Scotland Debate

[Deleted member 15344]

I know you refuse to back down once you've decided on your point of view so I'll not keep going with this (I'm not sure why I indulge you at all on this thread considering your opinion counts for zero when alls said and done) but because rUK wants to continue to spend money militarising themselves it doesn't follow that Scotland would need to.

So only Scottish people living in Scotland's opinion counts then ?

Actually I believe the possible independence ( well not really possible ) has an effect on the whole of the UK so our opinion is valid

But thankfully it's looking like it won't happen anyway.

But would be interested to know what your plans would be for those thousands of jobless scottish military people and obviously MOD that you would make redundant

 

[Val]

It's naive to think an independent scotland can have no military force

 

[Adi2Dassler]

So only people living in Scotland's opinion counts then ?

Obviously.

It's naive to think an independent scotland can have no military force

Probably, but to say it's impossible is incorrect.

 

[FairwayDodger]

So only Scottish people living in Scotland's opinion counts then ?

Not exactly.

Only people, of any nationality, who are registered to vote in Scotland. And David Bowie, of course!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Obviously.



Probably, but to say it's impossible is incorrect.

I'm going to suggest that everyone in the UK's opinion counts as it effects us all but only the people living in Scotland - regardless of nationality have a vote that counts.

So about these forces and mod civil servants that you make jobless - what work are they going to do then ?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I'm going to suggest that everyone in the UK's opinion counts as it effects us all but only the people living in Scotland - regardless of nationality have a vote that counts.

So about these forces and mod civil servants that you make jobless - what work are they going to do then ?

I don't think your opinion counts, it's not valid in this debate, it carries no weight, whatever you may think makes no difference.

As for the forces and mod civil servants...aren't they all employed by the current UK govt?I'm pretty sure you've been at pains to point out Scotland has no armed forces anyway, so that's a problem for rUK, is it not?Any army Scotland decides to have would actually be job creation...whether that job creation comes at the expense at the ever decreasing rUK military forces or elsewhere makes no odds to iScotland...we'd be creating jobs...like creating a maritime security service, patrolling our outstanding natural resources of fish/oil/gas, safe guarding our energy rich shores...hey, we'd need ships for all that, thank heavens we have the largest ship building zone on these islands.We'd maybe even start to do some good humanitarian ships or maybe a larger merchant navy.

All those that want to continue serving rUK I'm sure will be welcomed...until the next round of cuts to fund wmds.

As for civil servants, we'll need plenty more of them, plus imagine the value and expansion in Edinburgh...all those embassies, all those countries setting up here.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's naive to think an independent scotland can have no military force

The military force it would have have could easily be along the lines of The New Zealand Defence Force and with a similar remit. And with a population of 4.5million it's equivalent to Scotland's - so any military force would be similarly affordable.

Though A2D would have this comment as irrelevant as I don't have a vote - though since I can directly influence voters (in my family) does that mean that my views actually DO count - just a little.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I don't think your opinion counts, it's not valid in this debate, it carries no weight, whatever you may think makes no difference.

As for the forces and mod civil servants...aren't they all employed by the current UK govt?I'm pretty sure you've been at pains to point out Scotland has no armed forces anyway, so that's a problem for rUK, is it not?Any army Scotland decides to have would actually be job creation...whether that job creation comes at the expense at the ever decreasing rUK military forces or elsewhere makes no odds to iScotland...we'd be creating jobs...like creating a maritime security service, patrolling our outstanding natural resources of fish/oil/gas, safe guarding our energy rich shores...hey, we'd need ships for all that, thank heavens we have the largest ship building zone on these islands.We'd maybe even start to do some good humanitarian ships or maybe a larger merchant navy.

All those that want to continue serving rUK I'm sure will be welcomed...until the next round of cuts to fund wmds.

As for civil servants, we'll need plenty more of them, plus imagine the value and expansion in Edinburgh...all those embassies, all those countries setting up here.

Well I guess as my opinion doesn't count it won't matter if I'm telling you that you are living in a fantasy cloud cuckoo land

It's truely amazing how within the current climate of the world that path is rich flourishing nation is just going to emerge from the shackles of the UK. I think you actually believe it can happen - I think you have told yourself it enough you know believe it to be true

Currently a good percentages of the UK's military reside in Scotland - you don't want a military so out they all go taking with them all those jobs that a military establishment creates for the local community , along with your navy shipbuilding business and the employees because let's not forget those contracts are for the UK military. So you want to create a maritime security patrol ( *cough* Navy ) - now to do that obviously you could use the personnel from the navy ships stationed around Scotland but you have kicked them out of course - so you could create new jobs - better pay than the Royal Navy ? More funding required for that I'm guessing - I wonder what's to stop Russia drilling in the North Sea whilst you create this "Maritime Security Patrol" ( Navy ) or what's to stop foreign fishermen coming in and stocking up from oh our vast fish supplies ( believe they are restricted )

And embassies ? aren't Embassies normally manned by the country whose embassy it is - and can you really see many countries setting up an Embassy in Scotland ? For what purpose would they shell out all that money when they have a perfectly good one in London ?

So it's good to see you have thought it all through and have the negatives and positives all weighed up and have the cost implications involved and the upheaval and off course your military navy ( sorry maritime security patrol ) all sorted. Think it would make a great white paper and would certainly bridge that very big gap between the no and the yes vote ( 30% for the yes vote 61% for the no vote according to the radio this morning )

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Well I guess as my opinion doesn't count it won't matter if I'm telling you that you are living in a fantasy cloud cuckoo land

It's truely amazing how within the current climate of the world that path is rich flourishing nation is just going to emerge from the shackles of the UK. I think you actually believe it can happen - I think you have told yourself it enough you know believe it to be true

Currently a good percentages of the UK's military reside in Scotland - you don't want a military so out they all go taking with them all those jobs that a military establishment creates for the local community , along with your navy shipbuilding business and the employees because let's not forget those contracts are for the UK military. So you want to create a maritime security patrol ( *cough* Navy ) - now to do that obviously you could use the personnel from the navy ships stationed around Scotland but you have kicked them out of course - so you could create new jobs - better pay than the Royal Navy ? More funding required for that I'm guessing - I wonder what's to stop Russia drilling in the North Sea whilst you create this "Maritime Security Patrol" ( Navy ) or what's to stop foreign fishermen coming in and stocking up from oh our vast fish supplies ( believe they are restricted )

And embassies ? aren't Embassies normally manned by the country whose embassy it is - and can you really see many countries setting up an Embassy in Scotland ? For what purpose would they shell out all that money when they have a perfectly good one in London ?

So it's good to see you have thought it all through and have the negatives and positives all weighed up and have the cost implications involved and the upheaval and off course your military navy ( sorry maritime security patrol ) all sorted. Think it would make a great white paper and would certainly bridge that very big gap between the no and the yes vote ( 30% for the yes vote 61% for the no vote according to the radio this morning )

Awesome.I'm sure you think all of this is correct, and some of it might be based on reality, but I think some of what you think ( on any subject I've seen you contribute to on this forum) is just dumb in the extreme.

Carry on speculating on something you have no control over.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Though A2D would have this comment as irrelevant as I don't have a vote - though since I can directly influence voters (in my family) does that mean that my views actually DO count - just a little.

If your family has to rely on the advise/opinion of someone living in Surrey, more fool them, whatever way they vote.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Awesome.I'm sure you think all of this is correct, and some of it might be based on reality, but I think some of what you think ( on any subject I've seen you contribute to on this forum) is just dumb in the extreme.

Carry on speculating on something you have no control over.

My speculation has the exact same place as yours :thup:

I'm dumb - you live a fantasy world - what a pair we are then

Only thing you have control over is the ability to vote yes or no right now - if Scotland wanted WMDs you wouldn't have a say , if Scotland wanted military you wouldn't have a say

Just like everyone else in the UK - you will vote for promises - the reality is always a world away.

Thankfully it's looking like it's all immaterial

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The thing is that I believe that the opinion of those of us south of the border does actually matter.

If enough with a vote believe that a NO will bring a devo max nirvana - the best of both worlds with cream on top - then perhaps BT and Cameron/Clegg/Miliband/Farage et al should spell out a bit clearer what this nirvana will mean financially to those of us south of the border.

For if I were to hear that this nirvana for a BT Scotland is going to cost me £xxx a year - then I might well say to my MP - You can forget that Jeremy - put that lot in place for Scotland at that cost to my pocket and you ain't getting my vote. And his self-preservation instinct will kick in.

So someone - how much is devo max for a BT Scotland going to cost me - someone - anyone?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If your family has to rely on the advise/opinion of someone living in Surrey, more fool them, whatever way they vote.

I'm not saying they would rely on it - but my mother (mid-80s) might well listen to me as in the not too distant future she might be relying on me. As might my younger sister for different reasons. This is where the decision about my not getting a vote is wrong. I can see and agree with many of reasons for not giving me a vote - but to suggest that I will not be directly affected by the outcome is just incorrect - it is wrong.

 

[MegaSteve]

then perhaps BT and Cameron/Clegg/Miliband/Farage et al should spell out a bit clearer what this nirvana will mean financially to those of us south of the border.

Oh that's easy... For those south of the border it will mean take to all fours and brace yourself!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Oh that's easy... For those south of the border it will mean take to all fours and brace yourself!

...and you will be happy for that to happen?

Because lots of promises said and imagined seem to be heading the way of voters in the referendum - and more will be heading that way over the coming two months. Polls in Scotland seem to suggest a strengthening in the NO vote on the grounds of devo max being a 'likelihood' - is it - dunno? Certainly BT don't seem to be that keen to quash such speculation.

And so what will devo max mean to the rest of us? Maybe we should be told so we can tell our representatives in Westminster whether or not the cost to us of devo max is acceptable. But I am not holding my breath in waiting.

 

[Val]

The thing is that I believe that the opinion of those of us south of the border does actually matter.

If enough with a vote believe that a NO will bring a devo max nirvana - the best of both worlds with cream on top - then perhaps BT and Cameron/Clegg/Miliband/Farage et al should spell out a bit clearer what this nirvana will mean financially to those of us south of the border.

For if I were to hear that this nirvana for a BT Scotland is going to cost me £xxx a year - then I might well say to my MP - You can forget that Jeremy - put that lot in place for Scotland at that cost to my pocket and you ain't getting my vote. And his self-preservation instinct will kick in.

So someone - how much is devo max for a BT Scotland going to cost me - someone - anyone?

Devo max at present is not on the table.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Devo max at present is not on the table.

And so some voters are indicating that they will vote NO on the basis of something that is not (yet) going to happen. Have BT and/or Westminster said that devo max is categorically not on the table?

 

[MegaSteve]

...and you will be happy for that to happen?

Devo max at present is not on the table.

As Valentino points out its not on the table [at present]... And [hopefully] unlikely to be so...


Worst possible case for rUK [using 'our' new moniker]... In the event of it coming about would make retirement to the East Neuk look even more inviting ...

 

[ger147]

And so some voters are indicating that they will vote NO on the basis of something that is not (yet) going to happen. Have BT and/or Westminster said that devo max is categorically not on the table?

Yes, David Cameron did when he ruled out its inclusion in the vote. It's Yes or No to Independence on the ballot paper, nothing else.

Whatever may or may not come afterwards is just the normal political bluff/bluster, NOTHING else is officially on the table at the moment post-referendum.

 

[Val]

And so some voters are indicating that they will vote NO on the basis of something that is not (yet) going to happen. Have BT and/or Westminster said that devo max is categorically not on the table?

It's not on the ballot paper, the vote is independence or not, there is no carrot to vote no