Scottish Independence

[Blaven]

The burd with the blue polka dots looks as if her mum has brought her there as a punishment for something she did over the weekend

She will have mistaken Darlings blinking as winking.

Make anyone uncomfortable.

Either that or shes fed up listening to the pish thats being spouted.

[Crùbag]

[yoda]

Regarding NATO:

NATO isn't actually losing any nuclear weapons. The UK can keep Trident but permanently house it elsewhere. It makes no sense to have NATO and miss out a significant chunk of the North Atlantic. A "don't ask, don't tell" policy works for countries like Iceland and Norway so I see no reason for Scotland to not operate a similar policy.

[Crùbag]

What benefits would an independent Scotland receive from joining NATO?

I don't know. I'm not really pro-Nato but would a no vote take us out of NATO?

[BigBadSaint]

[loyal-blue]

I don't know. I'm not really pro-Nato but would a no vote take us out of NATO?

I'm voting yes. However, I oppose nuclear weapons and I can't see why we would join a nuclear organisation.

Genuinely interested, what would the benefits be?

[Baxter Parp]

The burd with the blue polka dots looks as if her mum has brought her there as a punishment for something she did over the weekend

[Confidemus]

But remember, the polls, the polls, it would take a MIRACLE for Yes to win.

A MIRACLE!!!!!111!!!!

[renton]

I'm voting yes. However, I oppose nuclear weapons and I can't see why we would join a nuclear organisation.

Genuinely interested, what would the benefits be?

NATO isn't a nuclear alliance, it's a military alliance where some members possess nuclear weapons. Maybe splitting hairs, but the primary benefits of joining the modern NATO alliance are not principally in gaining protection from the US missile shield.

The benefits, such as they are, would be maintaining a higher standard of armed force through co-operation with your neighbours and reducing costs by increasing commonality on platforms and systems.

[renton]

But remember, the polls, the polls, it would take a MIRACLE for Yes to win.

A MIRACLE!!!!!111!!!!

To be fair, you could probably weigh the Yes vote in Dundee. I'm almost shocked Darling got as big a crowd as he did up there.

[loyal-blue]

Interesting.

I hadn't really thought about it until recently.

Would we need to have a certain level of military spending? Eg. Would it force us to spend more than we want?

Would we be dragged in to wars as a result of NATO membership?

[loyal-blue]

To be fair, you could probably weigh the Yes vote in Dundee. I'm almost shocked Darling got as big a crowd as he did up there.

Is it possible that the combined votes from any of the cities would be enough to win the referendum, before any of the other areas are considered?

[renton]

Interesting.

I hadn't really thought about it until recently.

Would we need to have a certain level of military spending? Eg. Would it force us to spend more than we want?

Would we be dragged in to wars as a result of NATO membership?

Theoretically, all NATO members commit to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, in practice pretty much no one does except the US and the UK (although even the UK may have sank below that coveted figure). Even at that what Scotland contributes as a percentage towards that cost is actually higher than the level of forces stationed here - there is something like an £800 million underspend, relative to the UK whole.

Again, theoretically yes, in practice - short of the Russians rolling into Western Europe, no. As an alliance you take out pretty much what you put in. For something like Afghanistan, you could fulfill your partnership agreement by deploying a couple of doctors and a sniffer dog, if need be. If you want to wade elbow deep into it, you can - for whatever reasons, to ge ton the US good side for example.

[renton]

Is it possible that the combined votes from any of the cities would be enough to win the referendum, before any of the other areas are considered?

Depends on what ratio the cities split.

[Ya Bezzer!]

The BBC's coverage of the independence debate has been absolutely abysmal so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised but....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28192293

"Without Scotland, the UK would move from being the 45th most densely populated country to the 29th. So an already busy island would suddenly become much more crowded statistically at least".

NO IT WOULDN'T. BECAUSE ENGLAND/WALES IS NOT AN ISLAND. f**k sake!!!!! The remaining part of the United Kingdom would become statistically more crowded but "the island" would be exactly the same.

Good insight into how England sees us, or perhaps doesn't see us since, according to this Scotland is literally an imaginary realm somewhere beyond the north coast of England.

[Tubbs]

NATO isn't a nuclear alliance, it's a military alliance where some members possess nuclear weapons. Maybe splitting hairs, but the primary benefits of joining the modern NATO alliance are not principally in gaining protection from the US missile shield.

The benefits, such as they are, would be maintaining a higher standard of armed force through co-operation with your neighbours and reducing costs by increasing commonality on platforms and systems.

From the NATO website:

'The Strategic Concept also reconfirmed that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s strategy, even though the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.'

PS nuclear alliance does not mean each member has to have them.

That is what the SNP are offering; remove nuclear weapons and include an anti nuclear policy in no less a document than the country's constitution but joining NATO.

[AUFC90]

From the NATO website:

'The Strategic Concept also reconfirmed that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s strategy, even though the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.'

PS nuclear alliance does not mean each member has to have them.

That is what the SNP are offering; remove nuclear weapons and include an anti nuclear policy in no less a document than the country's constitution but joining NATO.

As long as we get rid trident then I couldn't care less whether we are in or out of NATO.

[renton]

From the NATO website:

'The Strategic Concept also reconfirmed that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s strategy, even though the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.'

PS nuclear alliance does not mean each member has to have them.

That is what the SNP are offering; remove nuclear weapons and include an anti nuclear policy in no less a document than the country's constitution but joining NATO.

None of that disagrees with with what I said.

[Confidemus]

From the NATO website:

'The Strategic Concept also reconfirmed that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s strategy, even though the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.'

PS nuclear alliance does not mean each member has to have them.

That is what the SNP are offering; remove nuclear weapons and include an anti nuclear policy in no less a document than the country's constitution but joining NATO.

*sigh*

A

YES

VOTE

ISN'T

A

VOTE

FOR

THE

SNP.

Is it sinking in yet?

[harry94]

Is it possible that the combined votes from any of the cities would be enough to win the referendum, before any of the other areas are considered?

Population of Dundee: 140,000; Aberdeen: 210,000; Glasgow: 600,000; Edinburgh: 500,000; Inverness: 70,000; Perth: 50,000.

Total: 1.57 million which is around 30% of the Scottish population.

But, that's not considering urban areas and is stuck to the government definition of a 'city'. I don't think Perth and Inverness are more relevant than 'Greater Glasgow' which changes things a bit. We have:

Greater Glasgow: 1,170,000

Edinburgh: 500,000

Aberdeen: 210,000

Dundee: 150,000

Falkirk: 90,000

The top five population areas give about 40% of the national population. If turnout for these areas is around 75% while the rest of the country is down to 65% (which is quite a difference) then they would still only be worth 44% of the vote. That's assuming that the percentage of eligible voters is the same in each area.