Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal

Originally posted by Ramcheck

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
For me i would love to see all the union stay together. Each country bring unique things to the table that help each other out.

But until it happens, which we cannot say at the moment, we will never know the outcome!

If the Scots do get independence would we still share certain thing such as the armed forces. Or would all the Scottish regiments be 'sent home' and vice versa for the Union?

Also, what about the Navy, will that be diced up so Scotland get 20% of it? I'm pretty sure the Nuclear Deterrent would be shared amongst the nations, all the effort that has been implemented by Scotland and the rest of the Union is huge. Also, is there anywhere us 'British' could host the Subs if we retained 100% control of them (Humber, Severn, Cumbria, Tyneside)?

Many things will have to be looked at.

To me, i think it's important that trade and freedom of movement between every UK country stays as it is.

As far as the armed forces are concerned Scotland would have a small navy with about four frigates, a few offshore patrol boats and some minesweepers. Trident submarines would move to England.

A small air force would be based around a couple of squadrons of Hawk trainers with a few maritime surveillance aircraft and some transports, while a Scottish army would have two brigades equipped only with light fighting vehicles, with no tanks. (Oh no! no more Gary: Tank Commander, I love that show.

)


Read the whole article: www.thesun.co.uk...

I wouldn't bother listening to Polls right now, it's way too early. I haven't yet signed the declaration myself but you can be sure I will do in the coming days.

You wonder why they bother. The little military force described is of such little defence utility you might as well admit to being defenceless and just have a coastguard.

Although one wonders where the Maritime Patrol Aircraft will come from since the UK itself currently doesn't have one (a victim of the last budget round).

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Ramcheck

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
For me i would love to see all the union stay together. Each country bring unique things to the table that help each other out.

But until it happens, which we cannot say at the moment, we will never know the outcome!

If the Scots do get independence would we still share certain thing such as the armed forces. Or would all the Scottish regiments be 'sent home' and vice versa for the Union?

Also, what about the Navy, will that be diced up so Scotland get 20% of it? I'm pretty sure the Nuclear Deterrent would be shared amongst the nations, all the effort that has been implemented by Scotland and the rest of the Union is huge. Also, is there anywhere us 'British' could host the Subs if we retained 100% control of them (Humber, Severn, Cumbria, Tyneside)?

Many things will have to be looked at.

To me, i think it's important that trade and freedom of movement between every UK country stays as it is.

As far as the armed forces are concerned Scotland would have a small navy with about four frigates, a few offshore patrol boats and some minesweepers. Trident submarines would move to England.

A small air force would be based around a couple of squadrons of Hawk trainers with a few maritime surveillance aircraft and some transports, while a Scottish army would have two brigades equipped only with light fighting vehicles, with no tanks. (Oh no! no more Gary: Tank Commander, I love that show.

)


Read the whole article: www.thesun.co.uk...

I wouldn't bother listening to Polls right now, it's way too early. I haven't yet signed the declaration myself but you can be sure I will do in the coming days.

You wonder why they bother. The little military force described is of such little defence utility you might as well admit to being defenceless and just have a coastguard.

Although one wonders where the Maritime Patrol Aircraft will come from since the UK itself currently doesn't have one (a victim of the last budget round).

We don't need a defence, we have no enemies.


Here is really well written piece from Tuesday's Scotsman that I would urge everyone to read.

www.scotsman.com...

reply to post by justwokeup

The biggest enemy of the Scottish people, through history, has been the Scottish ruling classes themselves. Scottish history is as much a history of internal division, sectarian strife and treachery as anything. Scotland ,when a nation state, had a parliament but it was not a parliament like the one we currently enjoy. Power was wielded by the nobles and the clergy.

This will be the first time in history that the Scots, as a united people , will have any say in their own present and future - it is an event which already has its page in history marked albbeit the actual vote will not take place for another two years. I am excited....and hopeful for the future.

However, the romanticised, tartanised view of Scottish history (we are guaranteed to be bombarded with) disconcerts me given the Norman roots of our most notorious blue bloods.

The Fitz Alans, ancestors of the 'royal' Stuarts (Union of the Crowns and all that), initially arrived in England with the Norman invasion (the family itself coming from Brittany). In 1150 land in Renfrewshire was granted to them by David I (a Scottish king who was raised in the English/Norman court and who brought lots of his chums back to Scotland with him) . It should be borne in mind that the land around Renfrewshire (near Glasgow) was inhabited by tribes of Britons (not Gaels, Picts or Saxons) and that, as the Firz Alans originally hailed from Brittany, was probably the reason for them being granted these lands.

When Walter Fitz Alan first arrived in Renfrewshire he brought with him one Richard Wallace who was the great great great.... grandfather to William Wallace of Braveheart fame. The name Wallace means 'speaker of welsh' (a Brythonic language which would have been closely related to the language spoken in Renfrewshire at the time). Richard Wallace was Walter's vassal -Walter brought Richard to Renfrewshire as a translator.

In any event the Fitz Alan's continued the family tradition of acting as Stewards and the first six generations upon their arrival in Scotland held this title. That is, until the sixth steward (Walter Fitz Alan) married Marjorie Bruce, the daughter of Robert the Bruce. It was their son Robert who became Robert II of Scotland and who was the first of the 'Stewart' monarchs. The Bruces were themselves Normans - again having arrived in Britain with the Norman invasion as the 'de Brus' family.

So have the Scots, in any of our history books, ever really really had their own parliament? Not ever methinks.

I'm seeing a degree of confusion all round concerning the mergeing of the crown and the act of Union.

When the protestant Queen of England died without an heir (virgin/not virgin who knows for sure.lol) the solution decided was to offer succession öf the English throne to King James IV of Scotland thereafter unite both crowns under one mornarch.

Apparently in America some belieuje Scotland lost their King but King James IV.

Maybe Dishonoured,are you"re refering to James II then??

As a Highlander I should be showing my Jacobite devotion for the James and the Bonnie Prince but I look at my history and know it's nowhere near as cut and dried as it's made out or you seem to think Dishonoured.

Scotland has been divided with initself for aslong as there's been a Scotland.The Highlands has always been a more disperate,less unified area where as Central n Southern Scotland were more cohesive.James I%IV made it mandatory for the sons of Scots lords and nobles be educated in London.

His intention to align the thinking of Scotlands powerful familys with their English counterparts.He felt that he could unite the countries as well as the crown this way.With some success..

His Scottish born son the infamous Charles I who dispised Scotland and barely acknowleged it except to try and force his very unpopular bible on Scots protestants as the official version enforced by law.The Covenanters were the supporters who made a covenant with the English Parliament not to declare for Charles during the English Civil War.

Charles by his own arrogance and stupidity was behead therefore Scotlands king was executed by parliament in 1649.

Scotland recognised his son Charles Ii as his successor leading to Scotland invaded to put Charles son on the trone in England too but Cromwell beat them in England and decimated the Scots at Dunbar.

After Cromwell died parliament restored Charles as Charles II.When he later died without an heir his brother who'd converted to Catholicism became James II.

When he had a son and heir parliament couldnt except the idea of a Catholic dynasity ruling as Spain and France were Catholic monarchys so approched James protestant daughter married to William of Orange to take the throne a 'bloodless revolution'.James fled and William became king.So Scotland lost another Stuart King.

James raised rebellion in Scotland to regain the throne but that failed bloodily too.


The Darien Project was an attempt to set up a Scots colony in Panama to profit by moving trade between Atlantic and Pacific.A panama canal at the dawn of the 18th Century but England sabotaged attempts for countries to help or trade with them and they died of disiese.

Scotlands entire wealth was lost in the venture and England offered to reimbvrse Scotland for every penny if they accepted full political union which if your wondering Eng got,they got or wanted it belheving it'd put an end to uprises and rebelliön.

Union 1707 a full century after the merging of the crowns.

It can be said we lost our stuart kings but we lost a dynasty that valued their divine right far over their subjects which ended with Highlanders charging canons when the bonnie prince decided to fight a lost battle at Culloden 1746.The redcoats bayonetted wounded highlanders any caught were executed while he fled to France and drank himself to death,good riddance to our löst stuart kings !!!

Mister bit , thanks for the details there , however now im left wondering where the hell do my taxes goto if everyone in England is paying for me !

Aye so I think we need to figure that one out first eh !

im with freeborn on this one !

This should be good for England as long as we no longer have to continue subsidising Scotland. If they want independence that's what they should get. We need to keep English taxes in England.

Everyone ,Wesh, Scottish, and English should get a referendum, regarding United Kingdom allegiance , the people
should decide, not just the Scottish. Then we can move forward.

Plus if the oil is in Scottish waters it's theirs, with no retrospective repercussions.

reply to post by Zngland


If you guys want a referendum on remaining part of the UK you better start your campaign now. Its taken the Scots decades to get this far.

I don't think too many people in Englan, Wales and N.I. really care if Scotland stays or goes. I suspect that what is best for Scotland is probably staying in the Union but at the same time, knowing how bitter some Scottish people can be toward the South I wouldn't at all be suprised if they voted themselves out. Either way, who cares?

Originally posted by Ramcheck

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Ramcheck

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
For me i would love to see all the union stay together. Each country bring unique things to the table that help each other out.

But until it happens, which we cannot say at the moment, we will never know the outcome!

If the Scots do get independence would we still share certain thing such as the armed forces. Or would all the Scottish regiments be 'sent home' and vice versa for the Union?

Also, what about the Navy, will that be diced up so Scotland get 20% of it? I'm pretty sure the Nuclear Deterrent would be shared amongst the nations, all the effort that has been implemented by Scotland and the rest of the Union is huge. Also, is there anywhere us 'British' could host the Subs if we retained 100% control of them (Humber, Severn, Cumbria, Tyneside)?

Many things will have to be looked at.

To me, i think it's important that trade and freedom of movement between every UK country stays as it is.

As far as the armed forces are concerned Scotland would have a small navy with about four frigates, a few offshore patrol boats and some minesweepers. Trident submarines would move to England.

A small air force would be based around a couple of squadrons of Hawk trainers with a few maritime surveillance aircraft and some transports, while a Scottish army would have two brigades equipped only with light fighting vehicles, with no tanks. (Oh no! no more Gary: Tank Commander, I love that show.

)


Read the whole article: www.thesun.co.uk...

I wouldn't bother listening to Polls right now, it's way too early. I haven't yet signed the declaration myself but you can be sure I will do in the coming days.

You wonder why they bother. The little military force described is of such little defence utility you might as well admit to being defenceless and just have a coastguard.

Although one wonders where the Maritime Patrol Aircraft will come from since the UK itself currently doesn't have one (a victim of the last budget round).

We don't need a defence, we have no enemies.

Here is really well written piece from Tuesday's Scotsman that I would urge everyone to read.

www.scotsman.com...

Thanks for posting. It does nothing to alter my fear that scottish politicians when unshackled will tax and spend an independent scotland into oblivion and send us down the path of Greece.

Much to the bitter amusement of the rest of the UK.

Would scots have to hand in their UK passports, if so on what would basis would that be judged. Place of birth or place of residence?

If it looks like its going to happen people will have to prepare to flee with their wealth.

reply to post by justwokeup


The scots will have to wave goodbye to free university tuition and free prescriptions, they don't have the economy to go independent.

where are these subsidies going , I still pay taxes like everyone else and have bills coming out my eyeballs and havent had a pay rise tied in with inflation in three years due to a pay cut from the public sector as I work for the man !

What exactly are England subsidising ?
lets just remember we all subsidised the banks that put us in this position of financial recession, because of the government thats currently in power in both of our countries
do you not think thats more important and requires more immediate attention than whether or not we should have our own independence ?

Westminster / London , the UK parliament , doesnt give a flying monkeys testicles about anyone other than themselves and possibly the banking industry , they dont care about the londoners or the northener's they are their own little power elite enclave , so why I dont know are so many of those from London still happy with them saying they are keeping us afloat , they arent , they are butt raping us all ! You guys maybe just got the common courtesy of a reach around to keep you happy !

reply to post by GafferUK1981


Oh well all that free education down the drain shame there are no jobs for high skilled workers to go into since our current government cut funding to the sectors that require investment to generate jobs !

All those prescriptions I get for free but never use as im perfectly healthy and have only been to hospital once cus I broke my foot skating when I was 18.

So where is all my money going then if your paying for it all in England ?

reply to post by sapien82


They were talking on Radio 4 (i am old these days!) last week about free education and prescriptions in Scotland but i only caught a very brief bit of the discussion. The upshot being that an Independent Scotland couldn't afford it anymore (which the SNP guy on the radio wasn't denying but wasn't exactly shouting from the rooftops either). He kept trying to change the subject instead - we all know that with politicians that is a sign the accusations are usually correct!

Still hoping for the Union to preserve but congratulations on getting your vote. Margaret (wife of Malcolm Canmore, the king really to blame for Norman incursions) would be turning in her grave at the thought of moving away from England. The ironic thing being it was his greed for English wealth that led the Normans to deal with him and then attack Scotland. Anyhow, that is totally off topic, so apologies for that.

Of course matters like free education and prescriptions are important but I suspect they are more a result and a reflection of the nature of the society that provides them.

If I was voting on independance I would be asking myself what offers the best chance for real reform.
Will independance help bring about a government system that offers the people a real say in government or will it simply be replacing one set of corrupt and amoral elite politicians for another set with essentially little change for the vast majority?

Originally posted by michael1983l
I don't think too many people in Englan, Wales and N.I. really care if Scotland stays or goes. I suspect that what is best for Scotland is probably staying in the Union but at the same time, knowing how bitter some Scottish people can be toward the South I wouldn't at all be suprised if they voted themselves out. Either way, who cares?

I'm not being funny, this is just my observation and I'm sure the view many neutrals are also getting is that the vast majority of bitterness or childish insults in these threads around the net seems to be coming from English people, including I have to say, yourself.

First, this is a referendum on whether Scotland *wants* independence. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen, and the referendum is 2 years away anyway.

However...If Scotland wants to leave, then go ahead. I personally think it would be a mistake, and given the current state of the UK, it's budget and it's dancing monkeys -oops, I meant government- it would be far too messy. Maybe the time and money that will go into organising this referendum would be better spent getting the UK as a whole back on track, then everyone can go on their merry little ways.

Although...the majority of countries have civil wars within a couple hundred years of gaining independence. A Scottish civil war would be infinitely cool

reply to post by FluffyCannibal

First, this is a referendum on whether Scotland *wants* independence. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen, and the referendum is 2 years away anyway.

This will be a referendum on Scottish independance - if the majority of Scots vote for independance then Scotland will become independant.

How could anyone stop them?
Why would anyone stop them?

Although...the majority of countries have civil wars within a couple hundred years of gaining independence.

Scotland has seen many internal spats and conflicts, including a Scottish Civil War - they tend to be glossed over or spun so that those damned English get the blame.

A Scottish civil war would be infinitely cool

Why would it be cool?
You think people killing each other is 'cool'?

The fact of the matter is Scotland is vastly different to England.

We have a much more socialist and open way of thinking than down south and we would never, ever privatise the NHS or raise tuition fee's because we are damn proud of our country and the opportunities it allows.

Also to those posters mocking a Scottish army then read this:

Scottish Army

Not only would it be cheaper to have our own army, it would be more than adequate to protect Scotland, and that's all we need.

Why?

Because an independent Scotland wouldn't be involved in illegal wars like Iraq.

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
The fact of the matter is Scotland is vastly different to England.

We have a much more socialist and open way of thinking than down south and we would never, ever privatise the NHS or raise tuition fee's because we are damn proud of our country and the opportunities it allows.

Also to those posters mocking a Scottish army then read this:

Scottish Army

Not only would it be cheaper to have our own army, it would be more than adequate to protect Scotland, and that's all we need.

Why?

Because an independent Scotland wouldn't be involved in illegal wars like Iraq.

The list includes no air defence capability.

The hawks mentioned are worthless in other than a training role. A token airforce to placate the foolish.

Its effective disarmament.