I hope that if a split comes, it is amicable, but football is a useful if a not very nice simile.
You happily put up with your centre forward's foibles and you defend them to others. But if he demands a transfer and leaves, then he becomes the devil incarnate for a time.
So don't assume the rest of the UK will happily agree to anything even if it's beneficial to all sides. It's human nature and politicians will take note.
But don't worry, Malcolmg, you'll always be a witty racounteur with a great sense of humour to me.
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.
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.
MD , I assume you are just being obtuse. Embassies all round the world, all the military hardware , the reserves in the central bank to name but a few.
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
I have made clear many times that the only opinions that matter ahead of the vote are the Scots' - and after the vote, those of rUK.
Malcolm does not quite appear to grasp the asymmetry of Scotland's negotiating position.
rUK has many things Scotland wants - and the one big thing rUK wants from Scotland, Scotland has ruled out......as the Irish would say 'if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here.....'
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.
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.
This is a bit hard to read but when you get big swings in opinion like that based on something extraneous, it generally means people don't have strong opinions on the subject.
What English voters will have strong opinions about will be actual inconvenience on the ground, and although some will blame the Scots for the whole thing, they're also likely to be narked off with their domestic politicians if they fail to minimize that inconvenience.
Currency is a good example. Most English people won't care particularly strongly either way, but the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
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.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
Even if they don't shift position, that's a good old tabloid headline.
Having said that, The Sun doesn't like to be on the wrong side of history in these things - they backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood when the polls were going their way. Just saying...
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.
Easterross, as you say too late now. Minimum now is that YES will be in the high 40's so it is either independence or Game on for final push. It is not going away.
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.
MD , I assume you are just being obtuse. Embassies all round the world, all the military hardware , the reserves in the central bank to name but a few.
You have taken a very lopsided - even Nelsonian - view of the UK Balance Sheet. It is balanced because it takes account of assets - fixed and liquid - and liabilities - debts and loans.
Have you taken a view of the UK balance sheet recently - and seen what the 'reserves' are trying to support?
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
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.
Can I put you down as a 'don't know'?
leaning to YES I would say , and an asset for Scotland going forward.
I personally am not in favor of Trident and would be happy to see it go, but Portsmouth is not suitable for deep water submarines. Plymouth Devonport would be better, but there are other options with deep water Atlantic facing ports. Falmouth, Milford Haven, perhaps Cumbria or even Northern Ireland. A new life for H and W?.
Of course relocating BAE shipbuilding and RN bases have costs, but the military spend in some of the rUK regions would have significant beneficial effects on providing long term employment.
Trident was built for 1960s politics, and Ukraine crisis notwithstanding, is obsolete. I would happily scrap it in favor of a beefed up surface fleet and nuclear tipped Tomahawks on these and SSNs.
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.
Oh dear, Goggsy 'positive' Broon saying his Tory allies in Bettertogether are too negative. I look forward to him doing 'the smile' when he delivers his message of hope about pensions tomorrow.
'Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has accused the Tories of being too negative in the debate ahead of a speech in which he will argue it "makes sense" for pensions to be shared with the rest of the UK.'
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
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
I have made clear many times that the only opinions that matter ahead of the vote are the Scots' - and after the vote, those of rUK.
Malcolm does not quite appear to grasp the asymmetry of Scotland's negotiating position.
rUK has many things Scotland wants - and the one big thing rUK wants from Scotland, Scotland has ruled out......as the Irish would say 'if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here.....'
You sound like you should be in the unionist negotiating team. Mr Salmond is playing his hand very well, hopefully the other side will keep panicking and showing theirs.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
Personally I don't care but I am sure England would not get away with any veto as the consequences would be catastrophic for them, nobody likes vindictive bad losers. Shooting themselves in the foot out of petty spite would be extremely stupid. I want independence.
Malcolm why are you continuing to insult people who do not agree with you? You neither advance nor enhance your views by doing so. I happen to believe we will not be an EU/NATO member in March 2016, that we will not be permitted to enter into a currency union and that border controls might be necessary should Scotland sign up to Schengen but because you disagree when such views are expressed by Carlotta or anyone else, bad mouthing them does not strengthen your position one jot!
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.
Luckily these things are decided by professional politicians, who are professional deal-makers who can see both sides of both sides, rather than by random politically-excitable people like us arguing about it on the internet. This is why the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were able to sort out a coalition agreement that all their top people would sign on to in a little over a week, and Britain now has a government. If it was up to us we'd still be arguing about whether it was possible to form a coalition that didn't full address the West Lothian Question.
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.
Can I put you down as a 'don't know'?
No Mr Uniondivvie I remain a committed NO voter but fully expect YES to win.
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
We'll invoice in Sterling, for sure. But then Scotland is only a tiny part of our business and not really worth changing anything for. And that's basically the rUK position in microcosm. It has larger and more important trading partners than Scotland. For the Scots, though, the rUK is by far their biggest market. They have to get the currency issue right. It's for that reason I believe there will be an agreement. It will be on exactly the terms set out by the rUK and will be sold to rUK voters on that basis.
Even if they don't shift position, that's a good old tabloid headline.
Having said that, The Sun doesn't like to be on the wrong side of history in these things - they backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood when the polls were going their way. Just saying...
Scotland's other tabloid (though if the Record came out even mildly for Yes, Bettertogether really would be stuffed):
'Independence Referendum: YES and NO votes are neck and neck as the poll race goes down to the wire '
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.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
England would not get away with any veto
Yes it would, and in any case England may be the least of your worries. You can't apply to join the EU until you are independent. You can't be independent until you agree a deal - unless you want to UDI, then all bets are off.......
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
I'm not disputing it'll hit Scotland harder, but there's a lot of cost and inconvenience to both sides when you pull apart a long-standing arrangement like this that breaks a lot of the assumptions you've been using to plan investments. See SeanT's pieces for chapter and verse on some of the potential impact in England.
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.
Luckily these things are decided by professional politicians, who are professional deal-makers who can see both sides of both sides, rather than by random politically-excitable people like us arguing about it on the internet. This is why the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were able to sort out a coalition agreement that all their top people would sign on to in a little over a week, and Britain now has a government. If it was up to us we'd still be arguing about whether it was possible to form a coalition that didn't full address the West Lothian Question.
Exactly. The SNP leadership is not stupid. It knows that the day after the Yes everything changes and reality sets in. It will leave a lot of Scots disappointed, but when you are a nationalist, your goal is independence and you achieve it, why on earth would you care?
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.
I knew some workers at Portsmouth, and the idea that they will not be able to train people up there given time is rather laughable. After all, it is an active repair naval base.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
MD, how many times do I have to state that it is a negotiated CU that Mr Salmond wants , he has never ever said that Scotland could force one. He has clearly stated that he believes it will be in the interests of both countries to have a CU. I understand why the unionists have to lie and say there will not be one as it would destroy their vision of doom , but when the smoke of battle clears there will be different positions and realities that both sides will need to take. The markets will be spooked enough with a YES and any signs of petty nastiness or delay will destroy both countries economies. It will be necessary for both to do a mutually agreeable quick sensible agreement which has minimum changes from the current structure. Any sensible person should know that. Fickle public opinion will have little say in the matter other than they have to get the best deal done quickly before it starts affecting the public.
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
See SeanT's pieces for chapter and verse on some of the potential impact in England.
SeanT also believes Cameron will resign - hysterical hyperbole, in my book.
Trident was built for 1960s politics, and Ukraine crisis notwithstanding, is obsolete. I would happily scrap it in favor of a beefed up surface fleet and nuclear tipped Tomahawks on these and SSNs.
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.
Can I put you down as a 'don't know'?
No Mr Uniondivvie I remain a committed NO voter but fully expect YES to win.
I know it's rude to interrogate a chap on their voting intentions, but a hypothetical question: If the result looked like being very close, do you think it would better to have a Yes just from the "let's just get on with it and move on" point of view?
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.
Luckily these things are decided by professional politicians, who are professional deal-makers who can see both sides of both sides, rather than by random politically-excitable people like us arguing about it on the internet. This is why the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were able to sort out a coalition agreement that all their top people would sign on to in a little over a week, and Britain now has a government. If it was up to us we'd still be arguing about whether it was possible to form a coalition that didn't full address the West Lothian Question.
Exactly. The SNP leadership is not stupid. It knows that the day after the Yes everything changes and reality sets in. It will leave a lot of Scots disappointed, but when you are a nationalist, your goal is independence and you achieve it, why on earth would you care?
Yeah, I think the day after a "yes" result everybody is going to be thinking about continuity, and trying to minimize impact of the changes that they've spend the last 6 months talking up. It'll be one of those entertaining "We have always been at war with Eastasia" moments when everyone switches to opposite talking points within the course of about 25 minutes.
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
You just love to tell lies. The SNP only have said that if they are in power they would like to have a CU as their preferred option from a list of 5 or 6 possibilities. No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
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.
I might be wrong, but I've thought for some time - and the deal of a few days ago bears it out - that everyone was moving towards a deal whereby Russia tacitly recognises Ukraine minus Crimea, Ukraine allows a moderate degree of regional authority and nails down the sensitive language rights, the west tacitly recognises Crimea as Russian and everyone moves on. In 15 years or so, it's all formally recognised in a deal - much like the Poland-German border. I don't think the Russian superpatriots in Eastern Ukraine really have enough steam to force a crisis, and Ukraine isn't daft enough to plan an invasion of Crimea - they'll satisfy themselves with a firm squashing of the public building occupations, and Russia will say tsk. The fascist fringe is getting squashed. There will be plenty of squabbles to come, but probably not any kind of shooting war.
And in a rough sort of way, maybe that's a fair outcome. Most Ukrainians clearly do want to be anchored in the west, most Crimeans clearly do want to be in Russia, and in the eastern Ukraine they are nervous at being pushed around but not to the point of wanting a conflict.
Mr. G, you're correct that Salmond has claimed such a union would benefit both nations, but wrong to suggest he has not said "I think you'll find, yes we can" in reference to having a currency union.
Such a union depends on English, Welsh and Northern Irish agreement. It has not been presented as a negotiating position by Salmond but as Something Which Will Happen.
Politicians u-turning on it after a clear and united No was the answer to Salmond's currency union claims will not go down well here.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Most of the voters won't know or care what "lender of last resort" means.
Malcolm why are you continuing to insult people who do not agree with you? You neither advance nor enhance your views by doing so. I happen to believe we will not be an EU/NATO member in March 2016, that we will not be permitted to enter into a currency union and that border controls might be necessary should Scotland sign up to Schengen but because you disagree when such views are expressed by Carlotta or anyone else, bad mouthing them does not strengthen your position one jot!
Easterross, I reply in the same vein as the other poster and will continue to do so. I am polite and courteous when discussing with a similar minded person. You may choose to be polite to all but I refuse to do so. I do not turn the other cheek I am afraid.
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.
I might be wrong, but I've thought for some time - and the deal of a few days ago bears it out - that everyone was moving towards a deal whereby Russia tacitly recognises Ukraine minus Crimea, Ukraine allows a moderate degree of regional authority and nails down the sensitive language rights, the west tacitly recognises Crimea as Russian and everyone moves on. In 15 years or so, it's all formally recognised in a deal - much like the Poland-German border. I don't think the Russian superpatriots in Eastern Ukraine really have enough steam to force a crisis, and Ukraine isn't daft enough to plan an invasion of Crimea - they'll satisfy themselves with a firm squashing of the public building occupations, and Russia will say tsk. The fascist fringe is getting squashed. There will be plenty of squabbles to come, but probably not any kind of shooting war.
And in a rough sort of way, maybe that's a fair outcome. Most Ukrainians clearly do want to be anchored in the west, most Crimeans clearly do want to be in Russia, and in the eastern Ukraine they are nervous at being pushed around but not to the point of wanting a conflict.
That's all fine if you believe that Russia's an honourable party in this, and it does not covet the eastern industrial regions. That might be a little too optimistic, though.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
Personally I don't care but I am sure England would not get away with any veto as the consequences would be catastrophic for them, nobody likes vindictive bad losers. Shooting themselves in the foot out of petty spite would be extremely stupid. I want independence.
Spain, France, Italy would be the most implacable vetoes. They have their own secessionist problems.
The IEA Brexit prize winner recommended membership of EFTA.
I knew some workers at Portsmouth, and the idea that they will not be able to train people up there given time is rather laughable. After all, it is an active repair naval base.
Plus many people will happily move to Portsmouth (many because the work will not be there unless they do move)..
The idea that things will remain the same if Scotland says bye is total fallacy. With a general election in the middle of the split negotiations it will be the party toughest on Scotland that will win...
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
You just love to tell lies. The SNP only have said that if they are in power they would like to have a CU as their preferred option from a list of 5 or 6 possibilities. No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will 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.
Luckily these things are decided by professional politicians, who are professional deal-makers who can see both sides of both sides, rather than by random politically-excitable people like us arguing about it on the internet. This is why the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were able to sort out a coalition agreement that all their top people would sign on to in a little over a week, and Britain now has a government. If it was up to us we'd still be arguing about whether it was possible to form a coalition that didn't full address the West Lothian Question.
Nice to see someone understands how these things work.
Such a union depends on English, Welsh and Northern Irish agreement. It has not been presented as a negotiating position by Salmond but as Something Which Will Happen.
Its also something he claim the rUK electorate should have no say in.....
Folks, be in no doubt that if Scotland votes YES in September, the leading figures across all parties would be invited by Eck to become involved in the independence negotiations and most, if not all, would respond favourably. We are Scots first and foremost.
As a Scots Tory I have far more in common socially and politically with folks like John Swinney, Fergus Ewing, Mike Russell and Richard Lochhead than with Johann Lamont, Ian Gray or Jacqui Baillie. People like me are not just going to sit on the sidelines. We will wish to do what our ancestors have done for the past 900 years, shape the future destiny of Scotland.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
MD, how many times do I have to state that it is a negotiated CU that Mr Salmond wants , he has never ever said that Scotland could force one. He has clearly stated that he believes it will be in the interests of both countries to have a CU. I understand why the unionists have to lie and say there will not be one as it would destroy their vision of doom.
More than that, Eck surely started out saying "there will be one", something not in Scotland's gift. Among his other many qualities, he appears to be claiming clairvoyance.
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.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
Re Fascists in Ukraine. The Vice PM, the Minsters of Agriculture and Ecology and the General Prosecutor in the new provisional government are members of the Svoboda party. The heroine of the coup Tymoshenko was caught on a tapped conversation saying they should kill 8 million Russians.
You can understand why NATO is so desperate to extend its reach into Ukraine - they are true democrats.....
Mr. Tokyo, I'm sure those unaware will have it spelled out for them, but I suspect the majority do know given what happened with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
England would not get away with any veto
Yes it would, and in any case England may be the least of your worries. You can't apply to join the EU until you are independent. You can't be independent until you agree a deal - unless you want to UDI, then all bets are off.......
More fantasy, as we all know they will start negotiations on the Monday after independence and the EU will want it done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
With that, the banning of the Russian language and the elevation to power of a party who organises marches to celebrate Waffen-SS slaughters of Russians, I have no idea why ethnic Russians are making such a fuss.
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.
I knew some workers at Portsmouth, and the idea that they will not be able to train people up there given time is rather laughable. After all, it is an active repair naval base.
That is that problem solved then, couple of your mates will see to it no bother.
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.
I might be wrong, but I've thought for some time - and the deal of a few days ago bears it out - that everyone was moving towards a deal whereby Russia tacitly recognises Ukraine minus Crimea, Ukraine allows a moderate degree of regional authority and nails down the sensitive language rights, the west tacitly recognises Crimea as Russian and everyone moves on. In 15 years or so, it's all formally recognised in a deal - much like the Poland-German border. I don't think the Russian superpatriots in Eastern Ukraine really have enough steam to force a crisis, and Ukraine isn't daft enough to plan an invasion of Crimea - they'll satisfy themselves with a firm squashing of the public building occupations, and Russia will say tsk. The fascist fringe is getting squashed. There will be plenty of squabbles to come, but probably not any kind of shooting war.
And in a rough sort of way, maybe that's a fair outcome. Most Ukrainians clearly do want to be anchored in the west, most Crimeans clearly do want to be in Russia, and in the eastern Ukraine they are nervous at being pushed around but not to the point of wanting a conflict.
Yes I'm hoping that's where we're moving to too. Russia went about the Crimea in the wrong way, but it's probably the result we'd have got anyway, if there was a referendum conducted in a slightly more decorous manner in a few months time. Maybe if he'd waited he could have forced some border plebiscites too, but probably not on their own.
More fantasy, as we all know they will start negotiations on the Monday after independence and the EU will want it done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
Sadly EU procedures don't have a mechanism for anything being done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle. And some veto players with their own separatist movements to deter will want it to be done and dusted slowly and painfully and with as much hassle as possible.
Trident was built for 1960s politics, and Ukraine crisis notwithstanding, is obsolete. I would happily scrap it in favor of a beefed up surface fleet and nuclear tipped Tomahawks on these and SSNs.
And the NHS let you near patients...? :P
Fluffy , an strange occurrence but we agree for once
Yep, the NHS does sometimes let me treat patients.
A Trident sub has as I recall 256 nuclear warheads, enough to obliterate tens of millions of people, and there is no conceivable scenario where we would do so. Flattening cities is not the way war is fought now. Bomber Harris is history, and now we do not accept the killing of civilians as a legitimate war aim.
The Israelis do not have their nukes in subs, yet have plenty of deterrence.
Trident was built for 1960s politics, and Ukraine crisis notwithstanding, is obsolete. I would happily scrap it in favor of a beefed up surface fleet and nuclear tipped Tomahawks on these and SSNs.
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.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
More fantasy, as we all know they will start negotiations on the Monday after independence and the EU will want it done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
Sadly EU procedures don't have a mechanism for anything being done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
Too true. My guess is that the issue will end up before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which will hand down a decision somewhere around 2018 (unless Spain has already sorted out its separatist issues, which is possible if - as seems likely - there is a change of government next year).
Mr. G, you're correct that Salmond has claimed such a union would benefit both nations, but wrong to suggest he has not said "I think you'll find, yes we can" in reference to having a currency union.
Such a union depends on English, Welsh and Northern Irish agreement. It has not been presented as a negotiating position by Salmond but as Something Which Will Happen.
Politicians u-turning on it after a clear and united No was the answer to Salmond's currency union claims will not go down well here.
MD, I am sure the politician's will be worried about what you think when they are negotiating the deal. I tend to think that self interest , markets and rating agencies , etc will be more to the fore.
Clearly GE2015 will take place as planned but the above chart has been produced to make a general point – LAB would find it harder to win general elections without Scotland but this can be overestimated.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
Personally I don't care but I am sure England would not get away with any veto as the consequences would be catastrophic for them, nobody likes vindictive bad losers. Shooting themselves in the foot out of petty spite would be extremely stupid. I want independence.
Spain, France, Italy would be the most implacable vetoes. They have their own secessionist problems.
The IEA Brexit prize winner recommended membership of EFTA.
Not so sure Dave , Spanish especially would be big losers, their fishing fleet would be heading home immediately , and the amount of EU nationals getting chucked out of Uni's etc would be a big issue. The politicians will sort it out quickly , they will be loth to exclude people who have been EU citizens for 40 years whilst they will take in any basket case normally. It just will not happen , and if it does , who gives a shit.
Mr. G, I agree self-interest, markets and rating agencies matter.
But I fail to see the advantages for us, post-Yes, of a currency union. We get to be lender of last resort for a foreign country with a proportionally vast financial services sector. If there's no currency union and Scotland pegs the pound many of those firms will head south, bringing jobs and wealth.
Transaction costs are a minor issue by comparison, and we manage to trade with every other country despite them.
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
You just love to tell lies. The SNP only have said that if they are in power they would like to have a CU as their preferred option from a list of 5 or 6 possibilities. No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
MD, how many times do I have to state that it is a negotiated CU that Mr Salmond wants , he has never ever said that Scotland could force one. He has clearly stated that he believes it will be in the interests of both countries to have a CU. I understand why the unionists have to lie and say there will not be one as it would destroy their vision of doom.
More than that, Eck surely started out saying "there will be one", something not in Scotland's gift. Among his other many qualities, he appears to be claiming clairvoyance.
John, just showing confidence as he should. That is his personal preference at this time but he will have other options in mind in the event it does not happen. People on here seem to think he has not thought this through, it has been his life goal and you can be sure he has considered every possible scenario and option etc. No way is he going into this unprepared.
We will wish to do what our ancestors have done for the past 900 years, shape the future destiny of Scotland.
Pure nationalist propaganda. The "Scottish people" have not been shaping their own destiny for the last nine hundred years, or at least, no more than the population of England or Ireland. As Colin Kidd so correctly argues:
Cooper's intervention marked a major turning point in constitutional interpretation - though only in Scotland. It gave rise to the widespread delusion that from the 14th-century Declaration of Arbroath Scots inherited a distinctive tradition of popular sovereignty, a historical nonsense that has become the new political orthodoxy in Scottish political culture, espoused by Labour and Liberals as well as by the SNP. ['A British Bundesrat?', LRB, 36(8), (17/04/2014), p.14]
Mr. Tokyo, I'm sure those unaware will have it spelled out for them, but I suspect the majority do know given what happened with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland.
MD, yes those UK banks that are run and regulated so wonderfully from London.
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.
Can I put you down as a 'don't know'?
No Mr Uniondivvie I remain a committed NO voter but fully expect YES to win.
I know it's rude to interrogate a chap on their voting intentions, but a hypothetical question: If the result looked like being very close, do you think it would better to have a Yes just from the "let's just get on with it and move on" point of view?
My dear Uniondivvie, interrogate all you like. After promoting betting on political events, I have always understood the 2nd aim of this site to be a POLITE and forthright exchange of political views and opinions. To me there are only 2 satisfactory outcomes on 18th September, a YES result by any size or a sizeable NO. The worst possible result is a slim majority (under 5% ) for NO. That will just trigger agitation until we have another vote in about 5 years time.
Devomax is always going to be no more than a sticking plaster. Blair was assured that Holyrood would "shoot the independence fox". We Tories argued it would be the start of the slippery slope. Well if the latest polls are correct, the union is like a chap hanging off a cliff by his fingernails and his grip is slipping. That is why once more I expect to be on the wrong side when I vote NO.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
England would not get away with any veto
Yes it would, and in any case England may be the least of your worries. You can't apply to join the EU until you are independent. You can't be independent until you agree a deal - unless you want to UDI, then all bets are off.......
More fantasy, as we all know they will start negotiations on the Monday after independence and the EU will want it done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
If you believe that the EU will allow Scotland to join immediately and without a vote that would be lost by France / Italy / Spain vetos then you are even more delusional than most on here think you are. The no hassle EU viewpoint is a Scotland kept outside the EU, better that than an EU of 150 small states..
The Israelis do not have their nukes in subs, yet have plenty of deterrence.
On the contrary, the absence of the reliable form of deterrence that SSBNs provide ensures that Israel frequently resorts to first strikes to remove the capacity of its neighbours to produce atomic weapons.
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Which British banks did the US bail out? I've seen this repeated a few times on here but never with any evidence to back up the statement...
I have a long-held belief that our nuclear capability is a stupid piece of military kit. It is unusable. Unlike our other deterrent - the SAS - which has the scope to scare the bejeezus out of 90%+ of the nasty people we are ever likely to have to deal with, because unlike nukes they know it can be used with precision, silence and deniability.
Scrap Trident. Give the SAS more troops and everything they might ever need - and the capability to deploy them wherever we want them to go. It would cost a tiny fraction of Trident and get far better results.
And if I am wrong? Then try and devise a scenario where the UK is threatened with nuclear weapons by someone but where the US sits on its hands... It is the US nukes in NATO that keep the peace, not ours.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
Well for a start we could build some of the ships used in oil industry that Norway currently build with their much larger shipbuilding industry. We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy. What makes you think we need to sit waiting on crumbs from your table, 5 or 6 Type 26 frigates will not keep the yards going for long and will not sustain anywhere near the current minimum amount of jobs. Portsmouth even with the latest cuts has 12,000 jobs left and that is just one yard in England, we see where our money is spent.
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.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
England would not get away with any veto
Yes it would, and in any case England may be the least of your worries. You can't apply to join the EU until you are independent. You can't be independent until you agree a deal - unless you want to UDI, then all bets are off.......
More fantasy, as we all know they will start negotiations on the Monday after independence and the EU will want it done and dusted quickly and simply without hassle.
If you believe that the EU will allow Scotland to join immediately and without a vote that would be lost by France / Italy / Spain vetos then you are even more delusional than most on here think you are. The no hassle EU viewpoint is a Scotland kept outside the EU, better that than an EU of 150 small states..
I bow to such an expert who posts under the false pseudo of EEK, how appropriate. I shall reassess all my opinions based on your EU knowledge Mr Barrosso
With that, the banning of the Russian language and the elevation to power of a party who organises marches to celebrate Waffen-SS slaughters of Russians, I have no idea why ethnic Russians are making such a fuss.
I don't think they've banned Russian, just demoted its status as an official second language. Probably misguided, but hardly fascistic (especially as the two languages are probably fairly mutually intelligible). And the presence of Russians in Western Ukraine at least is the result of Soviet Russification.
Don't forget that Western Ukraine had only been Russian for just over 20 years in 1940 (and parts of it had been Polish until the year before) and Stalin had just sold a lot of their countrymen down the river to the Nazis in the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Yes the middle of the biggest war in human history is not a good time to have a national rebellion, but then the Russians had just killed a conservative estimate of 4 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor.
Yes Svoboda is quite right wing, but there are only three ministers in the provisional government, and while it might have some members with unpleasant views (as does the "make the white folk angry" Labour party) I would describe it as a nationalist not a fascist party.
And Tymoshenko... well we have all said things we don't mean when under stress.
Mr. Easterross, just one more epic miscalculation by the incompetent Blair.
Mr. G, indeed, the regulatory system designed by a Scotsman and the HBOS/Lloyds merger brokered by a Scotsman really let the country down.
MD , you forget that they were all run and adminstered by Englishmen and women however, none of whom said boo to the two supposed Scottish persons , one of whom is really English and the other who counts himself as North British I may add.
That's all fine if you believe that Russia's an honourable party in this, and it does not covet the eastern industrial regions. That might be a little too optimistic, though.
I don't have an elevated view of either Russian or Ukrainian politicians, but none of the leaders appear to be actually bonkers. If Putin wanted the east Ukraine rustbucket at all costs, we'd be seeing a lot more stirring than the odd building occupation here and there. I think he wants to have Ukraine weak. regionalised and dependent on Russian goodwill. It's neither honourable nor ideal, but it's also not an impending invasion. Similarly the Ukrainians want maximum attention - hence the frequent alarms that come to nothing - to get strong Western support, but they aren't really bent on a reign of terror in the east, and the neo-Nazis who might think that desirable are finding themselves suppressed.
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Which British banks did the US bail out? I've seen this repeated a few times on here but never with any evidence to back up the statement...
I put up links to them last time , I am not going to be your dogsbody now, try google and if you cannot think of a suitable search , come back to me.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
MD, how many times do I have to state that it is a negotiated CU that Mr Salmond wants , he has never ever said that Scotland could force one. He has clearly stated that he believes it will be in the interests of both countries to have a CU. I understand why the unionists have to lie and say there will not be one as it would destroy their vision of doom.
More than that, Eck surely started out saying "there will be one", something not in Scotland's gift. Among his other many qualities, he appears to be claiming clairvoyance.
John, just showing confidence as he should. That is his personal preference at this time but he will have other options in mind in the event it does not happen. People on here seem to think he has not thought this through, it has been his life goal and you can be sure he has considered every possible scenario and option etc.
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.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
You just love to tell lies. The SNP only have said that if they are in power they would like to have a CU as their preferred option from a list of 5 or 6 possibilities. No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
My dear Uniondivvie, interrogate all you like. After promoting betting on political events, I have always understood the 2nd aim of this site to be a POLITE and forthright exchange of political views and opinions. To me there are only 2 satisfactory outcomes on 18th September, a YES result by any size or a sizeable NO. The worst possible result is a slim majority (under 5% ) for NO. That will just trigger agitation until we have another vote in about 5 years time.
Devomax is always going to be no more than a sticking plaster. Blair was assured that Holyrood would "shoot the independence fox". We Tories argued it would be the start of the slippery slope. Well if the latest polls are correct, the union is like a chap hanging off a cliff by his fingernails and his grip is slipping. That is why once more I expect to be on the wrong side when I vote NO.
Thanks. I suppose I was trying to find out if you'd consider voting Yes just to avoid more years of agitation. I'm encouraged that you see an indy Scotland as inevitable, rather than inevitably a disaster!
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're massively wrong about the English not caring about currency union. We do not want to be lender of last resort to any country but our own.
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
MD, how many times do I have to state that it is a negotiated CU that Mr Salmond wants , he has never ever said that Scotland could force one. He has clearly stated that he believes it will be in the interests of both countries to have a CU. I understand why the unionists have to lie and say there will not be one as it would destroy their vision of doom.
More than that, Eck surely started out saying "there will be one", something not in Scotland's gift. Among his other many qualities, he appears to be claiming clairvoyance.
John, just showing confidence as he should. That is his personal preference at this time but he will have other options in mind in the event it does not happen. People on here seem to think he has not thought this through, it has been his life goal and you can be sure he has considered every possible scenario and option etc.
Maybe we can surprise him :-)
John, you may well indeed , but for sure he will have done his homework and is not the stupid country bumpkin that some of the shriekers on here believe. He is playing to his home market at this point which seems to be beyond the comprehension of some supposedly intelligent people.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Which British banks did the US bail out? I've seen this repeated a few times on here but never with any evidence to back up the statement...
I put up links to them last time , I am not going to be your dogsbody now, try google and if you cannot think of a suitable search , come back to me.
That is the argument of a man caught out without the facts to back it up.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
If and when we have real Scottish banks, Airdrie Savings Bank being the only current Scottish bank even if still under UK regulation, then the Scottish treasury will be the lender of last resort, is that not common practice in most countries. How do all other countries manage to have a currency , is there something so special about it that Scotland would be the only country in the world unable to manage to have a currency. Do you think we have some genetic disorder that precludes us solely in the world from having a currency. Enlighten me with your knowledge and explain why only Scotland could not possibly manage to be a country with a currency.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy.
How big is that going to be?
Hard to be smaller than what current outlook is , plan is build 5 Type 26 frigates, maybe or maybe not, so guaranteed lingering death over next 5 to 10 years at best. Outlook cannot be worse.
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.
No, it doesn't.
They need to be represented, but not to legislate on rUK laws. (I suspect that any rUK laws impacting Scotland at that point - although I struggle to imagine any - will be a matter of discussion between heads of government).
Representation should be addressed through the FM appointing representatives, in proportion to the Holyrood Parliament. (That will also reduce the incentive of Labour placemen to do the bidding of Ed Miliband because their future will be as part of a different national party at that point)
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Which British banks did the US bail out? I've seen this repeated a few times on here but never with any evidence to back up the statement...
I put up links to them last time , I am not going to be your dogsbody now, try google and if you cannot think of a suitable search , come back to me.
That is the argument of a man caught out without the facts to back it up.
Nice try but I do not button up the back. Stop being a big jessie and go find the facts, educate yourself. What did your last servant die of.
I think you and NickPalmer are both wrong even if it's only about logistics. Russia won't rest until and unless they have a land connection to the Crimea: sea and air connection just won't be enough for the Bear.
I also disagree that Russia will now relinquish demands on parts of eastern Ukraine. Russia fought four major battles for Kharkov in WW2 and lost about half a million men in those battles. These memories are deep in the hearts of Russians in both sides of the border - something like our memories of the blitz on Britain, but writ large and ten fold.
Yes, the entire reason shipbuilding grew so large on the Clyde in the first place was down to the Union...
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
Comments
You happily put up with your centre forward's foibles and you defend them to others. But if he demands a transfer and leaves, then he becomes the devil incarnate for a time.
So don't assume the rest of the UK will happily agree to anything even if it's beneficial to all sides. It's human nature and politicians will take note.
But don't worry, Malcolmg, you'll always be a witty racounteur with a great sense of humour to me.
twitter.com/ScottishSun/status/458049756397187072/photo/1
Malcolm does not quite appear to grasp the asymmetry of Scotland's negotiating position.
rUK has many things Scotland wants - and the one big thing rUK wants from Scotland, Scotland has ruled out......as the Irish would say 'if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here.....'
What English voters will have strong opinions about will be actual inconvenience on the ground, and although some will blame the Scots for the whole thing, they're also likely to be narked off with their domestic politicians if they fail to minimize that inconvenience.
Currency is a good example. Most English people won't care particularly strongly either way, but the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Having said that, The Sun doesn't like to be on the wrong side of history in these things - they backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood when the polls were going their way. Just saying...
You have taken a very lopsided - even Nelsonian - view of the UK Balance Sheet. It is balanced because it takes account of assets - fixed and liquid - and liabilities - debts and loans.
Have you taken a view of the UK balance sheet recently - and seen what the 'reserves' are trying to support?
Mr. G, 'what assets' was rhetorical, I know we have various assets that will be divvied up. The key question, which you did not address, was the direct one:
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?
Of course relocating BAE shipbuilding and RN bases have costs, but the military spend in some of the rUK regions would have significant beneficial effects on providing long term employment.
Trident was built for 1960s politics, and Ukraine crisis notwithstanding, is obsolete. I would happily scrap it in favor of a beefed up surface fleet and nuclear tipped Tomahawks on these and SSNs.
'Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has accused the Tories of being too negative in the debate ahead of a speech in which he will argue it "makes sense" for pensions to be shared with the rest of the UK.'
http://tinyurl.com/klkulf3
Shooting themselves in the foot out of petty spite would be extremely stupid.
I want independence.
'Independence Referendum: YES and NO votes are neck and neck as the poll race goes down to the wire '
http://tinyurl.com/klkulf3
Fickle public opinion will have little say in the matter other than they have to get the best deal done quickly before it starts affecting the public.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27100733
No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
And in a rough sort of way, maybe that's a fair outcome. Most Ukrainians clearly do want to be anchored in the west, most Crimeans clearly do want to be in Russia, and in the eastern Ukraine they are nervous at being pushed around but not to the point of wanting a conflict.
Such a union depends on English, Welsh and Northern Irish agreement. It has not been presented as a negotiating position by Salmond but as Something Which Will Happen.
Politicians u-turning on it after a clear and united No was the answer to Salmond's currency union claims will not go down well here.
The IEA Brexit prize winner recommended membership of EFTA.
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
The idea that things will remain the same if Scotland says bye is total fallacy. With a general election in the middle of the split negotiations it will be the party toughest on Scotland that will win...
As a Scots Tory I have far more in common socially and politically with folks like John Swinney, Fergus Ewing, Mike Russell and Richard Lochhead than with Johann Lamont, Ian Gray or Jacqui Baillie. People like me are not just going to sit on the sidelines. We will wish to do what our ancestors have done for the past 900 years, shape the future destiny of Scotland.
You can understand why NATO is so desperate to extend its reach into Ukraine - they are true democrats.....
When Scotland votes yes there won't be any Scottish financial institutions...
They will when their interest rates go through the roof because the BoE isn;t backing the institution that's lending to them
With that, the banning of the Russian language and the elevation to power of a party who organises marches to celebrate Waffen-SS slaughters of Russians, I have no idea why ethnic Russians are making such a fuss.
That is that problem solved then, couple of your mates will see to it no bother.
A Trident sub has as I recall 256 nuclear warheads, enough to obliterate tens of millions of people, and there is no conceivable scenario where we would do so. Flattening cities is not the way war is fought now. Bomber Harris is history, and now we do not accept the killing of civilians as a legitimate war aim.
The Israelis do not have their nukes in subs, yet have plenty of deterrence.
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
I suggest you read Anthony Burton's excellent "The Rise and Fall of British Shipbuilding" for a take on what killed off British shipbuilding.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Rise-Fall-British-Shipbuilding/dp/0752489690
Clearly GE2015 will take place as planned but the above chart has been produced to make a general point – LAB would find it harder to win general elections without Scotland but this can be overestimated.
But I fail to see the advantages for us, post-Yes, of a currency union. We get to be lender of last resort for a foreign country with a proportionally vast financial services sector. If there's no currency union and Scotland pegs the pound many of those firms will head south, bringing jobs and wealth.
Transaction costs are a minor issue by comparison, and we manage to trade with every other country despite them.
Devomax is always going to be no more than a sticking plaster. Blair was assured that Holyrood would "shoot the independence fox". We Tories argued it would be the start of the slippery slope. Well if the latest polls are correct, the union is like a chap hanging off a cliff by his fingernails and his grip is slipping. That is why once more I expect to be on the wrong side when I vote NO.
Mr. G, indeed, the regulatory system designed by a Scotsman and the HBOS/Lloyds merger brokered by a Scotsman really let the country down.
Scrap Trident. Give the SAS more troops and everything they might ever need - and the capability to deploy them wherever we want them to go. It would cost a tiny fraction of Trident and get far better results.
And if I am wrong? Then try and devise a scenario where the UK is threatened with nuclear weapons by someone but where the US sits on its hands... It is the US nukes in NATO that keep the peace, not ours.
Portsmouth even with the latest cuts has 12,000 jobs left and that is just one yard in England, we see where our money is spent.
Don't forget that Western Ukraine had only been Russian for just over 20 years in 1940 (and parts of it had been Polish until the year before) and Stalin had just sold a lot of their countrymen down the river to the Nazis in the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Yes the middle of the biggest war in human history is not a good time to have a national rebellion, but then the Russians had just killed a conservative estimate of 4 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor.
So I am afraid you are swallowing Russian propaganda in characterising Ukrainian nationalism as "fascistic". If you like, I can offer you evidence of anti-semitism among the pro-Russians http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10775310/Ukraine-crisis-The-last-time-someone-wrote-a-text-like-that-was-under-the-Nazis.html
Yes Svoboda is quite right wing, but there are only three ministers in the provisional government, and while it might have some members with unpleasant views (as does the "make the white folk angry" Labour party) I would describe it as a nationalist not a fascist party.
And Tymoshenko... well we have all said things we don't mean when under stress.
I'm encouraged that you see an indy Scotland as inevitable, rather than inevitably a disaster!
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
How do all other countries manage to have a currency , is there something so special about it that Scotland would be the only country in the world unable to manage to have a currency. Do you think we have some genetic disorder that precludes us solely in the world from having a currency. Enlighten me with your knowledge and explain why only Scotland could not possibly manage to be a country with a currency.
Outlook cannot be worse.
They need to be represented, but not to legislate on rUK laws. (I suspect that any rUK laws impacting Scotland at that point - although I struggle to imagine any - will be a matter of discussion between heads of government).
Representation should be addressed through the FM appointing representatives, in proportion to the Holyrood Parliament. (That will also reduce the incentive of Labour placemen to do the bidding of Ed Miliband because their future will be as part of a different national party at that point)
I think you and NickPalmer are both wrong even if it's only about logistics. Russia won't rest until and unless they have a land connection to the Crimea: sea and air connection just won't be enough for the Bear.
I also disagree that Russia will now relinquish demands on parts of eastern Ukraine. Russia fought four major battles for Kharkov in WW2 and lost about half a million men in those battles. These memories are deep in the hearts of Russians in both sides of the border - something like our memories of the blitz on Britain, but writ large and ten fold.