Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland Labour’s general election challenge would

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited April 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland Labour’s general election challenge would be greater, but not by that much

Following the weekend’s ICM Scottish poll people have begun to look more closely at what the impact in a general election might be if the 59 Scottish MPs were removed.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2014
    Swing required would be 5.8% instead of 4.7%.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ladbrokes' under/over seat markets are based on Labour at 305.5 and the Conservatives at 277.5. That would make for a very different Parliament from Labour 264.5, Conservatives 276.5. The Lib Dems would be on about 28 seats and would be true kingmakers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    GE2015 includes Scotland come what may though ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    GE2015 includes Scotland come what may though ?

    Yes but only for 10 months if YES wins.

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Pulpstar said:

    GE2015 includes Scotland come what may though ?

    It has too, you can't disenfranchise 5.2m people. If you think the WLQ is difficult now, wait till it involves divorce negotiations
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I've stuck up a post on the possible impact of UKIP voters in 2015 this morning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/where-is-ukip-support-coming-from.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/what-happens-scottish-mps-may-2015-after-independence-vote

    The current assumption on all sides is that they will be elected as usual in May 2015 before leaving the Commons after the post-referendum negotiations conclude and Scotland becomes an officially independent country (24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016).

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-scots-vote-for-independence-their-mps-should-all-quit-says-tory-peer.23268534


    If there were a vote for independence on September 18, Scotland would not leave the UK immediately. First Minister Alex Salmond has announced Scotland would become officially independent on March 24, 2016, with elections to the new Holyrood Parliament in May of that year.

    This means Scottish MPs would not only continue to represent their Westminster constituencies up to the May 2015 General Election but for the 10 months thereafter.

  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited April 2014
    antifrank said:

    I've stuck up a post on the possible impact of UKIP voters in 2015 this morning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/where-is-ukip-support-coming-from.html

    It's on my "favourites". By the way, you can usefully streamline URL references via "Tinyurl", here (copy & paste!)

    http://tinyurl.com/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2014
    IMO a particularly fertile source of votes for UKIP may be the 3 million voters who stopped supporting Labour between 1997 and 2001. Most of them probably haven't voted since then (although a fair number will have passed away).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Toms said:

    antifrank said:

    I've stuck up a post on the possible impact of UKIP voters in 2015 this morning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/where-is-ukip-support-coming-from.html

    It's on my "favourites". By the way, you can usefully streamline URL references via "Tinyurl", here

    http://tinyurl.com/
    If that's people's preference I'd happily do that. I'd assumed people liked to see where they were being directed.

    Incidentally, that was much the most stressful post so far. I can see how a book was written on the subject.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    The map illustrates why UKIP beating the Conservatives into 2nd place in Sale & Wythenshawe East was actually a decent result despite their VI being lower than expected.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    antifrank said:

    Toms said:

    antifrank said:

    I've stuck up a post on the possible impact of UKIP voters in 2015 this morning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/where-is-ukip-support-coming-from.html

    It's on my "favourites". By the way, you can usefully streamline URL references via "Tinyurl", here

    http://tinyurl.com/
    If that's people's preference I'd happily do that. I'd assumed people liked to see where they were being directed.

    Incidentally, that was much the most stressful post so far. I can see how a book was written on the subject.
    For things like book references I see what you're saying. It was just a thought and you probably knew about it anyway. What counts, of course, is the analysis. Formidable.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Not a hope in hell the divorce negotiations can be completed before GE2015 I think.

    Currency, oil, share of the debt, defence etc etc.
  • *** US 2016 Election ***

    Early days, of course, but there's been a poll of New Hampshire primary voters - http://cola.unh.edu/survey-center/clinton-alone-top-nh-no-gop-frontrunner-41814

    Most people haven't decided who they'll support yet, unsurprisingly, but Clinton is definitely the leader among the Democrats, while the Republican field is much tighter. Most of us probably expected as much, but confirmation is nice.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    *** US 2016 Election ***

    Early days, of course, but there's been a poll of New Hampshire primary voters - http://cola.unh.edu/survey-center/clinton-alone-top-nh-no-gop-frontrunner-41814

    Most people haven't decided who they'll support yet, unsurprisingly, but Clinton is definitely the leader among the Democrats, while the Republican field is much tighter. Most of us probably expected as much, but confirmation is nice.

    Before I look at this I'd expect Rand Paul to be the GOP preferred New Hampshire candidate.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Whatever happened to the ICM Wisdom Index?

    On topic: I doubt Scotland will become independent on the date dictated by the SNP. There's a lot of negotiating to do, not least around the currency.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Whatever happened to the ICM Wisdom Index?

    On topic: I doubt Scotland will become independent on the date dictated by the SNP. There's a lot of negotiating to do, not least around the currency.

    The point I make is that the SNP date is the earliest possible date, it will probably happen after.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.

    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    One question - can Scotland even begin negotiations with the EU before it formally declares independence ?

    I'd expect Madrid in particular to be oppose them joining.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    So long as they're in parliament I couldn't give a monkey's uncle what they do from a betting perspective.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    Scottish MPs would have every right to vote for as long as Scotland were part of the UK. No taxation without representation and all that.

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.

    They'd vote on confidence and supply.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all and assuming we Scots do say "goodbye" on 18th September, it will turn leading Labour figures into rats fighting like ferrets as they work out what to do with all their Scottish big beasts. As someone said last night, how can Labour have a Shadow Foreign Secretary in charge of their GE2015 campaign if he will within months be no more than an ex-MP in a neighbouring country. Alexanders (inc Scottish LibDem version), Murphy and possibly others will all be looking for last minute bargain seats south of the proposed international border.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    I fear it will be like EU negotiations "none of it is agreed until all of it is agreed" - hence the value of a deadline to concentrate minds. The SNP have made so many promises they are unlikely to be able to deliver, this is not going to be pretty. Unless it's done by May 15, you face possible changes of government either side of the border within 12 months - this could drag on for years....
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    I've stuck up a post on the possible impact of UKIP voters in 2015 this morning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/where-is-ukip-support-coming-from.html

    "... UKIP is basically an English affair."

    The most recent Welsh poll (february) has them placing 2nd in the EU Parliament elections.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Welsh_polls
  • Consider also the wider implications. The west has screeched hysterically about Crimea holding a referendum along the same rules as the EU-backed Kosovan one, unwilling to accept the result as democratic or constitutional despite said constitution having been torn up by the western-backed fascist coup in Kiev. Venice has declared independence from Italy and is refusing to pay any taxes to Rome. Other northern Italian former city states are watching with interest. On Sardinia the local politicians are campaigning to cesede from Italy and join Switzerland.

    Then of course we have Catalonia, where Madrid has already tried to do a Kiev and declare their independence referendum unconstitutional putting it on collision course if the Catalans vote to go. Most of the "Scotland can't" objections over the pound and EU membership have as much to with Catalonia - which would gut Spain if it left - as it does Scotland. Democracy is revolution when properly applied, and the elite don't want to see their empire dismantled by anything as silly as free will. Which is why when people vote the Wong way on EU treaties they get invited to vote again the right way.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457

    Consider also the wider implications. The west has screeched hysterically about Crimea holding a referendum along the same rules as the EU-backed Kosovan one, unwilling to accept the result as democratic or constitutional despite said constitution having been torn up by the western-backed fascist coup in Kiev. Venice has declared independence from Italy and is refusing to pay any taxes to Rome. Other northern Italian former city states are watching with interest. On Sardinia the local politicians are campaigning to cesede from Italy and join Switzerland.

    Then of course we have Catalonia, where Madrid has already tried to do a Kiev and declare their independence referendum unconstitutional putting it on collision course if the Catalans vote to go. Most of the "Scotland can't" objections over the pound and EU membership have as much to with Catalonia - which would gut Spain if it left - as it does Scotland. Democracy is revolution when properly applied, and the elite don't want to see their empire dismantled by anything as silly as free will. Which is why when people vote the Wong way on EU treaties they get invited to vote again the right way.

    Ukraine wasn't a coup. The elected representatives voted to remove the president.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/ukraine-uprising-fascist-coup-grassroots-movement
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Mr Pioneers suggests we are about to unleash a cataclysm of referenda. I particularly like the idea of Sardinia joining Switzerland; it would mean, I suppose that the Swiss would need a proper Navy!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    I fear it will be like EU negotiations "none of it is agreed until all of it is agreed" - hence the value of a deadline to concentrate minds. The SNP have made so many promises they are unlikely to be able to deliver, this is not going to be pretty. Unless it's done by May 15, you face possible changes of government either side of the border within 12 months - this could drag on for years....

    It is hard to see how the negotiations will be anything other than unpleasant. Project Fib is a great way to win a referendum, but it essentially falls to pieces the following day.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    This totally neglects the emotional impact. Voters south of the border will vote for the Conservatives to negotiate hard, voters north of the border for the SNP.

    I'd be quite happy to axe Scotland from the General Election or just suspend them, so incumbents remain until separation. Whatever happens with those constituencies, the MPs must not be able to influence policy, especially around negotiations, in the UK (assuming Yes wins).
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    Consider also the wider implications. The west has screeched hysterically about Crimea holding a referendum along the same rules as the EU-backed Kosovan one, unwilling to accept the result as democratic or constitutional despite said constitution having been torn up by the western-backed fascist coup in Kiev. Venice has declared independence from Italy and is refusing to pay any taxes to Rome. Other northern Italian former city states are watching with interest. On Sardinia the local politicians are campaigning to cesede from Italy and join Switzerland.

    Then of course we have Catalonia, where Madrid has already tried to do a Kiev and declare their independence referendum unconstitutional putting it on collision course if the Catalans vote to go. Most of the "Scotland can't" objections over the pound and EU membership have as much to with Catalonia - which would gut Spain if it left - as it does Scotland. Democracy is revolution when properly applied, and the elite don't want to see their empire dismantled by anything as silly as free will. Which is why when people vote the Wong way on EU treaties they get invited to vote again the right way.

    Whose free will, though? The Spanish constitution - overwhelmingly approved by Catalans in a referendum less than 40 years ago - states that Spain's territorial integrity is a matter for all Spaniards.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    I fear it will be like EU negotiations "none of it is agreed until all of it is agreed" - hence the value of a deadline to concentrate minds. The SNP have made so many promises they are unlikely to be able to deliver, this is not going to be pretty. Unless it's done by May 15, you face possible changes of government either side of the border within 12 months - this could drag on for years....
    Usual rubbish from you, self interest will be the order of the day and everybody will need to sort it out quick. If not done in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement then the markets will force the issue. Their will be no tough guy routines from the defeated unionists, they will need to get on with it to save themselves.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Small point but if Scotland votes YES, nothing to prevent David Cameron lodging a Parliament Act bill to suspend the Scottish constituencies as from Dissolution in March 2015. As for representation of Scotland, he could do a deal with Eck in terms of which until Independence Day, Scotland could be represented by the 55 regional MSPs on any necessary matters, of which there would be few, barring a war or national emergency. The advantage of the regional MSPs is that they have the broadest representation across the parties following the SNP rout of virtually everyone in the 72 FPTP constituencies in 2011.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    It is hard to see how the negotiations will be anything other than unpleasant. Project Fib is a great way to win a referendum, but it essentially falls to pieces the following day.

    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s classic: “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    Nationalists and their “I am not a Nationalist” associates are very keen on “vision”, which they claim to possess in great abundance. Their wretched opponents, in contrast, are mired in the dull old world-as-it-is without the perspicacity to conjure up a glittering future.

    Visionaries, by the nature of their calling, are allowed to make it up as they go along, unburdened by anything as tedious as evidence. Every objection can be overcome with the chastisement: “But you have no vision.” At which point, we are meant to shuffle off, defeated, to ponder our intellectual inadequacy.


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Consider also the wider implications. The west has screeched hysterically about Crimea holding a referendum along the same rules as the EU-backed Kosovan one, unwilling to accept the result as democratic or constitutional despite said constitution having been torn up by the western-backed fascist coup in Kiev. Venice has declared independence from Italy and is refusing to pay any taxes to Rome. Other northern Italian former city states are watching with interest. On Sardinia the local politicians are campaigning to cesede from Italy and join Switzerland.

    Then of course we have Catalonia, where Madrid has already tried to do a Kiev and declare their independence referendum unconstitutional putting it on collision course if the Catalans vote to go. Most of the "Scotland can't" objections over the pound and EU membership have as much to with Catalonia - which would gut Spain if it left - as it does Scotland. Democracy is revolution when properly applied, and the elite don't want to see their empire dismantled by anything as silly as free will. Which is why when people vote the Wong way on EU treaties they get invited to vote again the right way.

    Ukraine wasn't a coup. The elected representatives voted to remove the president.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/ukraine-uprising-fascist-coup-grassroots-movement
    It was a coup, some lies from London do not make it legitimate.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    on topic


    removing Scotland makes the election less skewed towards Labour. At some point the rest of the imbalance will also have to move through 20 odd boundary changes and 8 welsh seats for over representation.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....

    That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    I fear it will be like EU negotiations "none of it is agreed until all of it is agreed" - hence the value of a deadline to concentrate minds. The SNP have made so many promises they are unlikely to be able to deliver, this is not going to be pretty. Unless it's done by May 15, you face possible changes of government either side of the border within 12 months - this could drag on for years....
    Usual rubbish from you, self interest will be the order of the day and everybody will need to sort it out quick. If not done in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement then the markets will force the issue. Their will be no tough guy routines from the defeated unionists, they will need to get on with it to save themselves.
    You continue to labour under the misapprehension that your opinion matters after September 18. After that, the other 92% of the UK will get most of what it wants.

    You will get independence - but it will not be on your terms.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Good morning, everyone.

    This totally neglects the emotional impact. Voters south of the border will vote for the Conservatives to negotiate hard, voters north of the border for the SNP.

    I'd be quite happy to axe Scotland from the General Election or just suspend them, so incumbents remain until separation. Whatever happens with those constituencies, the MPs must not be able to influence policy, especially around negotiations, in the UK (assuming Yes wins).

    MD but would be happy to keep all our money no doubt
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.

    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.
    I fear it will be like EU negotiations "none of it is agreed until all of it is agreed" - hence the value of a deadline to concentrate minds. The SNP have made so many promises they are unlikely to be able to deliver, this is not going to be pretty. Unless it's done by May 15, you face possible changes of government either side of the border within 12 months - this could drag on for years....

    It is hard to see how the negotiations will be anything other than unpleasant. Project Fib is a great way to win a referendum, but it essentially falls to pieces the following day.


    Project Fib is a classic case of overpromising followed by under delivery. You can pencil in a century of twisted chippiness as expectations aren't met.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s classic: “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    Nationalists and their “I am not a Nationalist” associates are very keen on “vision”, which they claim to possess in great abundance. Their wretched opponents, in contrast, are mired in the dull old world-as-it-is without the perspicacity to conjure up a glittering future.

    Visionaries, by the nature of their calling, are allowed to make it up as they go along, unburdened by anything as tedious as evidence. Every objection can be overcome with the chastisement: “But you have no vision.” At which point, we are meant to shuffle off, defeated, to ponder our intellectual inadequacy.


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
    Wilson is a fanny of the first order. For a Labour trougher who has filled his pockets to capacity , he is among the biggest lying rats Labour have produced.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    <



    Usual rubbish from you, self interest will be the order of the day and everybody will need to sort it out quick. If not done in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement then the markets will force the issue. Their will be no tough guy routines from the defeated unionists, they will need to get on with it to save themselves.

    Malcolm you are kidding yourself on. As soon as we vote YES, the wrath of English nationalism will be unleashed and every old chestnut about the 'ungrateful Scots' will fill column inches of the Daily Mail, Daily Express and possibly even the red tops. English Tory MPs will be bombarded with demands from constituents to "punish" us for inflicting Gordon Brown and the RBS/BoS meltdown on them. The most vociferous anti-Scots language will come from many of the Scots who have become long-term residents in the Home Counties.

    Our backs will be to the walls for several years and Eck will need to in effect create a national unity government for Scotland to handle things, failing which the international markets will turn us into a basket case.

    However I suspect that talks have already begun, if only at a very low, un-attributable level between civil servants in Edinburgh and London to prepare the groundwork for the severance negotiations. If they haven't they will very soon as the polls continue to move towards YES.

    We should now be looking for double-crossover. As soon as the Tories start taking the leads in the UK wide polls, we can expect YES to take the lead in the IndyRef ones.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    Usual rubbish from you, self interest will be the order of the day and everybody will need to sort it out quick. If not done in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement then the markets will force the issue. Their will be no tough guy routines from the defeated unionists, they will need to get on with it to save themselves.
    You continue to labour under the misapprehension that your opinion matters after September 18. After that, the other 92% of the UK will get most of what it wants.

    You will get independence - but it will not be on your terms.

    Yes but for sure the only thing you will not want cut off is the flow of our money. Idiots like you that believe you can take all our money and just cut us off from everything just highlight the democratic deficit in this crap union. You people are despicable greedy parasites, deluded by self importance You would rob your own granny and say she deserved it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, I'd argue that policies which affect Scotland should be devolved immediately as far as possible and relevant actions by the UK Government kept to the bare minimum (ie doing nothing unless Russia invades in which case we'd be helpful and send up both Royal Navy ships).

    After a Yes, the less influence either side has over the other during the negotiation phase the better.

    I do fear a Yes win means an acrimonious breakup.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s classic: “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    Nationalists and their “I am not a Nationalist” associates are very keen on “vision”, which they claim to possess in great abundance. Their wretched opponents, in contrast, are mired in the dull old world-as-it-is without the perspicacity to conjure up a glittering future.

    Visionaries, by the nature of their calling, are allowed to make it up as they go along, unburdened by anything as tedious as evidence. Every objection can be overcome with the chastisement: “But you have no vision.” At which point, we are meant to shuffle off, defeated, to ponder our intellectual inadequacy.


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
    Wilson is a fanny of the first order. For a Labour trougher who has filled his pockets to capacity , he is among the biggest lying rats Labour have produced.
    So Malcolm, how, exactly, is Eck going to manage Royal Navy procurement?

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....

    Barnett, as I'm sure you are aware is not (solely) about Scottish funding. It is the formula that is applied to distribute monies to all of the regions in the UK. It is as much about Yorkshire or Kent as it is about Scotland.

    So how exactly would you just abolish Barnett?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set be to suit the convenience of 8% of the UK that wishes to leave, not the 92% that wishes to remain?

    As with everything else, the date will be subject to negotiation, and is not something solely within the gift of the SNP.

    Salmond chose to hold the referendum in September 2014 - the UK Government could choose to set the independence date in May 2015 - it would concentrate minds wonderfully.....

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    And a whole host of other things - but if one of the parties (eg a UK a Labour govt) has incentives for procrastination, then things will drag on and on. Czechoslovakia managed it in 6 months......
    Usual rubbish from you, self interest will be the order of the day and everybody will need to sort it out quick. If not done in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement then the markets will force the issue. Their will be no tough guy routines from the defeated unionists, they will need to get on with it to save themselves.
    You continue to labour under the misapprehension that your opinion matters after September 18. After that, the other 92% of the UK will get most of what it wants.

    You will get independence - but it will not be on your terms.

    Yes but for sure the only thing you will not want cut off is the flow of our money. Idiots like you that believe you can take all our money and just cut us off from everything just highlight the democratic deficit in this crap union. You people are despicable greedy parasites, deluded by self importance You would rob your own granny and say she deserved it.
    And you think 8% of the UK gets to dictate terms to 92% of the UK. Deluded does not cover it.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited April 2014
    @‌ Easter Ross

    I suspect part of the issue will be the practicalities . If Scotland votes Yes I'll be moving my pensions and investments SOTB. Not because of any desire for revenge but more for the security of knowing I won't have a currency risk and will have the backing of a bigger balance sheet. The City of London has a great opportunity to nobble a competitor in Financial Services and being the type of people they are I have no doubt they'll push it to the maximum.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.

    We have a great capacity to make life a pain in the arse for one another (axing Faslane, no currency union, taking no debt, financial sector jobs shifting south, etc etc). We actually are better together.

    I disagree on cross-over, though. If anything, I'd expect Yes to start leading first.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.


    Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.

    The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....

    Barnett, as I'm sure you are aware is not (solely) about Scottish funding. It is the formula that is applied to distribute monies to all of the regions in the UK. It is as much about Yorkshire or Kent as it is about Scotland.

    So how exactly would you just abolish Barnett?

    Barnett does not cover English regions - and it's a convention, not a statutory instrument, so could be abolished at will.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s classic: “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    Nationalists and their “I am not a Nationalist” associates are very keen on “vision”, which they claim to possess in great abundance. Their wretched opponents, in contrast, are mired in the dull old world-as-it-is without the perspicacity to conjure up a glittering future.

    Visionaries, by the nature of their calling, are allowed to make it up as they go along, unburdened by anything as tedious as evidence. Every objection can be overcome with the chastisement: “But you have no vision.” At which point, we are meant to shuffle off, defeated, to ponder our intellectual inadequacy.


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
    Wilson is a fanny of the first order. For a Labour trougher who has filled his pockets to capacity , he is among the biggest lying rats Labour have produced.
    So Malcolm, how, exactly, is Eck going to manage Royal Navy procurement?

    The exact same way every other country does it. He will have a procurement organisation as part of the defence forces. Considering the waste and inefficiency of the current mob , he will be able to take some teenagers off the dole and do as good a job.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......
    I was wondering the other day if there are items that can be split and transferred with little or no negotiation? If the Scots vote Yes, then a quick bill is put through parliament to do the easy and non-contentious items quickly.


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to n-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
    Wilson is a fanny of the first order. For a Labour trougher who has filled his pockets to capacity , he is among the biggest lying rats Labour have produced.
    So Malcolm, how, exactly, is Eck going to manage Royal Navy procurement?

    The exact same way every other country does it. He will have a procurement organisation as part of the defence forces. Considering the waste and inefficiency of the current mob , he will be able to take some teenagers off the dole and do as good a job.
    Not the question - the question is how is Eck going to keep his promise that he can "guarantee" rUK will continue to build warships in what will be a foreign country?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.
    .

    It will also probably mean rUK does not agree Independence, with all the complications that will entail. Hence my view that imposing a short timetable on negotiations is the least worst option - the longer these drag on the worse it will get.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.

    We have a great capacity to make life a pain in the arse for one another (axing Faslane, no currency union, taking no debt, financial sector jobs shifting south, etc etc). We actually are better together.

    I disagree on cross-over, though. If anything, I'd expect Yes to start leading first.

    I sincerely hope that if Scotland does vote YES then bygones will be treated as bygones and the split negotiations will be conducted in a manner which will lead to agreement.

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.
  • Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.
    .

    It will also probably mean rUK does not agree Independence, with all the complications that will entail. Hence my view that imposing a short timetable on negotiations is the least worst option - the longer these drag on the worse it will get.

    Worse for whom? What if either side insists that the terms are approved by a further referendum both North and South of the Anglo-Scottish border? And why shouldn't they insist on that?

    The political reality is that the Scots don't particularly want independence - a microbe that killed all and only the English, preferably slowly and painfully, would suit their "Yes" voters better.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Assume a Yes (which I think remains the less likely outcome, but it's the topic). What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react. Will they want a focus on the negotiations - "the most important British event for centuries" etc. - or will they feel they're a distraction from pressing concerns: the economy, NHS, immigration, etc.? Miliband immediately and Cameron a week later will need to fine-tune their appeal accordingly. I'm not convinced that people will want a ruthless line - "firm but fair" will be the phrase we'll all hear from all sides.

    It may be tempting to promise a short Parliament - 18 months to sort it out, then another election on a "Phew, that's over" wave of optimism. But will people vote for a promise to make them vote again a bit later? Tricky, eh?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.
    .

    It will also probably mean rUK does not agree Independence, with all the complications that will entail. Hence my view that imposing a short timetable on negotiations is the least worst option - the longer these drag on the worse it will get.

    Worse for whom? What if either side insists that the terms are approved by a further referendum both North and South of the Anglo-Scottish border? And why shouldn't they insist on that?
    Worse for both parties.

    Eck has already ruled out a referendum on a currency union in rUK and since in future he's going to decide where rUK builds it's warships, I guess that's that.....

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    King Cole, I don't think that's a fair assessment.

    If Yes wins the country separates into two. Scots cannot expect special treatment in such a circumstance, as it would be detrimental to Britain. They have no right to demand a currency union with a country they just voted to leave, and the British people (and politicians) have made it plain they have no plans to offer it.

    Yes believe this is a negotiating position, but if the UK politicians renege on it the British will be pretty furious. If they don't, the Scots may consider it bullying (although that's a deranged position to hold).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.

    How is pointing to reality on for example the currency "making things so unpleasant"? It is not the fault of BT and rUK if the Yes camp are peddling a dodgy dossier.

    However generous the final arrangements, you can rest assured that all of an independent Scotland's numerous ills over coming decades would be blamed on the English for imposing "the bastard Settlement....".
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to n-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566
    The exact same way every other country does it. He will have a procurement organisation as part of the defence forces. Considering the waste and inefficiency of the current mob , he will be able to take some teenagers off the dole and do as good a job.
    Not the question - the question is how is Eck going to keep his promise that he can "guarantee" rUK will continue to build warships in what will be a foreign country?

    Well any normal person would realise that nothing is guaranteed except taxes and death. His opinion , given that there is no facility or expertise elsewhere to build them in Britain , that the rump will prefer to have them built in Scotland rather than overseas where they will have little or no influence. However they can always build other ships, we will need a few ourselves. Given they are down to 2000 workers and only build for the MOD , their jobs are doomed in the short term in any case. In any normal country they would diversify , but not in the crap union , they will just wither and die. Once again a case of HOPE or NO hope.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.
    .

    It will also probably mean rUK does not agree Independence, with all the complications that will entail. Hence my view that imposing a short timetable on negotiations is the least worst option - the longer these drag on the worse it will get.

    Yes , they will renege on the Edinburgh agreement , dream on. Even these numpties are not that stupid to have a death wish, unless you have forgotten they have already stated very clearly that all the debt is theirs.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.

    We have a great capacity to make life a pain in the arse for one another (axing Faslane, no currency union, taking no debt, financial sector jobs shifting south, etc etc). We actually are better together.

    I disagree on cross-over, though. If anything, I'd expect Yes to start leading first.

    I sincerely hope that if Scotland does vote YES then bygones will be treated as bygones and the split negotiations will be conducted in a manner which will lead to agreement.

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.
    OKC, I believe this is only the rantings of some delusional halfwits. Reality will be that it will be handled as friends and will be sensibly handled in both sides best interests. The loonies will not be allowed to cause trouble.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, the debt statement was made to steady the markets in the event of a Yes *and* the Scottish negotiators refusing to take their fair share.

    If you think the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, lumbered with a huge deficit and enormous debt, will welcome the Scots getting off scot-free, with no debt to speak of, you are entirely mistaken.

    Scotland will be asked to take a share of the debt (presumably around 8%). One suspects Salmond will try and use the refusal of a currency union as a pretext to avoid it. And the 'best pals in the world' will resume their ancient dislike of one another.

    Of course, that all assumes Yes wins. That remains far from certain.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.
    .

    It will also probably mean rUK does not agree Independence, with all the complications that will entail. Hence my view that imposing a short timetable on negotiations is the least worst option - the longer these drag on the worse it will get.

    Worse for whom? What if either side insists that the terms are approved by a further referendum both North and South of the Anglo-Scottish border? And why shouldn't they insist on that?

    The political reality is that the Scots don't particularly want independence - a microbe that killed all and only the English, preferably slowly and painfully, would suit their "Yes" voters better.

    Cuckoo
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.

    A few straws in the wind.

    We know that late last year opinion in rUK tended to be mildly in favour of a currency union. After the Tri-partite intervention it swung 2:1 against.

    The Cardiff Univ study from 2012 showed English voters clearly think the Scots get the best deal out of the current set up. If the Scots have voted to leave it, I see no reason why the English should decide to continue that perceived munificence.

    Add to that the grievances - real or perceived - published daily by the tabloids, and the sooner this gets resolved, the better for all concerned.



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.

    We have a great capacity to make life a pain in the arse for one another (axing Faslane, no currency union, taking no debt, financial sector jobs shifting south, etc etc). We actually are better together.

    I disagree on cross-over, though. If anything, I'd expect Yes to start leading first.

    I sincerely hope that if Scotland does vote YES then bygones will be treated as bygones and the split negotiations will be conducted in a manner which will lead to agreement.

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.
    I believe this is only the rantings of some delusional halfwits
    Are those the people who believe 8% of the UK will get to dictate terms to 92% of the UK?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Incidentally, don't forget to read my post-race analysis of China here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/china-post-race-analysis.html

    Not a great race, but the greenest so far. I'm considering running through the remaining races and working out (if Mercedes' dominance persists) who, based on last year's result, would win the title.

    That might sound silly, but of 7 comparable sessions (4 qualifying and 3 races, discounting Australia where Hamilton retired due to reliability) the results (between the two Silver Arrows) have been identical so far.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited April 2014
    @Easterross

    If it is YES, then does the SNP have any good and realistic negotiators in its ranks as I view Salmond to be an emotional lightweight in that department.

    Much is said about oil and gas, but that is declining and will the oil majors and minors continue to invest in times of political uncertainty - quite often they will sell up and get out - indeed some of the majors have already disinvested from much of the North Sea.

    However, what has not been talked about is the IPR that has been built up in Subsea technology and is being used globally. Much of that activity is based around Aberdeen. Again, there is no reason to keep it there much longer and again political uncertainty could see it moving out of Scotland.

    Politically, I do not see many or indeed any refuges in the England & Wales for any LD and LAB ex-MPs. The LDs will be squeezed in England and all Labour can do is to deselect some of the 'golden children' (e.g. Kinnock) for the best of their Scottish ex-MPs. Of course the LD Alexander may join the Cons.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    King Cole, I don't think that's a fair assessment.

    If Yes wins the country separates into two. Scots cannot expect special treatment in such a circumstance, as it would be detrimental to Britain. They have no right to demand a currency union with a country they just voted to leave, and the British people (and politicians) have made it plain they have no plans to offer it.

    Yes believe this is a negotiating position, but if the UK politicians renege on it the British will be pretty furious. If they don't, the Scots may consider it bullying (although that's a deranged position to hold).

    MD, what is deranged is that you believe rumpUK can just make up all the rules. Scots are not demanding anything special , they are asking for a fair share of the UK's assets. Your position along with some of the other radical Englanders on here is that England owns everything and we should be banished the next day with nothing , our MP's barred and the only thing I have yet to see being banned is you taking our money
  • Regarding Catalonia - or Sardinia or Venice for that matter - you can throw whatever sophistry you like at it, if people want to separate and vote to do so, declaring it unconstitutional and ignoring it won't make it go away.

    Venice has declared independence. The media aren't reporting it much, and what coverage it gets portrays the separatists as eccentric. But in a free vote nearly 90% said they want away from Italy, and from what I read local authorities have ceased all cooperation with Rome. Regardless of the constitution these people have exercised their democratic rights and unless we are saying that people only have the right to vote in ways and in elections that suit the powers that be (in which case its not democracy at all) then we have to at least respect their opinion.

    I dislike Salmond enormously. But he's doing a hell of a job selling a vision for Scotland's future. Which is more than can be said for the pro-union politicians up there. Or indeed any of the party leaders down here.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.

    How is pointing to reality on for example the currency "making things so unpleasant"? It is not the fault of BT and rUK if the Yes camp are peddling a dodgy dossier.

    However generous the final arrangements, you can rest assured that all of an independent Scotland's numerous ills over coming decades would be blamed on the English for imposing "the bastard Settlement....".
    LOL, fanny alert , little Englander insults Scots once again. You forgot your usual personal insults on Alex Salmond and murder threats.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, the currency is not an asset. An individual pound is, as is an individual pound's worth of debt. The currency as a system is not.

    You cannot seriously believe it is legitimate for an independent Scotland to demand that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish act as lender of last resort for Scottish financial institutions.

    I am not a radical Englander. I support the union.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Pioneers, indeed.

    I wonder what will happen regarding Venice. We may be seeing a new political phase in Europe as some countries break up.

    So far the possibilities (Scotland, Catalonia, Venice) appear to be along historical lines. Will Burgundy be reborn?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    If Yes win, the decision to close the Portsmouth yards would be reversed. It is there that the destroyers will be built. BAE would close on the Clyde. The more skilled workers would not automatically lose their jobs, I expect that BAE would offer them a relocation package to the south coast. It is not just financial services workers that will move south of the border.

    An amicable divorce is as rare as rocking horse dung. The mentality of malcolmg shows the way the negotiations will go. Once the bluff of abandoning Scotland's debts is shown to be worthless, Salmond will be left floundering and fibbing again.



    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    24 March 2016 is the date slated by the SNP, just in time for the Scottish Parliamentary election on 5 May 2016

    Why should the date set

    Isn't the date slated by rUK actually AFTER the SNP's proposed date. Can't find a source to back that up but I'm sure I've seen it about somewhere.

    As the UK govt has not conceded the possibility of a YES win I would be astonished if they had set any hypothetical date at all.....
    Scotland needs to sort out its own currency if they vote Yes for starters.
    managed it in 6 months......


    Brian Wilson sums it up well:

    Vision is a word beloved of those with nothing much to say. Indeed, it merits an aphorism comparable to n-wilson-why-scots-should-beware-the-v-word-1-3381566


    Well any normal person would realise that nothing is guaranteed except taxes and death. His opinion , given that there is no facility or expertise elsewhere to build them in Britain , that the rump will prefer to have them built in Scotland rather than overseas where they will have little or no influence. However they can always build other ships, we will need a few ourselves. Given they are down to 2000 workers and only build for the MOD , their jobs are doomed in the short term in any case. In any normal country they would diversify , but not in the crap union , they will just wither and die. Once again a case of HOPE or NO hope.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. G, the debt statement was made to steady the markets in the event of a Yes *and* the Scottish negotiators refusing to take their fair share.

    If you think the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, lumbered with a huge deficit and enormous debt, will welcome the Scots getting off scot-free, with no debt to speak of, you are entirely mistaken.

    Scotland will be asked to take a share of the debt (presumably around 8%). One suspects Salmond will try and use the refusal of a currency union as a pretext to avoid it. And the 'best pals in the world' will resume their ancient dislike of one another.

    Of course, that all assumes Yes wins. That remains far from certain.

    MD, once again I see you are happy to load your UK debt on Scotland but appear to have missed the share of assets. How convenient. England tries to rob Scotland of her fair share of assets and then cries foul when Scotland does not want to take on England's debts. Sounds very unionist to me.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Easterross, you're entirely right about the financial crisis and ongoing deficit being blamed on Scotland. If the Scots take on none of the debt that will likely infuriate England [cue lots of predictable 'scot-free' headlines]. It'd be a tremendous shame.

    We have a great capacity to make life a pain in the arse for one another (axing Faslane, no currency union, taking no debt, financial sector jobs shifting south, etc etc). We actually are better together.

    I disagree on cross-over, though. If anything, I'd expect Yes to start leading first.

    I sincerely hope that if Scotland does vote YES then bygones will be treated as bygones and the split negotiations will be conducted in a manner which will lead to agreement.

    At the moment it almost seems as though BT are planning to force a NO through via the back door by making things so unpleasant and difficult that the Scots give up on the idea.

    Which would be incredibly counter-productive and lead to two generations (at least) of rancour.
    I believe this is only the rantings of some delusional halfwits
    Are those the people who believe 8% of the UK will get to dictate terms to 92% of the UK?

    Only those delusional halfwits use the word "dictate" instead of negotiate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Very helpful of OGH to label North Britain "Scotland" for PBers with shaky geography!
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Flufffy, you are entitled to your opinion of me. I do indeed live in a very rural community, surrounded by people to whom I am distantly related. I do indeed descend from the same small group of people over and over again. So too do many of my distant cousins who are related to one another, David and Samantha Cameron, Charles and Camilla Cornwall to name just 4. I also have a network of family, friends and others which covers the globe and includes many of the so called "great and the good" so perhaps, just perhaps my opinions are formed by my contact with such people, from international statesmen and politicians of all hues to people who empty our refuse bins and clean schools.

    I know many Scots who have spent most of their adult lives in England and I don't mean titled distant cousins who visit their country estates in August. I well remember my own uncle launching into a tirade some years ago about how lazy and workshy the Scots were, living as he did near Birmingham and surrounded by fellow Scots exiles in the engineering world he inhabited. I think of those I know who chase the £ or $ in the London marketplaces or "gone native" MPs like James Gray whose family stayed with me when I nominated him to oppose Charles Kennedy in 1992. Few if any have time for most of their fellow countrymen.

    Morris Dancer my dear colleague, there is virtually nothing left to devolve to Scotland. That is why for 99% of Scots, independence will make no difference to their daily lives. Excluding law which largely comes from Europe, there is only general taxation, social security, defence and foreign affairs remaining which is not already devolved. We already have our own education and legal systems, both of which have remained independent since 1707. We have our own NHS as has been pointed out, our own planning and transport systems, our own institutions including our own sports governing bodies, our own political system, the Tory party being the oldest party by far. We could revert to the Scottish pound but our last experience of that was not a happy one so I favour returning to the groat, pending us joining the Euro as we would have to do within 10 years of joining the EU, assuming we get to join the EU and the euro lasts that long.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Sir Humphrey shoots another SNats canard over at arrse.co.uk. No doubt the usual suspects will dismiss the views of a staff-officer....


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Financier said:

    @Easterross

    If it is YES, then does the SNP have any good and realistic negotiators in its ranks as I view Salmond to be an emotional lightweight in that department.

    Much is said about oil and gas, but that is declining and will the oil majors and minors continue to invest in times of political uncertainty - quite often they will sell up and get out - indeed some of the majors have already disinvested from much of the North Sea.

    However, what has not been talked about is the IPR that has been built up in Subsea technology and is being used globally. Much of that activity is based around Aberdeen. Again, there is no reason to keep it there much longer and again political uncertainty could see it moving out of Scotland.

    Politically, I do not see many or indeed any refuges in the England & Wales for any LD and LAB ex-MPs. The LDs will be squeezed in England and all Labour can do is to deselect some of the 'golden children' (e.g. Kinnock) for the best of their Scottish ex-MPs. Of course the LD Alexander may join the Cons.

    I am sure Mr Salmond speaks highly of you as well. For a deluded halfwitted fanny hiding behind a false name and trying to pretend he is some kind of whizz kid, I doubt many people will lose sleep over your thoughts around everyone in Scotland being stupid and unable to negotiate with titans like yourself.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, what assets?

    The currency is not an asset. Oil is an asset. An individual pound is an asset. The currency is a monetary system.

    Just answer this: do you believe it correct that an independent Scotland could force by right England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be lender of last resort for Scottish financial institutions?

    I know you're a decent chap, and hopefully the feeling is mutual. The very fact we're arguing about so fundamental a matter is, I fear, indicative of how unpleasant potential negotiations would be.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Incidentally, don't forget to read my post-race analysis of China here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/china-post-race-analysis.html

    Not a great race, but the greenest so far. I'm considering running through the remaining races and working out (if Mercedes' dominance persists) who, based on last year's result, would win the title.

    That might sound silly, but of 7 comparable sessions (4 qualifying and 3 races, discounting Australia where Hamilton retired due to reliability) the results (between the two Silver Arrows) have been identical so far.

    MD Thank you for another excellent review, just two questions:

    1. Why does Mercedes have a better energy conversion ratio?

    2. Why is Alonso almost always the best starter - notwithstanding what car he is driving - does he anticipate the lights?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312

    Consider also the wider implications. The west has screeched hysterically about Crimea holding a referendum along the same rules as the EU-backed Kosovan one, unwilling to accept the result as democratic or constitutional despite said constitution having been torn up by the western-backed fascist coup in Kiev

    I'll give you coup, although clearly it wasn't a coup in the "military coup" type of event. But you will have to offer some evidence that it was "fascist".

    I really don't understand why the Left are still peddling their old Cold War view that Western imperialism is wrong and Russian imperialism is er, somehow, OK. (I don't understand why they held that view during the Cold War either for that matter).

    The truth is that Russian irredentism is a threat to the West and some countries in particular (e.g. the Baltic States), and while some of the post-Soviet borders are a bit iffy, having started out as no more than internal borders in the USSR and being of little consequence, the Ukraine is an internationally recognised Westphalian nation state and Russia ought to recognise that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. G, the currency is not an asset. An individual pound is, as is an individual pound's worth of debt. The currency as a system is not.

    You cannot seriously believe it is legitimate for an independent Scotland to demand that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish act as lender of last resort for Scottish financial institutions.

    I am not a radical Englander. I support the union.

    MD, the discussion is about negotiations on how we will do things going forward, nobody is dictating anything. The point is Salmond reckons that rump will want a deal, they claim not ( some at least ). We will see once the negotiations are finished as to who is correct. You still avoid the sharing of real assets , which by any reckoning are likely to equal or exceed the 8% of the UK debt that we will take.
    So my reckoning is we will walk away with no debt and no currency union which would be the best deal in my opinion. Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146

    You continue to labour under the misapprehension that your opinion matters after September 18.

    I'm sure malcolm is only taking his lead from you and the herds of like minded folk that seem to believe their opinion on the Indy referendum before 18th Sep matters, and have expended gigapixels on the matter.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457

    If Yes win, the decision to close the Portsmouth yards would be reversed. It is there that the destroyers will be built. BAE would close on the Clyde. The more skilled workers would not automatically lose their jobs, I expect that BAE would offer them a relocation package to the south coast. It is not just financial services workers that will move south of the border.

    An amicable divorce is as rare as rocking horse dung. The mentality of malcolmg shows the way the negotiations will go. Once the bluff of abandoning Scotland's debts is shown to be worthless, Salmond will be left floundering and fibbing again.

    "If Yes win, the decision to close the Portsmouth yards would be reversed."

    That's certainly a likely option in the medium and long term if a deal cannot be done. If you look at the Clydeside yards, they've not exactly been buzzing with activity since 2000. Remove the military ships, and they'd be in even more trouble. For this reason alone the SNP government would be very keen to do a deal to ensure military work does continue on the Clyde. Contrary to this, English MPs will be under pressure to get it moved in the medium term to Portsmouth or elsewhere.

    Clydeside commercial shipbuilding is nearly dead.

    http://www.clydeships.co.uk/list.php?a1Page=1&amp;a1PageSize=50&amp;vessel=&amp;official_number=&amp;imo=&amp;builder=&amp;builder_eng=&amp;year_built=&amp;launch_after=01/01/2000&amp;launch_before=01/01/2015&amp;role=&amp;propulsion=&amp;category=&amp;owner=&amp;port=&amp;flag=&amp;disposal=&amp;lost=
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    malcolmg said:

    Well any normal person would realise that nothing is guaranteed except taxes and death. His opinion , given that there is no facility or expertise elsewhere to build them in Britain....

    Unckie, Scotstoun will be receiving a new 'frigate factory' after Hammond's three new OPVs are complete. Ergo: There is no UK resource yet available to build the T 26.

    Defence-Pros; have already suggested that Scotstoun should close (due to the surrounding housing limiting further development; c.f. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-navy-discussions-updates-5679/ ). Relocating an unbuilt frigate-factory should not be rocket-science (even for BAe Systems)...!


  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Innocent I fear there are many of us who are instinctively unionist to the very fibre of our beings but know that short of a huge NO majority (which is not going to happen), the Independence genie has been released from the bottle and it will not go away. For that reason although we may not vote for it. many of us are coming round to the "oh for goodness sake let's just get on with it and move on" point of view. Short of a huge NO majority, I believe a YES vote would now probably be the best result because we can just go ahead and sort out the divorce. Failing a YES vote and getting a narrow NO instead will be like a couple who remain together for the sake of the children, destined to live in constant state of bickering and mistrust until they finally take the decision they should have taken all along and get divorced. Tony Blair created the separation and now it is probably time to divorce, sad though it will be.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Financier, you're very welcome, old chap :)

    At the start most cars on the odd side seemed to have a better start (Vettel passed Ricciardo into second), Massa excepted. I think Alonso just has a daring approach as opposed to some other drivers, and he has a very good head on his shoulders for wheel-to-wheel racing.

    The engineering is beyond me, I am afraid, but the Mercedes 'power unit' has a different component setup which, if you can make it work, essentially makes it much better:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26946444

    The other Mercedes-powered cars do not have that, I think.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146

    Not because of any desire for revenge

    That you felt the need to add that qualification speaks volumes.

    'Sorry luv, I've pissed in your underwear drawer, but it's nothing personal, honest.'

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited April 2014

    If Yes win, the decision to close the Portsmouth yards would be reversed. It is there that the destroyers will be built. BAE would close on the Clyde. The more skilled workers would not automatically lose their jobs, I expect that BAE would offer them a relocation package to the south coast. It is not just financial services workers that will move south of the border.

    An amicable divorce is as rare as rocking horse dung. The mentality of malcolmg shows the way the negotiations will go. Once the bluff of abandoning Scotland's debts is shown to be worthless, Salmond will be left floundering and fibbing again.


    I think the arrogant mentality of people like you are why there will be a YES. It will cost a fortune to get Portsmouth fit to build the ships and there will be a huge shortage of skills, so good luck to you on that one. We will see who is bluffing and who is left better off in the end. You planning on parking Trident at Portsmoth as well no doubt.
This discussion has been closed.