An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

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!

Absolutely, Scotland would have historic regiments to reinvigorate, and with membership of NATO and UN Scotland would still take part in international cooperation as other small European nations did for example in Libya or Afghanistan, where there was a UN resolution and mandate. Comparing Scotland's % share of the current UK navy/air force relative to other small European nations, we are in a worse position than those other countries but we spend more! For the amount Scotland contributes to UK military spending, Scotland would have more ships and planes than our relative share of current UK assets.

Scotland's naval yards would build for a Scottish Navy. Scotland wouldnt spend any money on nukes, and nuclear subs. Scotland would have sensible numbers of infantry for defense and international cooperation.

I also think the assets/liabilities discussion is interesting. GB is a union between Scotland and England, a "union of equals". UK is GB + NI. If Scotland breaks the GB union, it is the parting of two equal states legally. Under that scenario, the assets and labilites are split, AND the argument goes that both inherit the international treaties memberships and obligations equally.

IF however the argument from UK is that UK is unchanged, and little old Scotland is running off to be a new state with no inherited international rights or obligations, then it is not a breaking of the union, it is England = UK. In that case, Scotland has no rights to shares of assets. And no obligations to debts. Scotland would start from scratch, no EU for example, but no splitting of debts with England/UK.

(chucks grenade, waits for explosion ... )

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

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.

I beleive that there were 2 sub bases for the Nukes (Plymouth?), but one got cost cut - Scotland got chosen because of easier / quicker access to Deep Water. I suspect London would be on the nuclear target map anyway But I agree that would be a lot of NIMBYism - but would also be a lot of fighting for the base due to the economic benefits. I could see a compromise (fudge?!) being made, subs out of Scotland fairly quickly - the land based stuff a bit longer (no doubt some of the stuff is essential to have next to the new base from the getgo - but likely not all).....enough in something like that for someone like Salmond to claim a win, as well as simply saying that a grown up country has to deal with grown up issues in a responsible manner - not simply with wishful thinking and by waving a magic wand. 2 years or 10, don't matter - they will be gone.

The Scottish Navy could be based in Faslane from day 1 (even if only in a Portacabin!), any ships they get from the RN don't have to move immediately - and if they were building from scratch or buying (new or s/h) then have plenty of time before they need all of Faslane. Not sure how big the Scottish Navy would need to be. My guess is some sort of version of the USCG with a big fisheries / oil protection role. I dunno if they really need a frigate, let alone any Destroyers....except maybe as a flagship! For that I would personally go for a Hospital Ship!, with some Helicopter capability and an ability to defend itself against low level attack, something that could also be deployed around the world to support disaster relief, both immediate and a bit later by bringing in both relief supplies and personnel as well as some oboard capabilities.

No doubt their would still be a lot of co-operation with the UK / US on early warning systems as well as likely some sort of defence pact (in addition to Nato), at least so they could use Scottish Waters.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I also think the assets/liabilities discussion is interesting. GB is a union between Scotland and England, a "union of equals". UK is GB + NI. If Scotland breaks the GB union, it is the parting of two equal states legally. Under that scenario, the assets and labilites are split, AND the argument goes that both inherit the international treaties memberships and obligations equally.

IF however the argument from UK is that UK is unchanged, and little old Scotland is running off to be a new state with no inherited international rights or obligations, then it is not a breaking of the union, it is England = UK. In that case, Scotland has no rights to shares of assets. And no obligations to debts. Scotland would start from scratch, no EU for example, but no splitting of debts with England/UK.

(chucks grenade, waits for explosion ... )

Obviously there would need to be discussions and agreements with the UK (and others) on what Scotland inherits under international treaties etc, but that mostly on the practical side to ensure everyone is clear. Likley that no substantial changes required, even if some of that does go well past independence.


The splitting of assets and debts thing will simply be the subject of negotiation - and likely heavily revolving around the oil!.........On the armed forces (inclduing ships), apart from as a negotiating tool I don't think Scotland really needs anything at the getgo from the existing UK armed forces in equipment and personnel - which is just as well as the UK likely will still need everything it has! (what it does / wants to do won't change because of Scottish independence). Over time Scotland can build up it's own forces - and likely that in the interest of both countries for very close co-operation, with Scotland becoming a potential customer for the UK!

Personally i think the Oil split would be very easy - the geograhic waters are fairly easy to divide (plenty of rules around for that) - the Oil rights simply get split from that, with Scotland getting 100% of anything new, the existing commerical contracts being honoured and tax revenues being split by field and with varying periods and percentages for sharing (for the English anything over 10 years sounds like forever ) - something fairly involved so all sides can claim victory. But after 20 years my bet is that Salmond would end up with a wardrobe full of Dave Cameron's shirts .

[ronmcd]

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.

I beleive that there were 2 sub bases for the Nukes (Plymouth?), but one got cost cut - Scotland got chosen because of easier / quicker access to Deep Water. I suspect London would be on the nuclear target map anyway But I agree that would be a lot of NIMBYism - but would also be a lot of fighting for the base due to the economic benefits. I could see a compromise (fudge?!) being made, subs out of Scotland fairly quickly - the land based stuff a bit longer (no doubt some of the stuff is essential to have next to the new base from the getgo - but likely not all).....enough in something like that for someone like Salmond to claim a win, as well as simply saying that a grown up country has to deal with grown up issues in a responsible manner - not simply with wishful thinking and by waving a magic wand. 2 years or 10, don't matter - they will be gone.

The Scottish Navy could be based in Faslane from day 1 (even if only in a Portacabin!), any ships they get from the RN don't have to move immediately - and if they were building from scratch or buying (new or s/h) then have plenty of time before they need all of Faslane. Not sure how big the Scottish Navy would need to be. My guess is some sort of version of the USCG with a big fisheries / oil protection role. I dunno if they really need a frigate, let alone any Destroyers....except maybe as a flagship! For that I would personally go for a Hospital Ship!, with some Helicopter capability and an ability to defend itself against low level attack, something that could also be deployed around the world to support disaster relief, both immediate and a bit later by bringing in both relief supplies and personnel as well as some oboard capabilities.

No doubt their would still be a lot of co-operation with the UK / US on early warning systems as well as likely some sort of defence pact (in addition to Nato), at least so they could use Scottish Waters.

All quite reasonable. Although I think the UK govt scrapped our Nimrod early warning system, didn't they? And when a Russian warship decided to dump its waste in Scottish waters, there were no Nimrod aircraft to notice or keep watch, and a UK ship had to be sent - eventually - from Portsmouth!

Previously defence chiefs would have scrambled Nimrod aircraft from RAF Kinloss in Moray but because the base has been scrapped in cutbacks and a new fleet of planes cancelled, the Navy had no choice but to send HMS York.

But hey, we're all Better Together!

[ronmcd]

I also think the assets/liabilities discussion is interesting. GB is a union between Scotland and England, a "union of equals". UK is GB + NI. If Scotland breaks the GB union, it is the parting of two equal states legally. Under that scenario, the assets and labilites are split, AND the argument goes that both inherit the international treaties memberships and obligations equally.

IF however the argument from UK is that UK is unchanged, and little old Scotland is running off to be a new state with no inherited international rights or obligations, then it is not a breaking of the union, it is England = UK. In that case, Scotland has no rights to shares of assets. And no obligations to debts. Scotland would start from scratch, no EU for example, but no splitting of debts with England/UK.

(chucks grenade, waits for explosion ... )

Obviously there would need to be discussions and agreements with the UK (and others) on what Scotland inherits under international treaties etc, but that mostly on the practical side to ensure everyone is clear. Likley that no substantial changes required, even if some of that does go well past independence.


The splitting of assets and debts thing will simply be the subject of negotiation - and likely heavily revolving around the oil!.........On the armed forces (inclduing ships), apart from as a negotiating tool I don't think Scotland really needs anything at the getgo from the existing UK armed forces in equipment and personnel - which is just as well as the UK likely will still need everything it has! (what it does / wants to do won't change because of Scottish independence). Over time Scotland can build up it's own forces - and likely that in the interest of both countries for very close co-operation, with Scotland becoming a potential customer for the UK!

Personally i think the Oil split would be very easy - the geograhic waters are fairly easy to divide (plenty of rules around for that) - the Oil rights simply get split from that, with Scotland getting 100% of anything new, the existing commerical contracts being honoured and tax revenues being split by field and with varying periods and percentages for sharing (for the English anything over 10 years sounds like forever ) - something fairly involved so all sides can claim victory. But after 20 years my bet is that Salmond would end up with a wardrobe full of Dave Cameron's shirts .

I think everything will be sorted quite reasonably in the event of a yes vote on all sides: EU, NATO, oil, assets, liabilities. It's just in everyones interest to get things agreed with the least acrimony. Even those countries people claim will be desperate to cause problems because of their own perceived national interest, eg Spain, will I suspect not do so. Partly because their interest is in dissuading Scotland - and Catalonia - from actually doing it, but once Scotland HAD voted for independence there would be no real point in being obstructive after the event. But also there are national interests in all the other EU countries for ensuring that Scotland can continue in EU: Scotland's resources, it's EU citizens, the Spanish EU citizens who live and work in Scotland, etc.

I'm an optimist, but I don't believe my optimism is misplaced.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I'm a pessimist - and even I think it would be worked out ok...........as you say, for the sole reason of it being in everyones self interest to do so (self interest is the world's most reliable motivator!).

[ronmcd]

I'm a pessimist - and even I think it would be worked out ok...........as you say, for the sole reason of it being in everyones self interest to do so (self interest is the world's most reliable motivator!).

I'm a cynic. But an optimistic one.

I'm confused.

[Red Celt]

This, as printed in The Guardian.

Rather understandably, it led to a lot of complaints (my own included).

[Jason]

I'm looking for the clever, but I'm only seeing offensive. Aren't these things supposed to be clever?

[Red Celt]

I'm looking for the clever, but I'm only seeing offensive. Aren't these things supposed to be clever?

Yeah. Whether you're anti or pro Scottish independence... all this does is offer an insult to an entire country. Shame on The Guardian (supposedly a devoutly liberal paper) for publishing it.

[ronmcd]

What' more offensive is the hypocrisy from the Better Together parties: for weeks they have demanded the Scottish govt accept the recommendations of the (advisory) Electoral Commission before seeing them, claiming that because they wouldnt they must be trying to rig the referendum. Jim Murphy MP etc all endorsed online petitions demanding the EC recommendations must be accepted.

And now? The only side not accepting one of the EC recommendations is Better Together, specifically the recommendation that the Scottish and UK governments to work together to provide more clarity on the referendum: "People had a clear understanding that 'independent country' meant being separate from the UK. But they did want factual information in advance about what will happen after the referendum." You know, stuff like the UK contacting the EU to get confirmation of what the process would be in the event of a yes vote, the EU refusing to do that for anyone other than the current member state. UK says no, presumably because they think uncertainty helps their cause.

[mistermack]

This vote is about Scotland being an independent country. Do you want to run your own affairs?
But even before the vote is taken, the gnats are whining because the UK government won't help them.

They want to be independent, and do things on their own, but they want wesminster to do the hard stuff for them.
Unbelieveable.

Why should the UK government ask EU governments to enable something that they are actually campaigning against?
Fuck the electoral commision. They've allowed an unfair question, and tried to interfere with the process.
Time for a personnel clearout.

[ronmcd]

This vote is about Scotland being an independent country. Do you want to run your own affairs?
But even before the vote is taken, the gnats are whining because the UK government won't help them.

They want to be independent, and do things on their own, but they want wesminster to do the hard stuff for them.
Unbelieveable.

Why should the UK government ask EU governments to enable something that they are actually campaigning against?
Fuck the electoral commision. They've allowed an unfair question, and tried to interfere with the process.
Time for a personnel clearout.

Eh? You misunderstand, or perhaps more accurately you pretend to misunderstand.

The EU have said that they will not respond to the Scottish govt requests for a meeting and discussions about an independent Scotland, they say it needs to be a current member state. So if the UK ask them what will happen if Scotland votes YES, they will respond. The UK refuse to do so (interestingly).

Ironic, no? The UK/Better Together parties are the ones who demanded to know what would happen re EU if Scotland were independent, and yet UK is the only one who can actually find out. It's telling they don't want to ...

[ronmcd]

But even before the vote is taken, the gnats are whining because the UK government won't help them.

Many people in Scotland (as opposed to SNP or "gnats") are asking why UK government don't want the people to be well informed. The UK govt are the ONLY ones who can get an answer from EU, but won't. Interesting.

The no campaign so far has consisted of smearing SNP, smearing Salmond, smearing Sturgeon (thats the new 2013 Labour tactic!), scaremongering about EU, smearing Salmond, scaremongering about defence, smearing Salmond, scaremongering about Holyrood being a dictatorship (despite being proportional!!), smearing Salmond, scaremongering about Scotland uniquely being too poor to survive in the big bad world, smearing Salmond, scaremongering about the oil running out (while Cameron announces North Sea oil will last for decades as he announces new investments!). And smearing Salmond.

Incidentally, the YES campaign arent whining. It's actually been a very good few weeks for them. Cameron has destroyed some of the NO campaigns own scaremongering arguments against independence this year already, something people in Scotland are well aware of even if Cameron isnt! And it's only February! Plus two significant unionist commentators have both written articles in the last few weeks revealing their sudden realisation that independence may well be the only sensible choice, people who have not become "nationalists" ... they are just coming to the realisation that we need to be in control of our own policies and economy. Westminister is the problem.


But I'm wasting my time writing this, I know ... so I await your next Salmond/scotch/gnat insults with anticipation. Smears and insults are so much easier than rational argument, for sure.

[mistermack]

It's sad that you can name the new people backing yes.
If it keeps going the way it is, you'll be able to name all the yes voters.
The polls show a steady and significant drain away of support. If you were attracting more voters, then you might not have to PRETEND that it's going well.

And the vote is supposed to be about INDEPENDENCE. If the voters only want to leave the UK if they can easily join the EU as a state, then they aren't voting for independence. "We want independence, but we're scared of ending up on our own."

They really aren't ready for it. And I don't blame them.