FREEDOM!!!! [2]

I never mentioned Wimbeldon.  

And we might all be on the same island but so are all the Africans- no-one is suggesting they therefore dont have the right to have their own countries.

The problem is there is a large and growing social/political divide between the Scottish Government and Westminster- and we dont want dragged down the road England is on- we dont want our benefits systems dismantled, our children paying for education, our NHS privatised, people charged for medicine and forced to choose between budget and illness, our Elderly having to pay to travel, we dont want to have nuclear weapons permanently stationed in our country, we dont want to spend billions on foreign wars, we dont want to waste a fortune trying to still pretend we are  a global Empire.

Right now we cant do a thing about all this as we dont have self determination.

Thats what this is really about.

I wasnt really directing any of those comments at you, but Blue and Eldo put their two penneth in what I consider a divisive and pretty irritating way.

I struck up a conversation with 2 "mature" Scots guys today as I was waiting for my bus. They were the only 2 that cracked a laugh. Started off where they playfully called me an "Apache" cos of my fringed, fake suede boots. Everyone else was as miserable as arse'oles. They waved when they got off before me & were smiling happily,(probably cos they HAD got off before me   ) but at least we had a good chat !

Well rest assured Figg Scots were just as proud of the Olympic Team as the English were- its not about those sort of things- the ragging on the English is seen in Scotland as being in good humour between two groups of people who know each other well.

Our two peoples are very integrated- but then Scotland is very integrated with the people of Ireland too- with Scots going there and Irish coming here in waves for centuries- we dont have to have the same country and flag to get on and to share culture.

I dont see why it should be any different with the English post independence- in fact I rather think it will do both nations some good- Scots who have been so inclined in the past to blame England for things going wrong will have to take responsibility, and England can do what is best for her people without having to take into consideration far flung rural populations of Britain and loads of island communities who have very different needs from say London.

I can also see it longer term leading to devolved powers for the North of England once Scotland is gone from Westminster, giving 'the north' greater local democracy.



Good to hear you had a good Scottish encounter Azriel- we really are a very friendly people- its all the buckie  

We aim to please.  Or divide. Whatever your perspective may be.

Mrs Figg wrote:I wasnt really directing any of those comments at you, but Blue and Eldo put their two penneth in what I consider a divisive and pretty irritating way.

My ability to comment is limited, being on the other side of the ocean and all, but I get the sense that there are legitimate grievances coming from Scotland. It's a historical fact that Scotland, Wales, and especially Ireland were marginalized for centuries within the UK and its predecessors.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I can also see it longer term leading to devolved powers for the North of England once Scotland is gone from Westminster, giving 'the north' greater local democracy.

Didn't the Labour government try to do this in 2004 only to have it be defeated in a referendum?

Not sure it went to an actual referendum- sorry I will need to check that- but once Scotland is gone the north of England in terms of politics is in a tricky position- most of the cities there have there roots in the same environments as the West of Scotland- heavy industry- steel, shipbuilding ect and heavily Union influenced, so like the Scots they lean to the left of centre.

But without Scottish votes at a General Election a socialist leaning Labour party is going to find it very hard to get elected to Westminster as the bulk of the population is in the south and they are right of centre- post Independence the Tories might well find they have a pretty unshakeable position.
From recent history the only time since before Thatcher Labour got in power without relying on Scottish votes was under Blair, and to win the English vote he had to move the party so far to the right that Labour were no longer recognisably the same party- more Tory than the Tories in fact.

An interview showing the sort of typical BBC attitude in its reporting of Independence- Paxman interviews Salmond (and even tries to compare him to Mugabe)- Salmond copes with it well, I'd have been tempted to punch him-

well to get away from poor little Mr Salmond and that nasty Mr Paxman and get a sensible balanced view. Heres The Economist

I agree its a sensible balanced debate- for the time, but most of the information used in it has been superseded or clarified since- there is among many other things an entire 606 page White Paper laying out how Independence would work.

To take one example- she says the oil peaked in 1999 and will run out by the 2020's.

'According to the UK Oil & Gas 2013 Economic Report, there are substantial volumes of North Sea oil and gas remaining. (page 7) Current programs have already identified 11.4 billion barrels. (7.4 billion from existing projects and 4 billion in new fields)
Despite the scare stories, there are decades worth of North Sea oil available for extraction. The UK government concedes that oil has a future “well beyond 2055″ (section 5) in their recent report on the fields. This is a conservative estimation compared to that of Dr Richard Pike, a former oil industry consultant, who predicts a future 100 years of North Sea oil.- Business for Scotland

There are whole new fields been discovered off the northwest coast, completely untouched. And even if only 50 years- thats as long as we have had it, and if the UK government had set up an oil fund then the UK would have an oil fund now about the same size as Norways.
We still have the chance to do that if we take the chance to make those decisions for ourselves.

Her argument on renewable energy assumes there only 5million customers- we already supply power to the National Grid used right across Britain, we would almost certainly sell energy as we would have a surplus.

"Renewable energy currently supports over 11,000 jobs in Scotland (Scottish Renewables, March 2012).
Renewable generation in Scotland is enough to power the equivalent of every household in Scotland.
The Crown Estate, which owns the sea bed, has awarded leases for just over 1.6 gigawatts of marine projects in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters - potentially enough to power 750,000 households.

The Saltire Prize is the world's largest prize for marine energy innovation.
Scotland can get windy. As a result, onshore wind power has recently overtaken hydro power as the most common form of renewable energy in Scotland.
Figures published in June 2013 show wind generation in the first quarter of 2013 reached a record high, up by 11.5% year on year.
Scotland boasts 25% of Europe's offshore wind resources.
Scotland was the one of the first countries in the world where electricity was harnessed from the water around us. That legacy is still visible - Scotland's ambitious hydro building programme in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in infrastructure which still produces electricity today."- Scotlands Energy

We dont have an energy problem.

On RBS she makes a common mistake- she assumes because the international HQ is in Edinburgh, and because it has Scotland in the title that its a Scottish institution- in practise its not, and hasn't been for a very long time, the Scotland bit is just branding now.
The main bit that does the banking is-

UK Corporate Banking-
This division serves UK corporate and commercial customers, from SMEs to UK based multi nationals, and is the largest provider of banking, finance and risk management services to UK corporate and commercial customers. A key subsidiary of UK Corporate is Global Transaction Services, one of the world's top 5 payment businesses, providing cash and liquidity management, trade and supply chain finance, merchant acquiring and commercial card products and services.

And none of that part of the Bank is in Scotland, all we have is the official HQ- the actual bulk of what they do is on the international markets and out of London.

One could argue had Scotland been independent earlier banking regulations in Scotland might have been tighter than in England at the time (of course they might have been worse we will never know- but at least that would have been our own mess to clear up, not someone else making the mess for us and then leaving us to clear it up).

It's all very interesting. I see Scotland despite the united parliament and shared monarch as a distinct nationality from the English. And therefore see no reason as to why they shouldn't be their own country if they so wish.

Also I think the English should learn from the whole debacle with Irish independence, and realize that if they handle the issue of potential Scottish independence better there a chance for a continued mutually beneficial very close relationship there. The way Westminster is going about this now is not going to facilitate that if Scotland should choose to become independent.

Looks like NATO is going to get tough over Trident.


Telegraph
Nato blow to SNP's defence plans for independent Scotland

The SNP’s blueprint for defending an independent Scotland was in disarray today after Nato signalled it would be refused membership without a deal with the UK over the basing of Trident.
Senior sources confirmed that Scottish Government officials were informed at Nato headquarters that countries wanting to join are not allowed to “import” existing military or territorial disputes into the alliance.
But Alex Salmond has promised to force the removal of the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines from their Faslane base on the Clyde as soon as possible after independence.
He intends to include a ban on nuclear weapons in a separate Scotland’s written constitution despite Trident forming part of the “supreme guarantee” of Nato’s security along with the arsenals of France and the US.
Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, confirmed the UK Government facilitated the meeting and it had proved that a separate Scotland “can't apply to join Nato and then disregard the fact that it is a nuclear alliance.”
He added: “The Scottish Government's plans for Nato appear to be in serious disarray.”
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, said: “It is no surprise officials were told that shutting down the submarine base at Faslane was incompatible with entry into the alliance.
“Defence of the nation is the first responsibility of any government, yet once again Alex Salmond has been caught playing fast and loose with the truth – making assertions without checking the facts.”

It is understood a Nato assistant general secretary used the meeting to set out the hurdles applicants have to clear to satisfy Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
This requires all countries to contribute to the alliance’s security, including its nuclear umbrella, which the official said also means not “importing” territorial or military disputes.
Although Mr Salmond has repeatedly argued that the vast majority are not nuclear powers, Scotland is in a unique position as it already hosts a large part of Nato’s nuclear umbrella.

It is understood the Scottish Government argued that Scotland should not have to apply from scratch as it is part of an existing member state but this was rejected.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former Nato Secretary General and Labour Defence Secretary, said Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were expected to resolve similar territorial disputes before starting their application process
He told the Guardian that Mr Salmond knew there was a contradiction between Scotland joining Nato and getting rid of Trident, adding: “He’s taking the Scottish people for fools.”

Seems to me from that the main issue is - 'not “importing” territorial or military disputes.'

An issue which will be resolved as soon as Trident is moved to England and out of Scotland- then we can reapply.

Even without the nukes we still offer a hugely important fuelling and supply station with the capability of fuelling submarines and we are as strategically placed in regards Russia as we were in the Cold War when there were US bases here.

So I see no long term issue here, just means in the short term we are outside NATO- dont know about anyone else but I dont think I'd lose much sleep over that.  

This will also oddly enough go down very well with a lot of SNP backbenchers and grass roots, who didnt want being in NATO to be part of a independent nation as its a nuclear weapon based defence. The SNP leading group only got the policy changed at the SNP conference on a narrow vote.

Not surprising that NATO would get pissy over Salmond wanting to move the nukes. Why does Scotland want to be in NATO anyway? Is it just for the money/gifts of military hardware? Cause it's not like being in NATO is necessary to be a secure state, especially if they join the EU. Ireland, Austria, Sweden, and Finland are not part of NATO and they seem to be doing fine.

-see my above last minute edit at the end Eldo for the view on NATO

The main thing we get out of NATO is a radar net that covers our oil fields.

We probably lose NATO satellite coverage though.

We'd have to do it ourselves otherwise and that will cost, although of course we already have a lot radar stations anyway and NATO are probably using ours to do it at the moment- so maybe not.

How can you be against Trident/nuclear weapons yet expect nuclear umbrellas from NATO, either you are anti-nuclear or you are not. Having cake and eating it.

3/4 of all NATO members have no nukes- including Norway.

but you are getting rid of nukes on PRINCIPAL, the principal that the nukes you already have should not be in your back yard. its not like those other 26 members already had nukes.

Yes, but NATO is more than just a nuclear alliance- thats just a scary name left over from the Cold War- in practise its mainly about radar and satellite, shipping, resupplying, rearming and patrolling.

The very fact the majority of its members dont have nukes demonstrates that nukes are not the important or defining factor.
Some see no reason not to continue taking part in the safe defence of the North Atlantic, they just dont want to do it with nukes- which are the one bit of NATO thats never been needed or used anyway.

Where you are right is that for a lot of grassroots SNP supporters it is about principle and they have always opposed NATO on those grounds- but of the voting majority they are in the minority.
Therefore in the run up to an independence referendum where 'dont knows' when they decide will win the day, the SNP played the political game- they convinced enough of their party it was better not to frighten the floating voters and got conference to narrowly vote for retaining membership of NATO.
It was always a politically expedient move so on a personal level I doubt they care, most of them voted to leave on principle most of their careers.

How it will play to the floating voters remains to be seen.

I tried to get more info on this and discovered the story is from early August- given this is the first I had heard of it and I watch politics pretty closely I can honestly say the effect it had on the debate is, nothing at all.

Which seemed odd, seemed the sort of thing the Unionists would be crowing about, so I did some digging and found a less hysterical version in the Guardian (its still hysterical but at least includes the actual facts it seems, which are less hysterical)

"It is understood that Nato officials said it might be possible to allow Scotland to start fast-track talks."

(note the use of 'It is understood that'- a journalistic trick to make it sound less certain and as if they had only heard about this second hand, the sentence reads truer if you take it back off)

"the Scottish delegation was also told that no new member would be allowed to join Nato if that state had unresolved military or territorial disputes with other countries......sources in London confirm that these issues were seen as coded warnings that the Scottish government's determination to close down the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane on the Clyde would be a major obstacle to Scotland's application."

(Worth noting in that last bit the only people actually saying its a warning are 'sources' in LOndon -and in Edinburgh- who are unnamed, presumably Unionist sources- whoever they are, its not actually NATO)

"You're not expected to import problems with your neighbours into Nato and that's a very clear warning signal," Robertson said.

So once again a non NATO source (and from a Unionist party, Labour this time) reiterating the only problem NATO seem to have raised is of dispute.


But is there actually a dispute in the first place?

If Scotland votes independent this is what the SNP and Westminster say happens next-

There is first a period where Scotland remains a full member of the Union and the two governments lay out their sides of the argument over how assets an debt are split ect- this includes the armed forces (I cant remember how long this is supposed to take, I think from memory its 14 months)
All of this is laid out in the Edinburgh Agreement signed by both the Scottish Government and Westminster, laying out the procedure.

When Scotland officially becomes independent by definition all these agreed areas have to first be settled.
So when Scotland reapplies to NATO we will have no ongoing military dispute with anyone and therefore this wont apply.

"Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of UK defence policy studies at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, who has analysed the Scottish government's defence strategy, said Trident's future would be of critical importance.
Chalmers said other Nato members would expect London to take the lead in settling the Trident issue and all other defence questions before they seriously entertained Scottish membership.
He said that pragmatists in the SNP accepted that would likely involve a long-term basing deal with the UK to keep Trident on the Clyde, but that would not be as dramatic as a sovereign basing agreement which would see Faslane declared to be UK territory.
Although Nato members would be keen for Scotland to join quickly and smoothly, "people would want Scotland to be a member but it would be in terms of not wanting any problems to be imported [into the alliance], but the main judge of the importing problems question would be London.
"I can't see a scenario with Scotland being a problem for Nato, provided it had sorted out any bilateral problems with England." He said no-one in Nato wanted to see Scotland being left outside the alliance."- The Guardian


This explains why despite the story being several months old it has since fizzled away to nothing an had no effect.

It turns out yet again to be the Unionists side spinning something in Unionist newspapers (thats all of them incidentally, thee are no Yes supporting media) to try to score points.

The perils of buckie!

"Scottish deaths from chronic liver disease are among the highest in Europe, new statistics have suggested.
The rates are almost 70% higher than the average across the UK and 60% higher than 30 years ago.
"male mortality rates for chronic liver disease (CLD) were twice as high as those reported for women, and that people in the most deprived areas were more than five times more likely to die of CLD than those in the least deprived. " - BBC

Well at least Ill go out in traditional fashion!

Wasn't there some outrage at some point when the politicians wanted to set the retierment age above the male life expectancy age in Glasgow?

Yeah- if you live in the deprived areas of Glasgow your chances of making it to pension age is petty slim.

Yeah I remember them doing a thing about it on hignfy.  

Crazy stuff.

Still, I guess it saves money effectively not having a pension system.