To be fair, the Royal Navy is the one branch of the armed forces were I'd say we punch above our weight.Either way, Scotland at least gets to stop spending money it doesn't have on a share of a vanity navy.
To be fair, the Royal Navy is the one branch of the armed forces were I'd say we punch above our weight.Either way, Scotland at least gets to stop spending money it doesn't have on a share of a vanity navy.
I was thinking vanity navy in the context of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers. Scotland has rather a lot of that business at the minute, but it is at least expenditure we would no longer need to contribute to, since we wouldn't still be pretending to be a significant world powerTo be fair, the Royal Navy is the one branch of the armed forces were I'd say we punch above our weight.
Its relatively certain that the GDP percentage between the nations won't change greatly as a result of either Brexit or Covid. Both will invariably have an impact on all 4 nations.To be honest I'm not sure how valuable any debates about economy sizes or the viability of individual nations is until we've seen the impact of Covid-madness and Brexit. The English economy may look a lot less healthy with a much-reduced financial sector.
It's also worth noting that the services sector is absolutely huge exporter both north and south of the border - just looking at heavy industry and suggesting that's all Scotland has is about 30 years out of date as a credible economic analysis.
On the defence contracts specifically, it's not clear that the rUK governments would move them all out of Scotland. It's also unclear that there's a long term future for the shipyards even in a united country. Either way, Scotland at least gets to stop spending money it doesn't have on a share of a vanity navy.
The Scottish financial sector is comparatively much smaller than the English one and as you say much more domestically focused. The fallout of Brexit will hit London and therefore England much more severely than it will Scotland. Under independence we most likely have a relationship with rUK which allows the Scottish financial sector to remain essentially unchanged. Failing that, Scotland rejoins the EU and rUK firms are no longer allowed to provide services in Scotland, which will essentially result in all the Scottish domestic business moving north, as well as a bunch of the people who want to transact across Europe in English.Its relatively certain that the GDP percentage between the nations won't change greatly as a result of either Brexit or Covid. Both will invariably have an impact on all 4 nations.
Unfortunately the strength of Scotlands Financial sector is primarily based on its relationship with the city of London and indeed the majority of services "exported" go to r uk. It doesn't seem logical to me that this would continue with Independence and a move to a different currency, this is especially true for the retail financial services which make up a lot of the Scots market.
Its absolutely clear to me that in the event of Independence the Ruk government won't be placing any contracts with the Scottish Yards. The effect that will have particularly on the Clyde Corridor is massive.
Where we are now it seems to me that Independence for Scotland would economically at least, be a blunder of extreme proportions.
Gosh what a surprise arcasm:The Guardian reports that Ms Sturgeon plans yet another referendum is she wins the election this year
Could be good to achieve a result, one way or another
Methinks that, in the present climate, while a 'yes' vote (to independence) will settle the decision, leaving only the arguments about how it is achieved (that will occupy most of the next decade), a 'no' vote (for continued Union), will merely be precursor to the next referendum after another ten or so years of discussion...The Guardian reports that Ms Sturgeon plans yet another referendum is she wins the election this year
Could be good to achieve a result, one way or another
Concerning the latter point, very much so, and this is why many in Scotland were so happy at the pronouncement of a once in a generation vote to avoid this.Methinks that, in the present climate, while a 'yes' vote (to independence) will settle the decision, leaving only the arguments about how it is achieved (that will occupy most of the next decade), a 'no' vote (for continued Union), will merely be precursor to the next referendum after another ten or so years of discussion...
Though, that came with the implicit (and at times explicit) promise that the Indyref settled not just our constitutional status but also our geopolitical status for that generation.Concerning the latter point, very much so, and this is why many in Scotland were so happy at the pronouncement of a once in a generation vote to avoid this.
Surprisingly, the party that exists to promote independence promoting independence.Possibly, but the SNP never accepted the result and started the campaign for Indyref 2 from the next morning.
Just as David Cameron proposed English votes for English Laws the very next morning. If there was ever a red rag to a bull...Possibly, but the SNP never accepted the result and started the campaign for Indyref 2 from the next morning.
What great future? Where is the money coming from to pay for this better future? As you say we have been de-industrialised already, the oil money is gone. Stop living in the past and show a realistic plan for this better future as that is what will convince the people who voted No last time.Just as David Cameron proposed English votes for English Laws the very next morning. If there was ever a red rag to a bull...
C'mon then, let's hear your solutions. You previously asked where the money was coming from. The thread is about Scotland post-Brexit, and that need not be independence. The status quo is obviously untenable; show us your own magic bullet instead of constantly parroting the "naw, ye cannae" line.
I am sick to the back teeth of people going on about ship-building, oil and Faslane as if these were the sole industries keeping Scotland afloat (pun not intended) and how they'll be gone if we leave the union. Ship-building was ****ed a long time ago - what we have left is a bonus. Oil, while still fairly lucrative, is in decline and the proceeds of the boom years were squandered rather than being invested for future generations as Norway does. As for Faslane, I'd like to think that the government of a future independent Scotland would have a transition plan to move people into jobs that don't rely on having weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep.
We used to be a great mining nation. We were steelmakers. What happened to the transition plans there, eh? Just as swathes of England were devastated by de-industrialisation, many parts of Scotland were thrown to the wolves.
If you think that's okay it's fine - wallow in your own misery - but don't drag those who can see a better future down with you.
EXCL: Boris Johnson is expected to visit Scotland this week as he ramps up his bid to save the UK from Nicola Sturgeon's indyref2 threat
Surprisingly, the party that exists to promote
In other news: firefighters attempt to save burning building by spraying it with petrol.
I expect regardless that, quite like last time, he'll fly into some remote RAF base, drive directly to a photoshoot with the one member of a Brexit-supporting industry that hasn't yet had their industry destroyed by Brexit, followed perhaps by a few moments of jovial japery with "local voters" who - completely co-incidentally - are all Tory unionists, then back home for supper.
At what point did I express any surprise about that?Surprisingly, the party that exists to promoteindependencethe Union promotingindependence.the Union.
How does any other nation in the world get money to pay for things? How does the UK as it stands get money to pay for things, eh?What great future? Where is the money coming from to pay for this better future? As you say we have been de-industrialised already, the oil money is gone. Stop living in the past and show a realistic plan for this better future as that is what will convince the people who voted No last time.
It's not quite the same thing though, is it. The SNP constitution makes it clear that their raison-d'etre is Scottish independence. From the very first paragraphs of their constitution:Surprisingly, the party that exists to promoteindependencethe Union promotingindependence.the Union.
To be in the driving seat of our own destiny and to shape our own future is a natural desire. It is what we all hope for ourselves and it is what the SNP believes is right for Scotland.
We will achieve independence only when a majority of our fellow citizens are persuaded that it offers the best future for our country. Our success will depend on the strength of our arguments and the clarity of our vision. We have begun new work to persuade a majority of the Scottish people that independence is the best future for our country.
PART I
NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTS AND VALUES
1. This is the Constitution of a political party which shall be known as “The Conservative and Unionist Party” (referred to in this Constitution as “the Party”).
2. Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the Nation the objects and values of the Conservative Party
Just as David Cameron proposed English votes for English Laws the very next morning. If there was ever a red rag to a bull...
C'mon then, let's hear your solutions. You previously asked where the money was coming from. The thread is about Scotland post-Brexit, and that need not be independence. The status quo is obviously untenable; show us your own magic bullet instead of constantly parroting the "naw, ye cannae" line.
I am sick to the back teeth of people going on about ship-building, oil and Faslane as if these were the sole industries keeping Scotland afloat (pun not intended) and how they'll be gone if we leave the union. Ship-building was ****ed a long time ago - what we have left is a bonus. Oil, while still fairly lucrative, is in decline and the proceeds of the boom years were squandered rather than being invested for future generations as Norway does. As for Faslane, I'd like to think that the government of a future independent Scotland would have a transition plan to move people into jobs that don't rely on having weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep.
We used to be a great mining nation. We were steelmakers. What happened to the transition plans there, eh? Just as swathes of England were devastated by de-industrialisation, many parts of Scotland were thrown to the wolves.
If you think that's okay it's fine - wallow in your own misery - but don't drag those who can see a better future down with you.
There's some logic to the principle that Scotland could either have a lower retirement age, or reap the benefits of having a smaller economically-inactive population. It's worth pointing out though that the life expectancy at birth was 56. That still typically leaves more than half of people living to older than that age. If it is being driven by high deaths at younger ages then it can mean that the typical adult stands to live to significantly more than 56, and in fact that by the time people have paid in a significant amount of NI contributions they can expect to live to the same ripe old age as people elsewhere.Moving on, I would like to see what is going to happen with the State Pension and the retirement age. Even though I am still a way off from retirement, I would not like there to be any further mucking about (i.e. increasing the age further) with it. Rather, I would like it to take into account of average life expectancy, as parts of Scotland have low life expectancy rates. I posted in another thread a while ago that the report that the World Health Organisation did around 2009 had the Calton area of Glasgow has having the lowest life expectancy where it is not expected to live beyond 56 years of age. For someone who resides in the Calton who is in paid work and pays National Insurance Contributions, with the present retirement age being 67 (soon to increase further), this means that although they have paid towards their State Pension, they will not live long enough to actually receive a penny of it.
I was thinking vanity navy in the context of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers. Scotland has rather a lot of that business at the minute, but it is at least expenditure we would no longer need to contribute to, since we wouldn't still be pretending to be a significant world power
I am not sure that is quite right. Only want anything to do with me that is to their advantage.......a group of people who don't want anything to do with me in a union,
I suspect that is much more down to the quality of the candidates than any love of Boris.Anyway, for all the talk of Boris being unpopular in Scotland, let's look at the result of the General Election he held as Prime Minister in 2019. Despite the pledge to get Brexit done, which Scotland voted against in 2016, the Conservatives held 6 seats, which is more than in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 put together. Admittedly they did lose seats compared to 2017.
I suspect that is much more down to the quality of the candidates than any love of Boris.
I know it's dangerous to extrapolate from a single data point, but one of my friends is very much against everything that the Tories stand for (he's a Bernie Sanders fan to give you an idea of his politics), yet he voted for Douglas Ross. Not because Ross is a Tory, rather in spite of it because (in the words of my friend) he appears to genuinely work to better his constituency, ahead of party ideology.
Yes, he's the one who is/was a football referee though I suspect the "more time on football" thing was political mud-slinging rather than actual fact.Was Ross the one where he got pulled up for spending more time being a football referee than time spent on Holyrood duties?
It is open to question whether Boris should have visited Scotland during lockdown while non-essential travel is advised against if even allowed.
Just as David Cameron proposed English votes for English Laws the very next morning. If there was ever a red rag to a bull...
C'mon then, let's hear your solutions. You previously asked where the money was coming from. The thread is about Scotland post-Brexit, and that need not be independence. The status quo is obviously untenable; show us your own magic bullet instead of constantly parroting the "naw, ye cannae" line.
I am sick to the back teeth of people going on about ship-building, oil and Faslane as if these were the sole industries keeping Scotland afloat (pun not intended) and how they'll be gone if we leave the union. Ship-building was ****ed a long time ago - what we have left is a bonus. Oil, while still fairly lucrative, is in decline and the proceeds of the boom years were squandered rather than being invested for future generations as Norway does. As for Faslane, I'd like to think that the government of a future independent Scotland would have a transition plan to move people into jobs that don't rely on having weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep.
We used to be a great mining nation. We were steelmakers. What happened to the transition plans there, eh? Just as swathes of England were devastated by de-industrialisation, many parts of Scotland were thrown to the wolves.
If you think that's okay it's fine - wallow in your own misery - but don't drag those who can see a better future down with you.
I think it's important to expand on that:100% agree-deindustrialisation did and continued to be sociologically traumatic to the whole UK.
Other countries handled the economic changes of the latter half of the 20th century onwards much better than we did.The way that successive UK governments mismanaged deindustrialisation was and continues to be traumatic to the whole UK.
I think it's important to expand on that: Other countries handled the economic changes of the latter half of the 20th century onwards much better than we did.