Alex Salmond and Independence

[WeasteDevil]

How do you fund a budget deficit if you don't have your own currency and does that effect the interest rate paid?

You keep stores of Sterling, the Scottish banks already do this in order to print their own notes, which are not in fact legal tender.

What share of the oil reserve does Scotland keep?

That would have to be negotiated if Royal Assent was ever given to this farce.

What share of the national debt does Scotland take?

My guess would be none.

Our nuclear submarines, where are we going to keep them?

I would guess that HMS Neptune would become a crown protectorate until either Davenport or Portsmouth could be upgraded to take them.

When the rest of the UK gets its referendum on the EU and votes to leave what effects if any will that have?

None, because Scotland would not be a part of the UK nor a part of the EU (membership of which the rest of the UK could veto).

Will England decide to leave the rest of the Union if Scotland leaves and where would that leave N.Ireland and Wales?

No, why would England do that? England can't even do that, it doesn't have any political body of its own.

What do the SNP say on these matters?

Not a lot, they really have not thought it through.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I don't know if they want independence on a national level. I'm not Scottish. Perhaps they truly don't.

What I find odd is that the overwhelming majority of English people seem to be utterly disparaging and insulting towards the Scots on this matter. It's treated as if there's zero chance that they'll want to leave and that this is all stupid, and the Scots should know better. I think it's that sort of attitude that will piss them off.

What makes it worse is that the anti-independence attitude from the UK isn't, "look, we're stronger and richer as a Union so let's keep it that way," but more, "haha, you're so shit you'd never be able to make it on your own, Scotland. Losers." That's so patronising... so English.

I'm just trying to point out that, (1) perhaps there's more Scots supporting this than the Brits like to think, (2) that acting as if they're being stupid little children for considering it is both insulting and probably counter-productive, and finally, (3) that Scotland might make a better fist of independence than the Brits give them credit for, especially with the European safety net that they'll almost certainly have in place.

I think that you are wildly inaccurate in your views on the English and their attitude towards the Scottish. I think that I would prefer Scotland to stay in the Union and do not think that they are 'little children' if they wish to leave.

Salmond knows that, at present, there is not enough support to win the vote for independence, that is why he has negotiated daft things like having 16 & 17 year old's voting. I mean that really is fecking bullshit.

A lot of the considered Scottish folk know that they are likely to be more better off in the Union, in the long term. Salmond has two years to convince them otherwise, it will be interested to see how it all develops.

 

[Adebesi]

I can see to it that they are allowed to peg their currency to the pound if they agree to take RBS with them. Can't say fairer than that.

 

[rednev]

One issue that I think is being overlooked with the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK is the stability of Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves then I don't think it'll be long before Wales follows. A Scottish exit from the UK will rejuvenate the Welsh independence movement, and perhaps most importantly, it will mean that the prospect of a Welsh exit from the UK is less significant. The thinking in England will be that if there is longer a 'British' state, then what would be the point in resisting a Welsh exit? We would then be left with a state consisting of England and Northern Ireland, which would be no where near as stable as the current United Kingdom. If the perception of the relationship between Northern Ireland/'the Occupied Six Counties' and the state to which it belongs changes drastically, then how can this not have an impact on the peace process?

Thoughts of NI posters..?

 

[Adebesi]

One issue that I think is being overlooked with the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK is the stability of Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves then I don't think it'll be long before Wales follows. A Scottish exit from the UK will rejuvenate the Welsh independence movement, and perhaps most importantly, it will mean that the prospect of a Welsh exit from the UK is less significant. The thinking in England will be that if there is longer a 'British' state, then what would be the point in resisting a Welsh exit? We would then be left with a state consisting of England and Northern Ireland, which would be no where near as stable as the current United Kingdom. If the perception of the relationship between Northern Ireland/'the Occupied Six Counties' and the state to which it belongs changes drastically, then how can this not have an impact on the peace process?

Thoughts of NI posters..?

Do you really think Wales would ever leave the UK? I can't see it.

 

[rednev]

Do you really think Wales would ever leave the UK? I can't see it.

If Scotland leaves, the UK as we know it will not exist. This is my point, a union of England, Wales and NI would be more unstable than the current historic union. It's not just about what the Welsh think, it's about what the English think too. Wales will be seen as more disposable.

 

[Adebesi]

I can def see the point that it would dramatically change the relationship between the remaining nations. But I don't think the Welsh or the English would want to break their own bond, even if the English thought they were subsidising Wales.

What impact it would have on Ireland i don't know. Scotland leaving would surely have a direct impact on sentiment there, regardless of what was happening with Wales.

 

[rcoobc]

Can Wales even leave the UK? Don't they have to leave England first?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You keep stores of Sterling, the Scottish banks already do this in order to print their own notes, which are not in fact legal tender.



That would have to be negotiated if Royal Assent was ever given to this farce.



My guess would be none.



I would guess that HMS Neptune would become a crown protectorate until either Davenport or Portsmouth could be upgraded to take them.



None, because Scotland would not be a part of the UK nor a part of the EU (membership of which the rest of the UK could veto).



No, why would England do that? England can't even do that, it doesn't have any political body of its own.



Not a lot, they really have not thought it through.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The more you think about it the more problematic it becomes. Will Scotland have an army without guns or tanks an air force without planes and a navy without ships or are we supposed to hand them over with a smile. We can't give them any nukes because that would be proliferation and the SNP want a nuclear free Scotland which rules out keeping our subs there.

Then there are the issues about the publicly owned banks and border controls.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Can Wales even leave the UK? Don't they have to leave England first?

Yes, Wales is a funny entity, as it never had its own parliament in the first place.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Thanks for your thoughts.

The more you think about it the more problematic it becomes. Will Scotland have an army without guns or tanks an air force without planes and a navy without ships or are we supposed to hand them over with a smile. We can't give them any nukes because that would be proliferation and the SNP want a nuclear free Scotland which rules out keeping our subs there.

Then there are the issues about the publicly owned banks and border controls.

The armed forces are ultimately under the control of the institution of the crown, and here we have the same crown with two possible parliaments. Either way, the armed forces are a body answerable to the crown, and I see no movement for Scotland to become a republic.

 

[711]

The soviets just shared their hardware out, didn't they? But Russia kept the nukes, which England obviously would too, as the jocks don't want them.

Milford Haven would make a good sub base, what could go wrong?

 

[rcoobc]

Thanks for your thoughts.

The more you think about it the more problematic it becomes. Will Scotland have an army without guns or tanks an air force without planes and a navy without ships or are we supposed to hand them over with a smile. We can't give them any nukes because that would be proliferation and the SNP want a nuclear free Scotland which rules out keeping our subs there.

Then there are the issues about the publicly owned banks and border controls.

Defense can be worked out over the course of decades. There is literally no rush, the new UK can hold onto everything for now. There is no need for a Scottish Army to spring up over night. Scotland does not need anything to do with defense, for now.

Despite what Team Brian GB said, I dont believe that the new UK would be required to strengthen border controls with Scotland. The UK and the Republic of Ireland have open borders because neither are in Schengen, and have certain opt outs of the Amsterdam Treaty.

Guernsey and Jersey for example are in the common travel area but not in the EU. Oh look TBGB was talking rubbish (Ireland followed the UK because the UK didn't want to be in Schengen, and Ireland wanted open borders)

Banks are more of a mess.

So in short, defense is fine. Border controls are fine.

 

[rednev]

Can Wales even leave the UK? Don't they have to leave England first?

None of the constituent countries have the legal/constitutional right to leave the UK, not any more than a particular county or city does. And Wales isn't part of England.

Yes, Wales is a funny entity, as it never had its own parliament in the first place.

Owain Glyndwr held 'parliaments' across Wales for a brief period in 1404 as ruler of Wales until his defeat.

 

[rcoobc]

None of the constituent countries have the legal/constitutional right to leave the UK, not any more than a particular county or city does. And Wales isn't part of England.

I'm not sure whether this was your point, but Scotland doesn't have the right to leave the UK either. My question is if Wales has to leave England.

Will they have their own cricket team?

 

[utdalltheway]

Will they have their own cricket team?

if that's a condition of leaving then they'll stay.

 

[rcoobc]

if that's a condition of leaving then they'll stay.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The armed forces are ultimately under the control of the institution of the crown, and here we have the same crown with two possible parliaments. Either way, the armed forces are a body answerable to the crown, and I see no movement for Scotland to become a republic.

Yeah but the crown didn't pay for them.

I think constitutional arguments would die during the negotiations for separation. To a certain extent Scotland leaving would wipe the slate clean.

If for instance Scotland leaves and refuses any share of the national debt then no PM would survive sharing defence assets with a foreign state after conceding such a point to them. If at that juncture someone founded an argument based on an arcane twin crown constitutional point we would be a republic faster than you could blink.

The thing I find most worrying is that in this whole debate there is an assumption that there are rules for this sort of thing or the reaction of England will be measured or selfless. It won't happen that way if it happens. It will be like the nastiest divorce you have ever heard about. That is my guess anyway and let’s all admit we are guessing.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Defense can be worked out over the course of decades. There is literally no rush, the new UK can hold onto everything for now. There is no need for a Scottish Army to spring up over night. Scotland does not need anything to do with defense, for now.

Despite what Team Brian GB said, I dont believe that the new UK would be required to strengthen border controls with Scotland. The UK and the Republic of Ireland have open borders because neither are in Schengen, and have certain opt outs of the Amsterdam Treaty.

Guernsey and Jersey for example are in the common travel area but not in the EU. Oh look TBGB was talking rubbish (Ireland followed the UK because the UK didn't want to be in Schengen, and Ireland wanted open borders)

Banks are more of a mess.

So in short, defense is fine. Border controls are fine.

What does that really mean? Scotland is happy for the rest of the UK to protect it with its sons and daughters and treasure while it sorts out over time how it finds a way to defend itself? While simultaneously the SNP tries to butt feck it on every other point over the separation from natural resources to national debt to currency protocols?

I wouldn't bet on it going down that way.

Scotland shouldn't depend on UK membership of the EU either because England will move right following the separation and the in out referendum I think would be an out vote at that point.

 

[rcoobc]

What does that really mean? Scotland is happy for the rest of the UK to protect it with its sons and daughters and treasure while it sorts out over time how it finds a way to defend itself? While simultaneously the SNP tries to butt feck it on every other point over the separation from natural resources to national debt to currency protocols?

I wouldn't bet on it going down that way.

Scotland shouldn't depend on UK membership of the EU either because England will move right following the separation and the in out referendum I think would be an out vote at that point.

Yes, Scotland is happy for the rest of the UK to protect it. If they got independence their soldiers would still fight for the "UK", their taxes would still fund the "UK" defense budget. They would have no real control over tanks, missiles and so forth but would still fund the defense of the "UK" realm.

Over the next 20 years Scotland would slowly move away from the rest of the UK; presumably having its own army and defense budget. However even following two decades of independence I imagine many aspects of defense would still be shared between the two nations.

Their is just literally no rush for Scotland to have its own defense system. It knows that the two nations are too tightly integrated at the moment to do anything of the sort, and you would imagine their would be protests at doing so even over time.

The Armed Forces is an extremely well loved institution. Try and change it in anyway and you will have revolts. Those people signing up to join the Army in Scotland will expect to have the same treatment their English brothers do. And they will. The exact same people who vote for Scottish Independence would have no appetite for a solely Scottish Army for the foreseeable future. Do not underestimate that.

 

[Jaz]

I don't really give a shit, but surely Scotland will pay for a proportion of the RBS/ HBOS caused debt if they want to have a stake in those banks (currently owned by the UK government).

Also for defence, it makes absolute sense that Scottish divisions/units will be wound down within years (not decades). There is absolutely no reason for the UK to employ Scottish people in any armed forces which is not paid for to defend Scotland.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Yes, Scotland is happy for the rest of the UK to protect it. If they got independence their soldiers would still fight for the "UK", their taxes would still fund the "UK" defense budget. They would have no real control over tanks, missiles and so forth but would still fund the defense of the "UK" realm.
Over the next 20 years Scotland would slowly move away from the rest of the UK; presumably having its own army and defense budget. However even following two decades of independence I imagine many aspects of defense would still be shared between the two nations.

Their is just literally no rush for Scotland to have its own defense system. It knows that the two nations are too tightly integrated at the moment to do anything of the sort, and you would imagine their would be protests at doing so even over time.

The Armed Forces is an extremely well loved institution. Try and change it in anyway and you will have revolts. Those people signing up to join the Army in Scotland will expect to have the same treatment their English brothers do. And they will. The exact same people who vote for Scottish Independence would have no appetite for a solely Scottish Army for the foreseeable future. Do not underestimate that.

By defend the UK realm, do you mean not Scotland which would have left the UK?

I don't think it can happen the way you say it will. The Scottish soldiers in the current British army would become like other nationalities in the British army. They will swear allegiance to the UK and serve the UK alone or leave. Like the Ghurkhas did when Hong Kong was handed back to China. Scotland would be a foreign power. I don't see any way the rest of the UK would accept soldiers serving two govts inside our army, that is a recipe for disaster. Why would the rest of the UK agree to such a one sided solution?

 

[rcoobc]

By defend the UK realm, do you mean not Scotland which would have left the UK?

I don't think it can happen the way you say it will. The Scottish soldiers in the current British army would become like other nationalities in the British army. They will swear allegiance to the UK and serve the UK alone or leave. Like the Ghurkhas did when Hong Kong was handed back to China. Scotland would be a foreign power. I don't see any way the rest of the UK would accept soldiers serving two govts inside our army, that is a recipe for disaster. Why would the rest of the UK agree to such a one sided solution?

Why would the UK agree to Scottish forces fighting for them and Scottish money paying for them? Why wouldn't they.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Why would the UK agree to Scottish forces fighting for them and Scottish money paying for them? Why wouldn't they.

1. Because it suits Scotland not the remaining UK and at that point the UK wouldn't need to give a damn what suits Scotland.


2. It would complicate command and control and strategic planning.IE with Scotland paying for its defence by the UK armed forces Scotland has to be defended.

3. If we are going to the expense to train and equip a defence force why not use your own people where ever possible? Did you see the regimental march for the RRF?

 

[rcoobc]

1. Because it suits Scotland not the remaining UK and at that point the UK wouldn't need to give a damn what suits Scotland.


2. It would complicate command and control and strategic planning.IE with Scotland paying for its defence by the UK armed forces Scotland has to be defended.

3. If we are going to the expense to train and equip a defence force why not use your own people where ever possible? Did you see the regimental march for the RRF?

1. It doesn't suit Scotland to be paying for a country that isn't theirs.

2. It would not complicate command or control or strategic planning. I.E. everything remains exactly as it is now and Scotland has to be defended anyway, just as it is now. Do you think we are going to let Russia give Scotland Nuclear Missiles or China put a training base there?

3. Because the current UK armed forces have a massive over flow of soldiers don't they? So much so that they don't even have to advertise, that is why no one in Britain has ever seen an armed forces advertisement on TV on the Internet, on posters. None of those have catchy slogans like "Be the best you can be" or "99% need not apply". They don't have catchy slogans because they dont exist.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

1. It doesn't suit Scotland to be paying for a country that isn't theirs.

2. It would not complicate command or control or strategic planning. I.E. everything remains exactly as it is now and Scotland has to be defended anyway, just as it is now. Do you think we are going to let Russia give Scotland Nuclear Missiles or China put a training base there?
3. Because the current UK armed forces have a massive over flow of soldiers don't they? So much so that they don't even have to advertise, that is why no one in Britain has ever seen an armed forces advertisement on TV on the Internet, on posters. None of those have catchy slogans like "Be the best you can be" or "99% need not apply". They don't have catchy slogans because they dont exist.

After independence we wouldn't have a say in the matter would we? That is the point of independence isn't it?

The UK has recruited enough men for an army almost twice as big as the one we will have in the near future. We will still be advertising because of the high turnover and the need to recruit young people.

We won't need the Scots for that and we would be better keeping English regiments and scrapping Scottish ones at the moment if we are being honest. I understand why the Scots would want your arrangement but its nonsense from the UK's point of view.

 

[rcoobc]

After independence we wouldn't have a say in the matter would we? That is the point of independence isn't it?

The UK has recruited enough men for an army almost twice as big as the one we will have in the near future. We will still be advertising because of the high turnover and the need to recruit young people.

We won't need the Scots for that and we would be better keeping English regiments and scrapping Scottish ones at the moment if we are being honest. I understand why the Scots would want your arrangement but its nonsense from the UK's point of view.

You're right we wouldn't, unless we came to some sort of arrangement with the Scots such as "Keep giving us men and money for our army, don't side with our enemies, and we will protect you and include you in a small way on foreign policy."

As for the bold, where have you got that from and what does it mean? I understand you are saying we are cutting the size of our army, but that is due to costs and not because of an actual want to reduce the size of our army. Not sure where you have got "almost half" either:

The number of regular soldiers is set to fall from 102,000 to 82,000, while reservists will double to 30,000.

And as I have just said the cuts to the armed forces are due to cost savings and not a change in foreign policy to reduce our military footprint. Essentially they have decided that the with the GDP of the UK we cannot afford an army of 100,000 men and instead can only afford an army of 80,000 men. Do you not think that by removing Scotland from the equation the "new UK" will have less GDP and therefore will be able to afford even less army personnel than it does now.

So it is not good just removing the Scots from the armed forces, we will have less national GDP and therefore be able to fund even less armed soldiers. Unless some "outside" source could help fund the armed forces that 80,000 number might have to fall to 50,000.

Unless you believe that 50,000 men is an adequate size to defend the "new UK" without Scotland. Which implies that there is some way to protect the UK's borders without defending the Scots, never mind the fact all our wars take place thousands of miles away from either nation.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You're right we wouldn't, unless we came to some sort of arrangement with the Scots such as "Keep giving us men and money for our army, don't side with our enemies, and we will protect you and include you in a small way on foreign policy."
As for the bold, where have you got that from and what does it mean? I understand you are saying we are cutting the size of our army, but that is due to costs and not because of an actual want to reduce the size of our army. Not sure where you have got "almost half" either:



And as I have just said the cuts to the armed forces are due to cost savings and not a change in foreign policy to reduce our military footprint. Essentially they have decided that the with the GDP of the UK we cannot afford an army of 100,000 men and instead can only afford an army of 80,000 men. Do you not think that by removing Scotland from the equation the "new UK" will have less GDP and therefore will be able to afford even less army personnel than it does now.

So it is not good just removing the Scots from the armed forces, we will have less national GDP and therefore be able to fund even less armed soldiers. Unless some "outside" source could help fund the armed forces that 80,000 number might have to fall to 50,000.

Unless you believe that 50,000 men is an adequate size to defend the "new UK" without Scotland. Which implies that there is some way to protect the UK's borders without defending the Scots, never mind the fact all our wars take place thousands of miles away from either nation.

First Bold.

What right would a newly independent Scotland have to any say in the rest of the UK's foreign policy? This gives the game away completely, it’s a have your cake and eat it stance.

Second bold.

UK defence forces in 1982 versus 2012. I think before the new cuts are even taken into account.

Britain is a growing country by the time Scotland became an independent nation state the population of the remaining UK would probably be larger than the old UK’s. To suggest that the UK couldn't recruit enough people without doing some deal with a newly independent Scotland is plain wrong.

As for funding, if you know how much money the SNP are planning to offer in order to have the rest of the UK accept its personnel and a mutual defence treaty (which at the moment we have none) then please enlighten me?

Any country which would not abide nuclear weapons on its soil and force the UK to move its nuclear subs at great expense on point of principle is incompatible with a UK defence strategy.

The simple test is to ask do we do this for Iceland or Norway or not ?

 

[Jaz]

Anyone watch Question time...

It looks like some nationalists want this campaign to be about "get the tories out" rather than Scotland...

 

[Count Orduck]

First Bold.

What right would a newly independent Scotland have to any say in the rest of the UK's foreign policy? This gives the game away completely, it’s a have your cake and eat it stance.

Second bold.

UK defence forces in 1982 versus 2012. I think before the new cuts are even taken into account.

Britain is a growing country by the time Scotland became an independent nation state the population of the remaining UK would probably be larger than the old UK’s. To suggest that the UK couldn't recruit enough people without doing some deal with a newly independent Scotland is plain wrong.

As for funding, if you know how much money the SNP are planning to offer in order to have the rest of the UK accept its personnel and a mutual defence treaty (which at the moment we have none) then please enlighten me?

Any country which would not abide nuclear weapons on its soil and force the UK to move its nuclear subs at great expense on point of principle is incompatible with a UK defence strategy.

The simple test is to ask do we do this for Iceland or Norway or not ?

What?!

 

[nimic]

Well, that was random.

 

[rcoobc]

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about Don't Kill Bill. No offence.

I don't know what you are on about here:

The UK has recruited enough men for an army almost twice as big as the one we will have in the near future. We will still be advertising because of the high turnover and the need to recruit young people

As for the bold, where have you got that from and what does it mean? I understand you are saying we are cutting the size of our army, but that is due to costs and not because of an actual want to reduce the size of our army. Not sure where you have got "almost half" either:

Second bold.

UK defence forces in 1982 versus 2012. I think before the new cuts are even taken into account.

Not a clue. Onwards:

What right would a newly independent Scotland have to any say in the rest of the UK's foreign policy? This gives the game away completely, it’s a have your cake and eat it stance.

None, unless they were an Ally and contributing to the UK armed forces. Which they would be.

Britain is a growing country by the time Scotland became an independent nation state the population of the remaining UK would probably be larger than the old UK’s. To suggest that the UK couldn't recruit enough people without doing some deal with a newly independent Scotland is plain wrong.

You think that by 2014, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have grown by 5.3 million people? Okay.

The simple test is to ask do we do this for Iceland or Norway or not ?

And again I dont understand what you are on about.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

This is your point made in post No. 385.

“3. Because the current UK armed forces have a massive over flow of soldiers don't they? So much so that they don't even have to advertise, that is why no one in Britain has ever seen an armed forces advertisement on TV on the Internet, on posters. None of those have catchy slogans like "Be the best you can be" or "99% need not apply". They don't have catchy slogans because they don’t exist.”

My thinking was that you are saying that the remaining UK would struggle to find the manpower needed. Am I mistaken? If so what point are you trying to make here?

My answer was that it isn’t that long ago 1982 that the UK had twice as many people in the services and that the UK is a larger country now than then and is set to grow in population.
I don’t think that is too hard to follow.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

We are discussing Scottish Independence and the nature of the relationship between the newly independent Scotland and the remaining UK govt post a yes vote. I am saying that that relationship would be like any other country. I would have used the Irish republic but I didn’t want to start down that route.

So which other country do we have a defence relationship with like the one you propose we have in the future with an independent Scotland?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

"You think that by 2014, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have grown by 5.3 million people? Okay."

The UK has grown from 1980, 5.6 million to 2011 62.6 million. World Bank figures.

Broadly from the twice as large armed services in 1982 to 2014/15 when Scotland becomes independent I would think that yes the UK minus Scotland will have as large a population as it did in 1982.

That was the point I was making in answer to your post, is it clearer now?

 

[rcoobc]

In 1940 Britain had an army of 3.5 million soldiers. By your logic removing Scotland would allow the new UK to have an army of what, 3.0 million? And we only need 100,000.

Just completely ignore the fact that the numbers you are bringing up are from 32 years ago. During the cold war.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

In 1940 Britain had an army of 3.5 million soldiers. By your logic removing Scotland would allow the new UK to have an army of what, 3.0 million? And we only need 100,000.

Just completely ignore the fact that the numbers you are bringing up are from 32 years ago. During the cold war.

Progress, at least you admit to understanding my point.

Do I understand your point to be that the rest of the UK couldn't find the manpower without Scotland? Given the reduction in numbers required in the services, I think you are wrong.

This is just part of one matter arising from independence and I think it shows how complicated the whole thing is going to be.

 

[rcoobc]

Progress, at least you admit to understanding my point.

Do I understand your point to be that the rest of the UK couldn't find the manpower without Scotland? Given the reduction in numbers required in the services, I think you are wrong.

This is just part of one matter arising from independence and I think it shows how complicated the whole thing is going to be.

Yes I understand your point. You believe that data from 1980 shows that the "new UK" can sustain an army the same size that it is now (after cuts), despite losing Scottish man power and Scottish money.

No one, and I repeat, no one, has said that splitting Scotland from the UK will be simple.

 

[Jaz]

Salmond wants to remove the nuclear weapons sub base as Faslane.

That's another community who will be made unemployed.

 

[rcoobc]

Salmond wants to remove the nuclear weapons sub base as Faslane.

That's another community who will be made unemployed.

I have to say, he is completely undermining my stance that national defense doesn't need to be sorted out, the cretin.

By 2014 he will have back and forthed so much on this issue the voters wont have a bubble clue.