The Dirty Independence Question

[sifi]

From a purely objective point of view, I'd give anywhere north of Birmingham it's independence.

[Ed209]

From a purely objective point of view, I'd give anywhere north of Birmingham it's independence.

Can we make sure that includes Birmingham as well.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

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.

You can't really base a figure on how many Scots are in the military as they don't release a breakdown figure as such. All you can say is for the Regiments and units raised in Scotland which is around 4,500 and 10 % of them are not from Scotland but from Fiji and the like

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/03/06/recruitment-crisis-means-one-in-10-soldiers-in-scots-regiments-are-foreign-born-86908-22970527/

A figure of a regular army of 20,000 was banded about a few years ago http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp_proposes_nuclear_free_scottish_defence_service_1_622877 and to be fair I think that defence could be an issue that muddys the water of a referendum, but mainly on the financial consequences.

One issue that is forgotten about when talking about the military is whether or not Scots nationals would want to serve in a Scottish army. Now UK defence and foreign policy has taken into account having x amount of troops etc, and would the UK want to see a vast amount of experience leave? On the opposite side what sort of foreign and defence policy would Scotland offer regular soldiers that would allow them the opportunities that they have now? I hate to sound cynical but soldiers join the army with the main reason of wanting to fight. Would the men of the Regiment of Scotland be content with a purely home defensive role?

[eFestivals]

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.

oh, I'm sure it'd be tightly managed once there's agreement on what exactly there is to be managed - it's the agreement that's going to be the fun part.

Still, I guess when it's sorted the Scots will have a whole new host of reasons for hating the English to add to the current list .... cos while I don't really expect the remaining-UK govt to take the piss, I think it's hugely unlikely to pan out ads the best possible scenario that Salmond presents it as. And his political get-out if/when that happens will be to blame the English.

[Kowalski]

The lines have already been drawn with regard to Scottish and English control of North Sea oil fields. This map shows the dividing line.

[Kyelo]

You can't really base a figure on how many Scots are in the military as they don't release a breakdown figure as such. All you can say is for the Regiments and units raised in Scotland which is around 4,500 and 10 % of them are not from Scotland but from Fiji and the like

http://www.dailyreco...86908-22970527/

A figure of a regular army of 20,000 was banded about a few years ago http://www.scotsman....ervice_1_622877 and to be fair I think that defence could be an issue that muddys the water of a referendum, but mainly on the financial consequences.

One issue that is forgotten about when talking about the military is whether or not Scots nationals would want to serve in a Scottish army. Now UK defence and foreign policy has taken into account having x amount of troops etc, and would the UK want to see a vast amount of experience leave? On the opposite side what sort of foreign and defence policy would Scotland offer regular soldiers that would allow them the opportunities that they have now? I hate to sound cynical but soldiers join the army with the main reason of wanting to fight. Would the men of the Regiment of Scotland be content with a purely home defensive role?

TBH if I had the choice I'd have a federal UK with everything but the military being devolved down to parliaments in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London.

Anyway much of the reason I don't support independence is because of the complexity of the issue. Even things like the BBC would cause issues!

[eFestivals]

The lines have already been drawn with regard to Scottish and English control of North Sea oil fields. This map shows the dividing line.

is scotland accepting that nowadays then? It used to be the case that the demand was for a fully western line (and at the time the most productive fields fell between those two lines).

I guess with those fields mostly exhausted and the new finds being ever-more northwards then Scotland can be more pragmatic accept the international law it previously rejected to try dn steal the oil.

[Kyelo]

oh, I'm sure it'd be tightly managed once there's agreement on what exactly there is to be managed - it's the agreement that's going to be the fun part.

Still, I guess when it's sorted the Scots will have a whole new host of reasons for hating the English to add to the current list .... cos while I don't really expect the remaining-UK govt to take the piss, I think it's hugely unlikely to pan out ads the best possible scenario that Salmond presents it as. And his political get-out if/when that happens will be to blame the English.

Not the English, "Westminister cronies" as he puts it. A reason I think independence will go through is because of the anti independence stance coming from London...it wouldn't take much, silly as it is, to pull the Braveheart card. It stinks of the 'them and us' thing which would galvanise support North of the border.

[lost]

From a purely objective point of view, I'd give anywhere north of Birmingham it's independence.

Only if you agree to take Ed Balls back.

[eFestivals]

A reason I think independence will go through is because of the anti independence stance coming from London...it wouldn't take much, silly as it is, to pull the Braveheart card. It stinks of the 'them and us' thing which would galvanise support North of the border.

oh, Dave Moron is being a dick, that's for sure. I think it's his control freakery coming thru, unable to sit back and watch it pan out naturally (which just about everyone agrees is the most likely to lead to the result he wants).

Personally, I'm quite happy for ther Scot's to be independent if that's what they want, tho I'm concerned for the consequences for them if things don't pan out as hoped for and the consequences back on the remaining-UK if that happens. Salmond used to hold up Ireland and Iceland as succeesses that Scotland could match, but just look at those countries now.

One thing I reckon (and is the result of recent SNP policy rather than any long standing animosity), and that's if it goes tits up and Scotland wants major help from England in one form or another, then they won't find the English being as generous towards Scotland as is the case now. For example, if Scotland asked to come back into the UK I doubt it'd succeed in getting the extra per-person tax settlement that it gets currently, I'd only get the UK average ... It's one thing to keep paying on an existing settlement as we do, but another to put it back in place - I can't see England re-agreeing to pay the extra to give Scots benefits (the difference in Uni fees, free prescriptions, etc) that can't be afforded in England.

[Kowalski]

is scotland accepting that nowadays then? It used to be the case that the demand was for a fully western line (and at the time the most productive fields fell between those two lines).

I guess with those fields mostly exhausted and the new finds being ever-more northwards then Scotland can be more pragmatic accept the international law it previously rejected to try dn steal the oil.

The fields to the south of the line (far right of map) are still quite productive, and are still being invested in. I'm sure the dividing line will be challenged, as it looks to me like it should be more of a Western divider to me. Seemingly this was changed in 1999.

In other news, Kelvin McKenzie an Douglas Alexander are on Question Time tomorrow night. That will add more to the "Yes" vote in Scotland!

[Rufus Gwertigan]

is scotland accepting that nowadays then? It used to be the case that the demand was for a fully western line (and at the time the most productive fields fell between those two lines).

I guess with those fields mostly exhausted and the new finds being ever-more northwards then Scotland can be more pragmatic accept the international law it previously rejected to try dn steal the oil.

I was thinking on this the other day as there is supposed to be loads of oil in the Rockall area in the North Altlantic. However Rockalls ownership is disputed by the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark. The UKs claim is tenuous to say the least but at least it has enough clout to keep everyone else at bay. Iceland has shown that it is not scared to protect its interests in the past and it would be interesting to see how they would approach the sutuation with a newly independant Scotland.

Rockall is briefly mentioned in this rather illuminating article. http://www.oilofscot...th_sea_oil.html

I just love closing line of

Even if you are not Scottish or do not live in Scotland, please help stop the injustices and atrocities that are still being inflicted on Scotland and the Scottish People

I bet the guy writing had to go for a lay down just thinking of the English hordes coming over the border to commit shortbread and whiskey buying atrocities.

[Stash]

The lines have already been drawn with regard to Scottish and English control of North Sea oil fields. This map shows the dividing line.

I understood that that map shows the demarcation of fishing only and that there was no such thing as Scottish waters outside of the 12m boundaries (shown below).

Everything else is UK continental shelf. As such open for any possible discussions after an independence vote.

[Ed209]

I was thinking on this the other day as there is supposed to be loads of oil in the Rockall area in the North Altlantic. However Rockalls ownership is disputed by the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark. The UKs claim is tenuous to say the least but at least it has enough clout to keep everyone else at bay. Iceland has shown that it is not scared to protect its interests in the past and it would be interesting to see how they would approach the sutuation with a newly independant Scotland.

Rockall is briefly mentioned in this rather illuminating article. http://www.oilofscot...th_sea_oil.html

I just love closing line of

I bet the guy writing had to go for a lay down just thinking of the English hordes coming over the border to commit shortbread and whiskey buying atrocities.

Was that written by Peter Dow?

Edited January 11, 2012 by Ed209

[Kyelo]

Surely all the Scots would need to go is go to European courts etc?

[Ed209]

Surely all the Scots would need to go is go to European courts etc?

Not sure what it has to do with the European courts..? Don't think EU has much if any power to deal with these kind of disputes.

As far as I can tell, Scotland would be requesting independence from the UK. They'll get what the UK decides it wants to give them. The UK will still be the UK if Scotland decides to go it alone

[Kyelo]

What I'm meaning is there is surely some international law that will either support or go against the claim it's "Scotlands Oil"?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Surely all the Scots would need to go is go to European courts etc?

there is a UN Committe on the Limits of the Continental Shelf apparently.

[Kyelo]

there is a UN Committe on the Limits of the Continental Shelf apparently.

That's what I've been thinking, there must be some sort of rules which would either tell the UK they are or are not entitled to it.

Stops it being opinion etc

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Fuck Independence! Fuck You!

[eFestivals]

I bet the guy writing had to go for a lay down just thinking of the English hordes coming over the border to commit shortbread and whiskey buying atrocities.

[eFestivals]

What I'm meaning is there is surely some international law that will either support or go against the claim it's "Scotlands Oil"?

there is - the same international law that those wanting independence for Scotland used to reject over the sea boundary, so that they could claim oil and gas as theirs that wasn't.

I believe it's the case that the boundary international law stipulates is pretty much the line that's on the map that Kowlowski posted a link to.

But the reality is that there's no such thing as "international law". It's merely a convention, one which doesn't apply in all cases for a myriad of different reasons. Such things get settled by negotiation - which comes to mean that Scotland will get what the UK is prepared to give it.

We can only guess at what that'll pan out as, but I think the UK would find it quite difficult to try and take much more than is displayed by that map. So unless Scotland is still trying to take oil and gas that wouldn't be theirs under that 'international law' I don't think they've much to be concerned about.

[Kowalski]

So they want 90% of the oil and 10% of the debt...

Go fuck yourselves should be Cameron's response...

I think it's 9% of the debt, and I agree that we should be claiming the vast majority of the oil.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Kowalski

[eFestivals]

So they want 90% of the oil and 10% of the debt...

Go fuck yourselves should be Cameron's response...

it doesn't much matter. The way the SNP tell it they spend all of the oil & gas money as well invest it all in a soviergn fund.

They can't have both. If they wish to maintain the current levels of govt expenditure than there is nothing to go into any fund.

As for the debts, if they want to reclaim their banks they get to also reclaim the associated debts (on top of their share of the rest of the national debt).

As I keep saying, the SNP are laying out a version of the future which won't come about, because they won't get the best of everything.

[kaosmark2]

Question for the stat people...

Would Tony Blair still have won without Scotland ?

Lots of talk of Labour being finished if Scotland went... But I doubt that... Surely Labour would just become Tory-Lite like they did under Blair ?

I am presuming the landslide Blair had would of seen him through with or without Scotland ?

Labour have never won in England alone. I think in 1997 Wales would have been enough to make a majority, but I'm not sure about 2001.

The ridiculously large majority he got wouldn't have been achieved though.