Scotch Independence - the countdown
- Thread starter stopmeandslapme
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Until relatively recently I was very firmly of the mind that Scotland shouldnât be independent. Born in England to English parents but growing up in Scotland since I was a baby, I was English to the Scottish and Scottish to the English. Iâve always considered myself British and still do. Not in a nationalistic way, just a matter of fact.
In 2008 while in my second year at university I started an anti-independence Facebook group as a misguided joke, calling it âI Hate Alex Salmondâ. I actually didnât hate Alex Salmond, Iâve actually always thought he was a good politician, I just didnât agree with some of what he stood for (and of course, one thing in particular).
So following a bit of negative press and some pressure from the university, I decided to change the name of the group to âNo to Scottish Independenceâ. And then, gradually, some other things started to change too.
Over the years, membership very slowly grew, until 2014 when the debate picked up and membership grew rapidly to the point where we now have 7000 members. As admin I had no bias on membership and allowed anyone to join regardless of political stance. As long as they were respectful, they were welcome. This basic rule became very difficult to manage, with members from both sides being guilty of transgressions.
Gradually the membership tilted to a fairly strong Yes bias and I decided it might be less misleading and more representative if the name was changed to âDebate on Independenceâ or similar. Sadly, Facebook rules prevent a name change with a group of its size, leading to many entertaining conspiracy theories about the groupâs intentions, because over the same period of time my own views had changed to Yes.
Most conspiracists went along the lines that I created the page to deliberately âtrickâ No voters into debate or something. There are even the conspiracists that suggest Iâm still a No voter and somehow conspiring to attract âYesâ voters to be âtrickedâ into saying something stupid.
As to why I changed my mind, which I suspect is what people want to hear; it has more to do with the âBetter Togetherâ campaign than the Yes campaign. Iâd always thought the idea of independence was ridiculous. Scotland is small and couldnât possibly afford to go it alone, right? The whole thing was just a silly romantic notion held by those who hadnât thought it through.
But when I decided to check the facts, it turns out Scotland is perfectly healthy economically. Even without the oil Scotland would do just fine. And once this keystone myth fell apart, I began to question it all, to think about what could be gained and what could be lost (like Trident). The more scare stories I saw and the more desperate âBetter Togetherâ became, the more resolute I became in voting Yes.
I still consider myself British, and Iâm not saying thatâs for everyone. Iâm also proud to be Scottish, but itâs a personal identity and doesnât factor in how Iâll vote. Iâve since handed control of the group over to some friends who I trust and who are doing a great job. The endless evenings trying to moderate the page became very tiring. Every night was spent sifting through hateful comments and abuse, and deleting fake accounts, and questionable characters (including those from the National Front). Iâd much rather try to convince people more directly.
Weâre approaching one of the most important political decisions in Scotlandâs history and whatever way people vote; I want them to have taken the opportunity to look at the facts. Over those six years I learned that those who are âNoâ or undecided are often simply unengaged in the debate. Theyâre not our enemies and I hope I stand as an example that many of them can still be convinced.
Iâm David Barratt. Iâm British, and Iâm voting Yes.
In 2008 while in my second year at university I started an anti-independence Facebook group as a misguided joke, calling it âI Hate Alex Salmondâ. I actually didnât hate Alex Salmond, Iâve actually always thought he was a good politician, I just didnât agree with some of what he stood for (and of course, one thing in particular).
So following a bit of negative press and some pressure from the university, I decided to change the name of the group to âNo to Scottish Independenceâ. And then, gradually, some other things started to change too.
Over the years, membership very slowly grew, until 2014 when the debate picked up and membership grew rapidly to the point where we now have 7000 members. As admin I had no bias on membership and allowed anyone to join regardless of political stance. As long as they were respectful, they were welcome. This basic rule became very difficult to manage, with members from both sides being guilty of transgressions.
Gradually the membership tilted to a fairly strong Yes bias and I decided it might be less misleading and more representative if the name was changed to âDebate on Independenceâ or similar. Sadly, Facebook rules prevent a name change with a group of its size, leading to many entertaining conspiracy theories about the groupâs intentions, because over the same period of time my own views had changed to Yes.
Most conspiracists went along the lines that I created the page to deliberately âtrickâ No voters into debate or something. There are even the conspiracists that suggest Iâm still a No voter and somehow conspiring to attract âYesâ voters to be âtrickedâ into saying something stupid.
As to why I changed my mind, which I suspect is what people want to hear; it has more to do with the âBetter Togetherâ campaign than the Yes campaign. Iâd always thought the idea of independence was ridiculous. Scotland is small and couldnât possibly afford to go it alone, right? The whole thing was just a silly romantic notion held by those who hadnât thought it through.
But when I decided to check the facts, it turns out Scotland is perfectly healthy economically. Even without the oil Scotland would do just fine. And once this keystone myth fell apart, I began to question it all, to think about what could be gained and what could be lost (like Trident). The more scare stories I saw and the more desperate âBetter Togetherâ became, the more resolute I became in voting Yes.
I still consider myself British, and Iâm not saying thatâs for everyone. Iâm also proud to be Scottish, but itâs a personal identity and doesnât factor in how Iâll vote. Iâve since handed control of the group over to some friends who I trust and who are doing a great job. The endless evenings trying to moderate the page became very tiring. Every night was spent sifting through hateful comments and abuse, and deleting fake accounts, and questionable characters (including those from the National Front). Iâd much rather try to convince people more directly.
Weâre approaching one of the most important political decisions in Scotlandâs history and whatever way people vote; I want them to have taken the opportunity to look at the facts. Over those six years I learned that those who are âNoâ or undecided are often simply unengaged in the debate. Theyâre not our enemies and I hope I stand as an example that many of them can still be convinced.
Iâm David Barratt. Iâm British, and Iâm voting Yes.
139.**Post-referendum negotiations between a prospectively-independent Scotland and the rest of the UK could be expected to include sharing of defence assets including bases, personnel and equipment. Since bases cannot be moved, a newly independent Scotland would naturally acquire those on its territory. Lord West estimated that Scotland might seek some Type 23 frigates and other naval vessels as well as some helicopters and fast jets. As a result, "there would be a diminution in our defence capability greater than just the fact that Scotland had withdrawn".[155] Lord West also doubted that Scottish regiments or Scottish personnel in other units would all wish to join new Scottish forces. He said: "A lot of Scottish military people would prefer to be in a military that ⦠had scope for doing proper sailoring and soldiering and airmanship than in something that was rather less."[156]*We invite the Ministry of Defence to publish its estimates of the overall cost implications for the rest of the UK of a division of conventional military assets with Scotland on the lines suggested by Lord West.
Emm nae meantion of the channel tunnel though
Emm nae meantion of the channel tunnel though
Did you read it all? It seems not.
You never read it either then?
Actually I did read it all . Well everything on that page . I posted the link so you could cherry pick the compo bit because my tea is gonne be late tonight
Did you also read what I said on this very thread yesterday?
No?
Let me remind you:
Faslane will remain a Submarine Base for the forseeable future. Any other talk of who gets what is wholly hypothetical.
Faslane will remain a naval base whatever happens . Talk of who gets what won't be hypothetical if there is a yes vote , it will be a necessity . We will be entitled to a share of the UKs arms and equipment including surface ships (which will need a west coast base)
So most of what you have said has been pure gumph . Especially the stuff about Nelson's column etc .
The channel tunnel pish was particularly gumphy
Who published that report Aldo? The Lords Select Committee.
What powers do they have? None.
What was the Government response?
Which Naval vessels are based at Faslane (apart from Submarines) ?
I genuinely thought you were at the wind up but it appears you were serious
[h=2]Lords Select Committees[/h] Lords Select Committees do not shadow the work of government departments. Their investigations look into specialist subjects, taking advantage of the Lords' expertise and the greater amount of time (compared to MPs) available to them to examine issues.
There are currently five major Lords Select Committees:
- the European Union Committee
- the Science and Technology Committee
- the Communications Committee
- the Constitution Committee
- the Economic Affairs Committee
[h=2]Government Responses[/h] The Government will normally make a response to a select committee report, either publishing it itself (as a Command Paper) or sending a memorandum to the committee, which can be published as a special report (simply saying, in effect, “we have received the following reply ...”
, although the committee can publish the response with further comments or take further evidence.The Government has undertaken to reply within two months of the publication of the report, when possible, but may seek the committee’s agreement to allow a longer period. In some cases where a report has recommendations affecting a body outside Government (for example the Bank of England) responses will be received from more than one source. It is sometimes convenient for the committee to publish such responses together. The Government’s replies to reports from the Committee of Public Accounts are published as Treasury Minutes (which are Command Papers).”
198. There is not enough information about the defence policy of an independent Scotland to enable Scottish voters to make an informed judgment in next year's referendum. We recommend that the Scottish Government should make a sustained effort to clarify the issues before the vote, giving an indication of its expected defence budget, military establishment, scale of procurement and impact on Scotland's workforce skills base, as well as indicating the terms of Scotland's application to join NATO. This would help Scottish voters assess the employment and economic as well the security implications of an independent defence policy.
Nuclear Planning135.**We asked Lord West of Spithead, a former Chief of the Naval Staff, about the Defence Secretary's position that the UK Government is not planning for Scottish independence. Lord West said:"I am also concerned … that our Government say they are not doing any contingency planning, because they say separation will not happen. If that is really so—that they are not doing any—I think it is a dereliction of duty. There are huge implications for the United Kingdom. … were I the First Sea Lord today, I would turn a Nelsonic blind eye to such instructions from the Secretary of State for Defence and I would set up a black team to work out all of the options and possibilities for, for example, our nuclear deterrent. These are issues that are much too important, I believe, to suddenly do at the last moment on the back of a cigarette packet."[151]136.**Mr*Francis Tusa, editor of "Defence Analysis", agreed:"Practically any other … navy … would be setting up a risk committee to run through every single aspect of this problem, to make sure that they did not have just plan B, but plan C and plan D."[152] He added: "If people are not planning now, it will be a nightmare, and it will become an expensive nightmare … if you have an independence vote and that results in being told 'You must move these from Scotland', waving hands in the air and saying it is too difficult is not an option."[153] He later stated: "All the comments from the Navy are about the total lack of contingency planning."[154]
I'm bored anyway. Faslane won't be shut anytime soon, Indpendence or no.
Why do we need a West Coast Base?
So we have easy access to .......the west coast .
Rosyth is a ready made east coast base .
So , naval wise , given we do have a navy Scotland will be able to patrol its waters far more effectively than currently happens .
No longer will those spick fisherman plunder our fish stocks Muhahaha