Scottish Independence

[Jaggernaut]

The First Minister has given a good description of what Scottish independence means:

 

"It is the opposite of dependence, of limited ambition, of negativity, caution and pessimism. It means rejecting those who tell us we are too lazy and too poor."

 

I would add that it means rejecting those who tell us we are incapable.

[jaggybunnet]

I think he wants the referendum now.

 

Salmond 1 Paxman 0. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alex+salmond+jeremy+paxman+youtube&docid=1167927935503&mid=61955AD6EAF53EC956DD61955AD6EAF53EC956DD&FORM=VIRE1#

 

 

not according to the sturg last night on news night scotland he isn't.

[jaggybunnet]

The currency, armed forces and health service questions are good ones and I am keen to know how they would be addressed in an independent Scotland. This is why I think it is vital that there is an open, fair debate prior to the referendum.

 

as a member of the armed forces i cant see how a smaller scottish army is going to be good for me and my colleagues so that's would be a no and a few thousand more on the dole.

[Jaggernaut]

not according to the sturg last night on news night scotland he isn't.

Ah, the sturge....

Gives me the urge...

 

[Jaggernaut]

as a member of the armed forces i cant see how a smaller scottish army is going to be good for me and my colleagues so that's would be a no and a few thousand more on the dole.

Why the dole? Wouldn't there be other jobs? I would think that a newly independent Scotland would see an economic upturn that would stimulate thousands of jobs in many sectors. I'd imagine the remainder of the UK would be happy to recruit from Scotland in any case, so if soldiering is what you like best, then there'd still be work, I'm sure.

[Mr Scruff]

The First Minister has given a good description of what Scottish independence means:

 

"It is the opposite of dependence, of limited ambition, of negativity, caution and pessimism. It means rejecting those who tell us we are too lazy and too poor."

 

I would add that it means rejecting those who tell us we are incapable.

That's meaningless. Nothing specific, just an emotive appeal.

[Mr Scruff]

as a member of the armed forces i cant see how a smaller scottish army is going to be good for me and my colleagues so that's would be a no and a few thousand more on the dole.

The point is that we could only defend ourselves with what we can afford. To me that would mean a severe reduction in our armed forces. We might be able to lease some of our establishments to the UK armed forces depending on their requirements though I suspect there are several establishments in England and Wales which will see this as opportunity as a godsend.

[Woodstock Jag]

as a member of the armed forces i cant see how a smaller scottish army is going to be good for me and my colleagues so that's would be a no and a few thousand more on the dole.

 

Bizarre argument. It's pretty likely that we would be able to lease excess bases back to the rump of the UK (if they really needed it) or that some sort of shared defence would persist. I also find the idea that people will end up on the dole just because we stop spending millions on tanks, aircraft carriers and guns very odd. Spending less on the military means we can invest that money in local enterprise that actually makes stuff that's useful and has value across the world. Hell, we could even cut the taxes of the lowest paid with the money we save by not spending money on nuclear weapons we'll never use.

[Mr Scruff]

Bizarre argument. It's pretty likely that we would be able to lease excess bases back to the rump of the UK (if they really needed it) or that some sort of shared defence would persist. I also find the idea that people will end up on the dole just because we stop spending millions on tanks, aircraft carriers and guns very odd. Spending less on the military means we can invest that money in local enterprise that actually makes stuff that's useful and has value across the world. Hell, we could even cut the taxes of the lowest paid with the money we save by not spending money on nuclear weapons we'll never use.

Perhaps.

 

But if we spend less because we have less to spend then it may well lead to the effect that jb suggests, thus not that bizarre. The UK has the 4th highest defence budget in the world. Scottish forces and manufacturing (and support services) make up a good part of that.

 

If the argument is 'don't spend less - spend it on something different' then I've a lot of sympathy with that (although that wasn't what jb was responding to). But I suspect that to maintain anything like the forces Scotland contributes to the UK armed services we'd probably have to spend proportionally more, and to be realistic we'd have to spend less. A debate therefore on the role (if any) of the future of Scottish armed services. My own position is that I would not support bi-lateral ties between Scottish and UK armed forces, at least until we've 'found our feet'.

[Woodstock Jag]

Perhaps.

 

But if we spend less because we have less to spend then it may well lead to the effect that jb suggests, thus not that bizarre. The UK has the 4th highest defence budget in the world. Scottish forces and manufacturing (and support services) make up a good part of that.

 

But that's not a credible argument.

 

If the argument is 'don't spend less - spend it on something different' then I've a lot of sympathy with that (although that wasn't what jb was responding to). But I suspect that to maintain anything like the forces Scotland contributes to the UK armed services we'd probably have to spend proportionally more, and to be realistic we'd have to spend less. A debate therefore on the role (if any) of the future of Scottish armed services. My own position is that I would not support bi-lateral ties between Scottish and UK armed forces, at least until we've 'found our feet'.

 

Again this is bizarre. Independence leaves essentially two options. The first is that we decide to sustain the same level of military provision. This is only remotely credible if there is a common defence agreement with the UK. In such a scenario, it shouldn't cost us ANY MORE than at present. The other option is that we keep our own defence force but that we scale it down considerably, probably leasing unused bases back to the UK for profit. In which case we're spending less. If we're spending less tax, that means it's easier to fund other government programmes without resort to other tax hikes and/or the financing of tax cuts for the poorest. There is no inherent loss with respect to the armed forces with Independence.

[fatha bacon]

Scotland takes more out the union than it puts in. we are subsidized by england. i think we would be worse if were we to leave. What we could do to make us stronger would be to stop all these foreign aid hand outs that go to foreign countries that do no good. the money just goes from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. There's too many countries who have become dependent and lazy because of hand outs that they can't do anything for themselves. And do you know india, who receives one of the biggest aid packages from britain, spends 1.2 billion on its space program?! we need to spend the money on ourselves before we start worrying about other countries where the money just gets corrupted away. we could make a go of it if we done this and started from scratch

[Mr Scruff]

But that's not a credible argument.

 

 

 

Again this is bizarre. Independence leaves essentially two options. The first is that we decide to sustain the same level of military provision. This is only remotely credible if there is a common defence agreement with the UK. In such a scenario, it shouldn't cost us ANY MORE than at present. The other option is that we keep our own defence force but that we scale it down considerably, probably leasing unused bases back to the UK for profit. In which case we're spending less. If we're spending less tax, that means it's easier to fund other government programmes without resort to other tax hikes and/or the financing of tax cuts for the poorest. There is no inherent loss with respect to the armed forces with Independence.

Well I suppose if the starting premise is that:

 

(a ) The Barnett formula leads to perfect proportional distribution of current UK revenue; and

(b ) That total fiscal autonomy will lead to exactly the same levels of tax income/ interest rates on Scottish sovereign debt / inflation on the new Scottish currency as the GBP; and

(c ) That there is perfectly proportional spending in Defence in Scotland in relation to the UK.

 

then I concede that the argument is 'not credible' and 'bizarre'.

[sigesige00]

Is there any difference between Scotland and other parts of the UK in the qualification of lawyers? How is the lawyers qualification examination done in the UK?

[Blackpool Jags]

Bizarre argument. It's pretty likely that we would be able to lease excess bases back to the rump of the UK (if they really needed it) or that some sort of shared defence would persist. I also find the idea that people will end up on the dole just because we stop spending millions on tanks, aircraft carriers and guns very odd. Spending less on the military means we can invest that money in local enterprise that actually makes stuff that's useful and has value across the world. Hell, we could even cut the taxes of the lowest paid with the money we save by not spending money on nuclear weapons we'll never use.

 

Eh, excuse me - we'll have less of that socialist talk on here thank you very much.

 

I have to admit to being ignorant of all things military, but it would be interesting to see what happens in future situations like, say, Iraq. The US/England joint venture agent chaps Holyrood's door to ask if we want to come out to play and is politely told to GTF. I would like that.

[Woodstock Jag]

Well I suppose if the starting premise is that:

 

(a ) The Barnett formula leads to perfect proportional distribution of current UK revenue; and

(b ) That total fiscal autonomy will lead to exactly the same levels of tax income/ interest rates on Scottish sovereign debt / inflation on the new Scottish currency as the GBP; and

(c ) That there is perfectly proportional spending in Defence in Scotland in relation to the UK.

 

then I concede that the argument is 'not credible' and 'bizarre'.

 

The Barnet formula is a blunt instrument that completely ignores where tax revenues are coming from. Unless you're going to suggest that the tax yield of Scotland's proportion of North Sea oil in particular still leaves Scotland proportionally worse off in tax:spend ratio (clue, it doesn't) premise a doesn't enter into it. Your premise of the situation being the status quo versus independence is also a non-sequitur.

 

No one is suggesting the fiscal situations would be identical. There are simply far too many variables. But even by simple per-capita and territorial division of debt and assets respectively there's nothing to suggest any substantial economic difference. What will matter much more is the general fiscal decisions taken at a governmental level.

 

As for defence spending, in Scotland it's currently lower per-capita than the average. Indeed the SNP have been calling for the difference to be made available as though it were "Barnetable" income.

 

Eh, excuse me - we'll have less of that socialist talk on here thank you very much.

 

Socialists? Lower taxes? Behave!

[jaggybunnet]

Why the dole? Wouldn't there be other jobs? I would think that a newly independent Scotland would see an economic upturn that would stimulate thousands of jobs in many sectors. I'd imagine the remainder of the UK would be happy to recruit from Scotland in any case, so if soldiering is what you like best, then there'd still be work, I'm sure.

 

why?

[honved]

Is there any difference between Scotland and other parts of the UK in the qualification of lawyers? How is the lawyers qualification examination done in the UK?

Here you go

[jaggybunnet]

Bizarre argument. It's pretty likely that we would be able to lease excess bases back to the rump of the UK (if they really needed it) or that some sort of shared defence would persist. I also find the idea that people will end up on the dole just because we stop spending millions on tanks, aircraft carriers and guns very odd. Spending less on the military means we can invest that money in local enterprise that actually makes stuff that's useful and has value across the world. Hell, we could even cut the taxes of the lowest paid with the money we save by not spending money on nuclear weapons we'll never use.

 

How is it bizarre? if an independent scotland cuts its army, there are 5 full time infantry battalions and numerous other corps units, some of these people would have to be made redundant, and as for bases why would they use scotland when they can put them in wales/england.

[jaggybunnet]

But that's not a credible argument.

 

 

 

Again this is bizarre. Independence leaves essentially two options. The first is that we decide to sustain the same level of military provision. This is only remotely credible if there is a common defence agreement with the UK. In such a scenario, it shouldn't cost us ANY MORE than at present. The other option is that we keep our own defence force but that we scale it down considerably, probably leasing unused bases back to the UK for profit. In which case we're spending less. If we're spending less tax, that means it's easier to fund other government programmes without resort to other tax hikes and/or the financing of tax cuts for the poorest. There is no inherent loss with respect to the armed forces with Independence.

 

 

now that's bizarre to say the least, with independence you are almost forcing the rest of the uk to be insular/protectionist, so they would use bases in the rest of the uk to hold these forces, also all the navey bases would be pulled south as well.

 

it would be a case of its your army , you train it and supply it with kit.

[Vladimir Putin]

now that's bizarre to say the least, with independence you are almost forcing the rest of the uk to be insular/protectionist, so they would use bases in the rest of the uk to hold these forces, also all the navey bases would be pulled south as well.

 

 

I may be wrong on this, but is it not the case that Faslane offers such inherent advantages to the Navy - in terms of basing its nuclear submarines there - that there is no comparable alternative down south? And therefore the Navy, even in the event of independence, would be very keen to maintain that base and pay correspondingly.

[Woodstock Jag]

How is it bizarre? if an independent scotland cuts its army, there are 5 full time infantry battalions and numerous other corps units, some of these people would have to be made redundant, and as for bases why would they use scotland when they can put them in wales/england.

 

And if an independent Scotland cuts the armed forces, the money they were spending on it then *becomes available* for other purposes. That's how money works.

 

In the hypothetical scenario where Scotland retained ownership of the ground on which bases were situated in Scotland, it may be in the strategic interests of the UK government to continue to use those bases on a lease basis, much like we're only just beginning to end in Germany and which the US does in the UAE. If there's an operational advantage of continued use of already for-purpose designed bases, there's revenue to be made.

 

Of course if the armed forces in Scotland were cut back, it would mean redundancies. But to ignore the consequentials of the money SAVED by not having as big a military and the impact on other industry and employment is wilfully ignorant. Military jobs are not the cheapest, by a long shot.

 

now that's bizarre to say the least, with independence you are almost forcing the rest of the uk to be insular/protectionist, so they would use bases in the rest of the uk to hold these forces, also all the navey bases would be pulled south as well.

 

it would be a case of its your army , you train it and supply it with kit.

 

How on Earth does independence "force" the UK to be insular or protectionist? That has no basis in evidence or fact.

[Mr Scruff]

I may be wrong on this, but is it not the case that Faslane offers such inherent advantages to the Navy - in terms of basing its nuclear submarines there - that there is no comparable alternative down south? And therefore the Navy, even in the event of independence, would be very keen to maintain that base and pay correspondingly.

There's no doubt that there would be advantages for the UK's Royal Navy. The only real alternative from memory is Devonport (I'm sure that there was much debate about where the Astute class submarines were to be based, and Neptune was very happy it went there).

 

There would certainly be a negotiation to be had. If it were the SNP negotiating I'm sure they'd want rid of Trident warheads from Coulport and therefore that does throw the status of Faslane into doubt. And it's difficult to predict the extent and character of the Scottish Navy. Picturing 1/12th of the Royal Navy wouldn't require much infrastructure at all.

 

I also wouldn't discount the political pressure that the UK will be under to retain their own establishments. Several are scheduled to be closed or mothballed that were competing with the likes of Lossiemouth and Leuchars, and there would be much political pressure to divert limited UK investment to these locations. It's already there...

Edited September 8, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Vladimir Putin]

I think that would be one of the problems for the SNP. They currently take a very anti-nuclear position (both power and weapons), and I'm sure that a large majority of SNP voters would want nuclear weapons out of Scotland. But then who steps into the void that would be created in Helensburgh and the area surrounding Faslane by the Navy withdrawing? I'm sure in the end there would be a deal to be made - Faslane is advantageous for the Navy, and there would be political fall-out in England from re-locating nuclear submarines somewhere down there. The SNP are pragmatists - they would be able to sell is as negotiating a 'good deal for Scotland' without actually altering the status quo that much.

[Meister Jag]

Let's press a few of Woody's buttons and talk of the neo-liberal SNP; another pro-establishment party that's not to be trusted IMO. Some musings from the People's Republic of Kilbarchan - which is a lie as the SNP rule supreme in this part of the World; but they've yet to convert me and probably never will...

 

Upon analysis the British bourgeoisie is by no means as obsessed with the constitutional form of the existing nation‑state as the pro‑independence wing of the Scottish left; which includes a small faction within the SNP. Britain’s capitalists are interested only in maintaining their class power — the national context through which they do so is less important to them. Power is money and that's what drives them; think Murrayfield in your kilt or a bit of 90-minute patriotism at Hampden, but with corporate hospitality thrown in. This, of course, isn't to say that they would enthusiastically embrace independence, or that it would be their first choice as what really matters is where the shekels are. So should it ever happen, independence probably wouldn't pose an insuperable problem for them, still less for the transnational capitalist class as a whole. (Apologies if that's a bit heavy on the Marxist speak!)

 

Claims that globalisation is reducing the autonomy of states are undoubtedly exaggerated, but this process certainly intensifies the pressures that world markets have always exercised over even moderate reforming regimes. Scotland would be no exception as the fortunes of the Scottish economy depend much more on what happens outside its borders than nations and countries of greater size.

 

A few bourgeois ideologues actually see advantages in independence. The Economist and a couple of heavyweight broadsheet columnists has been arguing for years that, in capitalist terms, ‘standing on its own two feet’ should be something that Scotland should aspire to. I guess their devious point is that when deprived of the subsidies which supposedly allow the Scots to maintain higher levels of public sector employment and marginally better social provision than the rest of the UK, they would finally be forced to accept economic reality and live within their means.

 

An SNP-led independent government would not use the same rhetoric, of course, but the party is already moving towards the same types of policies as the coalition government. The leadership uses social democratic language, but is quick to add that it will continue to hold out bribes to capitalists to encourage investment. Salmond is on record as saying that he thinks 'private profit is entirely admirable' and in his world maybe it is. But this this to my mind confirms that the SNP is no left of centre party; basically a bunch of cowboy opportunists who have been able to fill the void left by p*** poor performing Westminster parties. I'll be honest here: there is no alternative and the so-called left always ends up fighting and is a shocking mess. So who can blame the SNP for its opportunism.

 

Both wings of the SNP are committed to neo-liberalism and I recall an SNP economic spokesperson called Jim Mather saying that 'We should not apologise for encouraging wealth creation and success… We want more millionaires and any notion that an independent Scotland would be a left wing country is delusional nonsense'. In the same article he then went on to pretty much hint at shrinking the Scottish civil service, outsourcing work and reducing the size of local government etc. All we've got to do is to give them the independence mandate and let them get on with it.. And you wonder why many folk don't bother voting. I mean what's the point, one lot are as bad as the other. In all respects, just another political party who will claim they have to balance the books by making difficult decisions. Salmond / Milliband / Cameron - same neo-liberal.

 

So I guess no real prospect of a socialist republic and no real change to anyone's day-to-day existence. There is, of course, an alternative but the voice of the left is a bit muted these days. Oh and wee Tommy is still banged up!

 

If that doesn't press a few buttons then I'm giving up... WJ, JB and others.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

And if an independent Scotland cuts the armed forces, the money they were spending on it then *becomes available* for other purposes. That's how money works.

 

not if its paying for there pension and/or job seekers allowance and all the rest, we would also have to start our own training depots sort out our own logistics all cost money.

 

In the hypothetical scenario where Scotland retained ownership of the ground on which bases were situated in Scotland, it may be in the strategic interests of the UK government to continue to use those bases on a lease basis, much like we're only just beginning to end in Germany and which the US does in the UAE. If there's an operational advantage of continued use of already for-purpose designed bases, there's revenue to be made.

 

why put bases( and there are no operational reasons to)in scotland when you can create/enlarge garrisons which would add jobs and welth to those areas?

 

Of course if the armed forces in Scotland were cut back, it would mean redundancies. But to ignore the consequentials of the money SAVED by not having as big a military and the impact on other industry and employment is wilfully ignorant. Military jobs are not the cheapest, by a long shot.

 

as i have said above due to having to train our own forces and supply them with the kit needed, even for a small defense force this would be expensive

 

and (at my level anyway) are not by a long chalk the most expensive

 

How on Earth does independence "force" the UK to be insular or protectionist? That has no basis in evidence or fact.

 

do you really think that the voters in the remainder of the uk would be happy that they were paying for bases in scotland when there are bases/land sitting empty in there countries. there would be an uproar to say the least.

 

i think that england would wash there hands of us and pull everything out of scotland just an opinion just as yours is