Independence - how would you vote?

[Swampy]

Negotiated between both governments is different from as soon as possible.

Are you honestly suggesting that the SNP draw up a unilateral timetable for the removal of nuclear weapons from the Clyde?

This has to be right up there with 'plans for new currency on day one' for utterly bonkers ideas.

[Tubbs]

Are you honestly suggesting that the SNP draw up a unilateral timetable for the removal of nuclear weapons from the Clyde?

This has to be right up there with 'plans for new currency on day one' for utterly bonkers ideas.

No I am highlighting that as soon as possible is meaningless , whilst giving the impression of clarity and that the snp can clearly indicate its starting position right now. Also interesting that many responders talk about negotiations whilst the bbc is today reporting sturgeon as saying trident won't be a bargaining chip .

[Swampy]

No I am highlighting that as soon as possible is meaningless , whilst giving the impression of clarity and that the snp can clearly indicate its starting position right now. Also interesting that many responders talk about negotiations whilst the bbc is today reporting sturgeon as saying trident won't be a bargaining chip .

Context is important (if you're honest.) From the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a467f0a2-ea0f-11e2-913c-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2YkEeqqBm

But Ms Sturgeon said nuclear weapons would not be used as a “bargaining chip”.

“Politicians, often and sometimes justifiably, get criticised for a lack of principle – getting rid of Trident is an issue of principle, certainly for the party and the government that I represent,” she said."

In other words, the final outcome isn't up for debate here. What is up for debate is how it's going to be achieved. Of course the latter point isn't clear - the UK won't negotiate with Scotland on it.

[the jambo-rocker]

This argument/question Nats like to put forward,how would you vote if the question was asked 'should we join the UK?'

Well do you seriously think Scotland would of achieved as successfully as it has done without being in the Union?!

The truth is blatently no!

So,of course Scots would vote yes to joining the UK.

If you had,'nt of joined 300 years ago,you would of joined soon-ish after.

The Union offered Scotland the World.

Better Together.

Evidence pls.

[Swampy]

And how is "as soon as possible" meaningless? Do you really think these things all carry identical meaning?

"as soon as possible"

"within 20 years"

"never"

"tomorrow"

[DeeGas]

Evidence pls.

Well how was Scotland the day before they signed to the Union?

Would Scotland have been the second richest nation on the planet at one point as an independent country?

Don't be bloody ridiculous,of course not.

Scots have enjoyed influence all over the world because they got about as a member of the Union.

Scottish Anglos relations are excellent,whatever Nats may say.As Sister Sledge once sang, "we are family".

I think come Sept 2014 the majority of Scots will stand with the front door open,welcoming in the Union,instead of running out the back door a la Nat style,deserting just because things are a little bit tough.

Nats will not take British identity away form Scotland,too many Scots cherish it and are proud of it.

Better Together.

[craigkillie]

would HAVE

[Ad Lib]

Wait a minute, why is it up to the Scottish Government to say how long it'll take?

It's not. They can't predetermine or make contingency for what is done with British Armed Forces bases in the transition without first reaching an arrangement with the UK government on the specifics of how it is to be subdivided. This situation is different, of course, from, for instance, the currency question, where there are a small, finite number of choices and the capacity to take unilateral decisions in the event a proper currency union is not agreed.

[the jambo-rocker]

Well how was Scotland the day before they signed to the Union?

Would Scotland of been the second richest nation on the planet at one point as an independent country?

Don't be bloody ridiculous,of course not.

Scots have enjoyed influence all over the world because they got about as a member of the Union.

Scottish Anglos relations are excellent,whatever Nats may say.As Sister Sledge once sang, "we are family".

I think come Sept 2014 the majority of Scots will stand with the front door open,welcoming in the Union,instead of running out the back door a la Nat style,deserting just because things are a little bit tough.

Nats will not take British identity away form Scotland,too many Scots cherish it and are proud of it.

Better Together.

It has nothing to do with now or the future.

It still has nothing to do with now or the future.

It again, still has barely anything to do with now or the future when we should be focusing on ourselves.

Irrelevant.

I asked for evidence, not some sentimental delusions of grandeur.

People can call themselves as British as they god damn want to whether the result is a yes or no. The only real thing changing here is the soverign powers.

Face it, you've already stated that your choice has been based on emotion and you would have to be a fucking idiot to go into a polling booth and make your decision based on 'how things were 300 hundred years ago' while completely neglecting what is going on now and how things could go in the future.

No doubt you'll put your fingers in your ears, go 'la, la, la British feels good so f**k logic' and spout the same pish you did here when I clearly asked you for evidence of why you think Scots would vote to go into the UK if the question was the other way around.

[Ad Lib]

And how is "as soon as possible" meaningless? Do you really think these things all carry identical meaning?

"as soon as possible"

"within 20 years"

"never"

"tomorrow"

It's meaningless because of its vagueness. Are we defining possibility as "to be kicked out almost immediately by armed insurrection" or are we defining it as "on the satisfaction of all parties that the submarines and resources at Falsane can be transferred to a port of equal or equivalent sovereign control and utility to the UK military with negligible transitional risk to security of the participant states". They mean completely different things.

[H_B]

As soon as possible is meaningless.

It's like a pledge to join the Euro "when the conditions are right".

[sons superhero]

Don't get me wrong, I'm against the renewal of Trident. But the point is it wouldn't be "out of commission" it would be without a base in which it could be safely stored and maintained. That's clearly a huge security issue not just for the UK but for all the countries in the vicinity of the British Isles.

/quote]

Trident isn't maintained in Scotland, the Subs are maintained at Faslane but not exclusively.

[sons superhero]

The OP was from a NATO standpoint, not a UK or Faslane standpoint and they're not being "removed" from NATO, are they? Off you go and chide him.

Agreed, NATO couldn't care less if the weapons are stored in Scotland. Our membership would be for strategic reasons.

[deky]

My wishes are not really relevant, Robertson is the guy planning for independence so what I would like to know is a meaningful assessment of how long the snp think as soon as possible is in terms of removing trident?

It's just an easy to understand way of articulating the lack of detail of what would happen post a yes vote across a number of issues. We don't know where we would be regarding NATO, eu, tax, intelligence armed forces and the snp come up with seemingly definite positions on these which basically add up to 'we will see but everything will be fine'

I suggest you put pressure on your elected MP to demand Westminster pre negotiates because some tubby fucker from Hamilton is not sure.

[sons superhero]

So to recap:

The UK government is threatening (and there really is no other way to say it) to unilaterally keep a hold of Faslane (and if they can do that then what's to stop them declaring Edinburgh, or Glasgow or Inverness as 'sovereign UK territory') and to impose nuclear weapons on the Scottish people.

Better Together! UKOK! They have our best interests at heart, honestly!

That is not actually correct, though the press would like to protray it that way. The setting up of Sovereign base would have to be negotiated as in the example given Cyprus. This was as a result of the Cypriot treaty of independence. Negotiated between all parties.

[DeeGas]

It has nothing to do with now or the future.

It still has nothing to do with now or the future.

It again, still has barely anything to do with now or the future when we should be focusing on ourselves.

Irrelevant.

I asked for evidence, not some sentimental delusions of grandeur.

People can call themselves as British as they god damn want to whether the result is a yes or no. The only real thing changing here is the soverign powers.

Face it, you've already stated that your choice has been based on emotion and you would have to be a fucking idiot to go into a polling booth and make your decision based on 'how things were 300 hundred years ago' while completely neglecting what is going on now and how things could go in the future.

No doubt you'll put your fingers in your ears, go 'la, la, la British feels good so f**k logic' and spout the same pish you did here when I clearly asked you for evidence of why you think Scots would vote to go into the UK if the question was the other way around.

A wannabe Yank in eg Switzerland may say he's American,but he won't be.

On going inde,Scots will be foriegners to the English and Welsh.

No family,no Union.

You may enjoy a rip roaring version of "Flower of Scotland" or "i'll take the high road and you take the low road".You may feel proud of wearing the Hearts shirt or scarf and cheering em on with thousands of other Midlothian suporters.You may of enjoyed the BraveHeart film.

Don't waste my time by pretending you do not understand what belonging means,what a sense of identity means because you do understand it,don't you.

It's a possibly an un-passable hurdle for the Nats,Union pride and identity and you don't like it up ya!

Who the bloody hell do you think you are,wanting a border half way up our island!

Completely destructive.

There are plenty of benefits Scotland have had from being a member of the British family,UK.

[Tubbs]

I suggest you put pressure on your elected MP to demand Westminster pre negotiates because some tubby fucker from Hamilton is not sure.

No like most people I will just vote no as the case for change is ideological rather than evidence based. I might be right and I might be wrong but it's the yes campaign that needs to do the running and try to convince folk like me as right now it's going to loose.

[xbl]

No like most people I will just vote no as the case for change is ideological rather than evidence based. I might be right and I might be wrong but it's the yes campaign that needs to do the running and try to convince folk like me as right now it's going to loose.

You've clearly long since made your mind up. For example, as I pointed out, the SNP have long since outlined what they visualise a Scottish armed forces as looking like. I suggest that what you do is actually try reading things.

[Baxter Parp]

Now there is an attitude that will help the yes campaign- knowledgable folk are more likely to vote yes ! Stunningly arrogant. I thought it was only the no campaign that was shooting itself in the foot

Well, you know nothing and you're voting No.

[DeeGas]

If Scotland leaves the Union,you'll get less from your foreign £ and that's if you're lucky.

The British Union is a lot more stable and honest than the European one.

Also,the British Union will out live the European sham.

True.

Better Together.