stooges of the Kremlin

Wings Over Scotland


The Bank Of The Clyde

Posted on May 24, 2018 by

Of all the dishonest memes regularly put around by the Unionist side in the Scottish constitutional debate, the most bare-faced is the notion of the “fiscal transfer”. Part-time pretend economists harp on endlessly about how the UK “transfers” money (the current popular figure is £9bn) to Scotland to balance the books every year, as if it was a munificent gift out of the sheer kindness of Westminster’s heart.

The reality, of course, is that it’s a loan, which Scotland has to pay back with interest. If an independent Scotland ran a deficit – like almost every country on Earth – it could take that loan out from any number of possible lenders and carry on as normal.

It is in no sense whatsoever an argument for Scotland staying in the Union, because it’s completely irrelevant to the Union, except in so far as that the only reason Scotland needs to borrow money at all is because it’s been part of the UK for the last 40 years and has been left impoverished as a result while a very similar neighbouring country has become wealthy beyond imagination.

But still, let’s indulge them for a moment and assume there really is a £9bn hole in Scotland’s finances. Is there anything we could do to reduce the size of it significantly? Well, since you ask, we have some poll data on that.

Because our Panelbase survey of English voters this month threw up some really interesting findings, and for our money one in particular stood out a mile.

We know it’ll be unpopular with fundamentalists on the left, but the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system would be Scotland’s biggest bargaining chip and trump card in any independence negotiations. The Telegraph noted as much way back in 2012:

So we thought we’d try randomly putting a price on it and seeing how it went down with the people of England.

And by a crushing 65-35 margin, the people of England would rather pay Scotland £5bn a year – a figure we thought was maybe aiming a bit high, and more than half of Scotland’s entire supposed “deficit” – to rent out the Faslane complex (and most particularly the Coulport missile facility) for the decades that building a replacement would take than give up the useless vanity weapon.

For perspective, simply updating the existing combined base from handling Polaris missiles to Trident ones took 13 years.

(The most surprising thing was that more than three times as many English people wanted a new base to be built next to the densely-populated port of Plymouth rather than the remote south-west coast of Wales.)

On looking at those numbers we suspect we could have doubled the price and got much the same result, because the UK government, and the people of England, are absolutely hooked on nukes. For as long as that remains the case – and we see not the slightest evidence of it changing – the truth of the matter is that Scotland could pretty much write its own ticket for independence.

And that ought to be food for thought for BOTH sides of the debate.

Print Friendly

    192 to “The Bank Of The Clyde”

    1. defo says:

      The likes of Dacre’s estate should fetch a pretty penny too. Compulsory purchase is the only fair thing to do. Nominal £1 Scottish.

    2. galamcennalath says:

      Firstly, I have to say I want WMDs gone. But do accept a ‘transition period’ would guarantee a smooth road to Indy.

      That said, there are some gems in this data.

      1) as Stu says, the English love their WMDs

      2) it is commendable that over half who want to keep WMDs would place them in Plymouth eventually

      3) however, it is a bit nasty that a large minority want them at a new base in Wales, or left in Scotland. NIMBD

    3. One_Scot says:

      Wow. A potential unlimited supply of funds from Westminster.

      So from we cannot be Independent because we are ‘too small and too poor’, we have, ‘If you become Independent we will give you as much money as you want’. Lol.

      There is definitely a trick not to be missed somewhere in there.

    4. Ken500 says:

      Trident is a complete waste of money. Defence spending in average is £40Billion. 80,000 personnel. Spend on redundant weaponry most doesn’t get delivered. Scotland’s £4Billion (£1Billion Trident) is spent elsewhere.

      Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion have cost Scotland £Billions.

      £9Billion?

      £Billions pay on loans not borrowed or spent in Scotland. £1Billion Trident. £4Billion on admin spent elsewhere (London/Treasury HQ’s etc). The admin jobs should be in Scotland boosting Scottish economy. £3Billion? lost on tax evasion. £Billions lost on Oil revenues/jobs because of Tory policies. Over £15Billion. Plus monies lost because of lack of this investment in Scotland. EU grants/investment.

      Total £20Billion cost.

    5. bobajock says:

      LOL – they want to spend 200bn on the idiots toys, so that 5b was a bargain.

      NOTHING – literally NOTHING is worth having that crap though.

    6. Muscleguy says:

      I thought Milford Haven had been ruled out as it is too far from sufficiently deep water for the subs to disappear into*?

      Ditto the Navy study prior to 2014 ruled out Plymouth as the risk to the population was too high. Which meant folk in Helensburgh and their lives are valued much less and regarded as more disposable than those of folk in Plymouth.

      I’m afraid they will have to evict some picturesque Devon or Cornish fishing villages to relocate Trident under rules of National Emergency. Better Devon, it might boost Mebyon Curnow.

      *Though with small, cheap water drones and other technologies that disappearing is going to get harder and harder. Russian subs have sensor arrays which are thought to be able to sense the disturbances in the water that a sub’s propellers inevitably leave. So once they find another sub they can latch onto it passively and tail it. Which means if it all goes up a lot of in theatre Anglo-American subs might disappear. This weapons system is looking very last century.

    7. Macart says:

      Oh, that’s an ooft!

      A point many tried to get across at last time of asking t’boot. These assets are negotiating points and their worth decided by the need and political expediency of the states involved. To Westminster government (of any stripe), this particular issue is almost beyond price.

    8. CameronB Brodie says:

      The English will hold on tight to their fetish for nukes, so long as France has a nuclear capability. It is that childish, frankly. Fucking nationalists.

    9. Ken500 says:

      Hammond said it would cost £27Billion and take 3 years to get rid of Trident. Cheaper than £10Billion a year maintanence. Said Scotland should pay for it? People in Scotland did not want them dumped there. Then started procrastinating. Hammond smirked and sneered at the idea of a Scottish Navy based at Faslane.

    10. Muscleguy says:

      As a SCND member I want these things GONE and that is a prime motivation for voting and campaigning for Yes. I don’t think there is any onus on ScotGov to bend over backwards to accommodate these things. We need to concentrate minds by putting a finite time limit AND insisting the use of Faslane by our ships in the interim.

      If their new bases are not ready in say 10years then tough everything must go, subs, missiles, warheads, contamination. It can be mothballed. Missiles and Subs to Plymouth, warheads to Aldermaston. We can line the roads as the last are ignominiously driven away by convoy. I’d head for Glasgow to do that.

      Oh and post a Yes vote the movement of the hunter-killer nuclear subs from Plymouth to be halted and preferably reversed. No more of the things, oh and the rusting nuclear hulks in Rosyth need to go. Not our responsibility.

    11. Lenny Hartley says:

      5bn a year might just cover the policing costs for the 100,000 who are camped at the gates demonstrating and what about the health benefits of it gone, less young kids getting cancer.

    12. Anne Meikle says:

      I’m sure I read some article in 2014 that the UKgov would ‘partition’ Faslane and surrounding facilities .. Yes that’s a policy tried & tested before. Have no truck with that. Personally I want them gone, but it’s worth consideration.

    13. Dr Jim says:

      There is another option which the English would go for by a mass majority and that is for England just to impose Britishness on Scotland and leave Trident where it is no matter what the people of Scotland have to say about it

      Because they Luurve us!

      NHS England Wales is bust and need Billions, well they could borrow it from Norway a small Independent country who saved up their oil money unlike England who raped Scotlands oil money and pissed it up against a wall then insisted it was worthless anyway (except to England)

      Time for Scotland to open their windows at 6pm news time and all collectively shout *I’ve had enough and I’m not going to take it anymore* (remember that movie)

    14. Street Andrew says:

      I have long believed that the threat of expelling Trident is the WM government’s biggest fear with regard to Scottish independence.

      The UK simply cannot afford to rehouse the nuclear deterrent without completely undermining its present fiscal and wider economic policy. It is now overdue for replacement anyway, so effectively obsolete.

      The wealthy minority expect the poor and the increasingly ‘squeezed’ middle classes to pay for it and yet they (the wealthy) are the only ones who can afford it. Or for that matter need it, want it and benefit from the status it endows them with.

      It’s an absolutely classic case of socialised public spending for private sector profit/benefit.

      Stu has done well to find even an iota of possible benefit to Scotland for having the diabolical things at all.

      And any suggestion that England subsidises Scotland’s budget is only an accounting quirk of the way thing are. Wealth is concentrated in London drawn from all regions of the UK and they ‘generously’ let us have some of it back. Much of the difference gets siphoned off to the Caymans etc.

    15. cearc says:

      The most suitable site is Falmouth. A natural deep water harbour with good access to deep water.

      The most important thing is for the SG to insist the the UN weapons inspectorate oversee the sites before and during removal.

    16. I’m sure that they could dredge the bird sanctuary in Hayle, Cornwall, just north of St Ives in a couple of weeks.
      Jackie Baillie could be commissioned to set up the recruitment agency for the 25,000 residents of Hayle who would be required to service the new WMD base.
      The southern tip of Cornwall, Land’s End, is relatively remore enough surely.
      AS to the £5 billion a year rent from rUK to rent Faslane for a decade or so: no thanks. We can find £100 a year per head of the Scottish population to pay for the Death Star’s IMMEDIATE departure.
      We won’t be paying 1/8th of the Brit Nat Empire’s costs. That surely amounts to £30 billion alone.
      Stu, the Yes Campaign should emphasise economic growth in our Free Scotland economy, not status quo savings and English ‘rent’ which we could achieve by standing still.

    17. Derick fae Yell says:

      Trident is what retains the ‘UK’s seat on the Security Council. That’s worth a lot more to them than £5bn a year.

      I have no problem with a time limited transition period to allow our neighbour time to build replacement facilities, provided there’s a hefty rent for the base in the interim.

      As the Telegraph article says: leverage

    18. jfngw says:

      In the next referendum we cannot let the No side control the debate as they did last time. When they throw up the “can’t do nonsense”, we need to dismiss it out of hand and move back to the positives.

    19. Doug Bryce says:

      By UK governments own admission the GERs figures can only describe Scotlands fiscal positions as part of the UK. We really need to expose the ‘smoke and mirrors’ trick where it it used to convince public we cant afford independence.

      Several flaws in GERs when applied to potentially independent Scotland

      1) GERs only includes 60% of UK spending
      2) Scotland gets billed for several items which we see no direct economic return. For example civil service salaries spent in London. This breaks basic rule of accounting – accruals must be expenses required to generate a profit.
      3) North Sea oil is accounted by GERs as UK output.
      4) We get allocated pop share of UK debt (8.4%) despite historical raising higher taxes per head.
      5) Tesco (for example) are UK company paying corporation tax to London on profits generated in Scotland.
      ALSO…
      6) Scotland does not currently have full fiscal autonomy. Spending is set by Barnett and tax raising powers limited by design. We simply have to accept the deficit allocated to us by UK government GERs.

      This simple message is massively important.
      At present the general public are being deliberately tricked into believing Scotland has bigger deficit than UK. But why are there no GERs figures for England ? 😉

      [b]GERS: is this why it always says the Scottish deficit is so large?[/b]
      http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/08/25/gers-is-this-why-it-always-says-the-scottish-deficit-is-so-large/comment-page-1/

    20. Spikethedee says:

      I’ve asked this before, but never really got an answer, so here goes again:

      Is there really no current alternative to Faslane to house the subs, even temporarily?

      If there ever was, God forbid, a terrorist/military attack or a natural disaster at Faslane, is there no plan B for what would happen to the subs? (I presume the shore-based buildings and personnel are slightly less significant in the immediate short-term aftermath of such an event.)

      If there is a Plan B, why can’t that be implemented longer-term.

      If there isn’t a Plan B, what kind of numpties are in char- oh, never mind…

    21. Luigi says:

      jfngw says:

      24 May, 2018 at 12:04 pm

      In the next referendum we cannot let the No side control the debate as they did last time. When they throw up the “can’t do nonsense”, we need to dismiss it out of hand and move back to the positives.

      Indeed.

      The 2014 YES campaign was, rightly 100% positive in nature. Those were exciting times, full of promise. Next time round, however, we have to be a bit more balanced. Yep there are still plenty positives for independence, but there are also plenty of negatives for staying part of the UK.

      These negatives have to be driven home. IMO we secured the bright, optimistic voters in 2914, but we neglected the fearties. We need some fearties to vote for us next time, and the only way is to show them how awful staying in the UK is going to be. 2014 big juicy carrot. 2018/19 Carrot and stick approach. With BREXIT the fearties are trembling – we have to reinforce this and show them a way to a brighter future.

      Show them it doesn’t have to be as bad as they expect. 🙂

      In 2014, the NO campaign had the carrot and stick. The carrot was the benefits of staying part of the union – well that went well! Next time they will only have the stick.

      In 2014, the YES campaign only used the carrot. Next time, we still have a juicy carrot and a very big stick!

      2014: BT – carrot + stick YES – carrot only

      2018/19 BT – stick only YES carrot + stick?

      What a turn around from 2014. The NO campaign no longer has the luxury of offering a (pretend) carrot. That carrot soon turned out to be rotten and full of maggots. By contrast, we now have undeniable positive and negative reasons for voting YES.

      We should use them all. 🙂

    22. Doug Porteous says:

      There have been several articles in the MSM recently about the possibility of the not so UK building and deploying its own satellite GPS system, if due to Brexit the UK was to lose access to the EU systems as seems likely and the USA withdrew use of its GPS system the the UK would be unable to deploy Trident as it would have no targeting information. Therefore, in addition to the final cost of Trident what ever it may be the cost of a GPS system also needs to be added.

      Of course the loss of GPS doesn’t just apply to Trident, many other conventional weapons such as smart bombs and cruise missiles also need access and perhaps Navigators would have to go back to compasses and sextants to get their ships and aircraft safely home.

    23. Tam Fae Somewhere says:

      I have no issue with renting out the bases for say £5 billion a year for say 5 years to allow a controlled, safe closure and removal of everything to another site.

      Year 6 rent – £10 billion
      Year 7 rent – £20 billion
      Year 8 rent – £40 billion
      Year 9 rent – £80 billion

      Just so rUK has a suitable incentive to keep up the removal in a sensible timeframe!

    24. DeepFriedPenguin says:

      @Spikethedee

      Think the current alternative would be for Trident to be based in one of the U.S. mainland sub bases. The rUK would probably choose that option rather than pay Indy Scot £5 BILLION a year rent.

    25. Clootie says:

      It is not for us to advise another nation on the value of nukes. It would be part of a transition period post a yes vote and Independence Day.

      Rental is one issue – clean up another (… and don’t forget the rotting hulks on the East coast)

      However another NO vote and you will have the wretched abomination for several decades to come.

      Jackie Bailles Jewel

    26. Archbishop of Dork says:

      The Britnat possessiveness with Trident is like a status conscious bankrupt who obstinately holds on to a prestige car they can no longer afford. Just so they can continue to delude themselves that they are superior to others.

      Except in this case it’s WMD that Scotland is forced to house. Not a Lamborghini in the driveway.

    27. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Is there really no current alternative to Faslane to house the subs, even temporarily?”

      Short answer: no. The subs aren’t the problem, the missiles are.

    28. gus1940 says:

      RE the removal of Trident from Scotland a fwe days ago I watched a documentary made originally in 2009 on the building of HMS Astute at Barrow.

      Apparently there is a Ship Lift at Barrow which could immediately take the place of the one at Faslane.

    29. Ken500 says:

      The Tories lies about education. In Scotland pupils can take 5/6Higher. More choice. In the rest of the UK. Tory policies 3/4 A Levels. Limited choice. £9000 uni fees. The Tories cut Education funding. Scotland has the most Unis pro rata per population in the world. No fees. Loans not means tested. Grants for students of households under £21,000. One of the most educated pro rata population in the world. College skills and apprenticeships. In the rest of the UK the Tories are introducing selection and more grammar schools.

      It is the unionists councils who cut allocated education funding. Use the statutory limits (30) as the norm. Cut additional needs teachers and support. They build not needed hotels and shops instead of building affordable houses and spending on essential services.

      ACC are paying £7Million interest a year on a groteque monstrosity no one wanted. Wasted £300Million on a Conference Centre with no business case. £1.2Billion in debt. Sold the City on the Stock exchange. Kept in office by a two job Tory. 9 Labour ruining the City. The SNP has the most candidates. The unionists 3rd rate rejects gang up to keep the SNP out of power.

      Davidson and the unionists are terrified by another Indyref. The Brexit mess.

      OAP from other towns are not allowed to use their (Bus) travel passes on the Trams. Edinburgh the wealthiest City in Scotland has publicly funded transport.

      Brexit prevents healthcare personnel coming to Scotland. MUP should have an affect on healthcare in Scotland.

    30. CameronB Brodie says:

      Does Scotland intend ever being a responsible agent in the international community, or are we happy to let English cultural nationalism determine our outlook and potential (see Brexit, for example)?

      “The Most Natural State”: Herder and Nationalism

      Abstract

      Herder is often considered a cultural nationalist rather than a political nationalist. Although there is a measure of truth in this assessment, it overlooks the important passages in Herder’s writings where he did make political claims about the nation. The paper explores the basis of these claims, and tries to articulate what is theoretically interesting and plausible in Herder’s account. Herder defended the nationally bounded state (as opposed to the nation-state) with an argument that rests on an individuality principle and a nationality principle. Together these principles inform a variant of nationalism that is liberal and democratic in orientation and that remains relevant for contemporary normative theorists working on a range of problems.

      https://www.princeton.edu/~apatten/_The%20Most%20Natural%20State_-%20Herder%20and%20Nationalism%20-%20final%20accepted%20version.pdf

      The myth of the civic state: a critical survey of Hans Kohn’s framework for understanding nationalism
      http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.108&rep=rep1&type=pdf

      Nation Branding Perspectives: Definition, Concepts, Theory
      https://placebrandobserver.com/theory/nation-branding-perspectives/

    31. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Been shouting about this for some time,guys. It is a massive ace in our hands. We sink any case against independence,if this becomes accepted knowledge plus the fact that any refusal for us to use sterling on our terms brings sterling down
      (Just as matter of interest I believe Scotland should at the appropriate time design and adopt its own currency but it is not in our interest to carelessly in the short term damage the economy of our nearest neighbour which will still be a huge trading partner despite the current unionist bullshit).

    32. ahundredthidiot says:

      I imagine a rental deal would be far in excess of 5 years, maybe even closer to 25 years. So, not only could Scotland make a steady annual income, there would likely be a windfall payment due in the event England terminated the contract early.

      chiching

    33. mogabee says:

      DeepfriedPenquin

      I don’t think it’s possible to house Trident in USA. Against the rules if I recall correctly!

    34. Adrian Kent says:

      As a matter of fact, if an independent Scotland issued it’s own currency then there would be no reasons whatsoever for it’s government to borrow money from anyone or anywhere to service a deficit.

      It would be free to follow the principles of Mondern Monetary Theory and so it could simply issue sufficient currency to facilitate full employment. As the currency issuer it always has enough money to buy whatever is for sale in the Scottish Quid (or whatever).

      As long as the government is not stupid enough to borrow in another contry’s currency then there’s nothing to worry about.

      Set yourselves free.

    35. Ken500 says:

      Ivan McKee is brilliant.

      The Tories are fecked.

    36. Colin Alexander says:

      Whether indy-Scotland allows nukes to be stored here short or long-term or allows allies to have nukes temporarily within Scottish territory should be a matter for the people of Scotland AFTER independence.

      Likewise EU / EFTA / trading bloc with rUK or others.

      Just think: the people of Scotland deciding these things, instead of UK Parliament ignoring the democratic voice of Scotland and telling us what we are getting or getting taken off us.

    37. No amount of money is worth the risk to human life get these subs and bases out as soon as possable no more phoney transition periods I mean to say it would be to dangerous to have it in Portsmouth because of the danger to the population there just shows you the contempt they feel for The Scottish people yet some are stupid enough to still want to be ruled by these people they just,cannot,see they are being used it goes as far back as the no great mischief if they fall as the song goes when will they ever learn when will they ever learn ???

    38. mogabee says:

      Some info from just prior to 1st indyref. Caveat..It’s from BBC so impartiality shoogly!!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977

    39. Ken500 says:

      The missiles are stored in the States. The subs pick them up in Florida? Specified allocated number. Fire squint.

    40. Clydebuilt says:

      For the third week on the trot my Freeview signal gets much weaker during FMQ’s and improves immediately Chin Chin comes on.

    41. Kenny says:

      I have a better case, which is what I would use if I were chief negotiator on the Scottish side.

      I would carry out an independent survey on the presence of oil fields in the Firth of Clyde. This has long been rumoured and, indeed, one of the additional reasons for the use of the Holy Loch as a UK submarine base.

      I would then calculate the cost of foregoing exploration and exploitation per annum.

      I would add it to the rental fees of Faslane. There would also be a 15% insurance clause because of the hazardous nature of having these nasty nukey things next to our glorious yes city, which voted to leave the UK in the face of an incredible media onslaught and campaign of lies.

      I would set the price at 12 billion a year. Although I would actually (secretly) be willing to go to a generous 11.5 billion (in exchange for other concessions)… BIT NAE A FARTHING MAIR!

    42. Scott says:

      Trident and Faslane.

      I only wonder where would London get that sum of money from to pay the rent,don’t forget they would not have the revenue from the black gold or the water of life Scotch Whisky not the M&S English brand.

    43. orri says:

      Wrong thread but,

      There’s quite a bit of Scotland getting more out of the UK than raised here.

      Even supposing that’s true, bare in mind that the UK national debt is rising at an alarming rate. From which it follows that on average the entire UK is getting more out than is coming in. So the question is really is Scotland’s excess spending greater than for the rUK and how easy would it be for an independent Scotland to bring that under control.

    44. Dr Jim says:

      Small countries do better than big ones says Ivan McKee
      Not true says Iain McWhirter look at China

      Well I splurted my tea and slapped my own coupon so hard it hurt after that one
      It must not have occurred to McWhirter that China starved its people to the point of death to spend the money required to grow the Chinese economy or that maybe their starting point was zero so they could only go up

      Still he was on the BBC so has to say something to keep collecting his appearance money

    45. Taranaich says:

      £5bn a year – a figure we thought was maybe aiming a bit high, and more than half of Scotland’s entire supposed “deficit”

      On the contrary, I’d consider that lowballing for what Trident’s worth to the UK, and as compensation for what housing nuclear weapons has done to Scotland.

      Forget the nuclear apocalypse scenario for a moment: merely keeping the bloody things running poses a serious and constant radioactive hazard to the West of Scotland. There have been dozens of radioactive leaks in the past ten years alone, & the Clyde is already heavily polluted with tritium and other nuclear waste products. There’s a much greater likelihood of an accidental fuel explosion expelling radioactive material into the atmosphere than there is of WW3 breaking out.

      Therefore, if we were going to host these death machines post-independence, it would have to be highly conditional on this being a temporary measure. Every day those things remain on the Clyde is a clear and present danger to the people of Scotland regardless of what Trump & Putin do. If the UK want to keep their toys, then they have to pay for the mess they leave behind too.

      It isn’t rent – it’s compensation.

    46. Dr Jim says:

      @orri

      Scotland has no borrowing powers so we borrow nothing
      The UK borrows money and assigns a portion of that debt to Scotland they say as a per head of population or need

      But nobody knows what the real figures are because that’s governed by the UK treasury

      Example: Lots of money is borrowed for defence, so work it out when they talk about Scotlands deficit

    47. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Apparently there is a Ship Lift at Barrow which could immediately take the place of the one at Faslane.”

      And where are you going to put the missile-handling facility?

    48. Doug Daniel says:

      It occurred to me recently that the Trident debate is actually a fairly good example of how much the independence debate is dominated by Central Belt concerns and issues.

      In all my time canvassing in Aberdeen, I’ve only once had someone bring up Trident as an issue, and it was because they were concerned about the SNP’s desire to get rid of it. Fortunately, she also liked the idea of Alex Salmond causing mischief at Westminster, so I was able to convince her he’d manage that better with more colleagues behind him. But still, there’s someone who is potentially put off by independence being too overtly linked to the removal of Trident.

      If you go to SNP Conference, the only thing guaranteed to get a bigger cheer than talking about the removal of Trident is talking about independence itself. The Greens are also against it, and I *think* Scottish Labour are currently against it, so you would think Scotland was almost unanimous in its opposition to Trident. And yet, I think polls suggest we’re fairly ambivalent at best, and possibly slightly pro-nukes at worst.

      So why do we make the removal of Trident such a huge part of the argument for independence? I can’t help thinking it’s simply because it’s an issue in Glasgow and the surrounding areas, and those voices tend to dominate the debate and strategy. As I say, it’s just not an issue that comes up in the North East, and yet we batter folk over the head with it as if it’s THE burning issue, rather than demonstrating how independence is the solution to the things that really DO concern them.

      That’s not to say for even a second that the Yes movement should abandon the anti-nuke principles that most of us have – but it’s not quite the nationwide concern folk seem to think it is.

    49. Juan says:

      I caught Keverage on SHIT TV last night spouting the £10 Billion a year subsidy lie. Looks like they’ll use the same lies and fearmongering that “won” it for them last time.

      Removing England’s WMDs from Scotland is one of the main reasons for being independent for me. The main one though is having DEMOCRACY!

      We have to set the agenda and frame the argument this time around. We have to make the question an easy one for the 55% simpletons to understand. It has to reflect the reality of what a Yes or No vote actually means. The truth is Westminster treats Scotland as it’s COLONY. A colony is defined as “an area or country that is, either partially or completely, politically controlled by another country. The EU referendum (not to mention the Tory regimes power grab) is proof we are completely controlled by another country, England. Scotland voted by 62% to REMAIN IN THE EU, yet the government in England is forcing us out with them.
      The question should be this, “Should Scotland be a NORMAL, self governing country or England’s colony?”

      This is not and never has been a “Union of equal”, it’s an occupation. Now is the time to call it out for what it is. Let the question frame the debate, not the colonialist and colonialist enabling media.

    50. Derek Henry says:

      It only took 3 days after Nicola announced over the weekend that Scotland was going to implement a new currency if it became independent.

      The media always go to this idiot whenever Scotland talks about introducing their own currency.

      Professor Ronald MacDonald, research professor of macroeconomics and international finance at Glasgow University’s Adam Smith Business School, said tens of billions of pounds in foreign exchange reserves would have to be raised to protect the currency from economic shocks and speculators.

      The media have put the figure at £300 billion.

      LOL !!!!! Hilarious !

      Don’t you guys worry about Ronald MacDonald the clown has no idea what he is talking about.

      All you need is a policy proposal at the new central bank to neuter that. Any new Scottish Reserve Bank will be *statutorily barred* from operating in the foreign exchange markets. Instead they will have an accelerated resolution procedure in place which will run any bank going bust through an administration process within a day – ensuring a total loss for all equity and foreign exchange holders in that bank and protecting the depositors in the local currency 100%.

      It is put in place for those exporting to Scotland who then use their own central bank’s powers to keep down their exchange rate against the new Scottish currency.

      What I’ve got planned for early October in Glasgow Professor Ronald MacDonald will never be heard of again. The big hitters are coming to town who will hit him out of the ball park.

      Keep an eye on Common Space for details.

      This is not to be missed and will be a sell out. Everything will be laid out

      a) How to introduce a new currency.

      b) The correct response by our new central bank and not something from Narnia that Ronald MacDonald advises.

    51. Roger Hyam says:

      I would bang (excuse the pun) on about this back in 2014. The trick would be to agree a rent that escalated exponentially. That would keep the anti-nuke people (like me) happy and also extract more money. It would be a bet on the fact that the rUK would take forever to get their act together once people saw what was going to be in their back yard but it would also be taking a strong antinuclear stance.

    52. Dr Jim says:

      I had more opportunity under Thatcher says Labours Jenny Marra
      Good to know that a Labour Dundee MSP feels that way eh Dundee

      You know what to do

    53. jim says:

      I agree with stu regarding the ‘Renting’ of Faslane until another base is complete, however, as he mentions in the comments section the problem is not the subs it’s the weapons storage facility at coulport that’s the biggest headache to the UK government.
      As much as I look forward to Independence we also have to be pragmatic.We couldn’t expect Faslane to close the day after and it would prove to be a massive bargaining chip in negotiations.
      I’ve visited Faslane, the boats have to disarm at Coulport before entering Faslane for maintenance, that throws up huge problems of where to site a new base.
      Devenport was ruled out due to being too close to large areas of population,apparently the population of Helensburgh and Glasgow are expendable.
      Falmouth ruled out for being too expensive to buy the land which is owned by the ‘Duchy of Cornwall’ plus I don’t think Prince Charles would be very happy about it.
      The whole East coast from Dorset to Berwick ruled out as being unsuitable.

      How it all came about is in this fascinating article by The Gaurdian (I know!) It’s quite a long read but worth the effort.

      https://www.thegaurdian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/11/trident-the-british-question

      One day we’ll get rid of them from our soil, one day!

    54. Derek Henry says:

      It’s very simple you introduce capital controls on FPI – Foreign portfolio investment.

      Introduce a job guarentee to create full employment domestically that promotes FDI – Foreign direct investment.

      Central bank then promotes public purpose

      1) The central bank is constitutionally barred from dealing in the foreign exchange markets, and margin trading is banned.

      2) Commercial Banks can only lend (i.e. create money) for the capital improvement of the country. Since traders then know that there will be no ‘patsy’ in the market and no leverage available to them, they have no effective mechanism to attack anything. They would run out of liquidity. To sell the new currency you first have to have them.

      3) No need of foreign currency in the central bank. The foreign currency, if any, is held by the government to allow it to make necessary purchases in an emergency. Most importantly it is never used to settle foreign financial liabilities. Any entity that cannot service foreign financial liabilities goes bankrupt and the foreign debts are wiped out by the bankruptcy process. Creditors then get paid in the new currency achieved by selling the assets. The reason for that is straightforward – when you bankrupt a foreign loan you destroy their money.

      No more socialising their losses onto the public.

      4) Banks would always be under threat of being placed in administration and their shareholders wiped out if they break the rules regarding the currency. That’s how you keep them in line.

      5) You tell banks what they are allowed to do, and NOT what they are not allowed to do. When you tell banks what they are not allowed to do, they will always find something you forgot.

      6) Bank lending is to be limited to public purpose, which means you cannot use financial assets as collateral. You can’t borrow against financial assets from the member banks. If somebody in the private sector wants to make a loan, that’s okay. But not the banks with insured deposits.

      7) And lending is done by credit analysis and not market prices of the assets underneath. You must lend by credit analysis to serve public purpose.

      8) You don’t need foreign money. Foreign firms need the custom of the Scottish people because they have nowhere else to sell their stuff. To do that they need to either take the output of Scotland, or hold the new currency.

      If they don’t then they won’t make the stuff, which creates the fiscal space for Scoltand to make it for itself. We carry out import substitution where we can creating more jobs domestically.

      Anything we do need and can’t make ourselves is brought in using zero tariffs.

      That’s the basic structure with much more to add. We will be in control nobody else. We are sick to the back teeth of being currency slaves.

      Those days are over.

    55. Iain mhor says:

      Currently Scotland is used for perennial war games and exercises by many other nations as well as MOD.
      Vast swathes of Scottish real estate are no-go areas.
      Ultimate Paintball (with a special deal voucher) in Glasgow is about £130 for two people.
      How much do we charge for a voucher to wargame in Scotland for two nation states a week?
      15% off for 4 or more nations under a Plutonium Corporate Package maybe? Save ££££’s if you bring your own gear.
      Burger stalls on site. Book early to avoid dissapointment.

    56. Iain mhor says:

      *disappointment even

    57. Derek Henry says:

      The blueprint for an independent Scotland is right here

      http://www.reclaimthestate.org/

      If you’ve not read it yet. You should.

      Don’t you worry about Ronald Macdonald.

    58. Sandy says:

      OT
      Post FMQ.
      Can somebody let me know what ‘tooteloothenoo’s’ interview with Ivan McKee & the car salesman (failed) was discussed?
      All my ears could receive were three voices, all at the same time.
      McKee initially begins to reply to the first question. Car salesman (failed) rudely & ignorantly immediately interrupts, tootel**** adds to the cocophenie of non-understandable dialogue.
      What a waste of time. Compare that to the journalist’s discussion.

    59. Breeks says:

      ….And that ought to be food for thought for BOTH sides of the debate…

      I’m interpreting that to mean Scotland ought not be unreasonable about kicking out Trident. Giving Westminster a reasonable period to do it, say 5 years, might be a good idea if the wider dividends are generous enough. Five years is not a long time. If we’d won in 2014, we’d be £20billion richer, and waving goodbye to Trident next year. As Rev Stu say, that ought to be food for thought.

      In similar “food for thought” vein, and especially building upon England’s relative indifference about holding on to Scotland, I really think it would be worth a punt, – to position an Independent Scotland as a buffer state between England and the EU as it diverges away from Europe and European Standards.

      Just suppose Scotland made a similar 5 year, or even 10 year commitment to enable England and Wales some “soft Brexit” options to channel their EU trade through Scotland, but where that Trade was either confined to Scotland or brought up to EU convergence standards whilst in Scotland and before going on to Europe.

      Why do this? Well, England might not see it, (yet) but they really do need a European lifeline, and a face saving way of getting one. If half of England’s population isn’t especially troubled by losing Scotland, perhaps we are not so very far removed from the Union being dissolved amicably, with the democratic consent of both Nations. That would propel Scottish Independence from a standing start, to a hop, step and jump and already running.

      Europe is, and in fairness has always said so, is disappointed to be losing the UK economy, though much less sorry to see the back of quarrelsome Westminster. Suppose then, some deal worked out between Scotland, the EU, and Westminster which sees Scotland as a kind of “bonded warehouse” for trade between England and Europe, where the EU has full Judicial control over standards and legislation, where the four Freedoms are respected, but where England actually gets its mythical Soft Brexit and EU trade agreement, but only in relation to trade moving through Scotland.

      It would mean no border checks between Scotland and England, but there would of course have to be customs and checks between Scotland and the EU to intercept non-standard produce, but Scottish Customs would be empowered by EU laws and standards, and enjoy the power to veto movement of dodgy goods.

      England can still trade with Europe and duch tariffs, if sold on a Scottish – EU ticket. An economic salvation of sorts for England and Wales…
      Europe can Trade with England, but with Westminster kept at arms length where it cannot interfere politically. A win, win for Europe…
      Westminster recognises the economic potential of an Independent Scotland in Europe and greases the wheels to help make it happen. Maybe even Broadcasting gets Devolved as a show of good faith… Our Sovereign Independence is then a formally, and recognised without any constitutional dispute or challenge. We have an amicable divorce which avoids a lot of acrimony.

      Food for thought? Get David Davis, Michel Barnier, and Mike Russell to hold a tripartite summit far away from the media and Press cameras, where they can utter the unutterable, and think the unthinkable, and say what might never be repeated… Scotland saves England from catastrophic self harm, the EU adopts an uncharacteristicly sympathetic attitude to let Westminster off the hook, and Westminster gracefully concedes the Act of Union is effectively dysfunctional and essentially at an end.

      IndyRef 2 then becomes a ratification plebiscite for a deal which is essentially already done.

      Food for thought? I think so. Got a more constructive alternative? Let’s hear it…

      The big sticking point is Westminster. For all their guff and bluster, the English Establishment knows full well losing Scotland isn’t just a technical hitch. Losing Scotland’s oil and manufactured produce is a serious body blow for the UK’s exports and anemic balance of trade. There’s no realistic compensation for that, nor any point denying it, and it is a big and bitter pill for Westminster to swallow. But the thing is, even in this, if Scottish Indy is a credible possibility, (and it is), then that terrible body blow to England’s balance of trade might already be inevitable and on its way.

      All that food for thought might need to be fast food…

    60. Taranaich says:

      So why do we make the removal of Trident such a huge part of the argument for independence? I can’t help thinking it’s simply because it’s an issue in Glasgow and the surrounding areas, and those voices tend to dominate the debate and strategy. As I say, it’s just not an issue that comes up in the North East, and yet we batter folk over the head with it as if it’s THE burning issue, rather than demonstrating how independence is the solution to the things that really DO concern them.

      I’d say it’s because Trident is a literal matter of life and death which affects all Scots whether they think it affects them or not. Aberdonians might feel like they’re far enough away and thus have the luxury of thinking of Trident as a West Coast/Central Belt issue, even if Chernobyl and Fukushima show that nuclear disaster can affect them from much further afield than they might think. That’s part of the pernicious mythmaking of nuclear issues: either you’re too far away for it to matter, or you’re close enough that you’ll be incinerated in the blast & won’t feel a thing.

      I agree that there are political arguments made for independence which are too Central Belt oriented (particularly political and economic) but on Trident, I do believe it is a matter of utmost urgency that is Scotland-wide, even if people far away from Faslane don’t think so. It’s one of those “if you aren’t angry, you aren’t paying attention” things.

    61. Stu, I posted this earlier on WGD. I am so fucking outraged about the Potholes Together AngloNats clogging up Scottish Parliamentary business, the very survival of our Country post Brexit, should be filling the ProudScotsBut AngloNats’ every waking hour.

      But no, £1200 a week plus exes for sabotaging parliamentary democracy is the Bought and Sold For rate these days.
      I intend to post this rant on any site which will have me.
      I am in a rage that will only be quelled on Independence Day.

      Och, Sam(I’m replying to Macart here) I just caught FMQ. Better Together Mark II in full flow.

      Ruth Potholes Davidson berating the FM over the fall in Biology Highers.

      That Dick, The Scarf Leonard on NHS 12 week waiting time targets failing, James Kelly on hospices in ‘his constituency’ moving to East Kilbride, Jenny Marra on cuts to funding for swimming lessons for kids and her admiration for Maggie Thatcher’s education policy for Scotland, Annie Wells couldn’t even stumble through a reading of the fatuous question she was attempting, Young Mundell demanding that NS stop Edinburgh Woollen Mills morphing into Carlisle Woollen Mills, Iain Gray and Liz Smith on Swinney’s Education Reforms in two part Red and Blue Tory Harmony spouting pish bewcause the Labour shop stewards have infiltrated the Senior Teachers’ Union has, and Monica Lennon on…no it escapes me.

      It is clear that the Better Together Holyrood carpetbaggers’ job over the coming months is to drag Scotland down, Project Potholes, clogging up the Good Governance of Scotland with Wee Parish Council garbage, lest we the public actually see our Parliament tackle Brexit, the Power Grab, and engage in Big Grown Up politics of which Potholes Davidson and the Fat Falstaff faced Carlaw seem to find above their pay grade as they yet again laughed their fucking heads off, because it is a riot, this politics stuff.

      Toodle Oo The Noo’s ‘journalist chums’ were Rebecca McQullian, features editor at the Herald Britland and Ian MacWhirter ,who now thinks an independent Scotland would be a failure if we didn’t match the growth rate of China and America, and that the leaked ‘£4,100 better off’ figure from the Growth Commission report is just pie in the sky side of a bus conjecture.

      He equates it with the Boris’ bus and the £350 million a week for the English NHS post Brexit, an NHS which today the Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts will require £2000 a
      year from every English Family by 2023 just to stand still.

      Yet again, Mac Whirter and Toodle Oo The Noo, who wondered if the swimming club he attended as a boy in Dundee, which it is clear didn’t commit him to a lifelong fitness regime, was still going, agreed that there wouldn’t be a Referendum any time soon, probably not for a couple of years …fade to grey.

      T O T Noo’s filmed insert with Ivan McKee and The Red Balloon Jackson Carlaw was the usual rabble drowning out any reasoned discussion on tomorrow’s Growth Report.
      Job Done. Taylor, strangled it at birth.
      Jackson Laff A Minute Carlaw seems to think that the report is being published deliberately over the Bank Holiday week end as this will will stop the Potholes Better Together Consortium from properly scrutinising its content.
      Aye, richt.
      What an absolute plonker this grinning guffawing ruddy faced ex car salesman, next leader of the Blue Tory Branch Office, is.

      It is clear that Leonard and Davidson, admirers of Margaret Thatcher’s Great Bellicose Free For All Britain are already meeting beforehand to ensure that our Government will get bogged down in councillor level questions like gurneys parked in hospital corridors or alleged torture of civil servants by that Nicola Sturgeon controlled Management teams.

      The Anglo Nats ProudScotsBut are shit scared and it shows.

      I urge all to catch today’s FMQ.

      In the history of Scottish politics there has never been such an abject bunch of failures on the Unionist bnenches. The Law of Diminishing Returns has reached the bottom of the Anglo Nats barrel.
      They are frighteningly abject.

      I am ready now, MacWhirter and Taylor, and so are millions of Scots.
      We are not hanging around until after the next Holyrood Election.

      Of course you both know that, but yet BBC Pacific Quay Anglo Nat Stockade cannot admit that come October, Brexshit will hit the fan big time, and then we move mountains.
      Stu, they can keep their rent money. I am not prepared to be the Devil’s Landlord.

    62. Doug Daniel says:

      Taranaich: “I agree that there are political arguments made for independence which are too Central Belt oriented (particularly political and economic) but on Trident, I do believe it is a matter of utmost urgency that is Scotland-wide, even if people far away from Faslane don’t think so. It’s one of those “if you aren’t angry, you aren’t paying attention” things.”

      Aye, but it’s by no means the only subject in politics that people SHOULD be angry about, but aren’t. All I’m really saying is it highlights the way the independence argument is still dominated by Central Belt concerns. The main cornerstone of the argument should be that independence will improve ALL of Scotland, and that means demonstrating how it can change the things that they actually care about, rather than something which – rightly or wrongly – they see as being a regional issue.

    63. Golfnut says:

      Rev Stu is probably right about being able to justify a very high premium for say a 5yr period. Even at a measley £5 Billion, Scotland would be able to set in motion its own plans for the SDF. £25 billion would build the ship’s and buy the hardware necessary to fully equip Scotland’s Defence force, without touching a penny of the proposed £2 billion annual defence budget.

      I say five years, because we have to consider how long the clean up process will take, and how that might impact on Scotland developing the Clyde basin, there should be compensation for that and of course the clean up costs. We could perhaps use the time of the clean up operation to developers infrastructure, for instance the oil refinery proposed by Chevron on the Clyde. The loss of revenue from developing these oil fields to accommodate Trident should be compensated.

      Annexing Faslane and Coulport is nonsense, it would be an act of war, stupid beyond belief, particularly if Scotland remains or re joins the EU.

    64. geeo says:

      The Scotsgov paper is not even published and is being rubbished by unionistas.

      THAT is an apt descriptor of a panicked state.

    65. GordonB says:

      The SNP paper is not even published and unionists are fighting each other to rubbish it already !

      In relation to Breeks’s post at 1.56pm.

      If the Union is effectively over before a plebiscite, then surely we are legally returned to an independent state ?

      That would mean the “ratification” plebiscite would require to be a referendum on rejoining the Union with WM, rather than a Yes/No to indy as we already would be independent if the Union has been effectively dissolved ?

      This surely applies to the Continuity Bill case as well, and is more relevent as it is more likely ?

      If The SC rules in favour with WM then Scots law and Scots Sovereignty has been subjugated, contrary to the central tenets of the Act and Treaties of Union itself, then that endeth the Union in similair manner as Breeks describes.

      Again, the plebiscite question would be more legally appropriate as

      “Do you wish to rejoin the Union with WM. YES/NO”

      Now that would be quite the question as WM would need to find positive reasons, so lacking in 2014, for Scotland rejoining the union.

    66. Artyhetty says:

      Trident is an abomination, just a disgrace. Who owns these mass people killers?

      Scotland’s beautiful countryside and waters, used and abused. it’s just bloody tragic. Sadly seems anti independence folk are quite happy with this situation. Even when it is forced on Scotland costing 100s of billions of £s!

      Scotland is an occupied territory, if you have massive weapons forced on your country for storage and strategics, how else can you describe it? ‘Not in my backyard’, Scotland’s people can never lay claim to that meme.

      Next referendum we need hard hitting facts, not softly softly stuff like last time from that ex bbc guy who led ‘yes’! It was pathetic on looking back.

      I had a petition sent to me last year, can’t remember who from, demanding that the ‘Scottish MOD’ stop killing purpoises with their noisey explosions in Scottish waters! 1000s signed it, before I told the petition owners that Scotland has no ‘MOD’, but likely still many including in Scotland, do think that there is an actual Scottish MOD.

    67. Proud Cybernat says:

      Anyone who is remotely interested in politics in this country will have:

      a) Heard of Brexit
      b) That it’ll be the clusterphuk of all clusterphuks for ever family in the country
      c) the SNP are prepared to offer Scots a choice on which Union they want to remain part of.

      Most people will have at least an inkling of this.

      So what is Toodle-oo-the-noo up to saying there won’t be another Ref any time soon?

      Possibly to enrage those who don’t realise what’s really going on when, from out of the blue it will seem (cos Toodle-oo assured us), the FM calls a second Ref. Oh they’ll be angry, angry, angry because… well, just angry, angry, angry. Stuff the arguments just angry, angry, angry.

      And they’ll STILL trust the BBC.

    68. Proud Cybernat says:

      THAT is an apt descriptor of a panicked state.

      As well as blind subservience.

    69. Andy-B says:

      Good one Rev, and another solid reason why Westminster will fight, tooth and nail to keep Scotland in the union.

      Westminster will use every dirty trick in the book come the next indyref, we really need to be prepared.

      Im also a bit surprised that the people of England would be quite happy to see the nukes et al, go to a built up area.

      Still, on independence they become powerful bargaining chip, that we must use to our full advantage.

    70. I am amazed that most of you on here want to make money rather than removing the threat to people’s life as soon as possable in my book your just as guilty as they are who placed them here in the first place

    71. Ealasaid says:

      Sorry O/T
      Mr Peffers keeps telling us that WE are the SOVEREIGN people and it is not just big companies that can lobby politicians. If we are sovereign then the SNP cannot be seen to lead the push for independence, it MUST come from the people, the grass roots.

      Westminster keeps telling us that nobody is interested in another referendum. While the marches and other demonstrations are fantastic I feel we should really make our presence felt with those who govern our countries, Scotland and the UK.

      Having seen charities now asking us to contact our politicians on various matters, why are we not contacting them about another referendum. Even if it is a ’round robin’ letter is it possible to see that it comes from different people and not a BOT? Somebody more technical may able to answer this.

      We should be emailing all our MPs and MSPs (including those on the lists) of all Parties to make our feelings and points known. After all we were told that voting NO was the only way to stay in the EU. Since then we voted in even larger numbers to stay in the EU but Westminster says we cannot have both. This is a huge change in circumstance. So we have to vote again.
      UK or EU

      Could this be organised through local YES groups or other means? Does anyone else agree that this should be pushed? If nothing else so many emails landing in their inboxes should scare the bejeebers out of them.

      What say you?

      Get off your knees Scotland.

    72. awizgonny says:

      As the Rev points out, there’s much to ponder from both sides of the debate for nuclear weapons in an Independent Scotland, but to label Trident a vanity project is to miss the whole picture of why the debate is so important to have, and not just in terms of how much Faslane could be leased for.

      There was much conversation about whether Scotland could or should be in NATO, and here the SNP’s policies of both being in NATO and of getting rid of Faslane runs into trouble (aside from the principle that, yet again, that would be a matter for the electorate of Scotland to decide, rather than part of the package of becoming independent). To see why, we have to look at why Faslane is where it is, and its position in NATO’s strategy.

      As previously mentioned here, Coulport, where the warheads are assembled, and the submarine base where they are loaded, is of paramount importance in terms of balancing safety and proximity. There are very few locations, if any that can provide this.But that’s just one of the many factors that make Faslane unique as a location for the nuclear submarine fleet.

      In the event of a military escalation, any submarines in port can been in deep water in a very short space of time. They then have access to the range of channels in the West coast around it which they regularily navigate and know well, and which are closely monitored above and below water for unauthorised intrusion. Once out into the Atlantic the ships can either patrol off the UK coast, go South to the Mediterranean or North to the Arctic. Further to this, the transport infrastructure and proximity of military bases means that the base can be readily fortified in the event of an international military escalation.

      Faslane is one of only two nuclear submarine bases on the Western seaboard of the Atlantic, and during the 2014 Independence referendum, there were several explorations of where the UK would move its base should an independent Scotland require Faslane be closed. Not one site came even close to providing the combination of advantages Faslane has. (In fact, to my recollection, the closest rival location was actually deemed to be in Georgia on the US Eastern seaboard.)

      The recent shift in Russian tactical thinking towards more nuclear armed submarines is based on the fact that they are much more difficult to track and neutralise than air or land-based weapons. Which reaffirms the view that the warheads based in Faslane cannot be valued on the basis of simple numbers. In fact, should Humanity ever come to its senses and finally agree to dismantle them all, the ones at Faslane would be among the last put on the bargaining table. It’s that important to NATO strategy.

      So in the event of an Independent Scotland applying for NATO membership, there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that a central plank of NATO’s negotiating position would be the retention of Faslane. The argument that other NATO countries don’t have nuclear weapons on their soil does not count here – none of them have ever had anything like Faslane to divest themselves of.

      The final choice is in my view simple – be in NATO and host Trident, or get rid of Trident and don’t be in NATO. My own sentiments lean to the latter, being anti-nuclear myself, and given NATO’s recent calamitous history. But again, that’s not a matter for any party to put as a condition of Independence. It would be a matter for the Scottish electorate to decide.

    73. Iain mhor says:

      Blair Paterson @3:56pm

      Ach dinny fash yersel. Mine was tongue in cheek, but I don’t see much of people here loving the idea of, or advocating a new ‘cash cow’. Seems more a case of arguing for paid compensation for the decommissioning period which will be a lengthy process.
      It’s not just lifting a toy boat out the bath.
      The pollution cleanup alone will be decades. In the case of the Gareloch it may never be safe.
      As for wargaming. You either have no standing army or you have somewhere for them to train. But if abyone else wabts a shot – either monetize it or trade it says I.

    74. Robert Peffers says:

      Doug Bryce says: 24 May, 2018 at 12:10 pm:

      ” … why are there no GERs figures for England ? ?”

      It is far, far simpler and less complex than you think, Doug.

      There are no figures for either the Kingdom of England, (three countries), nor for the country that, in the United Kingdom’s books does not exist for there is no parliament of either the kingdom or country of England.

      England is directly funded as, “The United Kingdom”, and the parliament of the United Kingdom is Westminster and Westminster instigated, EVEL to assure that the Members of The United Kingdom Parliament, elected to Westminster from the kingdom & country of Scotland, the country and English Principality of Wales and the English Province of Northern Ireland do not get to interfere in the Westminster de facto parliament of the country of England.

      The United Kingdom is a two partner kingdom. It is not a country. They have not hidden the truth from us for did not the Secretary of State against Scotland say this:-

      “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as, The United Kingdom.”

      Trouble is that the Treaty of Union dose no such thing and there isn’t a shred of evidence anywhere to back up that claim.

      There is absolutely nothing that say that is true. No written legislation and no written constitution.

      The Treaty of Union established a two kingdom united kingdom – no more and no less.

      They conned us then and they are still conning us today. Furthermore the average unionist claims that the English taxpayers money subsidises Scotland. Yet there isn’t a separate English tax system and the United Kingdom tax all goes to the Treasury. It isn’t English tax money it is United Kingdom revenue and we all pay into that.

      Their other myth is that because there are more Englanders than Scots, “it stands to reason”, that the English are subsidising everyone else. It never enters their tiny wee brains that as there are more Englanders then even if they all got the same per head as the non-Englanders there are more of them to draw upon the state services on a per capita basis.

      basic arithmetic is way over their heads. Matter of fact the Scottish per capita GDP is normally higher than that of any other counter in the United Kingdom and that is without factoring in the many scams that Westminster employs.

    75. jfngw says:

      The choice at the next referendum:

      Scotland independent, making its own choices as to the trading relationship it has with the EU. The politicians elected in Scotland governing for Scotland.

      or

      Scotland in the UK, its trade deals decided by politicians elected in England. No meaningful input into how these deals affect Scotland, decisions made for the benefit of elsewhere, not Scotland.

    76. Les Wilson says:

      before Indy1 I recall the BBC interviewing an defence “expert”
      (they always have an expert on hand, don’t they)
      The brief of it was in regards to the Nuclear weapons in Scotland, what warheads could be removed in 3 weeks.

      The missiles would take a good bit longer.

      As far as I am concerned we are a first strike for any potential enemy if the are left intact. So no £5 billion a year, just get rid of them, put them anywhere but Scotland.
      Scotland will have other good income streams, just play the bagpipes as they leave.

    77. jfngw says:

      @Les Wilson

      The BBC ‘expert’ just needs to be a self declared expert, after all how would the correspondent know. The public probably believes the reporter has some expertise in the subject they are reporting, this is often not true as anyone with any knowledge of a subject will spot pretty quickly.

    78. orri says:

      Last I heard the missile systems are rented. They’re serviced in the USA and the guidance may or may not be programmable by us. Certainly a lot of cash flows from the UK to the USA into private pockets to pay for our “independent” strike capability.

    79. orri says:

      It’s easy, say the UK borrows £100 and splits it so Scotland NI and Wales all get £1 above what they put in and England gets the other £97. Unionist will gleefully point to those £1’s while hoping we’ll ignore the where the bulk of the debt is being accumulated. Never mind that some of that is repayments and interest paid at per capita rate.

    80. Sandy@ 1.53 pm; see my post @2.46 pm.
      Jenny Mara was demanding that Nicola Sturgeon takes control of kids’ swimming lessons in Dundee, and Annie Wells descended into burbling incoherence, and the Baw Face Twins Davidson and Carlaw laughed their fucking heads off.God knows what they find so funny.
      Richard Leonard continues to be a joke propped up by those ‘big beasts’ (ye, gods) James Kelly, Iain Sandwich Shop Gray, and Monica Lennon.

      Sarwar and Lamont kept their heads down.
      No sign of Rennie, Rumbles, Bumbles, Grumbles and Stumbles at the Despatch Box today.
      Nipped off early on a long Bank Holiday Weekend?
      Carlaw actually quoted the lie that it would take £300 billion to start our own currency, and Taylor said nothing. He let it stand.
      So the BBC state that it will cost £300 billion to set up our own currency.

      They’re in full AngloNat Better Together mode already.
      James Kelly referred to ‘my constituents’
      He doesn’t have ‘constituents’. He’s a bench filling List Add On. Jobs for the Boys.

      They are ripe for the taking.
      No more Mr and Mrs Nice Guy.
      I’m spitting teeth.

    81. Highland Wifie says:

      @Jack collatin
      Good rant!
      Sadly, be prepared for lots more of what you describe in the coming weeks. Sigh.

    82. Highland Wifie @ 5.30. See my addendum to Sandy@ 1.53pm above.
      They really are Third Rate benchfillers.

      We have thrown more out of the way to get to a fight.

      October 2018 will sound the starting gun.

    83. Ottomanboi says:

      Hypothetical scenario: An independent Scotland elects a government neither its neighbour nor the USA State dept. approve of. Not actually so hypothetical given Scotland’s history. Both states are nuclear ‘powers’. Scotland only having conventional arms might well feel under threat of ‘régime change’.
      Régime change aka overthrowing uncooperative governments was ‘legitimised’ by the US, UK and others activities in the Arab near east. The current stand off with North Korea and the huffing and puffing, schmoozing and mind-changing by the Trump administration to blow Kim’s house down is revelatory of how having a nuclear capability alters situations.
      When you’re weak they usually get away with it. Show some might and they are stumped.
      All depends on how you view the régimes dominating ‘the West’.

    84. HandandShrimp says:

      Was it just me or were the questions fired at the FM at FMQ particularly swivel eyed today? None of them seemed to know what they were talking about.

    85. orri says:

      In other words UK borrows £1000, we get £10 and have to pay £84 plus interest. We do get more out than we put in though.

    86. GordonB says:

      I do not think we are tring to negotiate trident staying for x y z year for x y z £££’s here.

      Rather that we can tell WM to behave themselves or Trident must be removed IMMEDIATELY upon independence, as would be our right to do so.

      This would clearly be a PR calamity to end all WM PR calamities.

      “Indy Scotland flexes its muscles on day one of indy” of “Scotland ORDERS Trident removal immediately” would end whatever WM government is incumbent on indy day one.

    87. I think that in this it is optimistic to expect Westminster to have any decency at all.

      Faslane (and oil) are the reasons Westminster nearly shat themselves when Scotland almost said yes last time. Having narrowly scraped through the last Indyref, having also shot their bolt with all kinds of promises they subsequently have broken, democracy will be considered too risky.

      I take a pessemistic view that far from being in a strong position, the Scottish government will have to present a fairly generous package for both oil access and use of Faslane to Westminster in order to be ‘allowed’ a referendum in the first place.

      Of course, they can treat those promises with the same respect as WM would afterwards, but lat’s also remember that a WM has a track record of violence when its oil and power is threatened.

    88. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Ottomanboi

      If we pay the NATO racket money then we’ll be fine.

    89. Juan says:

      Not sure if this has already been posted, but definitely worth a wee read:
      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/can-scotland-afford-not-to-become-independent/

    90. Dr Jim says:

      @orri

      Remember the UK stole 6000.000 square miles of Scottish waters containing oil wells that had Scotland been Independent would have been ours along with all the others in the North sea that we’ve not had our share of and we’d have been in the same position as Norway right now or maybe even better, but that was the wee deal to keep Labour in power to do the Tories work for them, didnae work though did it, we fun thum oot

      I kinda think they owe us for their sneaky thiefy shenanigans with all Scotlands exports that they’re now trying to purloin for themselves totally, hence the M&S British whisky debacle and the Union flags stamped all over Scottish produce like Harris Tweed and more

      All before Brexit arrives is why they want to retain powers at Westminster which gives Ruth Davidson and Mundell at the Scotland office an effective veto over decisions made in Holyrood, In other words direct rule by the back door, just like they’ve done in NI and now Wales

      This is more than just politics now, we’re entering a cold war

    91. Highland Wifie says:

      @Jack collatin 5.35pm
      Yes indeed, the bench is very low. Just hoping the rest of the population sees it .
      We need to point it out constantly.

    92. ScottieDog says:

      I’m gong to hang fire until the report tomorrow. I’m fuming (I know I shouldn’t be surprised) about the ‘guests’ STV have invited in to comment so far. I think it just goes to show that if we thought MSM were against us last time, that’s nothing to what’s coming.

    93. Dr Jim says:

      Last night we had the dog food salesman rubbishing the new unreleased and as yet unread report from the Scottish government
      Tonight on STV there will be without doubt more *experts* to invent what’s in it state it as fact then rubbish their own invented facts so long as some hapless members of the public tune in to watch the drivel the happier the media will be because somebody might believe the inventions they just heard

      Help me Rhona will ask in her usual simpering tone *what do you think’s going to be in the report then* giving the *expert* the licence to spew forth the well tried and tested projectile vomitous pish

      You’ll have had yer Scottish media then eh

    94. Cactus says:

      Scotland will be free soon Wingers…

      And U can bank on that.

      WMD’S bad.

    95. Rock says:

      35% of the English want to scrape Trident?

      Interesting.

      Any comparative figure for Scots?

    96. sassenach says:

      The Unionist drivel is really reaching new heights (or lows??), and FMQs today was an extraordinary eye opener.

      If they are the best the anti-indy types can manage then we are home and dry.

      ConLab were singing in tune once more, but like backward kiddies who didn’t rehearse their lines,or pretendy anger from MarraThatcher. What a bunch of imbeciles, they shouldn’t be allowed out without their carers.

    97. galamcennalath says:

      Brexit coming to the boil? And the outcome dictates how imminent and potentially successful IndyRef2 will be.

      “EU officials tear into UK’s ‘fantasy’ Brexit negotiating strategy as talks turn bitter

      Brussels officials told to prepare for no progress to be made ahead of June summit “

      http://archive.is/RzlM9

      The Tories are planning one of two outcomes, or alternatively they are being driven towards them out of control. Either it’s a cliff jump crash out … or an all out capitulation to a Norway type solution.

    98. sassenach says:

      As an Englishman, living in this Unionist Enclave of Fluffydom, I am looking forward to a week on Saturday when I hope we can show them how a march should be done – and further put the frighteners on with a great show of support for Indy!

    99. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @sassenach –

      Hang in there brother, the cavalry is coming…

      😉

    100. ScottieDog says:

      @Dr Jim
      I hadn’t realised at first he had been on STV. I was hoping the media had washed their hands of him but there you go.
      I have to say though, the headline in the National today really put me off with its “you’ll be xxxx better of under Indy”. It deserves to be picked off and unfortunately gives the likes of KH every opportunity with his MSM platform.

      I guess we have to ask, who is watching this stuff and is it worth expending energy taking the MSM on. I could name plenty of economists who could blow prof macdonalds claims into next week but they don’t get a platform.

    101. ScottieDog says:

      I was actually embarrassed for Annie Wells today but the way Nicola Sturgeon handled her was heart warming. I wanted her ripped to shreds but Sturgeon remained professional being very dimplomatic explaining her confusion. Folk should watch it again.

    102. Iain says:

      President Trumps finger on the nuclear trigger,
      How reassuring for the people of Scotland.
      What could possibly go wrong.
      We could host trident indefinitely.
      Or maybe not!

    103. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T but important. Scotpulse have just engaged me in an entirely dishonest survey on the “NHS”. It does not indicate that the NHS in Scotland and in the rest of the UK are entirely separate and I suspect they are looking for an SNHS baaad result.

    104. Schrodingers cat says:

      Re nato srong arming an indy Scotland.

      One week prior to the initial nato meeting with Scotland. Nicolas should invite the new Russian ambassador to a photo op overlooking faslane and talk about Russia and Scotlands shared interest in the Clyde basin

      That should focus minds in nato somewhat

    105. jfngw says:

      @Dr Jim

      We should just remember anyone introduced as an ‘expert’ on TV is merely someone who has the opinion that the programme wants to push. Any true expert, and there were a few in 2014, is shut down, never to be seen again if they are not on board with the agenda.

    106. Dr Jim says:

      STVs self important Colin McKay says: *the report will make uncomfortable reading for some on the YES side too*

      And that wee statement is why Colin McKay shows himself and STV up as the pompous twits they are because they haven’t read it yet, so once again the idiots make pronouncements about what’s in a document they haven’t read

      Next they’ll be telling us about the Alien invasion we can’t protect ourselves from….Ooops they already did that in 2014

      Scottish *journalism* don’t you just love it

    107. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I have no idea why it was thought important to produce a Growth Commission which basically provides dozens of targets for our opponents and which will get the same treatment as the White Paper.

    108. Kangaroo says:

      Breeks @ 1:56pm

      Maybe I am missing something here, but is it your position that England would physically send goods to Scotland then we would ship them to the EU? Seems like a long way round for a shortcut, since England is only 22miles from Europe whereas Scotland is much further afield. Currently even our salmon exports to France go through Dover. How do we avoid England imposing a toll on Scottish goods transiting? Fly or ship surely is much more expensive than road.

    109. yesindyref2 says:

      10 years is plenty to move Trident out. Personally I think it’s already happening in a way, with Devonport being emptied of the SSNs (hunter killers). This would allow Devonport itself to be redeveloped, and Devonport already has a nuclear licence unlike Milford Haven.

      Francis Tusa says they could be moved a lot faster, but as we all know the problem is loading the missiles into the boats, and before that marrying missile to warhead. Meanwhile Burghfield which has been developed and has a nuclear licence can keep the warheads.

      It’s not the same as long ago, there are only around 225 warheads in total, reducing down to 180, and boats take less warheads each than before.

      The other thing is that the rUK can’t just “Britishise” Faslane and Coulport unless they can launch the subs vertically, the Clyde is open to all – or closed at the whim of the ScotGov.

    110. yesindyref2 says:

      Meanwhile while we’re on defence, remember previous talk here of Gripen and Meteor for Scotland’s Air Force and QRA to keep those nasty Russians at bay?

      https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/99961370886628966

      Meteor ain’t chearp, from memory £2 million a shot, but deadly and over the horizon by a long way, so you’re unlikely to ever have to use it in anger.

    111. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Kangaroo at 11:03 pm.

      You typed, (in reference to Breeks @ 1:56pm),

      “Maybe I am missing something here, but is it your position that England would physically send goods to Scotland then we would ship them to the EU?”

      This is just off the top of my head…
      If the paperwork shows the trail, would the goods actually have to be sent to Scotland? A direct export from SE England to France, Belgium or The Netherlands could, possibly be carried out “if the paperwork shows the trail” (through Scotland), the same way that money transfers across borders.

      I’ll get mah coat…

    112. Breeks says:


      Kangaroo says:
      24 May, 2018 at 11:03 pm
      Breeks @ 1:56pm

      Maybe I am missing something here, but is it your position that England would physically send goods to Scotland then we would ship them to the EU?

      Goods sent to Scotland are in the EU, so no tariffs for sending them on to mainland Europe. Cross channel trade would require Customs and tariffs without a Free Trade Agreement.

      I don’t mean all trade has to go via Scotland, but some trade could benefit. How much, and to what extent depends on how hard a Brexit occurs. At this moment in time, I understand road and rail freight traffic will be backed up throughout Kent pending Customs checks, and UK aircraft will be grounded for the end of open skies agreement. Prestwick, still in Europe, won’t be troubled.

      England needs a better deal than that, but also needs to save face too. Scotland could present a temporary/ transitional / emergency workaround arrangement for, say, five years.

    113. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dave McEwan Hill says: 24 May, 2018 at 12:39 pm:

      “(Just as matter of interest I believe Scotland should at the appropriate time design and adopt its own currency but it is not in our interest to carelessly in the short term damage the economy of our nearest neighbour which will still be a huge trading partner despite the current unionist bullshit).”

      Why is it that the independent supporting people of Scotland fail to see things as they really are, Dave?

      Here’s a wee experiment for us to try. Reach into whatever you keep your current stash of cash in. Draw out the banknotes therein. Now carefully look at each banknote and, never mind the face value, just read which bank issued each of the promissory bank notes in that random sample.

      I just did mine and I have 14 banknotes in my stash. Incidentally they were not all issued by the same bank and were of various denominations.

      There were two different issuers The Royal Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank.

      Both bank’s notes are distinctly Scottish and both distinctly different from each other. The only things both had on common was the were both issued by a distinctly Scottish bank and both lots used Pounds Sterling as the base currency.

      However, The Pound Sterling is a commodity, like barley, rice or oil and, like any other commodity, are thus bought and sold on the open market They thus belong to whoever bought them last. Now, just in case you wondered, every Scottish Bank note in circulation was , “bought”, by the bank that had the banknote printed and for each batch of Scottish banknotes released into circulation there is a special large denomination bank note lodged in a bank account in the Bank of England.

      i.e. The Pounds Sterling in that batch of notes was bought by the bank issuing the notes from the Bank of England and thus the Pounds Sterling those big special notes bought belong to the Issuing Bank and not to the Bank of England. Which Bank of England, by the way, has never, ever, belonged to England.

      The so called Bank of England began as a private company and remained private until 1946 when THE UNITED KINGDOM government nationalised it and the UNITED KINGDOM is a two partner united kingdom and the Kingdom Of Scotland is a fully sovereign partner in that two partner United Kingdom.

      So here is the truth. The pound Sterling and the Bank of England are shared by the only two kingdoms of the United Kingdom and, when the Kingdom of Scotland divorces the Kingdom of England the shared assets of the joint kingdom’s accounts will be shared between the two member kingdoms.

      So, on day one of the divorce decree nisi becoming absolute the two kingdoms, now both independent again, have a currency in common and can do with their individual currencies exactly what the wish and those special big value notes in the Bank of England vaults must be returned to Scotland as they belong to Scotland as does a negotiated share of the assets of the former UNITED KINGDOM owned Bank of England nationalised, (not by England but by the UNITED KINGDOM), in 1946.

      At this point the Scottish Government needs to only sell back to the Kingdom of England the Scottish share of the Bank of England that Scotland owns and then chooses whether to tie or not to tie, the Pound Sterling Scottish to the pound Sterling English.

      The bank notes are already distinctly different and the face values are identical but need not remain so. Remember that the United Kingdom Pound Sterling is a commodity and, just like corn, wheat or rice the prices can vary depending upon market forces.

      I’m sorry to say that the reality and the perception on this subject are far from being the same. The concepts that The United Kingdom/Britain is a country is myth as is that the Bank of England belongs to England and that.”England is Britain and the United Kingdom”, is mince, (and mince, BTW, is also a commodity).

    114. Still Positive says:

      Our goods to Europe could leave via Rosyth or Grangemouth. I wonder if that is longer or shorter for our seafood than what happens now or after Brexit.

      Considering most of our langoustines go to France and Spain, if they go via Europort in Holland how long will it take to get to final destination?

    115. Robert Peffers says:

      @mogabee says: 24 May, 2018 at 12:50 pm:

      “I don’t think it’s possible to house Trident in USA. Against the rules if I recall correctly!”

      And you are 100% correct, mogabee. Thing is you haven’t thought this through as yet. If the rules state that the USA cannot accommodate another independent state’s nukes then, on independence day nether can an independent Scotland house another independent state’s nukes. But it is more complex than that – as the Nukes do not belong just to the newly independent Kingdom of England or to the independent Kingdom of Scotland being officially the property of the now divorced partners in the United Kingdom we cannot get away from the fact they are partly the property of the Kingdom of Scotland and Scotland has partly ownership of both the vessels and the armaments.

      So here’s the choices that a Scottish Government has – Scrap our share of them – but how do you scrap just part of a nuclear submarine, part of a rocket missile or half f a nuclear warhead?

      We could demand e get to keep our share by getting a proportion of the total numbers of each, (shudder), and here is my personal choice. We can sell our share to the Kingdom of England for the best price we can screw out of Westminster. (Oh! By the way, we own a bit of Westminster too – and the Bank of England – and the former UK civil Service and the armed forces and, of course, part of each member of the royal household.

      When partnerships split up one partner doesn’t walk away with all the assets – particularly when they were the one dominating how the joint property was managed.

    116. Kangaroo says:

      Breeks @11:33pm

      I agree with your post. However I think you are suggesting that goods made in rUK could simply have paperwork assigned that suggests they come from Scotland. Much like Coffee from wherever goes through the Netherlands before reaching the UK, NOT. Just the paperwork to allow them to Transfer Price the profits out of the UK to whichever tax haven they choose.

      I don’t think the SG or the EU would allow such a thing as it is just another way of, in effect, smuggling. So the goods would have to go through Scotland and be exported from here.

      So something made in Leeds would go to Rosyth to be shipped??? We would need to value add, something, surely before it would be a legit Scottish export.

      Robert Peffers @ 11:44pm

      You are quite correct, I have been wondering why we are making the Central Bank issue so difficult when in fact I could keep the Commercial Banks accout with the Central Bank on a spreadsheet and have it ready in less than a day.
      The commercial Banks would have to add the Scottish National Pound (SNP) as a currency in their computer systems, a ten second job, and trade it as they do with any other currency. The Scottish Banks need only change their already existing systems to identify Englsih notes as being foreign currency and treat them the same way as USD or EUR. Job almost done in less than day.

    117. smithie says:

      Good videos on youtube by Ian Hamilton QC before the first Ref
      “Who owns Big Ben”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJHYrBLNcog

    118. Liz g says:

      Still Positive @ 11.49
      I don’t think we have the infrastructures,to export directly just yet ?
      ………….
      Breeks @ 11.33
      While your plan has some merit,and is worth considering.
      Why should we get in the middle of the Brexit mess?
      We will be paying into whatever EU trade arrangements we pick,and part of that fee is for the EU as a body to deal with third countries!
      Do we really need to open up another area where we have to watch our backs for Westminster s perfidy?
      Anyhoo I cannot see Westminster going for it,I think they will want to try for it (Scotland’s resources) all.

      Which brings me to the topic…
      Westminster renting Faslane and Coleport, no chance of me ever contemplating it.
      They couldn’t afford,the price of my agreement.
      Apart from the obvious reasons…
      I am hoping for the Scottish Constitution to forbid having or hosting neuks in Scottish territory,and I’ll certainly be arguing for that when the time comes.
      NATO will just have to consider our application as a Constitutionally bound nuclear free country,we do have other things to bring to the table!
      Also…
      Leave that base as British territory and I’m telling ye now,we will have as much bother getting out of that treaty arrangement as we have had with this one.

      We should expect the warheads out of Scotland on day one of Indy and the Colport facilities,put beyond use immediately,just to make sure they don’t keep badgering to rearm those subs from there and our politicians get tempted.
      Also
      I haven’t forgotten the BTL comments during Indy ref one about retaking it,annexing it,defending it… All for the security of the (England) country.
      And Westminster are good at running the narrative that they follow the instructions of the electorate when it suits.. They said that back then too… Mind… ” The people of England would never allow the chancellor to share the pound”.
      Manufacture a demand in England for that base,and Westminster will likely go for it.
      Stuff like that also seems to make struggling prime minister’s popular in England.
      Have we learned nothing about them?

      Wreck Coleport and it’s no use to them,but leaves Faslane for us..

    119. Cactus says:

      Today is the big day for Scotland’s Growth Report 2018.

      At least somebuddies gov is making an effort.

      Free unicorns can kick IT.

      Makes ye feel excited!

      New iDebate 🙂

      Weapons of Nuclear Mass Destruction are always bad.

    120. Liz g says:

      Cactus @ 1.28
      Neuks are indeed very,very bad!
      Put me in charge of them,Cactus and I’ll protect Scotland.
      Don’t ye agree??

    121. Robert Peffers says:

      I’m honestly totally disgusted at the general acceptance of what the Westminster Establishment dictates to Wingers via their propaganda wing of controlled media.

      I expect the yoonivers to believe the hype but I’m absolutely disgusted at the obviously wrong acceptance of Westminster’s lies in the beliefs of Wingers.

      The Treaty of Union of 1706/7 was an international treaty between only two Kingdoms and those two kingdoms were the Kingdom of Scotland, (that was/is also a unitary country), and the Kingdom of England that annexed the principality of Wales in 1284 and annexed the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542.

      At those times England, Wales & Ireland were all under the Rule of Law of Divine Right of Kings there was under this law no agreed unions between individual monarchies. They annexed each other and thus such systems were not, in the longer term, sustainable as they would ultimately become one monarchy.

      In 1320 the rule of law of Scotland had changed and been accepted by the then international authority and so Divine Right of Monarchs was not part of Scots law.

      In 1688 the three country Kingdom of England slightly changed their Rule of Law but retained in law the concept of a sovereign, (chosen by God – a.k.a. The Divine Right of Monarchs. The only change was that the Monarchy of the Kingdom of England had to legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of the Kingdom of England. This made the Kingdom of England into a constitutional monarchy but does not apply under Scots law.

      Thus, in 1706/7 there was no actual Union of the Crowns except personally for the then sitting monarch and both kingdoms were independent.

      That means the Treaty of Union, no matter what Westminster says, is a union of only two kingdoms and they are equally sovereign partners. The United Kingdom is thus legally a bipartite union of Kingdoms and has never been a unified country.

      This then is the legal standing that, going by this topic, is being misunderstood by most commenters on this thread.

      The United Kingdom is a bipartite kingdom. of two equally sovereign kingdoms and thus the whole is a kingdom and not a country. It does, however, contain four distinct countries.

      Thus it is a wrong concept that when the legally sovereign people of Scotland take back their independent sovereignty that a united kingdom can still legally exist.

      That being so Scotland will not be leaving the United Kingdom – Scotland will be ending the United Kingdom and as we are two equally sovereign kingdoms then all the, not tied down geographically, joint assets belong to both partner kingdoms.

      Yet here we have the prime movers in the independence movement and the entire thread seems to have blindly accepted the Westminster brainwashing propaganda and swallowed it whole.

      Let’s get a few things into proper perspective.

      The not tied down assets and debits of the United Kingdom would be joint assets and liabilities except for the fact that the United Kingdom does not actually function as the bipartite union of two equally sovereign kingdoms it legally is.

      It is presently openly functioning as the country of England parliament devolving England’s powers to the three other countries but calling itself the United Kingdom Parliament. It cannot legally be both at the same time.

      What that all means on the Kingdom of Scotland taking back her independence is NOT what this thread seems to think. The mind-set here is that the Country of Scotland is leaving behind a still United Kingdom that owns everything including the trident system.

      The truth being that when The Kingdom of Scotland leaves the Kingdom of England, the United Kingdom no longer exists.

      The shared assets and debts are shared no longer but neither kingdom owns the shared assets or the shared debits.

      So that Trident on the Clyde Base belongs to both but the fixed and geographic assets cannot be shared by division and must be negotiated to reach a settled distribution. I’ll put that a different way – if wingers believe that the Kingdom of England owns the Trident system and that the Kingdom of Scotland only owns the bases then how do we treat the fleet at Portsmouth and Devonport? Does the Kingdom of England own the bases and the weaponry there? They cannot have it both ways.

      Same goes for RAF and Marine Bases, forces and weaponry. Do we concede that Westminster owns the lot? Do we demand a share of what we have paid for?

      Here are some of those negotiable assets and debits that cannot be divided on the bases of location.

      The pound Sterling:

      The Bank Of England: (nationalised by the UK government in 1946).

      The armed forces – including Trident. Now just as the Kingdom of England contributed to the Clyde bases so the Kingdom of Scotland contributed to Devonport Dockyard.

      Now here’s a right dilemma for the Kingdom of England – the Kingdom of Scotland owns part of the pound Sterling but also part of the Bank of England, The Westminster Parliament, Whitehall & the UK civil service, the Chunnel and the many grace & favour homes owned by the state.

      Now here is the blind spot that has been exposed here in this topic. We Scots own part of the Trident system but the Clyde basses are fixed assets/liabilities. So why are Wingers just assuming that Westminster alone owns them?

      The proper legal thing is that the newly independent Kingdom of Scotland and the newly independent Kingdom of England have to negotiate over the division of the Trident system and that means if Westminster wants it they will have to compensate the Kingdom of Scotland for losing it. It isn’t relevant that a majority of Scots want rid of it or that a majority of the kingdom of England want to keep it.

      There will be much to sort out but why, oh! Why are so many Wingers accepting the Westminster views and so ready to let Westminster yet again cheat us out of our birth right?

      Go read through the comments again and you will see what I’m getting at. You are ready to throw away, yet again, things that rightly belong to us and our children and the future Scots for as long as there is a Scotland.

      We own part of the Palace of Westminster, we helped to pay for it, we own part of the Chunnel, we paid for that too. We own part of the Bank of England, the civil service the UK armed forces and the UK security services and the UK government ministries and the National gallery, national museum, national ballet, national theatre Ad Infinitem. Are we going to continue with this attitude that Westminster has been instilling in us since we were born?

      The truth is that Scotland is the only kingdom partner in this union with the kingdom of England and when the partnership disunites the United Kingdom ends and thus it owns nothing – the whole of the disuniting United Kingdom belongs to both partners and except for geographic and fixed assets and debts will need be negotiated as to who gets what of what cannot be swapped for another fixed asset or debt.

    122. Liz g says:

      Robert Peffers @ 2.02
      Well I think we should be careful about going down that road Robert..
      I wouldn’t accept that They own a share of the Queensferry crossing…or the oil field’s…. even Holyrood.
      As you say negotiation,but that, by it’s very nature, should have common sense applied.
      I suspect that we are going to have to actually be more pragmatic about the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
      We also don’t need to be helping to stoke the notion,already floated… ” if it’s that complicated to untangle the 40,yr old EU then it’s going to be impossible to sort the 300,yr old one”….
      And I would also caution that a lot of the law is open to interpretation (of what a reasonable man could infer,although it has to be said,I have heard that there is some doubt that a reasonable man really exists) and not everyone sees it as obviously as you do,Westminster certainly won’t

    123. twathater says:

      As someone up thread posted I also noticed bloated faced Carlaw shouting about the Scot Gov having to have at least 300 billion to even contemplate covering any deficit or debt following independence .

      I was on a blog the other night can’t remember which one where a poster highlighted this claim and rubbished it by saying that wastemonster currently only has something like 125 billion in reserve , why would Scotland require 300 billion when it has less expenditure and a smaller population .
      Can anyone shed any light on the 125 billion claim because if not the brit nats will hammer the 300 billion figure relentlessly , this argument must be scuppered immediately and widely rubbished by the SG

    124. K1 says:

      So true Robert P, there is no and will be no such entity as the ‘rUK’, when we gain our independence and no one ever just states that, It would be more accurate and ‘factual’ to refer to ‘England’ post independence and to the divvying up process ‘between Scotland and England’ that would take place, when we discuss these points.

      I think part of this propaganda is the ‘4 nations’ schtick that they’ve blindsided most of the population in the UK with. Yes there are 4 main ‘countries’ within the ‘United Kingdom’ but strictly and factually speaking there are only 2 involved in the Treaty that ‘form’ the United Kingdom. This conflation is, I think, quite deliberate and as you point out, successful in confusing people about the ‘legal’ fact of the matter. Our msm of course never correct this as they are paid up members of the establishment and have a vested interest in the general public remaining ignorant of these facts.

      We are the ‘only partner’ in this ‘union’ of only two kingdoms as you frequently point out, we really should all start from this point forward in all our discussions with others, collectively referring to the reality of this.

      I confess to wondering why our SG doesn’t make more of this too, it really clarifies and resolves a lot of confusion when it sinks in…and makes a nonsense of the unionists’ pish regarding ‘black holes’ in our economy, which there couldn’t possibly be in reality as we will simply be ‘negotiating’ a settlement beneficial to both parties. It’s no rocket science but they wid hae us believe in science fiction if they could hold on to their cashcow for another 300 odd years. 🙂

    125. Liz g says:

      K1 @ 2.50
      Hi..
      While I do agree the narrative is told for Westminster s favour,and that strictly speaking Robert is right.
      I think the Scottish Government holds back because there is going to have to be a lot of horse trading over this.

      A couple of examples are…
      We were 20% of the population at the time of the Union not 8%!
      If we are sayin that we are entitled to 8% of Westminster,what % of Holyrood is the English tax payer to claim ?
      The two set’s of politicians will have to take the positions that their people will actually accept… and in that case the perception of what is ours and where our red lines are, will matter,not the letter of the law.
      At this point in time everyone seems to accept that Faslane is ours and the neuks are Westminster s.
      So I think that’s how the “negotiations” will go.
      In part, because the Union is so old,it will probably have to

    126. twathater says:

      Liz g 2.37am
      Liz AFAIK the SG paid for the Q Crossing and Holyrood from the SG’S own finances so wastemonster has no claim on them , whereas the likes of the chunnel and the olympics and many other things wastemonster declares that they are in the national interest and charges Scotland a share 8% of the costs even though we don’t use them

    127. K1 says:

      I think part of the point Robert is making Liz is that ‘we’ have to encourage a better understanding of the ‘fact’ of the Treaty existing between England and Scotland and that this is the constitutional reality and that we will not be made ‘poorer’ by our reverting to our former independent ‘kingdom’ status. Which is what all this bluff is regarding ‘black holes’ and how we’ll be eating out of bins when we regain our independence?

      England does not have a ‘monopoly’ on the assets and debits, yes there is this ‘population share’ concept when divvying up, but that will be open to ‘legal interpretation’ too. But it must be made absolutely clear that Scotland has an extremely ‘good hand’ when it comes to our ‘negotiating’ position from the very start?

      I think it is helpful to think of the whole constitutional arrangement from this ‘legal’ reality, rather than the way we have all been ‘taught’ to think of it as if there is a ‘remain/ing/der UK’. When Scotland regains its independence. There won’t be, it’s ostensibly ‘only’ England we will be negotiating with and it’s constitutional arrangements with Wales and NI would remain unaffected by Scotland regaining her independence.

      The complexity of the EU UKexit cannot be measured by the number of years we’ve been a part of that bloc, the complexity comes from the number of ‘member’ nations involved in the process, they have to ‘all’ agree a position with each other first and then negotiate as a ‘bloc’ with the UK.

      Our constitutional set up with England is far simpler, the number of years again can’t be used as the standard of complexity, there will be our negotiating team and theirs. Just two ‘member’ nations involved.

      Just my view.

    128. K1 says:

      I take your points, we’re writing as the other is posting..

      But again the focus should be simply on how good ‘our hand’ really is? That the Treaty is between just 2 ‘kingdom’ and the reverting is back to those 2 separate ‘kingdoms’, not some ‘rUK’ status, that never existed and never could without Scotland.

      Yes when it comes to it there will be sacrifices and gains, overall though, we will be a much wealthier nation and imv the ultimate aim is to make our own decisions and elect the governments we want in perpetuity.

      Ah just want us out of this madness 🙂

    129. Liz g says:

      twathater @ 3.17am
      Yes I know they did,but the Scottish government got it’s money from the UK treasury,and the English put money in there too!
      …………….
      K1 @ 3.20
      Yes I agree,we need to understand the nature of the Union,and I always try to post from the point of view that we are simply in an old Treaty agreement.

      I also can’t disagree with anything you have said,we all need to keep in mind that we are legally a partner,and should behave/post as such!

      The number of years thing is not my view,but rather,something I have read somewhere,and it was an obvious attempt to make out that it was really far too complicated,so much so,we best not bother,crap..

      Anyhoo,I guess I am really sayin,that we have to be careful about claiming 8% of UK assets as that leaves 92% of UK assets for England, “the other partner” ,,because a lot of those assets are in Scotland.
      And..the Paradox here is..
      When it comes to the law.
      The Sovereign People of Scotland are above it..
      As is The Crown in Parliament in England…
      So this division of assets will be a political and not a legal negotiation!!
      But I am still 100% behind Robert’s view,that we need to speak more accurately about this Union.

    130. Liz g says:

      K1 @ 3.30
      Absolutely,getting that bloody Treaty ended is the priority.
      First,Last and Always!!

    131. CapnAndy says:

      Iain mhor 24th @ 1:49pm.
      You’re actually not far off the mark. Other countries pay a lot to use various wargaming facilities. The Cape Wrath range is apparantly a big earner.

    132. Al Dossary says:

      @Liz g,

      The 20% then, 8% now is one fact that should be hammered home everywhere. Ever since the union our problem, to quote Tommy Sheridan is “not immigration, ours is a problem of emigration”.

      Our brightest, our best – indeed all sectors of society have traipsed the long road to the South of England for work. How ironic that now the population is being boosted by a steady stream of retired from down south.

      Case and point – I am back with my eife enjoying hopefully the best early summer for the last 10 years, albeit 20c below the desert kingdom’s temperatures that I left behind last week for a 6 week break.

      If their precious union has been so good for Scotland, then how can they explain away the fact that we in Scotland probably have the lowest population growth of all the European stage over the last 300 years.

      Had our growth stayed consistent with England’s then we would be looking at a present population of around 11 million, whilst Ireland based on their population growth recently would likely be 30 million plus. That we resisted the English colonial aims till 1707 was a miracle in itself.

      The Irish “lost” 50% of their population during the famine years leading up to 1900 (a drop from 9 Million to about 4.5 Million). This era should be called out for the genocide it was on the Irish, not blamed an a famine. As should the post 1745 treatment of the Scots Highlanders.

    133. Breeks says:


      Kangaroo says:
      25 May, 2018 at 12:16 am
      Breeks @11:33pm

      I agree with your post. However I think you are suggesting that goods made in rUK could simply have paperwork assigned that suggests they come from Scotland. Much like Coffee from wherever goes through the Netherlands before reaching the UK, NOT. Just the paperwork to allow them to Transfer Price the profits out of the UK to whichever tax haven they choose.

      I don’t think the SG or the EU would allow such a thing as it is just another way of, in effect, smuggling. So the goods would have to go through Scotland and be exported from here….

      Well, there is a degree of expedient flexibility from all sides, but I wouldn’t call it smuggling. Don’t forget, Scotland would be EU territory and require EU standards on labelling, so goods from England would be identifiable and traceable. For Trade to happen, it would have to be fully EU compliant, open and honest about what it was.

      The more difficult issues would be Scotland’s ( and thus Europe’s) necessary ambivalence towards those policy areas where England moved quickly to diverge away from EU alignment, Freedom of movement, for example. Logic would suggest England would benefit from EU trade without sharing EU liabilities, To some degree it would, but only for the duration of the transitional period. That’s what defines a transitional period, – a change from one state into another.

      But as a transitional arrangement limited to 5 years, it gives the EU, England and Scotland a little of what they all want. It “rewards” and incentives England to remain convergent with EU standards and legislation, it gives Europe indirect access to English trade a bit like a mini EFTA but with full control over standards and a Swiss style guillotine clause. It wouldn’t include just any trade, again like EFTA, which doesn’t include Financial Services trading.

      And yes Liz, I share your trepidation, however the reality isn’t about getting involved with English trade post Brexit, because the simple truth is we already are involved, and heavily integrated with England. But rather than adopt a cliff edge stratagem for trade, having a 5 year transitional arrangement gives England, Scotland and Europe time and space to realign their respective trade arrangements.

      It’s a bit like the currency Union talked about in 2014. Forget all the narrow minded Better Together shite, the reality was a Scottish pound would be a strong hard currency with good assets, whereas the English pound would likely devalue as a consequence of England’s debt and chronic trade deficit. A transitional, not permanent, Currency Union would have given a period of ting-yang stability while our respective economies disentangled themselves and readjusted. The Scottish pound would be pegged back by the English pound which would help our exports, while the English pound would be buoyed up by Scottish wealth, assets and confidence in Sterling, and better able to afford imports. The symbiotic ying offsetting the yang benefits both.

      Michel Barnier is blue in the face trying to get Westminster to negotiate some kind of transitional arrangement, but Westminster is mesmerised like a rabbit in the headlights, but courting a very dangerous cliffedge Brexit. Suppose the worst happens. Where and who do we sell our energy, food, and produce to if Sterling has bombed in value, and England suddenly can’t afford to pay for it?

      Right now, Scotland’s energy producers are banjoed just for access to the National Grid while English energy producers are paid to do the same thing. Post Independence I really don’t see that arrangement lasting very long, and the implied consequence suggests the cost of power in England is going to skyrocket. The weaker Sterling becomes, the sooner England can’t afford to buy “our” energy.

      England, correction Westminster, probably deserves a big bloody nose for Brexit and it’s wanton stupidity, but we need to be grown up and realistic about the consequences of England’s economy spiralling out of control. I believe it will pay Scotland handsomely to offer a Brexited England some degree of buoyancy until England can feel the bottom with its toes.

      By “helping” England, we are helping ourselves too.

    134. Nana says:

      https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0524/965846-brexit-eu-border/

      Fresh anger over UK visa regime as scholar forced to leave Oxford
      http://archive.is/VTaJg

      http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/mps-predict-customs-union-extension-1-5532504

      Second vote to stop Brexit is credible, says Article 50 author
      http://archive.is/72eYN

    135. Bobp says:

      Blair Paterson 12.59pm. Agree wholeheartedly with this. They don’t want trident in Plymouth because of the danger to the local population. So keep it in Scotland. And despite this absolute contempt for the Scottish people, some of then are ecstatic to be held in thrall to westmidden. Absolute lunatics.

    136. Macart says:

      Thanks Nana

      On the Arlene Foster piece? I’m not entirely sure Ms Foster understands the definition of the terms to cherish or nourish. These imply care or caring. Not something the DUP in general are known for exactly. (shrugs)

      The only image/philosophy such folk tend to counjour is who they like to exclude from humanity and wading up to their knees in other folks blood. (Shrugs again and possibly also shudders. Eeeeeew!)

    137. bookie from hell says:

      have snp bottled scottish pound ?

    138. Ross says:

      The only option asking to give Scotland 5bn gathered 15% of the vote or am I bit slow this morning?

      How is that 65 / 35?

      Most popular is to build their own with an unstated figure for rent.

      There’s no option to build a new base and not pay rent either.

    139. ScottieDog says:

      So the growth commission suggest austerity.
      Oh well I’ve got plenty to get on with if that’s the case.
      If you want to support indy without austerity then read commonwweal report.

    140. Bobp says:

      Schrodingers cat.10.33pm. Absolutely. I always said back in 1969 Jack lynch the then irish republics prime minister, should have invited the Russians in to look at the possibility of setting up a naval base on the Foyle. That would have put pressure on the Americans, who would have put more pressure on the brits, and the “troubles” would never have happened. And today we would be looking at an united Ireland.

    141. Robert Louis says:

      It is now clear that both the red tories and blue tories are absolutely terrified of the people of Scotland getting a say on matters. Both british nationalist parties are terrified of Scots having a referendum at which they could reject corrupt Westminster rule.

      The mantra seems to be from the Tories, do whatever you have to to deny Scots a voice. Deny Scottish democracy, and prevent them having a democratic vote. The frankly ludicrous Labour party just do whatever the Tories tell them to in Scotland.

      While Labour in Scotland try to prevent Scots having a vote on ending English rule, their leader, Jeremy Corbyn is merrily talking of how he supports independence for all of Ireland, including N.Ireland.

      So, Labour policy now seems to be, independence is good for any country in the world, except Scotland, which MUST remain under English colonial rule.

    142. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dr Jim says: 24 May, 2018 at 10:52 pm:

      “Scottish *journalism* don’t you just love it”

      Me?

      Naw!

      As I never bother to read, watch or listen to their chuntering about anything. That doesn’t mean I am either uninformed or misinformed. I’m just not uninformed and misinformed by the Scottish MSM.

      That means I’m informed and know the truth and I do know the utter claptrap pouring out 24/7 from the MSM because the reliable sources actually impartially do give both sides of the story.

    143. Robert Louis says:

      I notice some above talking about dividing up UK assets upon Scottish independence. All the technicalities are nice to understand, but honestly, you have to be naive to think that even for one second England will behave in a reasonable way.

      No, the second a YES vote comes in, the SG should declare independence with immediate effect. London/England will stop at nothing to undermine such a results, including extremely corrupt practices. The divvying up of assets will be done through gritted teeth by England, because they see these things belonging solely to them. They will fight every inch of the way.

      The best Scotland could do, is declare independence, move on, free of UK debt, and then wait for England to come on its knees with suggestion. Bargain hard, because London, England, Westminster behaves in NO other way.

      Oh, and btw, the SNP needs to start getting a hell of a lot more vociferous on how the Tories are trying to gag Scotland and prevent a democratic vote. That needs stated loud and long in every interview. Their is a narrative war going on, and the SNP really, really, really need to up their game. Call it what it is, Tories gagging Scotland.

      Some days I feel like many in the SNP leadership (and many of their more ‘sleepy’ MSP’s and MP’s) need a good shake. The fight is on NOW, and not when a referendum is actually called. Currently the SNP are letting the Tories control the narrative. Stop being so freaking defensive. Attack the gagging of Scotland.

    144. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dave McEwan Hill says: 24 May, 2018 at 11:00 pm:

      “I have no idea why it was thought important to produce a Growth Commission which basically provides dozens of targets for our opponents and which will get the same treatment as the White Paper.

      Yeah! Why produce the truth when you can just bury your head up your lower orifice and let your opponents criticise you with any old lies and omissions that they choose.

      Great plan—NOT.

    145. Nana says:

      I purposely have not linked to the ‘the report’ as it does not matter to me. They could promise every Scot a free unicorn and their very own rainbow, the unionists will rubbish everything as can be seen already.

      What matters to me is independence first and foremost and not what some thinktank says should or should not happen in an indy Scotland.

      Whatever we do, we will do for ourselves and no longer take what Westminster crooks think we should have.

      Can we do any worse, no we bloody well can not.

    146. Abulhaq says:

      SNP does it again, we can use the jolly old English pound. What no Euro option? Didn’t Scots vote to stay with EU? Brexiters and wee Scotlanders in the SNP engine room?
      Who will save the radical cause of Scottish independence from these toothless, paper tigers?
      One day Scots will actually play to win, one day, one day, yawn…..

    147. Abulhaq says:

      @Robert Louis
      I suggest the SNP needs rather more than a shake, it needs competition.
      It fell off track at the last Westminster election and has been struggling ever since.
      We need a change of crew.

    148. Robert Louis says:

      Abulhaq at 0859am,

      So you’ve read the growth commission report then?

    149. Robert Louis says:

      So far, diddley squat about Growth commission report on either Scotgov or SNP homepage. It must be a secret.

      Anybody know when it is being released??

    150. Nana says:

      @Robert Louis

      Will be available here at 10am.

      https://www.sustainablegrowthcommission.scot/

    151. Nana says:

      It’s a report by the growth commission on behalf of the Scottish gov, it is not a report by the SNP.

      According to the press Scotland would keep the pound. Not sure how they know this already unless there’s been a leak.

    152. bookie from hell says:

      10am

      friday will be 2014 all in 24 hours

    153. Macart says:

      @Robert Louis

      Lead story on the National site is about currency. Basically the authors favoured option is pegging to the pound in an extended transitional period.

      Seems a sensible idea, but then so did a Sterling zone. (shrugs) Basically I’d say it’s about people. It’s about perceptions and rate of change. Some things can be achieved in leaps and some in steps.

      But effectively it’s about what people are willing to wear. Personally, I couldn’t give a shit if we were trading in goats or blaeberries. I’m already aware of the utter clusterfuck that is the stewardship of the economy of the UK. These are the people who presided over the accumulation of near £2tr of debt, the deconstruction of the UKs manufacturing base, the introduction of both trickle down and austerity ideology to their own populations to square their own epic screw ups and then… BREXIT.

      Frankly I could care less what they say at this point. I’m fully aware of who they are and what they represent. So pegged to pound, Scots pound, goats, shiny pebbles *shrugs*. We certainly can’t do much worse than the clown shoed cretins that have brought our populations to this pass, but we can almost certainly be and aspire to be, a damn sight better.

      Not only that, but today it’s not a question of can we do it? Today it’s a statement that we MUST do it.

    154. Frank Lynch says:

      I’m sure I read somewhere that the Scottish Government has to pay the Westminster wallopers £1 billion a year for the honour of hosting the nukes.

    155. Ken500 says:

      How can Scotland have the Euro as it might not have full EU membership for a while and then takes two years to comply with EU conditions. Ie less debt ratio. The Tories are already exiting the EU by seven years, ie never. They are just spamming the public. Trying to line their pockets before they get kicked out. Labour are useless. Scotland is going it’s own way out of the Union in any case. It is the unionist political parties holding Scotland back. They are getting more and more desperate. Something has spooked them. They are raging now.

      If the people want Independence they will vote for it. Last GE 1/2million people did not vote. It is up to them. Divide and rule will not work. Just vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence.

      Scotland exports £30Billion (without Oil). The UK exports £320Billion.

      Take £30Billion from £320Billion = £290Billion, Divide by 11 (11/12) = £26.5Billion. Scotland still pro rata exports more. (Without Oil).

    156. Footsoldier says:

      I wrote well over a year ago that Growth Commission Report no matter how good, cannot possibly satisfy and will provide ammo for the unionist media and commentators who will do their utmost to discredit it. It is however required.

      What we now need is for every person appearing in the broadcast media on independence to go on a course of soundbites and ad-libs. Some of our leading figures miss opportunities time and time again.

      Many unionists have presented the “deficit” to me as a reason for voting No. I have agreed the deficit is scandalous and say “UK hides Scotland from the true wealth of a 40 year oil bonanza and leaves us with a massive debt. No thanks, we can do better ourselves.”

      I have yet to meet anyone who has an answer to that and it can said in 5 seconds.

      Personally I would like a billboard campaign with a single soundbite on each billboard. Would be easy to get 20 really good soundbites on a rota basis. Look at the Unionist side, no longer do they have to explain anything, all they say is deficit, divisive, No, pensions, pooling and sharing. Everyone knows what they are on about.

      We need to sharpen our act big time.

    157. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I wrote earlier “I have no idea why it was thought important to produce a Growth Commission which basically provides dozens of targets for our opponents and which will get the same treatment as the White Paper” and this is already happening in spades (that and the entirely expected ranting condescension from Peffers).

      I actually thought we might have learned from the first Referendum.

    158. Doug Bryce says:

      Keeping £ is the sensible transition option with least disruption.

      Remember the £ is just as much Scotlands as Englands. Indeed BofS issued the very first £ notes long before BofE.

      The only downside of using £ is that we don’t control interest rates. However there are many practical and economic advantages to using the same currency as our nearest neighbor. All the other currency options have risks and downsides. None of them perfect.

      Once we vote for independence I believe England will want a currency union. The alternative is the £ tanks which would be destructive for both sides. Not least if they want their debt repaid and continue trading with Scotland!

      All said : we need to make it 110% clear there is nothing they can do to stop us using the £.

    159. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Al Dossary at 6.24

      “If their precious union has been so good for Scotland, then how can they explain away the fact that we in Scotland probably have the lowest population growth of all the European stage over the last 300 years.

      Had our growth stayed consistent with England’s then we would be looking at a present population of around 11 million, whilst Ireland based on their population growth recently would likely be 30 million plus. That we resisted the English colonial aims till 1707 was a miracle in itself.

      The Irish “lost” 50% of their population during the famine years leading up to 1900 (a drop from 9 Million to about 4.5 Million). This era should be called out for the genocide it was on the Irish, not blamed an a famine. As should the post 1745 treatment of the Scots Highlanders.”

      These are the sort of facts we should be using. These and telling comparisons of other small countries and how they do so much better with so much less. The population of the island of Ireland has now passed Scotland’s again

    160. jfngw says:

      Remember today is not the day to engage with trolls, ignore them and post the positives. don’t let them control the agenda.

    161. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Doug Bryce at 9.34

      Well said. It is not of course “the English pound” – we own it and as an internationally freely traded currency anybody can use it.

      At the point of independence we will continue using it and a decision on currency will be made when things are settled. There are strong arguments for a Scottish currency which gives us greatest control over our economy but there are strong arguments also for sharing currency.

      Our opponents realise most people don’t actually understand what currency is and does and use this in their scaremongering.

    162. orri says:

      We could use the Euro if we wanted but be couldn’t actually join it. To do that we’d have to actually have a currency of our own.

      Sterling would only be used in the interim to be followed by our own currency when the time suits us. Black Wednesday is when a policy decision to join the ERM at the wrong rate and dogmatic insistence on staying despite it being used against the UK is a prime example of what happens when you ignore evidence.

      Our own currency will be introduced when we’re good and read and on a schedule that allows the minimal amount of external interference so as not to open our economy up to sharks.

      There might be some debate about actually physically issuing rather than having it only on paper with some kind of dual currency for day to day use. Kind of like how France and other Euro adopters had a transition period where the Euro and their own currency were both in use. Also like some other currencies allow the Dollar to be used.

      The point is that bold, and frankly stupid, commitments to instantly adopt the Euro or our own currency are simply setting us up for failure.

      One factor that will enter in to it is that any inherited national debt will be in Sterling. A wise government would arrange the moves from Sterling to “Scots Pound” pegged to un-pegged and eventually pegged to the Euro to take advantage of that fact. If our currency rises in value against Sterling then that means in proportion to our GDP the debt falls.

    163. ScottieDog says:

      @Dave McEwan Hill
      Have to agree with you here, and better to compile nothing rather than produce what they did today.

    164. Brian Powell says:

      Golly, the unionist trolls out early on the Growth Commission report.

    165. Archbishop of Dork says:

      The Wright Stuff discussing whether there should be another independence referendum. Carole Malone loudly proclaiming the Brit fascist line without even a hint of serious reflection. And trying to shout down John Nicholson.

    166. Liz Rannoch says:

      Well I did it! Got on the Wright Stuff!! John Nicolson.

      Still shaking!! Mr R thinks I did OK (praise indeed!) loads o stuff I wanted to mention. Also had to keep the heid wi that Carol woman.

      Independence chat starts at 9.31am if anybody wants to have a look.

    167. Wee white rose says:

      Nana and MacArt, you summed it up perfectly. I have spent all my adult years doing what I can to give support for Independence. Being in my later years now I desperately want to be here to celebrate when the day comes. Despite the difficulties ahead we will thrive as a free nation again!

    168. Macart says:

      Anyone else notice what the report says about the possible date for the first year of independence? (cough) 😉

    169. Robert Peffers says:

      @Ealasaid says: 24 May, 2018 at 4:05 pm:

      “Sorry O/T

      No! Ealasaid, it is not off topic.

      But you are only nearly right.

      As we Scots are the legally sovereign people of Scotland we differ greatly from the, (and I use the term correctly), “serfs”, in the rest of the United Kingdom.

      “serf – noun: serf; plural noun: serfs.

      labourer bound by the feudal system who was tied to working on his lord’s estate.

      synonyms: bondsman, slave, servant, menial, villein, thrall, helot, ceorl.”

      So the first big difference between the people of Scotland and the peoples of the rest of the United Kingdom is that we are not Her Majesty Queen of Scots, Elizabeth Regina’s subjects. She is, believe it or not, legally our subject and we have the legal right to dismiss her from the job she is legally, (under Scots law), charged with carrying out. She is our protector of our legal sovereignty – She sure as hell is not doing a great job of protecting our sovereignty.

      So the legal status is this – When we Scots democratically elect anyone to a position of government at any level, be it a local council or the European union, then we are legally delegating that person to exercise our collective sovereignty.

      When the peoples of the Kingdom of England’s three countries democratically elect someone to a position in government they are electing someone to exercise the Queen of England’s sovereign powers because in the Kingdom of England the sovereign powers are the legally the Royal prerogative of the monarchy but under English law the royal person must legally delegate their legal sovereign powers to the Parliament of England. However, that was the decision of the English law lords in 1688 and this 19 years before there was a United Kingdom.

      So, with that out of the way, the legal position is that our elected to government representatives have been legally delegated our sovereign powers and we must either trust then to do so or do what Scottish law allows us to do – throw them out of office and elect others in their place.

      That all boils down to – we either trust them to do their job correctly or we sack them. So I believe that Nicola Sturgeon and her party in government plus her employed legal teams are way better placed to know what goes on behind the scenes than we are.

      I’m absolutely certain our First Minister is 100% committed to Scottish Independence and is the absolutely best person in Scotland to trust to do what is best for Scotland. Leave it up to the SG/SNP elected to office people to choose when is the best time to hold a referendum.

      Or conversely – do I trust Nicola and her team more than I trust commenters on the Rev Stu’s blog?

      YES I do.

    170. Robert Peffers says:

      @awizgonny says: 24 May, 2018 at 4:19 pm:

      There was much conversation about whether Scotland could or should be in NATO, and here the SNP’s policies of both being in NATO and of getting rid of Faslane runs into trouble (aside from the principle that, yet again, that would be a matter for the electorate of Scotland to decide …

      You are off on load of claptrap.

      in the first place there is no anomaly in the SNP’s stance in regard to NATO. You are spouting Westminster Establishment cobblers claiming that their is.

      NATO is not actually legally what the nuclear powers in NATO, including the Westminster Establishment, claim it to be.

      It quite simply is a collective of member states committed to supporting each other in the event any one member state is attacked and that attack is in any way attacked including Cyber attack and is not specifically nuclear attacks.

      At present, NATO has 29 member states and only three of them are nuclear powers. To date none of those nuclear powers have been required to launch a nuclear attack upon an aggressor.

      Thus 26 non-nuclear NATO states agree with the SNP’s views. Factually even some of the founding members are anti-Nuclear states.

    171. Robert Peffers says:

      @awizgonny says: 24 May, 2018 at 4:19 pm:

      … Once out into the Atlantic the ships can either patrol off the UK coast, go South to the Mediterranean or North to the Arctic.”

      Oh! And by the way, awizgonny, submarines are always described as, “Boats”, not as ships.

    172. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Anyone else having probs accessing Twitter right now?

    173. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Most popular is to build their own with an unstated figure for rent.”

      The results are listed in order of popularity. But the question was ASKED with the £5bn specified first.

    174. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “35% of the English want to scrape Trident?

      Interesting.

      Any comparative figure for Scots?”

      Scotland’s about 50/50.

    175. Kangaroo says:

      Well I’m totally gobsmacked by the Growth Commission.

      Without your own Currency you are a Vassal State. FFS.

      The unionists will be laughing their heads off; a clear own goal.

      S C R E A M !

    176. Abulhaq says:

      @Kangaroo
      Correct. The SNP appears to have learnt nothing since the referendum. Not so much SNP bad, more SNP simply not good enough. Not up to the job for which it was founded.
      I often get the impression from SNP politicians that independence is actually the last thing they want. It’s so rarely a topic. They seem quite happy just to play regional ‘devolved government’.

    177. awizgonny says:

      @Robert Peffers

      Thank you for your demonstration of using superfluous epithets to try and change “making an argument” in to “having an argument.” Chill oot

      BTW Do you think, when the unfortunate recipients of one of the missiles fired at them feel their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that they will give one flying fuck whether the vessel it came from is called a boat or a ship?

      FFS

    178. ronnie anderson says:

      Their Great Profiteers. 24th May 2018.

      By refusing to bend to that place we despise
      We are the nuisance, a folly, a mistake in their eyes
      But we are not the coincidence they would have us assume
      And we are not here for them, to corrupt and consume.
      Their greatest concoction is that they’re the aggrieved
      And that we are the haters, the poor, under-achieved,
      We must fight back with a voice that is heard and is feared
      And forever banish those lies of their great profiteers.
      They’re the socially inept, more Scots who’ve been bought,
      They can’t change their spots and be someone they’re not.
      We’ve heard all they’ve offered, every line they have penned
      All scripted, delivered and signed off, Scotland’s friend
      But we’re now fighting for something that money can’t buy
      We are fighting for Scotland, and if we don’t, she will die.

      Paul Colvin.

    179. Macart says:

      “The content of this report is entirely the position of the Commission itself and should not be seen as necessarily reflecting the rounded views of any individual that has contributed commissioned work.”

      Their remit and membership can be found here:

      https://www.sustainablegrowthcommission.scot/about-1

      Worth remembering, this is the report and conclusions of the growth commission. It’s not a Scotgov policy paper. This commission/report was instigated by the SNP and FM, its intent (from Scotgov’s POV) is to stimulate debate and response.

      There is no policy hardline until Scotgov make a thing actual policy. So let’s give Scotgov the feedback and debate they request. Get people talking about an independent Scotland and what they would prefer to see happen.

      Personally, I’d rather a Scottish currency from the get go. As I said above though, the decision making process is my primary interest. Bringing the right to choose and decide a course back to the people. However, I do also fancy trading in goats and blaeberries. 🙂

      So let the talking about independence begin.

    180. Breeks says:

      Straight question… I do appreciate the desire to see Scotland with its own currency, and break away from Sterling.

      But, given that an Indy Scotland would be / could be debt free, has bountiful assets and even greater untapped potential for more oil discoveries and renewable energy, and furthermore could be / would be an EU member state, …and all the other little gems which Unionism doesn’t want you to know,… If Scotland did opt for its own currency from the off, what is to stop that currency rapidly becoming a very hard currency and secure commodity for investment, and thus start trading as a valuable / high price commodity? The wealth and self belief in Scotland would make our Scottish Currency expensive to trade and exchange, and the very products we export, our whisky, foodstuffs, and energy would all take a hammering because other countries would suddenly find them expensive to buy.

      McCrone described Scotland’s potential as an embarrassment of riches, but that “lottery win” for Scotland might be a disaster for our Export industries. We NEED a controlled transition.

      We are all familiar with the 2014 argument that a Norwegian pays £8 for a pint of beer. That’s no problem if we are earning what the Norwegians earn, but we don’t. But nevermind the loose change in our respective beer drinkers’ pockets. Set their consumer interests to one side a moment. The bigger point is it’s not a good Business model for Norwegian breweries to have their product permanently priced beyond the reach of so many potential customers. It strangles their growth potential and limits market share. With our own currency on turbo, we could make life very difficult for our Whisky industry to name just one.

      An Indy Scotland adopting its own currency would need some mechanism to regulate its inherent buoyancy, our sales of Scotch whisky and all other Scottish exports are going to take a big hit abroad.

      The reverse is true for England. Sterling without Scotland’s exports would have an even worse balance of trade, sooner or later devalue the pound, but then see a resurgence of exports because English goods are suddenly so very cheap to buy. It’s a nightmare for imports which suddenly become very expensive, but England might then start to manufacture its own string vests and plastic shoes, rather than importing them from the Far East.

      In both cases, it’s swings and roundabouts. Scotland, the nett exporter would suffer most from a strong currency, whereas England, a net importer would find it increasingly difficult to pay for its imports.

      It might not be a “sexy” new currency which many of us would like to see, but doesn’t a Scots pound wanting to fly, being bound to an English pound which wants to tailspin, result in a relatively sensible transitional state of equilibrium?

      If you don’t like that logic, then fair enough, but can we agree a Scottish currency would need some form or ballast to keep our export products affordable? How could we do that ourselves without tying our Scottish currency to a weak currency like Sterling will become, or a massive currency like the Euro or Dollar which will barely flicker in relation to Scottish Trade?

    181. Liz g says:

      Breeks @ 1.34
      Great points
      Norway doesn’t have the export and tourism that we do.
      And our oil fund is 40 years and counting behind.

      Haven’t managed to read all the thread yet… sorry if it already been said
      But while I do want to see our Scottish currency established, that’s probably just a pride thing!

      I must admit to liking the fact that right here right now Westminster and the Bank of England don’t know if Scotland plans to bank with the Bank of England and if so for how long.
      I have heard they are a bit spooked by uncertainty.
      This is no a white paper or a manifesto, and the conversation is getting time to be had!
      Without signaling our intentions, or comiting us to anything.

      They also don’t yet know
      If Scotland will decide, in the FULL knowledge that using Sterling in the beginning was the better option, that our own currency it a priority.
      One thing they can be sure of… when the Scottish Government decide the time is right to stop banking with the Bank of England and remove our reserves to bank else where they will also have no control or say over that either.

    182. Les Wilson says:

      On the currency issue, Scotland needs it’s own currency, that is what makes real Independence, real. I always said in 2014 that we should have had no fear of Osbourn’s threats.
      If Indy1 had been successful they would be beating a path to our door begging for monetary union.

      Today, it would be even more serious for them if Scotland chose to have it’s own currency, they do not have a pot to piss in, a Scottish currency will terrify them.
      With all our assets we should not fear the Scottish pound (or whatever we choose to call it), it will become worth much more than Sterling.

      With the strength of a Scottish currency, investors will pour in, as it becomes clear the Scottish currency will be a much safer bet than the rUK pound. For me, full independence is the only way to free us in the manner we truly wish, and not be tied to rUK in any monetary way. Scotland can do this and really become free after 300 years of English treachery, we so deserve to be.

    183. Breeks says:

      Les Wilson says:
      26 May, 2018 at 8:58 am
      On the currency issue, Scotland needs it’s own currency, that is what makes real Independence, real. I always said in 2014 that we should have had no fear of Osbourn’s threats.
      If Indy1 had been successful they would be beating a path to our door begging for monetary union…

      I don’t disagree Les, but that’s the point. Scotland boasts healthy exports of food and drink, and makes a fair pile off Tourism too. A strong Scottish currency is a double edged sword, because a high value Scottish Currency makes it harder for other countries to afford our exports, so sales of whisky, fish, and meat take a dive, and the cost of holidays in Scotland shoots up too so fewer visitors come. Our currency is worth more, but there’s less of it in our pockets.

      If Scotland had a very small but strong currency, what is to regulate it, stop it becoming detached from our economy to function as an elite currency for the super-rich? What would investors in “Scottish diamond currency” care if Whisky manufacturing went to the wall because it couldn’t sell the Scotch it made abroad?

      It occurs to me you don’t want either a strong currency or a weak one, but a balanced and stable currency in equilibrium with your economy. That equilibrium is important, because that’s where movement occurs and it allows your Government a degree of control to stimulate growth or slow it down as your needs evolve and economy demands.

      It seems Economics is one of those subjects which doesn’t have a right answer, just a current answer which is never perfect.

    184. Taranaich says:

      Doug: Aye, but it’s by no means the only subject in politics that people SHOULD be angry about, but aren’t. All I’m really saying is it highlights the way the independence argument is still dominated by Central Belt concerns. The main cornerstone of the argument should be that independence will improve ALL of Scotland, and that means demonstrating how it can change the things that they actually care about, rather than something which – rightly or wrongly – they see as being a regional issue.

      And getting rid of Trident will improve all of Scotland in a myriad of ways. See, it still works! 🙂

      (OK, OK, I’ll stop)



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top