect you are probably correct but the Euro would be utter madness
  
• Yeah but its how much these sort of things cost to set up, we could potentially need hundreds of embassies - its just an example of the costs that have yet to be ironed out
  

1. It's not. The current SNP stance is that Liz stays.

However, I'm guessing that they're leaving that one for another time. There's no point taking on a bigger battle which makes it less likely that independence would 'win'.

2. that's not an independent Scotland's choice to make, but the choice of the remaining UK.

3. continuing with sterling is not an independent Scotland's choice to make, but the choice of the remaining UK.

[eFestivals]

The UKs largest oil fields are all North or East of Aberdeen. So the UK, legally, wouldn't have a leg to stand on. All you need to do is read about the fears the Tories had in the mid 70's to realise this...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html.

Anyway meh to that, feck knows how I'll vote!

while Scotland might have a legitimate claim to 90% of the gas and oil, that doesn't mean they'll get it. If the UK doesn't want to hand it over there's naff all that Scotland can do short of starting a war.

Regarding that financial report you posted about, the numbers are fantasy. It ignores the fact that Scotland's current standards of living is sustained by an amount of the oil/gas revenue (it treats it all as extra revenue after independence), and ignores the lost jobs by UK govt services moving out of Scoland (Scotland currently has a disproportionate number of govt services [as do other parts of the UK]).

[Kowalski]

The UKs largest oil fields are all North or East of Aberdeen. So the UK, legally, wouldn't have a leg to stand on. All you need to do is read about the fears the Tories had in the mid 70's to realise this...http://www.independe...and-518697.html.

Anyway meh to that, feck knows how I'll vote!

Indeed and all the long term investment is going in to fields West of Shetland, I can't see how they wouldn't be Scotland's if it comes to divvying up who owns what.

[lost]

I'd be happier if England was no longer underwriting 1900bn pounds of royal bank of Scotland liabilities

[eFestivals]

I think in reality we will just be told what is happening by the ruling classes... No one ever asks an English man what they want...

true.

I was making the point that independence doesn't give Scotland the ability to make it's own choice about everything. The reality pans out as giving England a greater power than it has now over much of what happens in Scotland, at least in the short term.

The fact of that makes Scotland becoming independent a less simple and straightforwards thing than the SNP present it as being, with Scotland having less things within its own control than the propaganda suggests.

That doesn't mean that Scotland shouldn't become independent, but it does mean that those negatives need considering along with the positive aspects.

[abdoujaparov]

I don't find those straight forward:

• That's the unknown at the moment though, will the Queen be head of state?
  
• Again, another unknown, will we have our own armed forces or none at all. They've said in the past they might still share them with the rest of the UK
  
• I suspect you are probably correct but the Euro would be utter madness
  
• Yeah but its how much these sort of things cost to set up, we could potentially need hundreds of embassies - its just an example of the costs that have yet to be ironed out
  

Sorry, but they are pretty straight forward:

• I have no idea what the SNP wants to do in terms of head of state - but if they decide to keep the queen, then the Scots will have to pay a contribution.
  
• it is hard to see how Scotland could claim to be independent and share another country's armed forces. That's hardly independence, is it?
  
• I cannot think of an independent country that uses the currency of another nation. Again, it's hardly independence, is it?
  
• there are all sorts of choices about what embassies you would choose to set up and where. It's unlikely that you'd want in every country - I'm not sure, for example, that Scotland's relationship with (say) Burkina Faso would be particularly important, so in those circumstances you might ask the UK embassy to represent the interests of Scots. I suspect you'd end up with a couple of dozen embassies in the most important countries.
  

Personally, I think nation states are possibly the worst innovation of the last 600 years, but there you go....

[abdoujaparov]

The reaming UK and Scotland could share a military without any problem whatsoever... Treaties agreements etc could make this very easy to do...

Do you think?

Can you point to any case in modern history where two countries have shared armed services? Genuine question - because I cannot. And I cannot see how two independent sovereign nations could ever share armed forces. What happens if the UK starts an armed conflict that Scotland objects to? How does that work if there's a single army, navy etc?

[eFestivals]

I cannot see how two independent sovereign nations could ever share armed forces.

... which then leads onto the fact that Scots are heavily over-represented within the UK armed forces, and will become unemployed.

After independence they could join the Scottish Armed Forces of course, but not all of them - Scotland simply couldn't afford* armed forces of the size they'd be with all of the current numbers included.

(*well, perhaps they could, but that would be at the cost of other things - fewer other govt services, or higher taxes).

This problem of Scotland needing fewer of their people to run Scotland's govt services than are currently employed within UK govt services happens in all directions. In the short term at least this will have a high impact on the financial viability of Scotland, because it's unlikely that they'd attract other jobs as replacements to Scotland as quickly as they'd lose UK govt jobs.

[abdoujaparov]

Erm... Maybe read up on the UK...

Your point being what? Unless I've missed something the United Kingdon is one sovereign nation, with its own armed forces....

[eFestivals]

Erm... Maybe read up on the UK...

The UK is the country. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are regions of the country that's called the UK.

So you need to read up on what the UK is.

[abdoujaparov]

Exactly... Hence my point about the nuclear option...

I didnt say it was a great idea but you could draw up deals on the above...

Really? I cannot imagine how.

[abdoujaparov]

We was once heading down the path of a United European Military... Where decisions would of been devolved to the European Parliament...

Its not so hard to imagine really...

We wouldn't be able to use Scottish assist without their permission... So they could block, and we could block... That would be the reality...

but if Scotland did not have their own armed forces and relied on the UK's, how would that work? They would remain the UK armed forces and presumably the UK government would expect to be able to use them in whatever way they wanted, irrespective of what the Scots thought. Then what would happen if, say, the Shetland Islands were invaded by Norway (for the sake of argument) and the Scots appealed to the Uk to help - and got the reply that they'd love to, but were busy killing Iranians and couldnt spare anyone.....

I guess the best that Scotland could hope for would be a treaty which meant that the UK would defend Scotland against aggression. But the idea that Scotland could determine how a different country used its armed forces is fanciful really

[abdoujaparov]

I would imagine for it to work the Scots would have to actually have and maintain there own assets... and England etc theirs...

And then we conduct joint actions...

For example Scots had the aircraft carriers... and we had the planes...

I don't think its totally unworkable... I think in reality the security of Scotland and England is a direct concern for both nations regardless of the status of the UK... I do think its unlikely however...

I suppose a deal could be reached, and possibly payments made, to the remaining UK to protect Scotland...

To be honest I don't know... but anything can happen if people want it...

If the Republic of Ireland was invaded tomorrow by x force... I would imagine the UK would act...

the original suggestion (earlier in the thread) was that Scotland wouldnt have its own armed forces, but would "share" the UK's. That, I think, is unrealistic for the reasons I have set out.

The idea of pooling resources as appropriate is a completely different proposition.

[5co77ie]

Hadn't considered the Armed forces - i was considering competing for some of the Royal Company of Archers trophies in the next few years - I'd better move that plan forward in case Scotland becomes a separate country and bars English archers from entering - though as the Queen's bodyguard that could pose interesting difficulties.

[eFestivals]

I think some deal will be reached

the problem with that idea is that Scotland will be making its vote without any idea of whether such a deal would be reached. It's a discussion to be had after Scotland has made its decision about independence rather than before.

So that leaves Scotland in the position of wanting to be indepentant and declaring itself as that, but then being reliant on the remaining UK for how independent it is. It's a contradiction to its claims of independence.

That factor doesn't only apply with the military but with a whole range of things. And while Scotland might want to take the view that how such issues might be settled would be scrupliously fair from their view of things so everything would be fine, that's not necessarily how things would be.

It could be the case that the remaining UK will keep (say) 50% of the oil & gas and not the 10% it perhaps should be - which makes a massive difference to how Scotland is able to operate as an independent nation. Once Scotland has made its decision to be independent it can only ask that the remaining UK is nice to it, it cannot bring any inside influence to bear on whether it actually is.

[Uncle Liam]

We was once heading down the path of a United European Military... Where decisions would of been devolved to the European Parliament...

Its not so hard to imagine really...

We wouldn't be able to use Scottish assist without their permission... So they could block, and we could block... That would be the reality...

Devolution is the transfer of power to a subnational (i.e. regional or local) authority from central government. Power is not 'devolved' to the European Parliament.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

From what I understand the cost or benefit could be the end of Trident or a naval based nuclear deterrent. The UK has committed itself to relocating the submarine fleet to Faslane. The SNP have said no to nukes. So the entire fleet will have to be lifted to Devonport at the cost of how many billions. The other option is for the UK to retain the bases as Sovereign Territories similar to the 2 in Cyprus. Could the uncertainty about Independence have influenced the decision on a replacement for Trident in last years defence review?

Edited January 11, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[5co77ie]

From what I understand the cost or benefit could be the end of Trident or a naval based nuclear deterrent. The UK has committed itself to relocating the submarine fleet to Faslane. The SNP have said no to nukes. So the entire fleet will have to be lifted to Devonport at the cost of how many billions. The other option is for the UK to retain the bases as Sovereign Territories similar to the 2 in Cyprus. Could the uncertainty about Independence have influenced the decision on a replacement for Trident in last years defence review?

I'm not sure Devonport realised it had lost the fleet! A year ago Plymouth docks were assured that it would still be used and was 'safe' from closure - do you have any more info on this?

[eFestivals]

From what I understand the cost or benefit could be the end of Trident or a naval based nuclear deterrent. The UK has committed itself to relocating the submarine fleet to Faslane. The SNP have said no to nukes. So the entire fleet will have to be lifted to Devonport at the cost of how many billions. The other option is for the UK to retain the bases as Sovereign Territories similar to the 2 in Cyprus. Could the uncertainty about Independence have influenced the decision on a replacement for Trident in last years defence review?

I could be wrong, but I believe it's the case that the UK's membership of NATO is dependent by the NATO treaty of having a particular nuke submarine base in Scotland somewhere (I forget the exact details).

I remember reading something around that (again, I can't recall the exact details), about how the USA has continually pressed this point with the UK govt as the SNP has grown in strength, essentially telling the UK that if it loses Scotland it's out of NATO as a result (which also means the UK will have to give up its nukes. At the end of the day the USA controls our nukes, they're not the independent deterrent they're claimed as. It's USA supplied kit, and they can withhold the codes to stop them working).

Of course, the USA could be bluffing aboput actually kicking the UK out, but I have a feeling that the pressure it's exerting about this might well be one of the bigger driving forces behind Dave Moron's interferance in the referendum plans.

------

As for the fuss about "without UK govt blessing any referendum is illegal", that's complete bollocks, the Scottish govt can hold any vote it fancies. A vote without UK govt blessing is not binding on anyone, but the UK govt could not realistically stand against any vote for independence.

[Kyelo]

When the SNP touted the Scandinavian thing a few months ago it was thought they would ask for about 9% of all UK systems/hardware etc including the military and it would work something like this...

"Defence

An independent Scottish navy based at Faslane. The Clyde facility would be transformed from its current role as the base of the UK's Trident submarine fleet to become the headquarters of the Scottish navy. The navy would be similar to those run by Norway and Denmark, with a small number of frigates, a few corvettes and patrol vessels and possibly a couple of submarines.

An independent Scottish air force based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray, centred on a squadron of Lockheed Orion P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. These would have to be bought by the Scottish Government at a cost of £29m each.

An independent Scottish army. SNP strategists expect an independent Scotland to be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland by the Ministry of Defence. The regiment's five regular and two territorial battalions would form the new Scottish army."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bye-bye-england-snp-plans-closer-scandinavian-ties-after-independence-6272337.html

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I'm not sure Devonport realised it had lost the fleet! A year ago Plymouth docks were assured that it would still be used and was 'safe' from closure - do you have any more info on this?

I thought the plan in 2009 was that Devonport kept the 4 old Trafalgar class until decommissioning (2015?) with the 3 newer ones going to Faslane and the last one to be decommissioned in 2022.

[eFestivals]

When the SNP touted the Scandinavian thing a few months ago it was thought they would ask for about 9% of all UK systems/hardware etc including the military and it would work something like this...

do you have any idea for how they came up with 9%?

Scotland getting a proportion of the systems/hardware seems fair enough, but 9% seems a little high to me (based on a UK population of 70M with 5M of them in Scotland).

And I'd guess that what exactly they got with their percentage is likely to cause a number of arguments that won't necessarily fall the way that suits Scotland. For example, if the UK-without-Scotland felt it didn't need (say) as many Typhoon jets as it has, it could give Scotland whatever the percentage was, and those don't fit with the SNP's vision of a Scottish airforce ... meaning that Scotland has the problem of disposal of the unneeded items which they won't succeed in getting equivalent value for.

[Kyelo]

do you have any idea for how they came up with 9%?

Scotland getting a proportion of the systems/hardware seems fair enough, but 9% seems a little high to me (based on a UK population of 70M with 5M of them in Scotland).

And I'd guess that what exactly they got with their percentage is likely to cause a number of arguments that won't necessarily fall the way that suits Scotland. For example, if the UK-without-Scotland felt it didn't need (say) as many Typhoon jets as it has, it could give Scotland whatever the percentage was, and those don't fit with the SNP's vision of a Scottish airforce ... meaning that Scotland has the problem of disposal of the unneeded items which they won't succeed in getting equivalent value for.

Think the paper rounded it up, according to the 2001 census Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population.

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

[eFestivals]

Think the paper rounded it up, according to the 2001 census Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population.

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

ahh, thanks - I hadn't realised it was as close to 9% as that (tho the levels of immigration since 2001 might have altered it a little bit downwards, perhaps).

[Kyelo]

I could see there being something like a 5 year hand over period as a sudden break would cause chaos on both sides of the military. Like has been said Scots make a disproportionately large number in the forces...more so army and especially special forces.