Tman wrote:Yep, such an "embarrassment of riches" that the threat of closure of Grangemouth sends the SNP into a quivering mass, and now the possibility of another two ship-yards closing (or being severely curtailed) leads to accusations of political manouvering and interference by Westminster and Holyrood in case the closures influence the outcome of the independence vote.
Seems like those live in the real world are rightly concerned that that "embarrassment of riches" is highly unlikely to filter down to those who actually work for a living, and that said "embarrassment of riches" does actually need bolstering with industry and jobs, which, sadly, seem to be in decline.
That said, had not Westminster place orders for MoD work with Scottish ship-builders over the decades it's likely ship-building would have ceased there years back, so in reality the Clydeside yards were kept open at the expense of English yards in Hartlepool, Sunderland and Newcastle among others.
The old Monty Python sketch again..."what did the Romans ever do for us...."
"The Better together" campaign are obviously worried hence the announcement to help sway a no vote .... it won't work
do you honestly think we would not be able to afford to build our own ships like ?? Norway who has a similar defence budget a independent Scotland would have $5.2 billion roughly the same as the £3.7 billion Scots tax payer contribute toward the UK defence budget ... the purchase of military hardware is a multiplier of 3 of the actual budget or otherwise £1.23 Billion of the £3.7 billion so the navy, airforce and army would have budgets of £410 million or £4.1 billion over 10 years to spend each on new hardware/equipment
"Vi har haft århundraden av kärlek och tillit till varandra."
So you know so much about theoretical spending budgets for future military equipment and yet don't know what currency an independent Scotland would use, what or who it's bank would be, or even if membership of the EU gravy train would be allowed? Of course you do..
Face it, it's all bluff and bluster to persuade the silent majority to vote yes, but there's no firm basis for any of it.
All ifs buts and maybes....
Tman wrote:So you know so much about theoretical spending budgets for future military equipment and yet don't know what currency an independent Scotland would use, what or who it's bank would be, or even if membership of the EU gravy train would be allowed? Of course you do..
Face it, it's all bluff and bluster to persuade the silent majority to vote yes, but there's no firm basis for any of it.
All ifs buts and maybes....
trust me we will still be in the EU
lets see
oil
gas
coal
steel
among other raw materials
no Scotland no EU fishing policy
should I go on
"Vi har haft århundraden av kärlek och tillit till varandra."
A few years ago Europe would have welcomed an independant scotland but not now.It really is not a good idea to either run with the euro or set up your own currency or run with the pound as an independant country.They dont want you in the euro the uk wouldnt be too keen on you using their pound and just try telling voters and business that we are about to start trading in godrics.Anybody questioning the motivation of the Chinese for their increasing interest in scotland?
That's a big assumption. You need to investigate further?
lets see
oil
gas
coal
steel
Forget coal and steel, that won't pay the bills any more, oil and gas are lucrative but are finite and production is already in decline, and the division is still subject to speculation,
That's a big assumption. You need to investigate further?
Even Salmond doesn't know if we'd get straight into the EU, maybe he should get in touch with Godric .
I imagine he's away back checking with the Nationalist site that he is obviously copying and pasting from
wrong Salmond already knows as does the UK Government that Scotland would remain part of the EU after a YES vote .... the UK government does not want to score a own goal
and going by Tman's conclusion Ruk would not be a member of the EU as it would no longer be the UK without Scotland or England the two countries that formed the Union
as I said the UK is like the Titanic it is sinking fast .... the Uk's debt is rising by 10% of the Uk's GDP every year ..... only a idiot would stay on a sinking ship
"Vi har haft århundraden av kärlek och tillit till varandra."
Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
This opinion is also shared by EU lawyers. According to a report in the Scotsman, the EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but would have to renegotiate their terms of membership. That puts Westminster's precious opt-outs at risk, so you can see why they're keeching themselves on this issue. The matter would be decided by a majority vote in the EU Council, so no country could veto Scottish membership.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
brothermagrew wrote:Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
This opinion is also shared by EU lawyers. According to a report in the Scotsman, the EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but would have to renegotiate their terms of membership. That puts Westminster's precious opt-outs at risk, so you can see why they're keeching themselves on this issue. The matter would be decided by a majority vote in the EU Council, so no country could veto Scottish membership.
LMFAO, what a load of Bull, you believe that
I've a funny feeling that Spain alone will have plenty to say about an Independent Scotland joining the EU, I'd be more inclined to vote YES if we weren't joining it!!!
wrong Salmond already knows as does the UK Government that Scotland would remain part of the EU after a YES vote .... the UK government does not want to score a own goal
He'd be shouting it from the rooftops if he were certain that was true, as it is he's been caught out lying on the subject.
What about the NATO U-turn then, big Nationalist policy to withdraw for over 40 years and now they want to remain members, only 2 of their MSP's were principled enough to resign the party whip, despicable bunch that I hope will be obliterated after the inevitable NO vote next year.
Says you - despicable bunch that I hope will be obliterated after the inevitable NO vote next year.
Far from it the SNP whether they win or lose the referendum are set to be the majority party at the next Scottish Parliament election.
SNP 6 years.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
Have heard from another pro Indy bro that there were only 4 CWU members who attended the recent meeting consultation on Scottish Independence in Dumfries (28th Oct)hosted by CWU deputy general secretary (Telecoms and Financial Services) Andy Kerr . Can anybody confirm if this is true or not.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
brothermagrew wrote:Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
This opinion is also shared by EU lawyers. According to a report in the Scotsman, the EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but would have to renegotiate their terms of membership. That puts Westminster's precious opt-outs at risk, so you can see why they're keeching themselves on this issue. The matter would be decided by a majority vote in the EU Council, so no country could veto Scottish membership.
LMFAO, what a load of Bull, you believe that
I've a funny feeling that Spain alone will have plenty to say about an Independent Scotland joining the EU, I'd be more inclined to vote YES if we weren't joining it!!!
and what do you think the Spanish fishermen will do when they can no longer fish in the lucrative fishing waters of Scotland thanks to their government
Alex Salmond has already stated on numerous occasions that Scotland will remain in the EU as have the Yes Scotland campaign members .... it is the scare mongers that have said otherwise ... the above post by Brothermagrew is fact
"Vi har haft århundraden av kärlek och tillit till varandra."
[quote According to a report in the Scotsman,
the EU would treat Scotland and the rump-UK equally as successor states. Both would continue as EU members, but would have to renegotiate their terms of membership. .[/quote]
A little bit of logical thought tells you that that's a load of tripe. If Cameron thought that he had a way of renegotiating the UK's terms of membership (due to Scottish independence) he would be campaigning for a Yes vote loud and long. Apart from being an obvious vote-winner for the Tories, he'd have a ready scape-goat in the Jocks if it all went wrong at a later date. He couldn't lose.
Then again, the EU would bend over backwards to ensure the UK remains a part of the EU (as they would with any of the biggest financial contributors) but 5.3 million notionally independent Scots.....hmmm....not really such a big draw.
