Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Scotland won't even be in the EU, and in any case no countries are going to go toe to toe with England in it's own back yard unless there is something significantly lucrative in it for them.

Oh come on, the rest of your post was pretty spurious but the idea that Scotland would have any issue whatsoever in transitioning while remaining in the EU is laughably naive.

Anyone who thinks the UK can just throw its weight as it pleases about should Scotland vote for independence has got no comprehension of the realities of modern day politics. The government seems smart enough to realise it so hopefully we'll never have to live the the consequences of them trying to foolish proposals put forward here to the contrary.

chewmylegoff

N1AK wrote: »

Oh come on, the rest of your post was pretty spurious but the idea that Scotland would have any issue whatsoever in transitioning while remaining in the EU is laughably naive.

Anyone who thinks the UK can just throw its weight as it pleases about should Scotland vote for independence has got no comprehension of the realities of modern day politics. The government seems smart enough to realise it so hopefully we'll never have to live the the consequences of them trying to foolish proposals put forward here to the contrary.

anyone with half an eye on politics in recent times knows that politicians do not like to make decisions (i.e. the one thing they are actually supposed to be doing...). politicians like to devolve decisions to other "fully independent experts". i have no doubt that any UK government which ended up overseeing the dissolution of the union would simply create a quango called the "Independence Authority" give it a budget of £1 gahbillion and then 10 years later it would come up with a set of recommendations which screwed both sides but which all the politicians would eagerly sign up to as they could say that they were simply enacting the recommendations of independent experts.

ruggedtoast

zagubov wrote: »

Politics wins. Agression doesn't.:)

Well that'll save you a fair bit on having an army then.

Going back to the list:

Korea (what, is there not a rogue state on their soil, threatening nuclear war?- and isn't it still a cold war didvided country)
Vietnam the outsiders lost. So did the Chinese when they invaded.
Indo-China Be specific
The Falklands read my last post
Bosnia The aggressors /ethnic cleansers were confined to thier own territory and eventually pacified

Korea

There was a rogue state in their capital before the Americans kicked them out.

The Korean war was pretty successful in ejecting the DPRK from the South. The alternative to the current situation would be all of Korea now being like the communist North. You think that would be better? Maybe they should have plastered the Chinese tanks with a hard hitting leaflet campaign as they rolled South from Seoul.

Vietnam

The Americans lost Vietnam and the South Vietnamese government fell to the North. Why do you suppose that might be?

Indo-China

I am not going to go into the whole Indo-China conflict. There are millions of words on it on the internet. If you want a starting point try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

The Falklands

I can't work out what you are on about. The Argentines invaded, we sent troops, the Argentines were uninvaded. Argentina now can't go anywhere near the Falkland Islands. This is one of the most clear cut examples of a decisive military victory in history.

Bosnia

Yes, that would have been so much better without military intervention wouldn't it.

Generali

Anyone who thinks that there will be considerable political pressure on the UK to give Scotland a sweetheart deal is likely to be quite upset by the likely conclusion.

In major European countries alone, France, Spain, Italy and Russia deal with secessionists of one sort or another. They're not going to be eager to see England etc give Scotland a sweet deal (e.g. all of the assets and none of the liabilities) to walk away. The only pressure on Westminster to cut Scotland some slack will be coming from Edinburgh and the political reality is there would be mighty few votes in bribing an electorate that is about to lose their franchise!

It's pointless arguing about specifics because nobody knows what would happen. What is unarguably true is that the assets are currently almost all in the name of the UK and Scotland would be looking to leave the UK. Scotland would, in effect, be asking the UK to hand over stuff.

Clearly there is some leverage in the hands of the Scots: control of the waters to the north, oil terminals, water exports(?) and nuclear bases are the most obvious ones. Beyond that I can't think of much. The contracts to drill for oil, for example, were all signed with Westminster and it's not a given that the English etc would give up the oil.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that there will be considerable political pressure on the UK to give Scotland a sweetheart deal is likely to be quite upset by the likely conclusion.

In major European countries alone, France, Spain, Italy and Russia deal with secessionists of one sort or another. They're not going to be eager to see England etc give Scotland a sweet deal (e.g. all of the assets and none of the liabilities) to walk away. The only pressure on Westminster to cut Scotland some slack will be coming from Edinburgh and the political reality is there would be mighty few votes in bribing an electorate that is about to lose their franchise!

It's pointless arguing about specifics because nobody knows what would happen. What is unarguably true is that the assets are currently almost all in the name of the UK and Scotland would be looking to leave the UK. Scotland would, in effect, be asking the UK to hand over stuff.

Clearly there is some leverage in the hands of the Scots: control of the waters to the north, oil terminals, water exports(?) and nuclear bases are the most obvious ones. Beyond that I can't think of much. The contracts to drill for oil, for example, were all signed with Westminster and it's not a given that the English etc would give up the oil.

Exactly. Scotland has got very used to having a disproportionately large influence in a historically very influential country.

Post independence the number of people who really care what happens in Scotland will be redacted down to the number of people who live in Scotland, and some expatriates.

The new Scottish governments first, and most onerous task, will be to figure out how it is going to get on with its much larger, and possibly rather annoyed, neighbour.

This is no different to every other small country of course, but then that isnt exactly the shining future of prosperity and self determination that Alex Salmond is promising.

zagubov

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well that'll save you a fair bit on having an army then.

Going back to the list:



Korea

There was a rogue state in their capital before the Americans kicked them out.

The Korean war was pretty successful in ejecting the DPRK from the South. The alternative to the current situation would be all of Korea now being like the communist North. You think that would be better? Maybe they should have plastered the Chinese tanks with a hard hitting leaflet campaign as they rolled South from Seoul.

Vietnam

The Americans lost Vietnam and the South Vietnamese government fell to the North. Why do you suppose that might be?

Indo-China

I am not going to go into the whole Indo-China conflict. There are millions of words on it on the internet. If you want a starting point try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

The Falklands

I can't work out what you are on about. The Argentines invaded, we sent troops, the Argentines were uninvaded. Argentina now can't go anywhere near the Falkland Islands. This is one of the most clear cut examples of a decisive military victory in history.

Bosnia

Yes, that would have been so much better without military intervention wouldn't it.

In every example the invading aggressor lost. Serbs, Americans, French, Argentinians.

Korea, I'll grant you reached a stalemate with a democracy's capital next to a nuclear enemy. Not a happy state of affairs.

Not looking good for armed invaders.
:cool:

Still, keep trying if you like! I expect there must be an example I've missed where armed invasion actually achieved a lasting strategic goal.

adouglasmhor

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And where do you get the idea that Scotland will have any oil?

As anyone knows, the 'licence' for that huge segment of the North Sea is 100% in the gift of the United Kingdom - a body which the Scots are likely to leave.

That portion of oil landed in Aberdeen will, I am sure, earn 'reasonable' revenues for Aberdeen, but if they overcharge, then we can land it at Berwick just the same.

Does Scotland have any companies with the same knowledge and technology as, say BP, to drill for and secure any oil that may reside in any area for which Scotland may be invited to tender for their own licence to drill?

I think Roly-Poly Alec Salmon better stick to Salmon farming and deer poaching, plus selling a bit of tartan or tweed to the Americans. Best to stick to what you know....

Eh? BP drill in Canada, Mexico, The US, Africa and Asia, you obviously know as much about the oil industry as I know about underwater melodian playing.

ruggedtoast

zagubov wrote: »

In every example the invading aggressor lost. Serbs, Americans, French, Argentinians.

Korea, I'll grant you reached a stalemate with a democracy's capital next to a nuclear enemy. Not a happy state of affairs.

Not looking good for armed invaders.
:cool:

Still, keep trying if you like! I expect there must be an example I've missed where armed invasion actually achieved a lasting strategic goal.

Your interpretation of these events is at variance with the facts. To use the politest terminology that I can think of.

In every example the invading aggressor won.

The Falklands were held by the Argentines. The British invaded.

South Vietnam was held by the Americans and South Vietnamese government. The VC and Chinese communist troops invaded and overwhelmed them.

The decision to try and press north was taken fairly early on in the campaign by the Americans, but was not the primary purpose of the deployment.

The French controlled parts of Indo-China were taken over by invading armies.

pop_gun

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And where do you get the idea that Scotland will have any oil?

As anyone knows, the 'licence' for that huge segment of the North Sea is 100% in the gift of the United Kingdom - a body which the Scots are likely to leave.

That portion of oil landed in Aberdeen will, I am sure, earn 'reasonable' revenues for Aberdeen, but if they overcharge, then we can land it at Berwick just the same.

Does Scotland have any companies with the same knowledge and technology as, say BP, to drill for and secure any oil that may reside in any area for which Scotland may be invited to tender for their own licence to drill?

I think Roly-Poly Alec Salmon better stick to Salmon farming and deer poaching, plus selling a bit of tartan or tweed to the Americans. Best to stick to what you know....

What does a license have to do with anything when scotland has territorial rights over the north sea reserves?

Unlike you BP won't cut off their noises to spoil their face. They would still drill under a scottish license as they would a UK one. Although you're forgetting in a free market the contract could be tendered out.
I'm sure ExxonMobil or Chevron would acquire the rights if Alex Salmond were to make a similar deal with the americans as Richard Nixon made with saudis in the 70's.

You and others like you complain the scots are a drain on the english taxpayers. you loath the fact their politicians decide matters in parliament effecting england. yet you don't want to see them leave the union.

Your indignation stems from the very real possibility that the scottish will stop believing the lies we tell about them and realise the truth. It makes you feel powerless and it carries with it the very real likelihood our consumer driven economy would collapse if Salmond negotiates independence.

Generali

pop_gun wrote: »

What does a license have to do with anything when scotland has territorial rights over the north sea reserves

The contracts are negotiated with the UK Government. Rights are meaningless for sovereigns. They're just like my kids moaning, "It's not faaaaair".