Scottish independence: let's have an honest debate (P3)

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 188
Forum Member
Luke_Foody wrote: »
A country needs a head of state and a Prime Minister cannot be head of state, he's head of the goverment - if Scotland becomes a republic it would have a president and if it remained a constitutional monarchy the Queen would be head of state.
I'm not sure why you're all up in arms about head of state. So it will be the queen. So what.

Over here, Obama is head of state. He won't be after the next election.
I would prefer not to 'wait and see', the decision is too important for that. I'd prefer to go with what seems the logical outcome in which a border would be required due to the immigration policy outlined in the White Paper.
You have no choice but to wait and see.

Ignoring your illogical statement the reason that a right wing Tory goverment being near permanant is due to Labour losing the 40 or so seats it gets from Scotland and making it near impossible to win a full parlament
Ok, for the rest of history, England will vote for a right wing government. Got it.

Come on, man. You're being terribly shortsighted.
Feel free to read my previous posts from a page or so back in which I explain that in negotiations the UK will have a huge advantage over Scotland.

Your sure of nothing, your hoping that things will turn out okay without any logical arguement. Your hoping that the UK will give the Scotland that just seperated from it a really good deal in terms of negotitations, which I, and the vast majority of analysts believe it wouldn't, seeing as it already holds 90% of the bargaining chips

I'm not hoping that the UK gives a really good deal. I'm hoping that both sides are fair and not dicks.

And really. All you're doing is giving a bunch of what ifs and passing them off to be true.

Continuation of: Scottish independence: let's have an honest debate (P2)
«134567516

Comments

  • davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    Feel free to read my previous posts from a page or so back in which I explain that in negotiations the UK will have a huge advantage over Scotland.

    Your sure of nothing, your hoping that things will turn out okay without any logical arguement. Your hoping that the UK will give the Scotland that just seperated from it a really good deal in terms of negotitations, which I, and the vast majority of analysts believe it wouldn't, seeing as it already holds 90% of the bargaining chips

    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    davzer wrote: »
    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.

    So Salmond and Cameron are both lying to the GBP?

    Thing is, the UK does have alternatives to Faslane, they would be costly and inconvenient to implement but they are there.
  • Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    davzer wrote: »
    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.

    Correction, Scotland might have had an upper hand due to Trident being a massive bargaining chip.

    Something which the SNP have thrown away in recent months by insisting Trident isnt up for offer.

    You need to keep up to speed with the ever changing shifting sands of referendum politics.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    davzer wrote: »
    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.

    That idea has been publicly rejected by the SNP

    No truth in Trident U-turn claim, says Swinney
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    davzer wrote: »
    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.

    Seeing as your main bargaining chip is imaginary. Scotland isn't going to be holding the UK ransom and refusing to give back trident just because its in Scottish waters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    davzer wrote: »
    Talk about deluded.

    Scotland has the whip hand due to Trident.

    Westminster is desperate to hold on to its deterrent. As such it will enter negotiations with Scotland on a pragmatuic basis once all the campaign froth has disappeared

    You really have no idea about negotiations, that is for sure. One party doesn't look to shaft the other. they look for win win.

    So you can be almost certain that in exchange for CU Trident wil remain on the Clyde for a few years yet.

    It's the way politics and negotiations work. They have publicly stated lines in the sand which bear no resemblance to their fall back positions.

    Seeing as your main bargaining chip is imaginary. Scotland isn't going to be holding the UK ransom and refusing to give back trident just because its in Scottish waters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    Seeing as your main bargaining chip is imaginary. Scotland isn't going to be holding the UK ransom and refusing to give back trident just because its in Scottish waters.

    Er, they're not threatening to keep them, they're threatening to give them back:D
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    magratx wrote: »
    Er, they're not threatening to keep them, they're threatening to give them back:D

    well there has sort of been three positions touted by various groups

    position one which seems to be held by some of the more extreme YES supporters on here is that Scotland would refuse to give trident back to the UK unless it gets some concessions in the negotiation process

    position two is that if the UK want Scotland to agree to allow trident to be located on the clyde to save the cost and inconvenience of moving it then again they will have to make concessions

    position three which seems to be the official position of the SNP is that trident must be removed from Scottish soil altogether

    so if we believe the officially stated position of the SNP then trident will not be a factor at all in any negotiations
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    magratx wrote: »
    Er, they're not threatening to keep them, they're threatening to give them back:D

    Why would the UK keep their nuclear arsenal in a foreign country?
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    Why would the UK keep their nuclear arsenal in a foreign country?
    It's a bit dangerous and you don't want radiation spills in your back yard.
  • Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a bit dangerous and you don't want radiation spills in your back yard.

    Yep, haven't you noticed all the mutants near Faslane nuclear wasteland:confused:
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9435-darling-u-turn-over-salmond-stv-debate-means-head-to-head-is-on

    "Better Together head Alistair Darling has agreed to take part in a televised debate with Alex Salmond on the issue of Scottish independence.

    According to STV, the leader of the anti-independence campaign has agreed to the live head-to-head with the First Minister on Tuesday, August 5th.

    The decision by the Labour MP is a U-turn after the No campaign initially rejected the date, accusing STV of bowing to SNP pressure. The broadcaster had initially suggested a date in July.

    The programme will be broadcast from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland in Glasgow from 8pm until 10pm. The debate will take place in front of an audience of 350 people."


    I wonder if it will be in this venue?

    http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Glasgow/NewAtheneaumTheatre2.jpg
  • barky99barky99 Posts: 3,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yep, haven't you noticed all the mutants near Faslane nuclear wasteland:confused:
    application is in to up the permitted nuclear waste entering local environment with more subs supposed to coming to Faslane ... hardly ideal for the local wildlife?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    barky99 wrote: »
    application is in to up the permitted nuclear waste entering local environment with more subs supposed to coming to Faslane ... hardly ideal for the local wildlife?

    This forum is crazy. How can nuclear weapon subs leak nuclear waste, if they leak nuclear waste it will be because they explode.
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    This forum is crazy. How can nuclear weapon subs leak nuclear waste, if they leak nuclear waste it will be because they explode.

    google radioactivity and faslane
  • AllyourKittyAllyourKitty Posts: 897
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    This forum is crazy. How can nuclear weapon subs leak nuclear waste, if they leak nuclear waste it will be because they explode.

    All that has ever happened at Faslane is tiny amounts of very weak radioactive liquid have been accidentally discharged.

    No credible (the credible part is very important) study or investigation has ever found any damage to wildlife or the environment as a result of radiation at HMNB Faslane although the operations of naval vessels and other ships all over the world do cause great damage to the seas in general but you don't see the anti-nuclear brigade people hopping up and down demanding we ban ships.
  • OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good piece in the i-Independent today, featuring converts to the Yes campaign as to why they changed their minds in favour of independence...

    something about a vote for optimism rather than a vote for fear... ;)
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    Good piece in the i-Independent today, featuring converts to the Yes campaign as to why they changed their minds in favour of independence...

    something about a vote for optimism rather than a vote for fear... ;)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-voters-previously-against-yes-vote-explain-why-they-changed-their-minds-9593134.html
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28231347

    "The president-designate of the EU Commission is reported to have said he would respect the result of Scotland's referendum.

    On Wednesday, Jean-Claude Juncker met with a group of MEPs.

    Mr Juncker told them he was "in favour of democratic expressions" and would respect Scotland's decision."
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thms wrote: »

    he added: "One does not become a member of the EU by sending a letter."

    ouch!! :D:D
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Majlis wrote: »
    ouch!! :D:D

    Which was out of context and referring to a letter from the Catalans
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/whisky-boss-no-intimidation-by-yes-camp-1-3472055

    "Whisky boss: No intimidation by Yes camp

    THE head of the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has countered claims that bosses have faced pressure from Nationalists not to enter the debate on Scottish independence."
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9430-australian-federation-vs-scottish-independence

    By Tim Morgan

    "One day this year this Australian was looking for sign language videos and by chance I came across one by sign4scotland YouTube channel – suddenly I was exposed to the Scottish independence debate and I was hooked.

    The more I read, the more I realised that the obvious choice was for Scotland to become independent.

    The knock-down argument is very simple – on the one hand Scotland is paying more into the UK Treasury than it is getting out, on the other it is derided by the political right as being a welfare-dependant mendicant state with its hand out all the time for extra money and getting all kinds of things for “free”.

    Obviously both of these things can't be true – and that is when I noticed that the “No” case rested on an enormous amount of doublethink. Scotland's oil is about to run out, but it has a duty to share its wealth with the whole UK. The UK public have to accept that the current pension scheme is unsustainable – but the only way for Scots to keep their pensions safe is to vote No.

    In an increasingly likely in-out EU referendum, Scottish voters would be outnumbered by more than 10 to 1 – but the only sure way for Scotland to stay in the EU is to vote No. And so it goes on.."


    continues
  • RationalTruthRationalTruth Posts: 44
    Forum Member
    Luke_Foody wrote: »
    Seeing as your main bargaining chip is imaginary. Scotland isn't going to be holding the UK ransom and refusing to give back trident just because its in Scottish waters.

    This would not be the main bargaining chip. The strength of Scotland's negotiating position is based on how much it is willing to contribute to Westminster's enormous debt which may be as little as zero. There's also the need for Westminster to ensure Currency Union so they can benefit from Scotland's strong export based contribution to an otherwise woeful Balance of Trade. Otherwise the long term depreciation of Sterling will accelerate to an even faster pace than it currently shows.

    It's pretty much the same situation as Norway have with the European Union. The EU are desperate for Norway to join but the Norwegians repeatedly rebuff them because, as with Scotland, the smaller party is richer and in a stronger position. Effectively Norway gets all the benefits of being an EU member with almost none of the drawbacks and this is all because it is the stronger economy.

    A Yes vote allows Scotland to make a UDI. That alone puts Westminster on the back foot in all negotiations because of its desperate need for Scotland to contribute to its future.
  • Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    thms wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28231347

    "The president-designate of the EU Commission is reported to have said he would respect the result of Scotland's referendum.

    On Wednesday, Jean-Claude Juncker met with a group of MEPs.

    Mr Juncker told them he was "in favour of democratic expressions" and would respect Scotland's decision."

    Very strange? Are you saying the previous position of the EU was to deny Scotland's referendum result?
Sign In or Register to comment.