Scottish independence, Is it a good idea?

Quite a lot of Scottish people seem to think so, but are they cutting their nose off to spite their face? The Scottish first minister has stated that if he wins the vote he will want Fars Lane Nuclear ship yard dismantled and sent back to England. I wonder if he has thought that move through, because it is a little drastic.
Fars lane has 30.000 Scottish workers let’s say that each is earning an average of £250 per week. That is £28.5 million a week going into the Scottish economy. On top of that there is the fall out to the local industries that service Fars Lane.
Each week the UK government pays Scotland £26 for each of its 5.31 million people. That would go.
Scotland ownes £900 billion of the UK national debt. They have no security service and no defence of their own. These are just a few of the problems. Yes there is the North sea oil and gas...but let’s be real, it is not going to make Scotland rich it earns £6 billion a year. That wont service the interest on the £900 billion owed to England.

Be well IAN

Well, only the Scots would know that..presumably they have ideas ready to handle things. I do not know enough about it, I admit. But I can understand them wanting to.

I'm biased in the SNP's favour because they are the kind of successful socialist government I'd give my right ball to see in England, but that doesn't guarantee that their sums add up on a future Scots state. However, a lot of the objections Cameron and co. have offered sound so blatantly silly that one does suspect they have no sensible arguments against.

Regardless of ones views on nukes, Faslane is not a guaranteed money-spinner for the future: Trident is a completely useless prestige expense, and has been since the end of the Soviet Union, so it's only a matter of time before some English government gets the nerve to stop throwing money down that drain. Closing Faslane could be seen as doing in a controlled and prepared way what they will otherwise ahve to do in an unprepared scramble. And it's not as if they won't have a shipbuilding industry left: Cameron has done them the favour of closing an English Navy dockyard instead of a Scottish one.

As for the UK "paying" Scotland, is that before or after what Scots industries pay into the UK exchequer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

As for the UK "paying" Scotland, is that before or after what Scots industries pay into the UK exchequer?

---

I think that could be swings and roundabouts...I think it is what is given to all people throughout the UK for National Health contributions....Each Surgery in England, Scotland, and Wales receives that per head per week for drugs, equipment and doctors.

Long before this all kicked off there was a program on TV about the money earned off of the oil....I don't think the UK will ever get rid of nuclear subs, there is far to much unrest in the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I think that could be swings and roundabouts...I think it is what is given to all people throughout the UK for National Health contributions....Each Surgery in England, Scotland, and Wales receives that per head per week for drugs, equipment and doctors.

---

So it's not what "England gives Scotland," it's what the state pays for the health service, which is a completely different thing. The question is whether Scotland's tax revenues could support an independent Scots state, and I'm certainly not enough of an expert to make a guess at that; even an expert could only make a guess, because even an incumbent government can't be sure the books will balance next year.

Quote:

---

I don't think the UK will ever get rid of nuclear subs, there is far to much unrest in the middle east.

---

And nuclear subs against Al-Qaeda are as much use as an AK47 against killer bees. Their uselessness in anything but an Armagedon war with the USSR was demonstrated way back in the Falklands war, when we had a Trident sub down in the South Atlantic, and all it could do was skulk around being the most expensive recon vehicle in the Navy. We only keep them now because the Tory backwoodsmen regard them as our last proof of greatness.

There's a big difference between a nuclear sub, one which relies on nuclear power for propulsion, and a nuclear missile sub, which is armed with nuclear weapons. I agree that, other than an all-out nuclear holocaust, the missile subs are useless except as a deterrent. However, they can be fitted with non-nuclear, Tomahawk-type cruise missiles for more conventional warfare. In fact, such missiles were launched from submarines during the latest Iraq war, with good effect.

But nuclear powered submarines, and other naval vessels, are probably here to stay. While more expensive to build, they are cheaper to operate, can stay at sea for long periods, and, in the case of submarines, are far more stealthy than diesel/electric subs. And despite the protests of the anti-nuclear crowd, they are safer for both the environment and their crews.

Whether or not the UK, or the US for that matter, actually NEED as many as they already have, though, is a different question altogether.

As Alex Salmond said, Scots [those in favour of independence, that is] want freedom, not wealth. Pretty much destroys all arguments based on whether an independent Scotland can or can not afford to leave the UK!

But can it? Why not. I wonder. Ireland left the Union and prospered, so why not Scotland? Look at Iceland - a nation the size of a small British city, that can survive a banking crisis and repair an broken economy. Ireland, which also suffered in the 2008 crash is now emerging from a severe depression and beginning to prosper once more. Sure, had Scotland been independent back then, it would have suffered as badly, too. RBS would have been Scotland's Kaupþing: BoS its Glitnir. And just as Ireland and Iceland have, so, too would Scotland have recovered. It is facile to say otherwise.

And it must be remembered that the whole UK itself got to within a hair's breadth of having to ask the EU for support, and it isn't even part of the Eurozone! Britain's recovery, by the way, is just beginning to become visible.

As a Unionist, I believe that a move to a more federal arrangement would be the best way forward, but the Westminster Government has deprived the Scots of that option by insisting on an "in" or "out" vote only - "devo-max" is not an option, though it should be. Westminster calculates (rightly, I think) that Scots will, with that choice only, vote to remain in the Union.

But if the English get too snidey about how much they support the Scots and how little Scots give back, that could change the outcome considerably. Scots can be a bloody-minded lot when the fancy takes them. And England will be diminished too if Scotland does take the road to independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

There's a big difference between a nuclear sub, one which relies on nuclear power for propulsion, and a nuclear missile sub, which is armed with nuclear weapons. I agree that, other than an all-out nuclear holocaust, the missile subs are useless except as a deterrent. However, they can be fitted with non-nuclear, Tomahawk-type cruise missiles for more conventional warfare. In fact, such missiles were launched from submarines during the latest Iraq war, with good effect.

But nuclear powered submarines, and other naval vessels, are probably here to stay. While more expensive to build, they are cheaper to operate, can stay at sea for long periods, and, in the case of submarines, are far more stealthy than diesel/electric subs. And despite the protests of the anti-nuclear crowd, they are safer for both the environment and their crews.

Whether or not the UK, or the US for that matter, actually NEED as many as they already have, though, is a different question altogether.

---

True, but when Faslane is discussed it's always and only in terms of Trident, which for the past 20 years has been a pointless virility symbol for UK governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

As Alex Salmond said, Scots [those in favour of independence, that is] want freedom, not wealth. Pretty much destroys all arguments based on whether an independent Scotland can or can not afford to leave the UK!

But can it? Why not. I wonder. Ireland left the Union and prospered, so why not Scotland? Look at Iceland - a nation the size of a small British city, that can survive a banking crisis and repair an broken economy. Ireland, which also suffered in the 2008 crash is now emerging from a severe depression and beginning to prosper once more. Sure, had Scotland been independent back then, it would have suffered as badly, too. RBS would have been Scotland's Kaupþing: BoS its Glitnir. And just as Ireland and Iceland have, so, too would Scotland have recovered. It is facile to say otherwise.

---

Iceland recovered years before the rest of Europe, largely through the sort of socialist policies - chiefly, letting broke banks sink and doubling the minimum wage - that Cameron wouldn't accept with a gun at his head, but which the Scot Nats might very well have tried, given the chance.

Quote:

---

Britain's recovery, by the way, is just beginning to become visible.

---

But almost exclusively in the Home Counties, a fact that hasn't escaped the attention of Northern viewers. A columnist in today's Guardian is saying what a lot of people must be thinking: if Scotland gets independence, could the North of England get a vote to join them? A Greater Scotland stretching down to Yorkshire would be a viable and harmonious nation, and the Southern plutocracy would miss nothing but our shale gas. Holyrood is no more geographically distant than Westminster, and a lot closer politically.

Quote:

---

As a Unionist, I believe that a move to a more federal arrangement would be the best way forward, but the Westminster Government has deprived the Scots of that option by insisting on an "in" or "out" vote only - "devo-max" is not an option, though it should be. Westminster calculates (rightly, I think) that Scots will, with that choice only, vote to remain in the Union.

But if the English get too snidey about how much they support the Scots and how little Scots give back, that could change the outcome considerably. Scots can be a bloody-minded lot when the fancy takes them. And England will be diminished too if Scotland does take the road to independence.

---

England, yes, but the Square Mile won't care a damn. The Little England that would be left if Greater Scotland seceded would likewise be a comfortable, functional country, a sort of offshore Switzerland with an economy based on financial services and tourism, and a permanent Conservative government with the EDL as the Opposition. The more I think about it the better it sounds - given that I live in Yorkshire.

Quote:

---

socialist policies - chiefly, letting broke banks sink

---

It's hard to see any way letting failed businesses collapse - the scenario the Labour party, from Gordon Brown back, has thrown vast amounts of public money at preventing at all costs, while the Conservative one has been pilloried for allowing them and the resulting job losses - is a "socialist policy". Northern Rock might have been doomed, but I'm sure Salmond would eat his own liver before letting the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland collapse! I certainly see some potential advantages in letting them fold and dealing with the mess through established bankruptcy procedures (essentially, sell off the assets to cover the debts, transfer customers to other banks), but it's hard to be sure if that would really have been better overall than the approach they did use.