Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Just to be picky it's not the royal army.Thanas wrote:Given the territorial principles along which the Royal Army is organized, I don't see the problem?
If the alternative government seems reckless and incompetent, then at some point they can easily become worse than the status quo. There are many historical examples of this.Stas Bush wrote:So when there's a genuine alternative, people still hate it because of uncertainty? Well... I cannot blame them, but I cannot support this position either.
Apparently, they even asked Putin for it. Yes, that Putin!madd0ct0r wrote:Apparently the foreign office has been doing a ring around asking other nations to come out against it
Actually, that is something I saw in our press over last few days. The promise of Scotland getting more powers if they vote 'no' is just blank piece of paper with nothing concrete on it. Meanwhile, BNP started to latch on to the arguments UK politicians use to persuade Scots. "So you say Scotland gets more money than it pays? How is that fair?", "Why they get to vote on our matters when we can't on theirs?" and "Why we fund free Scottish universities when ours aren't?" plus a lot more examples.streetad wrote:how the English will somehow 'punish' Scotland for voting no (what does this even mean?)
I can point out half a dozen recent examples when it did not. Well, unless England does good on threat and starts to drag heels on everything, but as I said before, I really don't see why you would like to be partnered with someone like that.streetad wrote:The only ACTUAL fact is that, like every divorce, a Yes vote will result in years of hard fought, bitter negotiations about absolutely everything from currency on down and the only people who will eventually go home completely happy are a thousand international lawyers.
Yes. There was also one between Serbia and Montenegro, really, if the partner is reasonable instead of ham-fisted tyrant, everything can be done quickly and peacefully.mr friendly guy wrote:Wasn't there a velvet divorce between the Czech republic and Slovakia which ended Czechoslavakia neatly without the problems described here.
What?Lonestar wrote:They want a bunch of high-end stuff that gives them very uneven capabilities. It's obvious that they picked some high-profile items out of the hat and gave no thought to ISR, logistics, maritime/air mobility...just to name three areas. And they think they can afford to run the equipment while duplicating the command structure of the UK, creating a intelligence apparatus and creating a social welfare paradise.
Like I said; The SNP's position on what they should get out of the split is absurd. They very clearly picked the army units that had "Scottish" in the name, and then high profile items, and called it a day.
First thing a nation needs IMO is securing their borders, especially if their big plan for independence relies on offshore assets they need to make safe and profitable. Not becoming expeditionary NATO plugin with force that would be totally useless for any domestic task short of big natural disaster.Simon_Jester wrote:The real question is whether the Scottish military is going to have the support assets and equipment. They might have been wise to ask for fewer supersonic fighters and more transport planes and field hospitals.
The fundamental point Lonestar made is that the SNP appears to have neglected logistical support for the forces they're asking for, which may leave them unable to use the heavy-hitting units they've requested in any effective way.Irbis wrote:What?Lonestar wrote:They want a bunch of high-end stuff that gives them very uneven capabilities. It's obvious that they picked some high-profile items out of the hat and gave no thought to ISR, logistics, maritime/air mobility...just to name three areas. And they think they can afford to run the equipment while duplicating the command structure of the UK, creating a intelligence apparatus and creating a social welfare paradise.
Like I said; The SNP's position on what they should get out of the split is absurd. They very clearly picked the army units that had "Scottish" in the name, and then high profile items, and called it a day.
Really high profile items, shares in new carriers and nuclear submarine fleet, were explicitly given away to UK. Yes, they ask for basic airplanes and ships to protect their coast (12.000 km) and sea. Totally unreasonable, right? They should have asked for a pair of old Lee-Enfields Mk I instead and be grateful, eh?
The dig about them being scum for asking for two whole frigates is funny when you consider smaller Denmark fields nine of them. Such greed. How exactly they will afford 1/5 of armed forces of one of the smallest and most pacifistic NATO members?
I was giving examples. The point is that a military is not useful without the means to support it in terms of logistics and coordination, and that this is not about "Scotland asks for too many weapons," it is about "Scotland is asking for a force that is all teeth and no tail, and which they will likely lack the funds to support."First thing a nation needs IMO is securing their borders, especially if their big plan for independence relies on offshore assets they need to make safe and profitable. Not becoming expeditionary NATO plugin with force that would be totally useless for any domestic task short of big natural disaster.Simon_Jester wrote:The real question is whether the Scottish military is going to have the support assets and equipment. They might have been wise to ask for fewer supersonic fighters and more transport planes and field hospitals.
Except Scotland's purely hypothetical role in NATO is as yet very uncertain, so acquiring weapon systems to comply with NATO requests is very premature.If Scotland experts say NATO would expect 1 surface combatant and some planes as their addition to NATO forces, Scotland will need to field them anyway first, then think of logistical side of things. When Poland bought fleet of F-16s per NATO orders, we needed to rely on NATO infrastructure to keep them airborne at first, it won't be any different now.
Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like someone arguing for a devolved West Midlands while trying really hard to pretend they're talking about something else?The Scottish referendum debate has centred on whether Scotland is stronger in the union or outside it – little attention has been paid to which option benefits the England and the West Midlands.
The impact on the region of Scotland remaining in the UK could indeed be negative for the region.
The No side appears to have adopted a negative campaign, simply stating that Scotland would be £1,400 per head better off if it voted No.
The Yes campaign, with its romantic populist approach, argue the independence windfall would be £1,000 per head.
Whatever happens, major changes can be anticipated.
The three main Westminster parties have already made un-costed commitments to further devolution if the vote is No, effectively moving toward further Scots financial autonomy in all areas, except defence, foreign affairs and social security.
Paul Forrest, director of the West Midlands Economic Forum
Assessing the impact of either outcome is difficult, not least due to lack of hard data.
It is relatively easily to quantify relations between national economies as they have clearly defined economic spaces, trading and tax regimes.
Defining relations between sub-national entities such as Scotland and England or the West Midlands is reliant on assumptions, which can be politically slanted because of data weaknesses.
Scotland and England have no single-defined border to determine the extent of the respective economies – according to some there are at least nine internationally acceptable variants of the North Sea border.
There is no agreement on the division of the continental shelf in the North Sea, currently the fisheries zones are used for determining allocation of North Sea energy resources. Statistically, these resources are allocated by the Office for National Statistics to the Continental Shelf.
Proponents of Scottish independence assume North Sea revenues should be allocated to Scotland.
With these revenues, Scotland per head provided an estimated £789 more in tax than the UK as a whole in 2012-13. Scottish public expenditure per head, however, in the same period was some £1,256 (11 per cent) higher.
If Scotland does vote Yes, the true fiscal position will become quickly apparent and negotiation commence on an equitable and transparent redistribution of national asset and liabilities, including natural energy resources, debt and currency reserves as well a range of cross-border issues that have yet to be identified or quantified. What could be the impact of the Scots remaining within the UK?
The current structure of funding is via a combination of the Scottish block grant and UK departmental expenditure north of the border.
Currently, public expenditure in Scotland is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of the UK total, despite an 8.4 per cent population share.
In 2012-13, per person this equated to £7,932, 16 per cent higher than the UK as a whole (£6,722).
Annual recurrent public spend per head was 12.5 per cent higher, and annual capital spend per head 48.2 per cent higher than for the UK.
Significantly, enterprise expenditure per head in Scotland was three times higher and the differential with the West Midlands, which received £262 per head, was more pronounced with Scotland’s receipt of £1,001 per head.
Similarly, on transport activity, the West Midlands received £1,112
per head compared to Scotland’s £2,722.
There are arguments that Scotland receives more because of its greater relative deprivation and isolation, however there are parts of the West Midlands that suffer equally, if not more badly, in terms of poverty and structural employment, while in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire there are communities that are as equally isolated as many Scottish populations.
It is also argued the Barnett Formula that determines the block grant is based on needs.
However, the baseline was calculated on the expenditure levels current when the political fudge was struck in 1979, with expenditure raised incrementally and proportionality since.
Expenditure was allocated according to 1979 population levels, although political expediencies subsequently has seen major funding variations.
For capital expenditure, the national basis of the calculation has the perverse impact that London capital expenditure (by far the main recipient) reduces the available capital for other English regions, while simultaneously increasing the allocation available for Scotland.
The key problems of the Barnett Formula is its lack of transparency in its calculation and focus on political expediency rather than addressing very real social problems which are usually concentrated in specific pockets within regions, rather than generically to regions as a whole.
If there is a long-term structural unemployment problem in Wolverhampton it should be treated as equally urgently and effectively as if it were in East Kilbride or Newport.
With Scotland being promised control of some income and other taxes, such as Air Passenger Duty (APD), unless the Barnett Formula is restructured, or indeed a new methodology altogether adopted, this will exacerbate the asymmetrical devolution of governance that currently exists and put devolved administrations at a fiscal advantage.
If, for instance, the West Midlands took control of APD, this could radically alter Birmingham Airport’s potential and consequently significantly boost the regional economy.
The Davies Commission has implicitly and more recently explicitly stated the strengths of the airport, but cited some reluctance on the part of international carriers to fly there, reducing or abolishing APD could transform its international attractiveness.
London, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have institutions that take strategic economic views and lobby for their implementation.
English regions, however defined, have no comparable capacity with no consensus on how devolution, if at all, should proceed.
There are interesting proposals for combined local authorities and both the Heseltine and Adonis reviews have suggested ways forward.
Proposals to give city regions greater powers offers some scope, although again there needs to be mechanisms for them each to work together effectively.
While the One North proposal is an innovative approach that incorporates disparate city and local identities and harnesses them collectively to create new regional approach.
The West Midlands, and indeed the Midlands collectively, needs to decide how it can move forward and strengthen what is already one of the more dynamic and productive regions globally.
Man, I can totally tell that you didn't pay attention to my post at all. Glad Simon Did.Irbis wrote:What?
Really high profile items, shares in new carriers and nuclear submarine fleet, were explicitly given away to UK. Yes, they ask for basic airplanes and ships to protect their coast (12.000 km) and sea. Totally unreasonable, right? They should have asked for a pair of old Lee-Enfields Mk I instead and be grateful, eh?
The dig about them being scum for asking for two whole frigates is funny when you consider smaller Denmark fields nine of them. Such greed. How exactly they will afford 1/5 of armed forces of one of the smallest and most pacifistic NATO members?
THEY DON'T NEED THAT STUFF to "secure their borders", you blockhead. Who do you think is going to invade them?First thing a nation needs IMO is securing their borders, especially if their big plan for independence relies on offshore assets they need to make safe and profitable. Not becoming expeditionary NATO plugin with force that would be totally useless for any domestic task short of big natural disaster.
Here's the problem; you seem to be saying that Scotland joining NATO is a foregone conclusion(and maybe it is) but I don't think a country that's likely to end up spending less than the agreed upon amount should join NATO.NATO already has dedicated hospitals and air transport fleet, why on earth they would need more?
That is certainly true, but it is much easier to start with some heavy metal and then build up capabilities for that than start with nothing at all.Simon_Jester wrote:Well, they might try to build up a practical, self-sustaining (but small) military force, then after securing independence ask NATO "what do you expect us to support?" It's not like NATO has a history of making unreasonable demands that this or that country cripple its economy paying for exorbitant amounts of military hardware.
Concentrate on having a military that functions, not on having one that meets this or that big-ticket goal.
The key is that whatever military they have needs to work; it would be foolish to repeat the mistake many third world countries make of overstuffing themselves with big dangerous 'heavy metal' while neglecting logistics, supply bases, command and control, and budgeting.
But everyone knows that the main reason scotland ever thought about leaving the UK in the first place was the conservative party.Eternal_Freedom wrote:Even if they tried it wouldn't work. All the Tories would need to do is remind people they were opposed to it and that a Labour MP and former Chancellor was the guy who screwed up the "no" campaign. Boom, publicity stunt destroyed.Siege wrote:Surely Labour cannot be so incompetent that they can't capitalize on the fact that the Conservatives presided over the dismantling of the United Kingdom as it stood for four centuries? I mean, that kind of political capital should last for decades. Right?
Oh who am I kidding.
It's not about hurting Scotland, it is the simple fact that you cannot have a currency union without a political union, otherwise you get stuff like the Euro crisis. The non-UK countries that use the pound are the British overseas territories, which are still technically part of the British Empire. The Scottish nationalists, in comparison, are asking for full independence. Furthermore, the British overseas territories only have populations of a few thousand people whilst Scotland has a population of more than five million.There is not only that, but also the thing that the whole "No" campaign seems to consist of just veiled threats. Main two arguments are that independent Scotland will lose pound and will get border checks. But, if both are currently so good for Scotland and UK, why deny them after independence? Doesn't UK provide currency union and open borders to a lot of places that aren't part of UK?
Plus, UK would be hurt less proportionally than Scotland, but they would be hurt too. How do you call person that hurts another on purpose out of pure spite?
There is not only that, but also the thing that the whole "No" campaign seems to consist of just veiled threats.
"Veiled threats" "Bullying"? You should look no further than the Scottish nationalists, who have been making outrageous lies (claiming that David Cameron will cut the Scottish NHS despite the fact that he has no power to do so as the Scottish NHS is controlled entirely by the Scottish parliament, for example) and have been making much more overt threats, promising a "day of reckoning" to pro union companies.Maybe, just maybe, it would be better to stand up to bully who can offer just threats and call British bluff. Even if they do make good on the threat, perhaps it would be worth it to lose the Sword of Damocles from above your head. If not, with Scotland and Ireland pushing for same thing, both would get to negotiate with England as more equal partner instead of minor, divided vassals like they do now. Independence doesn't have to equal less influence, IMHO.
You really haven't a clue about British politics do you? First of all, all the polls show that David Cameron is going to lose the next election, meaning that after 2015 David Cameron, and his stupid policies, will be gone. And even if Cameron some how manages to get re-elected, he is not going to pull out of the EU because that would anger most British businesses, who are the main backers of the Conservative party. Cameron is not going to do anything to displease his backers, any referendum in 2017 is going to be so long winded and wordy that Cameron will be able to back down from a Brexit.Because you won't know without trying? Yes, there are a lot of examples of bad separations that ended in tears, but there are a lot of ones that succeeded. Worst comes to worst, Scotland can always rejoin UK. But, there is very real possibility that will see Scotland stay in EU only independent while UK under Cameron and BNP crashes and burns in Brexit.
The thing is, at the time Cameron demanded that the referendum be for full independent, it was a good move. The unionists outnumbered the nationalists by 2 to 1. However, complacency by the No campaign has allowed the Yes campaign to catch up to them.I remember it being said Cameron outmanoeuvred Salmon by insisting on a referendum for independence rather than just for further devolution, whereas its speculated Salmon was happy simply for further devolution. Well it might very well come back to bite him in the sense that it looks like London will give Scotland more devolution (which was supposedly what Salmon wanted) or Scotland becomes independent. The high yes vote puts pressure for more devolution if it just falls short of independence.
You are aware that the union of Britain and Scotland was initiated by the Scottish monarchy yes?A small price for freedom from the British crown, is it not? Many paid an even greater price.
The polls show that the Conservatives are going to lose the next election in 2015. Furthermore, their ability to dismantle Scotland's welfare state is extremely limited as most of it is controlled by the Scottish parliament (the Scottish NHS, for example) and Westminister cannot tough it. I think someone's fallen for Scottish nationalist lies.So, did you even fucking pay attention to the debate? London would gladly dismantle the welfare state even further; keeping its remnants may be only an option with independence. But hey, I guess that doesn't matter because paying attention isn't important.
I'm guessing this is tongue in cheek?jwl wrote:But everyone knows that the main reason scotland ever thought about leaving the UK in the first place was the conservative party.Eternal_Freedom wrote:Even if they tried it wouldn't work. All the Tories would need to do is remind people they were opposed to it and that a Labour MP and former Chancellor was the guy who screwed up the "no" campaign. Boom, publicity stunt destroyed.Siege wrote:Surely Labour cannot be so incompetent that they can't capitalize on the fact that the Conservatives presided over the dismantling of the United Kingdom as it stood for four centuries? I mean, that kind of political capital should last for decades. Right?
Oh who am I kidding.
You mean when Scotland was bankrupted by disaster striking at their colony that English (despite having same monarch and close alliance) refused to help with and openly sabotaged, then, after the Scottish asked for assistance, got reply that they will get it only on union handing all outside matters sovereignty to England?stormthebeaches wrote:You are aware that the union of Britain and Scotland was initiated by the Scottish monarchy yes?A small price for freedom from the British crown, is it not? Many paid an even greater price.
England did not sabotage the Darien scheme. They were reluctant to back it for a variety of reasons (not wanting to offend Spain, pressure from the East India Company) but that does not equal sabotage. The Darien scheme failed because it was badly planned and organized from the very beginning. As for bribery, their is considerable debate whether that happened. What is undeniable is that the Act of Union was passed under a monarchy that was a direct descendent of the Scottish monarchy that was invited to rule England as well as Scotland.You mean when Scotland was bankrupted by disaster striking at their colony that English (despite having same monarch and close alliance) refused to help with and openly sabotaged, then, after the Scottish asked for assistance, got reply that they will get it only on union handing all outside matters sovereignty to England?
Then, for good measure, Scottish parliament was openly bribed by wast sums to vote 'yes', which was so unpopular they had to declare martial law to save their heads? That union? Because, like the rest of your arguments, it seems to conveniently "forget" all the little details that make them hollow if you scratch the surface.
When I said "nationalist lies" I was referring to the claims made the SNP about how David Cameron is going to wreck Scotland's welfare state. For example, the SNP claims that Cameron is going to slash the Scottish NHS despite the fact that the Scottish NHS is controlled by the Scottish Parliament and Cameron is physically incapable of touching it. I don't know what you are on about.Ironically, that evil early Scottish welfare state build the power of UK as thanks to wide network of public schools and universities Scotland produced far larger % of literate people and thinkers than England did. When you look at Enlightenment and beginnings of Industrial Age, somehow big majority of the top scientists from UK were Scots or trained in Scotland.
Adam Smith, David Hume, James Hutton, William Thomson, James Watt, thankfully Scotland was independent long enough to build the foundations that gave the world these people only so that English could 'borrow' all the credit. Oh, wait, or are these Scot nationalist lies too?
