So where are they going to go? More cost to relocate?
They certainly won't be based in Scotland. RAF Lossiemouth will more than likely be gone by Independence Day and be taken over by the non existent embryo Scots Air Force.
Moray will just have to do without the extra economic boost for the sake of independence.
I find it ironic that the above is true of Moray but seems to be swept under the carpet when talking of Faslane where there is an RN base that has more personnel.
So the Navy fights without extra supplies of food, fuel etc?!
Certainly not but the RN doesn't operate supply ships, these new tankers are for the RFA and are not warships.
Another telling thing is that even if the UK did order warships from other countries, which it doesn't, but let's imagine for a moment it would, then when put out to tender the Scottish yards would not win the bid.
I believe that there were initially European yards that bid for the tanker contract but they proved more expensive than the Korean ones.
71% said Alex Salmond won the debate to 29% for Alistair Darling, equalling a 27% swing since the last debate poll by ICM; Alex Salmond’s lead of 42% compares to just 12% for Alistair Darling in the first debate
Alex Salmond won with both men and women with the female rating at 77% to males at 63%
Alex Salmond won among every age profile
Alex Salmond won across every social grade
Alex Salmond won across every region in Scotland
Alex Salmond won 89% amongst post-debate don’t knows
Over a third of No voters said Alex Salmond won the debate along with 100% of Yes voters
Alex Salmond wins among Labour voters at 57% - a 38% swing since the last ICM debate poll
INDEPENDENCE
The post-independence poll was 49% Yes to 51% No
This is a closing of the gap by 2% since the last debate poll
Pre-binary the Yes vote was the only option that increased by 3% since the last referendum poll
A majority of women voters supported Yes – 53%
There were majorities for Yes among the 17-34 and 35-54 year old age groups - 51% and 52% respectively
Independence was the majority option amongst C2s and DEs and only needs a 5% swing among ABC1s
Yes wins 37% amongst Labour voters – an 11% swing since the last debate poll
53% of those who support ‘other’ parties opted for Yes
WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENTS?
61% said Alex Salmond had better arguments to 39% for Alistair Darling
62% of women said Alex Salmond had better arguments
Every part of the country thought Alex Salmond had better arguments
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to all age groups
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to every social group.
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to don’t knows – 63%
44% of Labour voters said Alex Salmond had better arguments"
But THMS. It was clearly biased in favour of Salmond and the audience was all Yes voters, the moderators was a Yes voter and the questions were loaded in Yes favour.
I even heard from a friend that they were turning No supporters away at the door.
Oops, sorry, they were your arguments a couple of weeks ago when Salmond clearly lost the first debate:D
When i see these thread about England having held back Scotland / Wales I always get the Monty Python life of brian scene "What have the romans ever done for us" in my head.
The UK has been better as the sum of the parts than if they had stood alone. Okay it is not perfect granted but I cannot see how you think Scotland would be any better off if you had spent the last 1000 years as a separate country.
What really annoys me is that everyone in Scotland thinks we all live in London. You focus all you problems on just one area forgetting that vast majority of the UK don't live in London. So most of us are pretty much in the same boat as Scotland on some of these issues. However we also understand that London player a vital role in our economy in the UK. It is the centre for many of our big companies and international markets. If London did not exist the UK would be a lost worst off.
I am starting to hope the 'Yes' comes out on top so you can stop blaming London for everything that is wrong in the world. I think it might be a big wake up call when you find your own currency cannot match either sterling or euro and prices for everyday goods start to increase. Then in 5 years time having to accept the euro and getting shafted by by the germans in europe as the French have found out to their cost. Sometimes it is better the devil you know.
As a Scot living in the north of England, I share your view. I also think your last paragraph sums up the feelings of those south of the border rather well.
When i see these thread about England having held back Scotland / Wales I always get the Monty Python life of brian scene "What have the romans ever done for us" in my head.
The UK has been better as the sum of the parts than if they had stood alone. Okay it is not perfect granted but I cannot see how you think Scotland would be any better off if you had spent the last 1000 years as a separate country.
What really annoys me is that everyone in Scotland thinks we all live in London. You focus all you problems on just one area forgetting that vast majority of the UK don't live in London. So most of us are pretty much in the same boat as Scotland on some of these issues. However we also understand that London player a vital role in our economy in the UK. It is the centre for many of our big companies and international markets. If London did not exist the UK would be a lost worst off.
I am starting to hope the 'Yes' comes out on top so you can stop blaming London for everything that is wrong in the world. I think it might be a big wake up call when you find your own currency cannot match either sterling or euro and prices for everyday goods start to increase. Then in 5 years time having to accept the euro and getting shafted by by the germans in europe as the French have found out to their cost.
Sometimes it is better the devil you know.
The thing is though Scotland is also very important to the UK economy. Its common knowledge how important London is its been rammed down everybody's throats for as long as I can remember. But tell me this how long have you known about Scotlands importance to the UK economy? There are swathes of English not to mention Scots, and Welsh and Northern Irish who have believed for a 100 years at the very least that London has to look after poor wee Scotland, that Scots are subsidy junkies. That is what pisses me off I myself have only found out it was always a pack of lies in the last three years. This is what a lot of you from down south are missing. Scots haven't had the chance to be proud of the part they've played in this union, because not only was it covered up, we've been told we were a drain on the English economy. This can never be squared with me, there hasn't ever been an apology for any of this. Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems while in government are all complicit.
Which you deliberately misquoted is from 2012 and seems to imply that Scotland would be done out of 400 million and not four billion that you falsely claimed.
So you seem to have committed three errors here, one you've claimed something using a biased source. Two, you have failed to corroborate this source and three even when using your source you have omitted the real figure quoted for us in Scotland to pay and instead attributed the price of the whole project to Scotland.
So we are not paying for Londons sewers after all, are we?
Complete and utter guff, The Tory government changed the law to benefit London to the detriment of the devolved governments.
Complete and utter guff, The Tory government changed the law to benefit London to the detriment of the devolved governments.
So you can confirm Thames Water customers aren't going to be paying for it?
Thames Water is the developer of the project and in addition to the formation of Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd, is responsible for securing planning consent - and acquiring the land needed to construct the project. All water or sewage infrastructure improvements within a water and sewerage company’s regions are paid for by all of its customers. The project’s cost will therefore be spread across Thames Water’s 15 million sewerage customers, including those outside London.
Thames Water’s draft business plan for 2015-2020, submitted to Ofwat in December 2013, shows average household bills rising by £40, before inflation, over the period to pay for the tunnel. The cost of the project could add a maximum of £70 - £80, before inflation, to average bills by the early 2020s compared to 2011.
Around £1.4 billion of the Thames Tideway Tunnel’s construction cost will be financed by Thames Water and £2.8 billion by the new company. Thames Water’s contribution will fund development costs, enabling works and interface works. To date, Thames Water has funded around £641 million in development costs, including £323 million on land acquisition. Thames Water will enter a contract with Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd under which it will collect revenues and pass them on.
Funding and finance
Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd is expected to incur a capital expenditure of approximately £2.8 billion (in 2011 prices). It is assumed that the new company, also known as the ‘Infrastructure Provider’, or ‘IP’, will be restricted to a leverage covenant of 70 per cent net debt to Regulated Capital Value (RCV).
The financing structure for the new company will be determined by the winning bidder but could include sterling bond issuance, bank lending and loans potentially from the EIB (European Investment Bank). The equity risk profile of Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd will be similar to a business-as-usual regulated water/waste-water company in England and Wales, although there may be a premium required by the market due to the new company being the first of a kind.
The debt is expected to achieve an investment grade rating and this will be a condition of its license – which mirrors the existing license requirements of the other water companies.
So the plan is to build a 25km tunnel to discharge untreated sewage into the sea? Wouldn't it be worth investigating how much it'd cost to treat the sewage, possibly extract fertiliser from it, possibly recycle the water content and potentially save both money and the environment?
Just watched an hour long debate on the referendum on STV, during which Charles Kennedy had a field day with John Swinney.
The Better Together campaign missed a golden opportunity. Kennedy would have been a better choice than Darling. He also took every one of Salmond's points from last night's debate and calmly, eloquently and clinically exposed each and every one of them for the bluff and bluster that they were, especially his nonsense about a mandate from the Scottish people that somehow supposedly is going to make his position all the stronger when he goes begging for his currency union should the Yes vote succeed.
Repeated on BBC Parliament at 8pm tomorrow night. Kennedy would also wipe the floor with the shouty Salmond, though to be fair to Swinney he was a lot more calm and collected than his boss was, and actually came over a lot better.
I didnt see it but I did hear that Salmond has officially decided to default on our share of the UK's debt. I think he is relying on peoples ignorance of financial matters by saying 'we will use the pound' but he does not go on to explain that using it outside the vital currency union is vastly different. Whatever currency he cobbles together, his refereing to financial sector workers as 'spives and speculators' and his frequent insulting of Sterling will have bankers queing up to demolish him. If we do separate he will have no option but to nationalise all bank deposits to stop money pouring out of Scotland as people and business cautiously move their money into England. I already have.
I didnt see it but I did hear that Salmond has officially decided to default on our share of the UK's debt. I think he is relying on peoples ignorance of financial matters by saying 'we will use the pound' but he does not go on to explain that using it outside the vital currency union is vastly different. Whatever currency he cobbles together, his refereing to financial sector workers as 'spives and speculators' and his frequent insulting of Sterling will have bankers queing up to demolish him. If we do separate he will have no option but to nationalise all bank deposits to stop money pouring out of Scotland as people and business cautiously move their money into England. I already have.
Just think how different this debate could have been if Salmond had tried to build bridges rather than demolish them... whether he's calling Westminster politicians Lord Snooty's, threats over the debts, slagging the pound or telling the European leader that we'll block their fishing boats... he really could have tried a more nuanced approach and probably brought a lot more Scots with him.
Just think how different this debate could have been if Salmond had tried to build bridges rather than demolish them... whether he's calling Westminster politicians Lord Snooty's, threats over the debts, slagging the pound or telling the European leader that we'll block their fishing boats... he really could have tried a more nuanced approach and probably brought a lot more Scots with him.
Not to mention slagging off the Prime Minister of Australia. He really needs to learn how to "win friends and influence people". Of course he didn't dare criticise Obama for backing the Union.
So the plan is to build a 25km tunnel to discharge untreated sewage into the sea?
That's not the plan at all. Quite the reverse
A decade of study has concluded that the most timely and cost-effective solution to the CSO discharge problem is a 25 kilometre interception, storage and transfer tunnel running up to 65 metres below the river - the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
It will be 7.2 metres in diameter and have a capacity of 1.6 million cubic metres.
Starting in west London, the proposed route for the main tunnel generally follows the route of the River Thames to Limehouse, where it then continues north-east to Abbey Mills Pumping Station near Stratford. There it will be connected to the Lee Tunnel, which will transfer the sewage to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works.
....Overflows of sewage into the tidal River Thames add up to tens of millions of tonnes every year. This is clearly unacceptable and also contravenes the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
By intercepting the sewage before it enters the river, the Thames Tideway Tunnel would prevent the tidal River Thames from being polluted with untreated sewage which can stay in the river for up to three months before the ebb and flow of the tide finally takes it out to sea.
As a Scot living in the north of England, I share your view. I also think your last paragraph sums up the feelings of those south of the border rather well.
You are making the assumption that there are two devils.
Just think how different this debate could have been if Salmond had tried to build bridges rather than demolish them... whether he's calling Westminster politicians Lord Snooty's, threats over the debts, slagging the pound or telling the European leader that we'll block their fishing boats... he really could have tried a more nuanced approach and probably brought a lot more Scots with him.
Actually if you read the reports rather than the red top headlines you will find that you are speaking nonsense.
I didnt see it but I did hear that Salmond has officially decided to default on our share of the UK's debt. I think he is relying on peoples ignorance of financial matters by saying 'we will use the pound' but he does not go on to explain that using it outside the vital currency union is vastly different. Whatever currency he cobbles together, his refereing to financial sector workers as 'spives and speculators' and his frequent insulting of Sterling will have bankers queing up to demolish him. If we do separate he will have no option but to nationalise all bank deposits to stop money pouring out of Scotland as people and business cautiously move their money into England. I already have.
If I were you I would move my money back to Scotland. The banks in the rUK will be more susceptible to crash than Scottish based banks. But it is your money .
But, for me, the really big development, was the candid, transparent use of threat by Mr Salmond over currency union.
No currency union, means no share of assets, which means "the debt is yours". The First Minister said this repeatedly and clearly. This is high wire stuff with implications for the banking system.
No currency union, means no share of assets, which means "the debt is yours". The First Minister said this repeatedly and clearly. This is high wire stuff with implications for the banking system.[/I]
Just wait until the first time Scotland tries to fill in a form to borrow a few hundred billion to pay for their spending promises:
Q: Have you ever been declined credit before or defaulted on a debt?
A: Oh.... crap.
The international money markets have brought countries which have tried to mess with them to their knees.
But, for me, the really big development, was the candid, transparent use of threat by Mr Salmond over currency union.
No currency union, means no share of assets, which means "the debt is yours". The First Minister said this repeatedly and clearly. This is high wire stuff with implications for the banking system.
Why should a new country be saddled with debt from the continuing state. It is their debt afterall.
But, for me, the really big development, was the candid, transparent use of threat by Mr Salmond over currency union.
No currency union, means no share of assets, which means "the debt is yours". The First Minister said this repeatedly and clearly. This is high wire stuff with implications for the banking system.
no share of assets would basically mean Scotland cannot operate as an independent country
even the Dunleavy report which YES supporters have held up repeatedly regarding costs and timescales for transition says that Scotland will be dependent on the rUK for up to ten years for a number of core services and will have to lease those services until such time they can be implemented as a separate Scottish function
so what sort of lease arrangements do you think the rUK will offer for these core services when salmond has refused to take any share of debt and waived a share of assets
no share of assets would basically mean Scotland cannot operate as an independent country
even the Dunleavy report which YES supporters have held up repeatedly regarding costs and timescales for transition says that Scotland will be dependent on the rUK for up to ten years for a number of core services and will have to lease those services until such time they can be implemented as a separate Scottish function
so what sort of lease arrangements do you think the rUK will offer for these core services when salmond has refused to take any share of debt and waived a share of assets
That is why there will be a share of the assets and Scotland will undertake to pay a share of the debt. It is in no ones interest for anything else to happen
That is why there will be a share of the assets and Scotland will undertake to pay a share of the debt. It is in no ones interest for anything else to happen
Comments
They certainly won't be based in Scotland. RAF Lossiemouth will more than likely be gone by Independence Day and be taken over by the non existent embryo Scots Air Force.
Moray will just have to do without the extra economic boost for the sake of independence.
I find it ironic that the above is true of Moray but seems to be swept under the carpet when talking of Faslane where there is an RN base that has more personnel.
Certainly not but the RN doesn't operate supply ships, these new tankers are for the RFA and are not warships.
Another telling thing is that even if the UK did order warships from other countries, which it doesn't, but let's imagine for a moment it would, then when put out to tender the Scottish yards would not win the bid.
I believe that there were initially European yards that bid for the tanker contract but they proved more expensive than the Korean ones.
But THMS. It was clearly biased in favour of Salmond and the audience was all Yes voters, the moderators was a Yes voter and the questions were loaded in Yes favour.
I even heard from a friend that they were turning No supporters away at the door.
Oops, sorry, they were your arguments a couple of weeks ago when Salmond clearly lost the first debate:D
As a Scot living in the north of England, I share your view. I also think your last paragraph sums up the feelings of those south of the border rather well.
The thing is though Scotland is also very important to the UK economy. Its common knowledge how important London is its been rammed down everybody's throats for as long as I can remember. But tell me this how long have you known about Scotlands importance to the UK economy? There are swathes of English not to mention Scots, and Welsh and Northern Irish who have believed for a 100 years at the very least that London has to look after poor wee Scotland, that Scots are subsidy junkies. That is what pisses me off I myself have only found out it was always a pack of lies in the last three years. This is what a lot of you from down south are missing. Scots haven't had the chance to be proud of the part they've played in this union, because not only was it covered up, we've been told we were a drain on the English economy. This can never be squared with me, there hasn't ever been an apology for any of this. Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems while in government are all complicit.
Complete and utter guff, The Tory government changed the law to benefit London to the detriment of the devolved governments.
Who to believe.
So you can confirm Thames Water customers aren't going to be paying for it?
Thames Water is the developer of the project and in addition to the formation of Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd, is responsible for securing planning consent - and acquiring the land needed to construct the project. All water or sewage infrastructure improvements within a water and sewerage company’s regions are paid for by all of its customers. The project’s cost will therefore be spread across Thames Water’s 15 million sewerage customers, including those outside London.
Thames Water’s draft business plan for 2015-2020, submitted to Ofwat in December 2013, shows average household bills rising by £40, before inflation, over the period to pay for the tunnel. The cost of the project could add a maximum of £70 - £80, before inflation, to average bills by the early 2020s compared to 2011.
Around £1.4 billion of the Thames Tideway Tunnel’s construction cost will be financed by Thames Water and £2.8 billion by the new company. Thames Water’s contribution will fund development costs, enabling works and interface works. To date, Thames Water has funded around £641 million in development costs, including £323 million on land acquisition. Thames Water will enter a contract with Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd under which it will collect revenues and pass them on.
Funding and finance
Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd is expected to incur a capital expenditure of approximately £2.8 billion (in 2011 prices). It is assumed that the new company, also known as the ‘Infrastructure Provider’, or ‘IP’, will be restricted to a leverage covenant of 70 per cent net debt to Regulated Capital Value (RCV).
The financing structure for the new company will be determined by the winning bidder but could include sterling bond issuance, bank lending and loans potentially from the EIB (European Investment Bank). The equity risk profile of Thames Tideway Tunnel Ltd will be similar to a business-as-usual regulated water/waste-water company in England and Wales, although there may be a premium required by the market due to the new company being the first of a kind.
The debt is expected to achieve an investment grade rating and this will be a condition of its license – which mirrors the existing license requirements of the other water companies.
http://www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk/news/media-centre/investors-sought-for-new-company-to-own-uk%E2%80%99s-biggest-water-industry-project
which confirms they are seeking investors
Seems strange that they would do that if Scotland is paying for it.
So the plan is to build a 25km tunnel to discharge untreated sewage into the sea? Wouldn't it be worth investigating how much it'd cost to treat the sewage, possibly extract fertiliser from it, possibly recycle the water content and potentially save both money and the environment?
I didnt see it but I did hear that Salmond has officially decided to default on our share of the UK's debt. I think he is relying on peoples ignorance of financial matters by saying 'we will use the pound' but he does not go on to explain that using it outside the vital currency union is vastly different. Whatever currency he cobbles together, his refereing to financial sector workers as 'spives and speculators' and his frequent insulting of Sterling will have bankers queing up to demolish him. If we do separate he will have no option but to nationalise all bank deposits to stop money pouring out of Scotland as people and business cautiously move their money into England. I already have.
Just think how different this debate could have been if Salmond had tried to build bridges rather than demolish them... whether he's calling Westminster politicians Lord Snooty's, threats over the debts, slagging the pound or telling the European leader that we'll block their fishing boats... he really could have tried a more nuanced approach and probably brought a lot more Scots with him.
Not to mention slagging off the Prime Minister of Australia. He really needs to learn how to "win friends and influence people". Of course he didn't dare criticise Obama for backing the Union.
That's not the plan at all. Quite the reverse
A decade of study has concluded that the most timely and cost-effective solution to the CSO discharge problem is a 25 kilometre interception, storage and transfer tunnel running up to 65 metres below the river - the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
It will be 7.2 metres in diameter and have a capacity of 1.6 million cubic metres.
Starting in west London, the proposed route for the main tunnel generally follows the route of the River Thames to Limehouse, where it then continues north-east to Abbey Mills Pumping Station near Stratford. There it will be connected to the Lee Tunnel, which will transfer the sewage to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works.
....Overflows of sewage into the tidal River Thames add up to tens of millions of tonnes every year. This is clearly unacceptable and also contravenes the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
By intercepting the sewage before it enters the river, the Thames Tideway Tunnel would prevent the tidal River Thames from being polluted with untreated sewage which can stay in the river for up to three months before the ebb and flow of the tide finally takes it out to sea.
You are making the assumption that there are two devils.
Actually if you read the reports rather than the red top headlines you will find that you are speaking nonsense.
That message was one of the few things that came across loud and clear in an otherwise unwatchable slanging match.
http://news.sky.com/story/1324618/salmond-wins-with-debt-is-yours-threat
But, for me, the really big development, was the candid, transparent use of threat by Mr Salmond over currency union.
No currency union, means no share of assets, which means "the debt is yours". The First Minister said this repeatedly and clearly. This is high wire stuff with implications for the banking system.
Just wait until the first time Scotland tries to fill in a form to borrow a few hundred billion to pay for their spending promises:
Q: Have you ever been declined credit before or defaulted on a debt?
A: Oh.... crap.
The international money markets have brought countries which have tried to mess with them to their knees.
Why should a new country be saddled with debt from the continuing state. It is their debt afterall.
no share of assets would basically mean Scotland cannot operate as an independent country
even the Dunleavy report which YES supporters have held up repeatedly regarding costs and timescales for transition says that Scotland will be dependent on the rUK for up to ten years for a number of core services and will have to lease those services until such time they can be implemented as a separate Scottish function
so what sort of lease arrangements do you think the rUK will offer for these core services when salmond has refused to take any share of debt and waived a share of assets
The debt is the UKs . Scotland , as a state , does not presently exist. It has no debt.
That is why there will be a share of the assets and Scotland will undertake to pay a share of the debt. It is in no ones interest for anything else to happen
contradict yourself much ?