Scotland YES or NO

The pressure from the USA and the EU to retain Trident in Scotland may be more than a independent Scotland can face. It may not be possible to get rid of it, any more than it's realistically possible for the UK to get out of Europe. We're no longer in complete charge of our defences - we're well aware of that in East Anglia from the number of RAF bases manned and equipped totally by the USAF. There's too much at stake politically and strategically and I personally doubt a separate, independent Scottish defence would ever actually happen.

gillybob, I cannot answer your question about the ownership of the land at Faslane but I have heard it said that the land on which the base sits does not 'belong' to Scotland but to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. Whether this would make any difference to the plans of any hypothetical independent Scottish government, I don't know, but I think it might add complications. As you are no doubt aware, the Yes Campaign doesn't really do complications

I think I may have caused confusion by my reference to 'HM Forces'. After Independence the proposal is that there will be separate Scottish Forces under the command of and financed by the Scottish Government. Personnel would be paid by the Scottish Government, pensions due as at Independence Day would be the responsibility of the UK (which incudes Scotland) and thereafter the Scottish Government. This is not an unusual situation - it happens to anyone with a works pension who changes their employer. The RUK Forces and Scottish Forces may well train together sometimes and be deployed together sometimes as is the case currently with all the different independent countries which are members of NATO. I am not aware of any plan to get rid of existing military bases in Scotland as they will be required for the Scottish military personnel and equipment. Once Trident has gone from Faslane it will be transformed into a base for the Scottish Navy and also house the Military Headquarters for Scotland.

I don't understand why there is a problem about the Queen. When King James secured the Union of the Crowns, he was and remained King of two Kingdoms. He was James the 1st of England and James 6th, King of Scots. After Elizabeth's coronation at Westminster in 1953, she was crowned sitting on Edwards Chair with the Stone of Scone in its base. The Archbishop of Canterbury performed the ceremony, aided and abetted by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. She travelled to Edinburgh and was presented with the Scottish Crown and the rest of the regalia and there was disappointment that she was wearing a coat and hat and carrying a handbag so that the crown was never placed on her head nor the regalia into her hands. Similarly Prince Charles is Prince of Wales in Wales, Duke of Cornwall in England and Duke of Rothsey in Scotland.

In an independent Scotland, Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, will be head of state.

Oooops sorry Bags just re-read your post. Is the land actually British leased land (as in the case of Cyprus) or is it Scottish land?

Yes I totally appreciate that the "troops" would benefit the whole of the UK Bags (wherever they are based) but my question is/was, who would be paying their wages (and pensions) ?

Only time will tell.

The Yes Brigade (SNP) want to get rid of UK military bases in Scotland so, in the event of a yes vote, it'd be a bit of a cheek to expect the UK's defences to be Scotland's as well.

Another thing is, the people in the UK forces currently on Scottish bases are not here just for the benefit of Scotland but for the whole of the UK. I understand that the land they are on is UK MOD land and not 'Scottish' land so Scotland might have a problem there too should it break away.

I suppose the Queen would still be Queen of Scotland (unless they abolish the Scottish monarchy) so I suppose Scotland could be a crown dependency but I've a feeling that wouldn't be acceptable to the Scot Nats even if it were negotiable, and we don't know of it would be – just being called a 'dependency' that had anything to do with England would get on their wick. At least, that's my impression.

I am curious to know how the forces will be paid for (assuming a yes vote) and will Scotland pay for the percentage of personnel in Scottish bases? Also have the leaders of the Navy, Army, RAF actually been consulted on this and are they happy that it could work? Personaly I can't see how it can as effectively Scotland will be a totally different country with a totally different government. How can two countries share an army?

Maybe Scotland will do the same deal as the Isle of Man did by relying on the UK for defence purposes. The latest figures I have are a charge from the UK to the Isle of Man of £3m per year for that (but it may well have gone up).

the last three paragraphs of this piece is particularly interesting

Having googled the question "what would happen if................." I found lots of information from the YES campaign all of which is very one sided and very little that offers a truly objective view. I did manage (eventually) to find the following that does answer things a little more realistically I think, although I am happy to be corrected.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15208.htm

Thank you for your answer Granny23. I am curious to know how the forces will be paid for (assuming a yes vote) and will Scotland pay for the percentage of personnel in Scottish bases? Also have the leaders of the Navy, Army, RAF actually been consulted on this and are they happy that it could work? Personaly I can't see how it can as effectively Scotland will be a totally different country with a totally different government. How can two countries share an army?

I get your point about raising your own taxes and choosing what you want to spend it on when but surely that is true of all of us. Living in the North East I find very little connection with the South and strongly object to my hard earned taxes being spent on a multi billion pound high speed rail link that will benefit the South (yet again) only. Westminster has probably forgot we exist in The North East. I have always felt a strong connection with Scotland and sincerley hope that the result of the vote is overwhelmingly NO.

Ana, what do you mean by benefits? It would be nice to be able to raise our own taxes and spend them on what we choose to spend them on. We are not expecting a gravy train, as some south-eastern commentators seem to think. We already have more devolved powers than Wales. If there had been an option to choose to have yet more devolved powers (for example more responsibility for tax) it would probably have won, and the UK would not have been broken up. As it is the choices are polarised.

POGS, if politicians keep saying "There will be more powers for Scotland if the vote is No" but absolutely refuse to suggest what those might be, is it any wonder that there is some scepticism around? You mention the pound - there have been a number of comments from economists and politicians of various backgrounds, with varying opinions on a currency for an independent Scotland. Some think it would work with or without a formal currency union, some don't. You also mention Barosso. He is too worried about Catalan separatism to realise that Scotland has been a country before and during the Union, not a region. This is not the same as Catalan or Basque moves for independence.

It is worth noting that in spite of all the criticism of Alex Salmond and the SNP, there are other groups supporting a Yes vote, including a Labour group and the Greens, neither of whom are SNP fans.

Sorry about the spelling, which I fear is a bit wobbly at this time of night, when I should probably not be posting but should be off to bed with a good book. Good night all.

To say the coaltion government has refused to discuss what might happen is a bit rich.

It is for Scotland to decide, not the coalition government. If and when they do make a comment they are scare mongering according to Alex Salmon and the Scot Nat's.

What happened when they did comment about the pound. What happened when Barosso commented on being in the EU. You don't want to believe they are telling the truth.

I have watched the Scottish Parliament from Holyrood. It is repeated as a mantra "We don't want any talk from Westminster or the likes of Cameron, telling us what to do". That mantra is repeated all over the place.

I think there is an obvious difference as to knowing what will happen if there is a No vote as opposed to a Yes vote surely.

OK, I admit that was badly phrased. What I meant, and should have said, was 'semi self-rule but with a safety net', rather like the Welsh Assembly government.

Also with respect, I would suggest that of course the most popular choice among Scots would be 'Devo Max'. Even more benefits without any extra responsibilities.

newist I think the same as you and I am so worried about all this.
As said previously I am a definite NO

Thanks for posting When, with respect that is what my (our) concerns are, no one knows. Whist I am no lover of the present government and am not really politically minded. no one has told me what will happen if it is a yes vote, now that to me requires a massive leap of faith which I (we) just do not have

Please may I make 3 points:

1. It is true that no-one can predict what will happen in the event of a Yes vote. Neither can anyone predict what will happen in the event of a No vote. As there has been a complete refusal on the part of the Coalition government to discuss what might happen, we have to guess whether we will be given more powers or whether we will be completely ignored (going by recent history - the first devolution referendum in 1979 - the latter seems more likely. No-one knows the answer to the questions about Nato or Europe; negotiations will take place.

2. The most popular choice in Scotland seemed to be "Devo Max", that is further powers devolved but not independence. It was the Coalition UK government who refused to have that option on the ballot paper, not the SNP Scottish government.

3. We are due to have a general election in Scotland before the date suggested for independence day if the vote is Yes. There is therefore no guarantee that Alex Salmond or his party will be in power in an independent Scotland.

Yet again my slow typing has made crossed posts

I have had a couple of leaflets through the door, from the Yes lot. I would like someone, to tell me the answer to the many questions I have. I will not look up, what this one and that one has said on my computer, because in my mind most of it is speculation as to what will happen if the majority votes Yes.
I chose to live in Scotland 9 years ago, so I quite like it the way it is, even though as the crow flies, on the west coast I live nearer to Norway than London.
All I want to know are some basic answers to some questions. Will we have our own army? or will we have to borrow Englands army? will we have our own airforce? where will we get the planes from, then there's the navy, will we have to build aircraft carriers.
If any of the armed forces move away from the islands where I live many jobs will be lost, our local airport is subsidised because the helicopters need to supply and support St, Kildas early warning system. If we have to use Englands armed forces that to me is a strange kind of independence.
Will we wont we, be in Europe, will we wont we, use the £, using another countries currency, would yet again be a strange kind of independence.
Will our pensions stay the same, will our health care stay the same.
When I order bits and bobs on line, which I cannot get here, will it have to go through customs, increasing the price even more.
I can not understand why anyone would vote yes and just jump in at the deep end, unless they are only doing it, to be patriotic which in my opinion does make any sense. I keep having nightmares about Alex Salmond wearing a crown

Granny 23

Where did you get that information from, The Scottish White Paper only.

Can I ask this question.

What guarantee does Scotland have it can be a member of NATO.

What if Scotland elects to eventually part company with the Queen, Charles or Wills as Head of State, that could well happen with the dislike of anything English some are displaying. There would be no HM Forces for Scotland then.

The White Paper is a guessing game of predicitions that Alex Salmond hopes will be reality. It is not only what the Scotland Government wants is it! The other 3 countries will have their say and I don't think anybody knows the truth about what the contingency plans are at the moment.

Tee Hee Gillybob I was about to frame an answer to your question on the assumption that you meant troops currently based in England i.e. 'over the border' from where I am standing, but suddenly realised that you meant based in Scotland i.e. over the border from where you are .

In 2013, 15,340 (7.5%) of UK based MOD personnel were based in Scotland - less than I thought but there has been a steady reduction and closure of Scottish bases for some time e.g. the year 2000 figures show 24,680 personnel = 9.2 % based in Scotland. The Scottish Government's white paper envisages a slight increase to 15,000 regulars + 3,500 reservists in order to meet obligations to NATO. It is expected that all existing bases will be needed to accommodate these troops, thereby protecting the civilian jobs and benefits to the local economies. Faslane would become the main Naval Base and as it has extensive on shore facilities, also the MOD HQ - securing local employment there.

After Independence the RUK and iScotland parliaments would have to negotiate who gets what and it seems obvious that as you cannot physically shift bases each country would retain what the have and any imbalance in 'shares' would be compensated for with moveable items - ships, aircraft etc. As to the personnel themselves, they will be given the option of remaining with the units where they currently serve or of re locating to bases nearer where they consider to be 'home'. They will still be in HM Forces but some will opt to be Scottish based and under the orders of the Scottish MOD some will prefer to remain or return to elsewhere in the UK and will be 'employed' by the RUK MOD. There will be no requirement to be Scottish born or domiciled to be transferred to or join the Scottish Forces just as there are personnel from overseas in the 'British Forces' currently.

Hope this answers your question. I was unsure and had to google to find out so have learned a bit myself today. Thank you

Which is not a good thing on such a momentous issue as this.

It was interesting listening to the coverage from Holyrood today.

It certainly will be a leap of faith for the voter to vote yes.

There are oh so many aspects to becoming Independent that I had never thought of.

The debate the public has had via the media, at least in England, has not even touched the tip of the iceberg. I fear that the electorate has not, will not be given enough information, it is simply too complicated to fathom a firm answer.

As I said this will be heart over head voting.

You're right, of course, gilly, just thinking that it seems a bit unfair that someone who may be living there on a temporary basis will be able to vote whereas someone who is away but intends to move back at some point will not be able to.