An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

So pointing out potential problems is scaremongering, and everything is SURE to turn out right in the end.

Yeah, right. It always does.

Like before the 2nd world war, people said the same thing. Or when Greece joined the Euro.
But, just like in history, things do go wrong, they will go wrong, and it's usually best not to trust to luck.

WWII? What an odd comparison with expanding political control from <50% to 100%! Wow, the threat of war, does that qualify as scaremongering? insane.
And Greece. Yeah. Scotland is like Greece, is it? No.

The UK government, and the unionist parties in Scotland, want to try and suggest:
a) Scotland is too wee, too poor, too singularly incompetent to survive
b) Scotland will be shunned by the international community, or treated like a rogue state
c) Scotland will be invaded by ... someone or other, without the gracious umbrella of UK military. That we pay for. And which we are shortchanged by.
d) Scotland will lose it's place at the top seat of international politics, and permanent seat on UN Security Council! But Scotland isn't represented at those top seats today ...
e) Scotland will be forced to join the EURO even though no country has been forced after joining EU, and they would hardly be accepting new members currently
f) (my favourite) Scotland's whisky industry won't have access to the world market, somehow, because UK embassies promote whisky abroad! But they charge Scottish companies for the privelige, but don't charge others ... too wee, too useless to promote ourselves!
g) People in Scotland will be FORCED to choose between being British or Scottish by independence! Not sure why, it's certainly not something the YES campaign have suggested, but the unionist parties insist this is the case. I wonder why they do that???

These and innumerable other positive arguments for the union ... aren't scaremongering?

[mistermack]

d) Scotland will lose it's place at the top seat of international politics, and permanent seat on UN Security Council! But Scotland isn't represented at those top seats today ..

Well, that's just an outright lie !

You're making progress here.

[ronmcd]

d) Scotland will lose it's place at the top seat of international politics, and permanent seat on UN Security Council! But Scotland isn't represented at those top seats today ..

Well, that's just an outright lie !

You're making progress here.

Scotland doesn't have a representative at the Security Council. The UK is there, but representing the view of Westminister, not Holyrood. Similarly, when a UK minister can't attend a European meeting relating to his brief, what happens? UK Farming Minister fogbound so UK Fishing Minister drafted in for CAP talks - Scots & Welsh Agri Ministers offer to step in but turned down

But with independence, Scotland would have same representation as other countries. Normal, one might call it. As for the permanent UN Security Council seat, rUK are welcome to it.

[Santa_Claus]

The Security Council will always exist. and will never be expanded to include any other powers (India / Brazil / Germany etc). Unlikely that the UK (or any of the Western powers) would do anything that would negatively affect Scotland, not by good intentions but simply from little if anything they could do. Plus Scotland will always have a strategic importance to the West (especially the US and England) - so probably don't have to worry about Scotland going Sharia law, or the locals learning Russian (unless you are in the "No" camp when those things are no doubt a concern!).

But the problem (especially for the UK) is that the Security Council will over time lose it's relevance - will likely always exist, but if it does not evolve it will be superceded. Think how irrelevent the G7 is nowadays. All that needs to happen is for countries to start talking to each other via another forum (here?!) because they need to - how about the "World Peace and Development Council" (inside UN or not), over time that would simply supplant the Security Council (which only has weight because countries want it to).........long story short, Scotland with own seat at the Security Council will be irrelevant in the long term.

[Santa_Claus]

I think for the No campaign it is going to be a very long 2 years.........

.......mostly consisting of shooting selves in the foot, as plenty of time for the EOTW scare stories to be countered and made to look as silly as they are. as well as the people peddling them.

[ronmcd]

The Security Council will always exist. and will never be expanded to include any other powers (India / Brazil / Germany etc). Unlikely that the UK (or any of the Western powers) would do anything that would negatively affect Scotland, not by good intentions but simply from little if anything they could do. Plus Scotland will always have a strategic importance to the West (especially the US and England) - so probably don't have to worry about Scotland going Sharia law, or the locals learning Russian (unless you are in the "No" camp when those things are no doubt a concern!).

But the problem (especially for the UK) is that the Security Council will over time lose it's relevance - will likely always exist, but if it does not evolve it will be superceded. Think how irrelevent the G7 is nowadays. All that needs to happen is for countries to start talking to each other via another forum (here?!) because they need to - how about the "World Peace and Development Council" (inside UN or not), over time that would simply supplant the Security Council (which only has weight because countries want it to).........long story short, Scotland with own seat at the Security Council will be irrelevant in the long term.

Theres much suspicion that Whitehall's real worry over independence, beyond the oil which has funded everything for decades, is the nukes. If the nukes have to be removed, then theres every chance UK could become a non nuclear state, and if thats the case why would other large nations allow the current anomaly of UK being one of only 5 permanent members of the security council?

It really isn't about Scotland, in my opinion.

[ronmcd]

I think for the No campaign it is going to be a very long 2 years.........

.......mostly consisting of shooting selves in the foot, as plenty of time for the EOTW scare stories to be countered and made to look as silly as they are. as well as the people peddling them.

Hence the initial demands for a quick referendum! Look what happened with the AV referendum - no time for any facts to be debated, just a quick brutal campaign of smear from the no camp, and it worked. Albeit the AV system is pants anyway!

[Svartalf]

Unless measures are taken to ensure unanimous assent, I'm sorry to have to say that mackie has the right of it

The only reason another country would try and bar Scotland from the EU (if indeed it actually needs to enter - per the Greenland experiance would seem to require consent to leave!) is as a bargaining chip on other matters.

But back in the real world that will simply not happen - other countries too much to lose by pissing off the Germans (who hold the purse strings) plus won't want to piss of a Country that will one day be in the EU and therefore be able to payback......

The discussions on Scotlands EU position will be entirely about the practical side to ensure that the basis on which Scotland is in the EU is clear to everyone (could well be that will be different from the UK - with Scotland wanting less optouts).....likely that will involve a treaty (signed by everyone) at the end of it, but that simply icing on the cake.

and plenty countries want all the leverage they can get for whatever pet decision they want passed, be it only more money or a national to sit on the commission and represent their interests, whatever.

[klr]

Unless measures are taken to ensure unanimous assent, I'm sorry to have to say that mackie has the right of it

The only reason another country would try and bar Scotland from the EU (if indeed it actually needs to enter - per the Greenland experiance would seem to require consent to leave!) is as a bargaining chip on other matters.

But back in the real world that will simply not happen - other countries too much to lose by pissing off the Germans (who hold the purse strings) plus won't want to piss of a Country that will one day be in the EU and therefore be able to payback......

The discussions on Scotlands EU position will be entirely about the practical side to ensure that the basis on which Scotland is in the EU is clear to everyone (could well be that will be different from the UK - with Scotland wanting less optouts).....likely that will involve a treaty (signed by everyone) at the end of it, but that simply icing on the cake.

Ahem ... *cough* ... France vetoing UK membership ...

It's not the only case of one country blocking another, but it's arguably the best known. It also effectively kept Ireland out of the EEC (as it then was).

BTW, you can bet that if Turkey ever gets close to joining the EU, Greece will scream blue murder, with France (as usual) close behind. Greece is already playing silly buggers with Macedonia, effectively stalling the start of Macedonian accession talks over the infamous "naming issue".

[Svartalf]

Why don't Macedonia ask to become part of Greece, that would solve all problems on that side.

[klr]

Why don't Macedonia ask to become part of Greece, that would solve all problems on that side.

I do believe that you made that post with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

[Svartalf]

Where else? beside my head also being firmly planted up my ass?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Theres much suspicion that Whitehall's real worry over independence, beyond the oil which has funded everything for decades, is the nukes. If the nukes have to be removed, then theres every chance UK could become a non nuclear state, and if thats the case why would other large nations allow the current anomaly of UK being one of only 5 permanent members of the security council?

It really isn't about Scotland, in my opinion.

The subs could be relocated to England easily enough (just add money!)....likely that a deal would be struck for an extended timescale (i.e. the Subs don't relocate the day after independence, might take 2 years, might take 10 - the Scots would be charging them rent though!). I doubt the UK will go non-nuclear - the Americans would not let them!

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

On the Scottish Military side, my bet is that the Scots would be happy to start afresh - plenty of former / historic regiments that could be resurrected. Certainly would be cleaner than arguing over who gets what.

Of course the Scottish armed forces would never be of any use (in size and capabilities) for offensive action - but I suspect they would be happy with that. be a lot cheaper as well!

[ronmcd]

Theres much suspicion that Whitehall's real worry over independence, beyond the oil which has funded everything for decades, is the nukes. If the nukes have to be removed, then theres every chance UK could become a non nuclear state, and if thats the case why would other large nations allow the current anomaly of UK being one of only 5 permanent members of the security council?

It really isn't about Scotland, in my opinion.

The subs could be relocated to England easily enough (just add money!)....likely that a deal would be struck for an extended timescale (i.e. the Subs don't relocate the day after independence, might take 2 years, might take 10 - the Scots would be charging them rent though!). I doubt the UK will go non-nuclear - the Americans would not let them!

I agree, theres no doubt the subs could be moved and housed very easily in England, the facilities exist or could be upgraded no problem. But theres a couple of problems with basing the nukes & subs in the South:

1) they would be closer to London. If anyone is seriously going to tell me Whitehall and the Ministry of Defense wouldn't want the nukes as far as possible from the seat of government in UK, and London's population in general, sorry, I don't believe it. 30 miles from Scotland's biggest city? No problem

2) the money spent at the sub base at Faslane isnt really the problem, as I say there are facilities for the subs in England. It's the arms depot a few miles away at Coulport which is the problem, it might be very expensive and take time to build comparable facilities somewhere else. And as in point 1, who wants nukes in underground bunkers close to their homes and cities? Hmm. With people complaining about windmills ruining their local views, imagine how the "nimby" types would react to nukes in the South East of England!

In terms of the time it would take, the SNP have said they would want them out as quickly as safely possible, so no demands for them to be removed on day one. But if the yes campaign were to win the referendum, and the SNP then changed their minds and said ok we will rent the facilities to UK for (say) 10 years, they would be punished at the polls in the next election. I personally dont think the nukes would stay long at all. Also, I think its worth remembering the Faslane base is the one a SCottish navy would use as the main base, so the subs and nukes would need to go pretty quick.