Salmond "We can take Scotland in two weeks"

[EternalOptimist]

We have over generation of lekky due to Hydro power which is pretty much a green energy supply. Wind and wave power will add to that. England need new nuclear power stations to keep up and that needs German and French firms.

you are wrong. hydro produces 12% ish of scotland needs. Scotlands, not the UK.

I am all in favour of hydro, but I dont see the rest of us buying your spare lekky just because it gets a bit windy up there.
We will want it when its end of part one in Coronation street, not when its blowing a gale at three am in the highlands

[JustinTime]

I just want to quote this to preserve it, probably the most idiotic post I have ever read.

Do you usually get someone else to post on your behalf then?

[Unix]

I would like an question is central.

Do you think that a formal currency union would mean no oversight from London?

There would be very general guidelines that both rUK and Scotland would have to meet, but given Scotland's wealth it's more likely Scotland would be whipping rUK into sticking to it.

[CheeseSlice]

Any evidence for any of those claims? Or is it more fear and scare?

Salmond knows damn well the 'no nuclear subs, but still a NATO member' stance wouldn't fly with other major NATO members (particular USA).

Alex Salmond softens hardline stance over Nato's nuclear weapons | Politics | The Guardian

An independent Scotland would allow submarines and warships armed with nuclear weapons from the US, Britain and other Nato countries to dock in its ports as part of what was dubbed as a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guarantee membership of the North Atlantic alliance.

Now see how the weasel wording works in the Scotlands Future paper

It is our firm position that an independent Scotland should not host nuclear weapons and that we would only join Nato on that basis.

Remember that you're dealing with politicians here. They'll use non-committal weasel words like 'should' to mislead but not lie to voters.

[Unix]

Salmond knows damn well the 'no nuclear subs, but still a NATO member' stance wouldn't fly with other major NATO members (particular USA).

Alex Salmond softens hardline stance over Nato's nuclear weapons | Politics | The Guardian



Now see how the weasel wording works in the Scotlands Future paper


Remember that you're dealing with politicians here. They'll use non-committal weasel words like 'should' to mislead but not lie to voters.

Is that the same as keeping trident? Nope.

[Old Greg]

There would be very general guidelines that both rUK and Scotland would have to meet, but given Scotland's wealth it's more likely Scotland would be whipping rUK into sticking to it.

You see the Yes campaign asks the question:

But what’s the point of independence if we’re subject to oversight from London?

Answering your questions on currency | Yes Scotland

There would have to be rules set, and the dominant country will be EWNI. IIRC Salmond wants one seat on the Bank of England board. Who makes the rules, do you think?

You want to be free of the Tories, which I respect entirely. But what will you do, when a Tory government demands fiscal tightening in recession, and a Scottish government wants to engage in deficit spending to stimulate growth? Both policies with arguments for and against, and it is proper that a democratic government makes these decisions. But the democratic will of the Scottish people would be frustrated and the Scottish government would blame the wicked London Tories.

Who should set interest rates? An independent Scotland or the Bank of England.

Who should decide on QE?

Nobody wants a CU and the hassle and arguments and limitations on Scottish sovereignty. Except of course some wavering DevoMax supporters who must be lied to to get them to vote Yes.

[CheeseSlice]

Is that the same as keeping trident? Nope.

read the article

Buried in the detail of 670-page white paper on independence, launched in Glasgow by the Scottish first minister Alex Salmond, it emerged that his government wants to qualify its staunch nuclear free policy by saying that nuclear-armed vessels from Nato countries would be free to use its ports on a confidential basis. It confirmed that an independent Scotland governed by the SNP would aim to eject Britain's Trident nuclear fleet from the Faslane base in Argyll and Bute "with a view" to achieving this by 2020. But it softened its previously hardline position by saying this was its "aim and intention", indicating that it was willing to compromise further.

aims, views and intentions.
Salmond is committing to nothing.

Personally, I think Scotland will get a choice between hosting nuclear subs, or silos, at NATO or the USAs insistence. Alliances come with responsibilities, and I doubt all are voluntary, and I think many NATO members will view Scotland as shirking something it has contributed for decades, but still wanting to enjoy the protection of larger member states.

[Unix]

read the article



aims, views and intentions.
Salmond is committing to nothing.

Personally, I think Scotland will get a choice between hosting nuclear subs, or silos, at NATO or the USAs insistence. Alliances come with responsibilities, and I doubt all are voluntary, and I think many NATO members will view Scotland as shirking something it has contributed for decades, but still wanting to enjoy the protection of larger member states.

So to be in NATO you require nuclear weapons? Can you do a wee bit of research and see if all NATO countries have nukes? I'll wait here, don't worry it should be easy, even for you.

[EternalOptimist]

So to be in NATO you require nuclear weapons? Can you do a wee bit of research and see if all NATO countries have nukes? I'll wait here, don't worry it should be easy, even for you.

you could form your own nuclear free alliance

Scottish Highlands and Isands Treaty Organisation
or SH!TO for short

[Old Greg]

So seeing as CU demand oversight from London, what about Plan B?

Remember, folks, Plan B is sterlingisation + default on the debt because 'sterling is an asset to be shared'

http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/fil...%20B_Final.pdf

If the Scottish government combines ‘Sterlingisation’ with reneging on its fair share of UK debt, which judging from the first minister’s comments may be Plan B, this would increase rather than reduce the fragility of the currency arrangement. The ‘appeal’ of this option might be that it reduces the internal and external funding requirements. However, this would be a false economy. International investors are likely to see walking away from debt as ‘opportunistic’ and either charge very high borrowing premiums or exclude Scotland from international markets. This would imply an immediate return to a fiscal surplus and therefore unprecedented austerity. Entry into the EU would be out of the UK’s hands, even if it supported Scotland’s case. This would raise doubts about the outlook for exports, particularly for financial services. Whether the citizens of Scotland would accept this policy simply to hold on to sterling would become a source of speculation with a low level of reserves as defence. We would expect the currency arrangement to fail and Scotland would be forced to introduce its own new currency within one year.

Introducing a new Scottish currency has always been the most sensible option. We would recommend this is carried out before losing £7bn of foreign exchange reserves rather than after.