ha ... should have said it is signed, they've just delayed announcing it publicly so as you probably already know for political reasons you won't find much if any links/confirmation on internet - trick question from you?
Not really much of a story and business for Scotland continues to attract a pitiful few number of Scotland's total businesses.
Some 2200 businesses out of around 330000 in Scotland is pretty low by any standards.
If 99 percent of Scotland's business has rejected this organisation what does that tell us about their confidence in their future in an independent Scotland.
BFS will disappear quite quickly following a NO vote I think.
ha ... should have said it is signed, they've just delayed announcing it publicly so as you probably already know for political reasons you won't find much if any links/confirmation on internet - trick question from you?
So where's your proof?
A while ago you stated they had started making them and now your saying that the contract is signed?
If they have started making them then surely somewhere there's a photo, or blog, or on Facebook? Not much gets done outside social media these days so surely there will be some proof?
A while ago you stated they had started making them and now your saying that the contract is signed?
If they have started making them then surely somewhere there's a photo, or blog, or on Facebook? Not much gets done outside social media these days so surely there will be some proof?
When Ian King was asked by Ian King about the future of shipbuilding on the clyde if there was yes vote, Ian King said that would be up to the customer (Westminster)
I agree - it IS something we should know with absolute certainty and straight from the horse's mouth.
There is no way an independent Scotland can be a member state of the EU in its own right until it actually becomes independent from the UK and demonstrates that it ticks all the boxes as an independent nation. That is something that will not be known until independence actually happens.
To my mind, that is common sense. How anybody can think that this is something that should be given "absolute certainty" beforehand is quite amazing.
There is no way an independent Scotland can be a member state of the EU in its own right until it actually becomes independent from the UK and demonstrates that it ticks all the boxes as an independent nation. That is something that will not be known until independence actually happens.
To my mind, that is common sense. How anybody can think that this is something that should be given "absolute certainty" beforehand is quite amazing.
Should the same apply to rUK if it doesn't have Scotland's spare money to play with?
There is no way an independent Scotland can be a member state of the EU in its own right until it actually becomes independent from the UK and demonstrates that it ticks all the boxes as an independent nation. That is something that will not be known until independence actually happens.
To my mind, that is common sense. How anybody can think that this is something that should be given "absolute certainty" beforehand is quite amazing.
not entirely correct - Scotland already complies with all EU law, and all the directives etc westminster has passed have also been passed in Scots law - a luxury accession states don't enjoy
not entirely correct - Scotland already complies with all EU law, and all the directives etc westminster has passed have also been passed in Scots law - a luxury accession states don't enjoy
The critical box that would need to be ticked is the financial one. Scotland as an independent nation can only tick that box by demonstrating that it does, and it could only do that if and when it became independent. It can't do it beforehand!
not entirely correct - Scotland already complies with all EU law, and all the directives etc westminster has passed have also been passed in Scots law - a luxury accession states don't enjoy
Firstly, I'm sure Scotland would accede to the EU if we so desired.
As an individual sovereign nation, I'm not sure that we do comply with all EU requirements, but even if we did I would still expect a period where this would be checked for compliance by the EU.
I have no idea how long this would take but I'm convinced it can only begin after Scotland was independent. Post 2016 I would think there would be some kind of Limbo period for a few years. I'm not sure that Scotland being in the EU is just about complying with the law as I think individual countries have to accept them as well.
You never know,min that transitional period we might find that being out of the EU was better?
Scottish Government's help to buy scheme for 2014/15 almost out of cash - good to see they've got a handle on budgets and all that.
Things like this and the recent rise of the Scottish economy bely the fable that the SNP keep telling us about how dire we are I the UK. The Government scheme was either way over subscribed or way underfunded. Also next year the scheme is to have even less funds.
The underlying fact here is that the SG is cutting the budget for something that's proved popular. Why is that?
Out of interest let's assume the No vote win and the SNP form the next Scottish government. Does this whole sodding independence referendum merry-go-round start over?
How many of these things do you get? One with every SNP majority until they get the result they want?
Is there a recognised cooling off period between referendums or can those pushing for them (be it on independence, EU membership, or a new system of voting) get straight back on the horse?
Out of interest let's assume the No vote win and the SNP form the next Scottish government. Does this whole sodding independence referendum merry-go-round start over?
How many of these things do you get? One with every SNP majority until they get the result they want?
Is there a recognised cooling off period between referendums or can those pushing for them (be it on independence, EU membership, or a new system of voting) get straight back on the horse?
It enables the SNP to claim a no vote is a victory for Scotland.
Out of interest let's assume the No vote win and the SNP form the next Scottish government. Does this whole sodding independence referendum merry-go-round start over?
How many of these things do you get? One with every SNP majority until they get the result they want?
Is there a recognised cooling off period between referendums or can those pushing for them (be it on independence, EU membership, or a new system of voting) get straight back on the horse?
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that attempted tbh and a number of YES supporters on here have been suggesting it
personally I think that unless there was a significant change, such as maybe the UK voting to leave the EU but with a decent majority of scots voting to stay, then this should be it for a good while.
if Scotland goes independent and BAE are required to relocate their operations to Portsmouth then it hurts both BAE as they will incur extra costs and it hurts Scotland as jobs, skills and infrastructure will be lost
If that requirement comes from Westminster then they will put up the cost of those ships and in a time of deepening austerity I'm sure that the taxpayers of the rUK will be ecstatic at such a move.
Nor would I assume Portsmouth would be the obvious relocation given where the Titanic was built.
If that requirement comes from Westminster then they will put up the cost of those ships and in a time of deepening austerity I'm sure that the taxpayers of the rUK will be ecstatic at such a move.
Nor would I assume Portsmouth would be the obvious relocation given where the Titanic was built.
firstly the taxpayers of the UK wouldn't be consulted and given the UK has never built warships outside of the UK outside of wartime then I would be surprised if that precedent didn't continue
secondly it is the BAE who have stated Portsmouth as the alternative so not sure why Belfast is being mentioned at all
firstly the taxpayers of the UK wouldn't be consulted and given the UK has never built warships outside of the UK outside of wartime then I would be surprised if that precedent didn't continue
secondly it is the BAE who have stated Portsmouth as the alternative so not sure why Belfast is being mentioned at all
You could equally say the British Isles instead of the UK, and then there's no problem:)
You could equally say the British Isles instead of the UK, and then there's no problem:)
politically there would be
if the vote is yes I would prefer to see the work remain on the clyde , once the vote has happened then it would be silly for anyone to want to see events take place that are not in Scotland's interest just because the vote didn't go "their way"
unfortunately in this case I couldn't see the UK making that call
What about when the BBC report the truth and it doesn't suit the Yes side? Should they be pilloried for it?
If the reporting is so biased as to distort the truth and give only one side of it then yes. A real news organisation would scrutinise the outpourings of both the Yes and No side equally. They wouldn't simply report someone else's interpretation of what, when you read the original source, refers only to the Balkan states applying to join the EU and doesn't actually say they won't be able to join in the next 5 years but simply that it's unlikely.
Given his correction that the five year suspension of expansion does not apply to Scotland, as reported by the BBC, ( New European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was not referring to Scotland when he said there would be no new members of the EU in the next five years, BBC Scotland has learned. ), then there remains the possibility that Article 48 is the route Scotland will go down to retain membership of the EU. The obvious dilemma is that, on the insistence of both Westminster and Holyrood, there is a single question asked and no actual preference on being in or out of the EU can be implied. My best guess would be that should there be a YES vote then the UK will be represented in negotiations with the EU by a team consisting of two factions representing Westminster and Holyrood and the results of those negotiations will then be voted on by the rUK and Scotland. Respecting the choice of the Scottish electorate in the case of independence implies the EU will no longer accept Westminster as representing part of the member state consisting of the rUK and Scotland.
secondly it is the BAE who have stated Portsmouth as the alternative so not sure why Belfast is being mentioned at all
Because Harland and Wolff are not BAE, perhaps?
If this new range of ships is essential then as it's design could be classed as a "work for hire" if BAE can't supply it at at reasonable cost the MoD are perfectly entitled to look for someone else to construct either under license or not.
Comments
Not really much of a story and business for Scotland continues to attract a pitiful few number of Scotland's total businesses.
Some 2200 businesses out of around 330000 in Scotland is pretty low by any standards.
If 99 percent of Scotland's business has rejected this organisation what does that tell us about their confidence in their future in an independent Scotland.
BFS will disappear quite quickly following a NO vote I think.
So where's your proof?
A while ago you stated they had started making them and now your saying that the contract is signed?
If they have started making them then surely somewhere there's a photo, or blog, or on Facebook? Not much gets done outside social media these days so surely there will be some proof?
No ship building has taken place.
There is no way an independent Scotland can be a member state of the EU in its own right until it actually becomes independent from the UK and demonstrates that it ticks all the boxes as an independent nation. That is something that will not be known until independence actually happens.
To my mind, that is common sense. How anybody can think that this is something that should be given "absolute certainty" beforehand is quite amazing.
The critical box that would need to be ticked is the financial one. Scotland as an independent nation can only tick that box by demonstrating that it does, and it could only do that if and when it became independent. It can't do it beforehand!
Firstly, I'm sure Scotland would accede to the EU if we so desired.
As an individual sovereign nation, I'm not sure that we do comply with all EU requirements, but even if we did I would still expect a period where this would be checked for compliance by the EU.
I have no idea how long this would take but I'm convinced it can only begin after Scotland was independent. Post 2016 I would think there would be some kind of Limbo period for a few years. I'm not sure that Scotland being in the EU is just about complying with the law as I think individual countries have to accept them as well.
You never know,min that transitional period we might find that being out of the EU was better?
Things like this and the recent rise of the Scottish economy bely the fable that the SNP keep telling us about how dire we are I the UK. The Government scheme was either way over subscribed or way underfunded. Also next year the scheme is to have even less funds.
The underlying fact here is that the SG is cutting the budget for something that's proved popular. Why is that?
How many of these things do you get? One with every SNP majority until they get the result they want?
Is there a recognised cooling off period between referendums or can those pushing for them (be it on independence, EU membership, or a new system of voting) get straight back on the horse?
Scottish Government will no doubt match that within the hour or so.
This site backs the facts up and does not seem to have any political slants.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britains-future-frigates-06268/
In fact, the final design has still to be made which of course would preclude any 'Steel' being laid down.
As this is a long term contract for quite a few ships and a hoped for export market I can't see any of this happening outside of the UK.
It enables the SNP to claim a no vote is a victory for Scotland.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that attempted tbh and a number of YES supporters on here have been suggesting it
personally I think that unless there was a significant change, such as maybe the UK voting to leave the EU but with a decent majority of scots voting to stay, then this should be it for a good while.
If that requirement comes from Westminster then they will put up the cost of those ships and in a time of deepening austerity I'm sure that the taxpayers of the rUK will be ecstatic at such a move.
Nor would I assume Portsmouth would be the obvious relocation given where the Titanic was built.
firstly the taxpayers of the UK wouldn't be consulted and given the UK has never built warships outside of the UK outside of wartime then I would be surprised if that precedent didn't continue
secondly it is the BAE who have stated Portsmouth as the alternative so not sure why Belfast is being mentioned at all
politically there would be
if the vote is yes I would prefer to see the work remain on the clyde , once the vote has happened then it would be silly for anyone to want to see events take place that are not in Scotland's interest just because the vote didn't go "their way"
unfortunately in this case I couldn't see the UK making that call
If the reporting is so biased as to distort the truth and give only one side of it then yes. A real news organisation would scrutinise the outpourings of both the Yes and No side equally. They wouldn't simply report someone else's interpretation of what, when you read the original source, refers only to the Balkan states applying to join the EU and doesn't actually say they won't be able to join in the next 5 years but simply that it's unlikely.
When it comes to enlargement, I fully recognise that this has been an historic
success that brought peace and stability to our continent. However, the Union and
our citizens now need to digest the addition of 13 Member States in the past ten
years. The EU needs to take a break from enlargement so that we can consolidate
what has been achieved among the 28. This is why, under my Presidency of the
Commission, ongoing negotiations will continue, and notably the Western Balkans
will need to keep a European perspective, but no further enlargement will take
place over the next five years. With countries in our Eastern neighbourhood such
as Moldova or Ukraine, we need to step up close cooperation, association and
partnership to further strengthen our economic and political ties.
Given his correction that the five year suspension of expansion does not apply to Scotland, as reported by the BBC, ( New European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was not referring to Scotland when he said there would be no new members of the EU in the next five years, BBC Scotland has learned. ), then there remains the possibility that Article 48 is the route Scotland will go down to retain membership of the EU. The obvious dilemma is that, on the insistence of both Westminster and Holyrood, there is a single question asked and no actual preference on being in or out of the EU can be implied. My best guess would be that should there be a YES vote then the UK will be represented in negotiations with the EU by a team consisting of two factions representing Westminster and Holyrood and the results of those negotiations will then be voted on by the rUK and Scotland. Respecting the choice of the Scottish electorate in the case of independence implies the EU will no longer accept Westminster as representing part of the member state consisting of the rUK and Scotland.
Because Harland and Wolff are not BAE, perhaps?
If this new range of ships is essential then as it's design could be classed as a "work for hire" if BAE can't supply it at at reasonable cost the MoD are perfectly entitled to look for someone else to construct either under license or not.