Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7081
Report 5 years ago
#7081
(Original post by Reformed2010)
Help me out here..............

That's not independence, that's just devolution 'max' within a de facto federated system.
No, its still clearly Independence!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7082
Report 5 years ago
#7082
(Original post by Good bloke)
You iScots should understand before entering these negotiations that the British responses to various scenarios is likely to be:

We want a currency union No, I'm afraid that isn't available, as already said
We will use sterling outside a union That's fine, but that's as far as it goes
We won't take our share of the debt Then we will veto your entry into the EU
We want Trident out of Scotland Then pay the removal costs
You will buy naval ships in Scotland? No, we will buy British for ships
Right up there with...... 'It may have missed you by' & 'I hate to tell you'

Hard to take you seriously when you're declaring likely responses based on your own cynically patronising outlook.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7083
Report 5 years ago
#7083
(Original post by Boab)
Right up there with...... 'It may have missed you by' & 'I hate to tell you'

Hard to take you seriously when you're declaring likely responses based on your own cynically patronising outlook.
I'm unclear why you are in such deep denial. I'm being neither patronising nor cynical, just realistic; what I have suggested is pretty obvious. We will be in a negotiation and each side would be trying to get the best deal for itself. Any other approach would be electoral death for those involved. Surely you must agree with that? If that weren't the case the SNP would never suggest not taking debt, would it? That sounds like a negotiation to me.

You can already see from the opinion polls quoted earlier what the English think of currency union, and that opinion ignores the obvious technical and economic arguments against it.

You surely wouldn't be naïve enough to expect that the UK will continue to buy naval ships from an expensive shipyard that has become foreign, at the expense of its own industry? If we want to go abroad we would be far better served going somewhere offering financial advantages, like Korea. But we won't; we won't buy naval ships abroad at all.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7084
Report 5 years ago
#7084
(Original post by nulli tertius)

The Trident argument is just plain wrong. Stationing your navy in someone's else's country without their agreement is incompatible with sovereignty (and the Russian Navy was in the Crimea pursuant to Treaty). Removing the boats themselves and the military paraphernalia would have to be, if requested, part of Scottish independence. That gives Scotland a negotiating position:-

We will keep Trident if you...
Oh, I agree with you on the principle of having a base abroad - no question about that - and we might keep other facilities in Scotland in exchange for something. But the SNP's stance has always been no nukes in Scotland, so I'm assuming the Trident argument is purely a question of time and cost and that they won't negotiate with such a matter of principle. So the boats and nuclear services will have to move, along with the jobs.
0
Reformed2010
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7085
Report 5 years ago
#7085
(Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
But this is the same situation for all member states of the EU is it not? Are you telling me you do not consider the UK an independent country?

And anyone who votes yes simply because they hate the tories is voting yes for the wrong reasons.
:confused:

I just spent how long explaining the lack of independence Scotland would have if it joined the EU, why would I not think the same for all the 28 states No, the UK is not independent. We are part of an economic and political union. We are part of a weak federation. EU law is superior to UK law. Tell me what 'independent' country has that scenario? they don't, only states that are part of a federation or subjected to colonialism has that.

I oppose UKIP and support the EU, but I agree with them on the reality that the 28 EU states are part of a (con)federation and has lost sovereignty. It's just the political class has run scared of the electorate and so use words and phrases like 'union' and 'pooling of sovereignty'. To soften the reality, which is 'federation' and 'surrendering of sovereignty'. Yes we have a greater degree of autonomy within the EU (con)federation, compared to the US federation. But we are more California than we are USA, especially the 18 Eurozone members and who by the way, are on their to forming a fiscal union too.

If Califonia left the USA to join the EU their laws will be inferior to EU law, just like it is in the USA. Their policies in trade, commercial, agriculture, environment, monetary and fiscal affairs would be decided by the EU. They may wish to curb migration from Europe, but Brussels would strike them down. They would have swapped one federation for another one, albeit with greater autonomy.

Since the SNP are pro EU, they are at best offering the people of Scotland greater autonomy. I respect their right to accept or reject that of course.
1
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7086
Report 5 years ago
#7086
(Original post by Good bloke)
I'm unclear why you are in such deep denial. I'm being neither patronising nor cynical, just realistic; what I have suggested is pretty obvious. We will be in a negotiation and each side would be trying to get the best deal for itself. Any other approach would be electoral death for those involved. Surely you must agree with that? If that weren't the case the SNP would never suggest not taking debt, would it? That sounds like a negotiation to me.

You can already see from the opinion polls quoted earlier what the English think of currency union, and that opinion ignores the obvious technical and economic arguments against it.

You surely wouldn't be naïve enough to expect that the UK will continue to buy naval ships from an expensive shipyard that has become foreign, at the expense of its own industry? If we want to go abroad we would be far better served going somewhere offering financial advantages, like Korea. But we won't; we won't buy naval ships abroad at all.
Very good!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7087
Report 5 years ago
#7087
This shipbuilding argument is looked at 2 ways.

Better Together say we will lose those contracts. Maybe we would, though I'm not convinced, but if so, so be it.

A forward thinking nation might consider a ship-building industry based not entirely on one possible client - the military. Maybe we could be building other ships, you know, like other countries do?!
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7088
Report 5 years ago
#7088
(Original post by Boab)
Very good!
Instead of refusing to confront a situation that you don't like and don't want to accept, and trying to hide behind personal attacks, why don't you read what I have said carefully and tell me why it won't happen like that? Perhaps you could use sensible logic and back up your arguments with evidence and explanation.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7089
Report 5 years ago
#7089
(Original post by Boab)
This shipbuilding argument is looked at 2 ways.

Better Together say we will lose those contracts. Maybe we would, though I'm not convinced, but if so, so be it.
Why do you think the UK might be willing to change a centuries-old policy and export jobs and important technologies it has striven to protect abroad?

A forward thinking nation might consider a ship-building industry based not entirely on one possible client - the military. Maybe we could be building other ships, you know, like other countries do?!
You think the shipbuilders of the Clyde (and those in England) didn't try that?
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7090
Report 5 years ago
#7090
(Original post by Good bloke)
Instead of refusing to confront a situation that you don't like and don't want to accept, and trying to hide behind personal attacks, why don't you read what I have said carefully and tell me why it won't happen like that? Perhaps you could use sensible logic and back up your arguments with evidence and explanation.
Personal attacks? No, don't think I did!
I probably can't be bothered wasting my time arguing my case with a continually patronising person, whose own evidence is simply conjecture!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7091
Report 5 years ago
#7091
(Original post by Good bloke)
Why do you think the UK might be willing to change a centuries-old policy and export jobs and important technologies it has striven to protect abroad?

Because important technologies for the UK are already built abroad - another myth to claim otherwise. And BAE do the work have said time and again that the Clyde is the best place to build them. It'd cost far more in the long run to create the facilities and build them in England

You think the shipbuilders of the Clyde (and those in England) didn't try that?

So they are just hopeless compared to the likes of other European nations and nobody will employ them?! Odd.
Scotland will have it's own defence fleet to build too mind and those damn ferries we use quite a lot, maybe we could build them?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7092
Report 5 years ago
#7092
(Original post by Boab)
So they are just hopeless compared to the likes of other European nations and nobody will employ them?! Odd.
What European shipbuilders? You do realise that Japan, South Korea and China between them build about 92% of all ships, don't you? The UK built four (yes, four) ships over 100 tonnes in 2012.

So, not odd.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7093
Report 5 years ago
#7093
(Original post by Good bloke)
What European shipbuilders? You do realise that Japan, South Korea and China between them build about 92% of all ships, don't you? The UK built four (yes, four) ships over 100 tonnes in 2012.

So, not odd.
You can't help yourself can you?

If you want to pretend European countries have no shipbuilding industry crack on. I see Norway has 35,000 people employed in the industry and 500,000 throughout Europe. How many in the UK?

As for 92%, I'd like to see the evidence for that figure. I have it down as nearer 70
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7094
Report 5 years ago
#7094
(Original post by Boab)
If you want to pretend European countries have no shipbuilding industry crack on. I see Norway has 35,000 people employed in the industry and 500,000 throughout Europe. How many in the UK?

As for 92%, I'd like to see the evidence for that figure. I have it down as nearer 70
We were talking specifically about ships, not oil and gas rigs. There is a difference.

Try these figures: http://www.sajn.or.jp/e/statistics/S...s_Mar2013e.pdf

As you can see, Europe's share is 1.3%.

You can't help yourself can you?
Another personal attack, eh, following cynical and patronising? I'm now incapable of controlling myself.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7095
Report 5 years ago
#7095
(Original post by Good bloke)
We were talking specifically about ships, not oil and gas rigs. There is a difference.

Try these figures: http://www.sajn.or.jp/e/statistics/S...s_Mar2013e.pdf

As you can see, Europe's share is 1.3%.



Another personal attack, eh, following cynical and patronising? I'm now incapable of controlling myself.


Good stats. We may as well not bother given that evidence, or maybe we should?

That 1.3% is still worth 30-40bn annually and excludes oil rigs etc as you rightly pointed out.


Anyway, can't be arsed arguing every detail of Yes v No, its a never ending cycle. Here's some polling data, enjoy......

Name:  Screen Shot 2014-03-26 at 11.13.35.png
Views: 61
Size:  186.5 KB
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7096
Report 5 years ago
#7096
(Original post by Boab)
That 1.3% is still worth 30-40bn annually and excludes oil rigs etc as you rightly pointed out.
You aren't very good with numbers, are you? The values in that document were in yen, not sterling, (one of which is worth about a ha'penny).
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7097
Report 5 years ago
#7097
(Original post by Boab)
This shipbuilding argument is looked at 2 ways.

Better Together say we will lose those contracts. Maybe we would, though I'm not convinced, but if so, so be it.

A forward thinking nation might consider a ship-building industry based not entirely on one possible client - the military. Maybe we could be building other ships, you know, like other countries do?!
So the plan is to now build ships when the current ship building sector on the global scale is under capacity. The world can build more ships than it needs already. Just look at swan hunter and harland and wolf.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7098
Report 5 years ago
#7098
(Original post by Good bloke)
You aren't very good with numbers, are you? The values in that document were in yen, not sterling, (one of which is worth about a ha'penny).
I didn't get the figures from there ya condescending sod!

If the European shipbuilding industry is worth only 30-40 billion yen, then that would equate to £150-200 million for the whole sector going by your ha'penny maths!

Sounds reasonable!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7099
Report 5 years ago
#7099
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
So the plan is to now build ships when the current ship building sector on the global scale is under capacity. The world can build more ships than it needs already. Just look at swan hunter and harland and wolf.
So we shouldn't try? Brilliant!
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7100
Report 5 years ago
#7100
(Original post by Boab)
I didn't get the figures from there ya condescending sod!
Ha! And there was me thinking you didn't make personal attacks. :rolleyes:
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (121)
65.05%
No I haven't decided yet (39)
20.97%
Yes but I might change my mind (26)
13.98%

Watched Threads

View All