Independence 'would decimate Scottish shipbuilding'

HAVE YOUR SAY

17 May 2012

Angus Robertson talking out of his backside again. Russia is only buying Mistral from the French because it cannot build its own after the collapse of the Soviet Union but it is using the purchase to regenerate its capacity to do so itself in future. Malaysia has no shipbuilding industry and so relies on buying abroad and if they buy T26 it will be built in Portsmouth if Scotland has voted to separate from the UK.

Of course Angus will probably write this nonsense in NewNetScotland.com and all the nationalist lapdogs will stand on their hind legs like Pudsey on BGT hanging on every word like its the gospel truth.
Graham - High Wycombe

17 May 2012

This highlights a host of issues of course. As the UK we have - for mysterious reasons best known to the civil service - placed much of our significant shipbuilding resource in Scotland (including Rosyth). If Scotland decides to "go its own way" then the UK needs then to address where it builds and maintains its fleet. And we won't have much time to work that out!

One thing for sure though, we must not shut down any English yards until the issue is resolved. A return to shipbuilding on the Tyne or Wear would be a good thing for a nationally-balanced economy though and far better to argue with the likes of Mr Salmond from a position of strength. I am uncomfortable with having only one yard - Portsmouth - as a naval yard if Scotland goes alone; especially with BAE seeking even to close that one. Worse, it gives accountancy-based governments like this one every excuse to source everything abroad.

Salmond - the UK wrecker - is at the source of all this of course. Who needs enemies of the state when you have the enemy within?
Michael - Hertfordshire

17 May 2012

Michael,

I could equally well counter that civil servants have for 'mysterious reasons' placed all of our submarine building capacity in Cumbria. I would remind all that we are still a United Kingdom.

I barely have words to describe how much I hate Salmond and his grand plan but, as I frequently find myself reminding posters on this forum, his is not the majority view north of the border.

Graham, I don't think that that buffoon Robertson believes a word of what he said any more than we do. You need to realise that the SNP is not a political party in the conventional sense, it is a nationalistic pressure group whose very reason for existence trumps all else. Thus, no nat politician will ever utter a statement that in any way implies that independence could have negative consequences and anyone who dares do so is 'talking Scotland down'.

Do not expect them to even try to make sense on defence, or look for a coherent policy. They won't and they haven't.
Richard - Edinburgh

17 May 2012

THe real question should be is it worthwhile to continue to build warships in the UK. At the moment BAE systems has a monopoly in warship building in the UK. Monopolies rarely operate in the customers interests, so we have to decide if building the T26 in the UK( England or Scotland) is really worth it.

Would off the shelf designs like FREMM or MEKO be cheaper and more capable? Contary to belief the MOD budget is not a job creation scheme for inefficient UK industries.

For me the answer is simple buy off the shelf designs built were it is cheaper to do so, this means more ships at a lower price. After all quantity has a quality of its own and one ship cant be in two places at one time.
OZ - portsmouth

17 May 2012

'The Type 26 destroyer, now called the Global Combat ship, has attracted interest from countries including Australia and Canada.'...

OK,
So, Robertson, the T26's for the Royal Navy are built post-independence in UK shipyards outside Scotland. If BAE managed to sell any for foreign navies, why would they suddenly then build them in Scotland? & chances are (if many recent ship building deals are to be used as a basis), it would probably mean 1-2 in a UK yard & the remainder being made overseas in a technology transfer agreement.

Agree with Michael,
Salmond is a UK wrecker & we are better off together...
Laskovar - UK

17 May 2012

When was the last time we exported a new build warship the size of a frigate or bigger? We have been unable to compete in the world warship market for a number of decades.

The T26 is not going change that, UK warship building to all intends and purposes is finished, any more MOD money allocated to it is a waste of money.
OZ - portsmouth

17 May 2012

Richard - Edinburgh

My own experience of working in Scotland between 99 and 04 was a very positive one, I worked on the Scottish Parliament project and the Braehead and Buchanan galleries shopping centres (*). During my time I found the Scots I worked with proud to be both Scottish and British when I spoke to them on the subject although I would say they were Scottish first whereas I'm British first. I would have difficulty imagining any of them voting to separate from the UK although I can imagine they could want a greater degree of devolution. If that is what Scots want they should have it, I have no problem with devo-plus if Scots feel it allows them to maximise the benefit of being both in the UK and having devolved powers to make decisions locally and have fiscal control although I would be interested to know if you think unionist Scots would want to maintain the status quo or have more devolution.
So with a single exception in five years when I was refused service in a pub as soon as I opened my mouth I never experienced any hostility which leaves me puzzled when I come across Scots online that are so anti-British and bitter as it was simply not my experience, maybe they just chose to keep quiet in my presence!

(* I'm a software developer and developed a construction management application for those projects which is now used for facilities management in each of them)
Graham - High Wycombe

17 May 2012

Richard - Edinburgh. Fair point re submarines in Cumbria (and after all we used to make them in Liverpool and Chatham as well).

The submarines issue is significant and reflective of our peculiar approach to defence - had we not pulled out of conventional sub builds with the end of the (alas unreliable) Upholder class, you get the feeling that we might be making and - crucially - EXPORTING them.

Alas, now it seems that Barrow exists to preserve submarine skills alone (yet as we know they did make Albion and Bulwark very recently indeed) - even though the only customer will ever be the UK for nuclear subs. The Germans meanwhile managed to export subsmarines to Greece - even though they couldn't afford them... (and there's another story). Here lies the issue - if the government won't order conventional submarines, for example, then Barrow cannot compete for orders. The link between government and the defence industry is therefore profound and why some commentators go on and on about the state supporting inefficient industries. The state has created the inefficiency; I cannot seeing it permitting the sale of Astutes to India, say.

As I have said before on this site, in the UK we failed to support our major industries and now they are all in the hands of foreign companies (from car makers to glass). I cannot ever imagine anyone running our defence companies better when you have a succession of governments which keep changing the brief for the products while at the same time defining the market for them. Nimrod, T45, QE carriers - where do you start???


What is needed is vision and commitment and CONSISTENCY from government rather than constant changes of strategy and product requirement.

Going back to Scotland, I too find it odd that anyone should seek to break up the UK and I hope that the referendum serves to re-cement the union. All my life I have thought myself as British (and English a very poor third behind being "from the north"). The problem with the chattering classes in the big cities is that they think they know it all. But the people will speak in the end - and I hope they speak loudly.
Michael - Hertfordshire

17 May 2012

As we are all entitled to an opinion, thus is my pennies worth,
We cannot change the past, [and a good past it has been]
But we can change the future, by changing the way we feel or vote today,
SCOTLAND .as you call it, mr salmon, has made them different to us, [like it or not]
He wants them to be different, and wants independence, from the dreaded English, that is his opinion, and he must live with this,
If the Scottish people agree with him, then its bye bye Scotland, [and that's the end of it]
But if the Scottish people think, no sod ding way are going to let this fruit cake destroy what we have had for over 300 years, and vote against him in the referendum, then this issue will go away, and mr salmon will go back to sleeping with the fishes,
This is he's little baby project, if he gets his own way or not, purely depends on the Scottish people,
They will decide, if they go—they go -/ if they stay so be it, lets wait until that referendum arrives shall we,
,
Its there choice,
My feeling is as it has always been, I would rather we was one nation, one country, one leader, one flag, full stop,
You are entitled to your opinions,
Let's wait and see, and hope they make the right decision.
Thanks.
criss of herts - london

18 May 2012

No MP in any England, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to face the wrath of their voters knowing that their taxes are keeping workers in jobs in an independent Scotland, that is not even part of NATO.

Companies whose profits, or major parts thereof, come from UK defence contracts will move out of Scotland. It is a given. Nothing Salmond and his SNP cronies can do.

Other companies in other industries will follow too. For example, I see call centres moving from Scotland to England, probably the North East. The same goes for many current public sector jobs that are based in Scotland but handle issues across the UK. Their staff numbers will be moved or reduced.

The Scottish people need to wake up to the con being peddled by Salmond and his cronies.
RM - Abroad

18 May 2012

Graham-High Wycombe,

The 'devo-max' thing is an answer to a question nobody asked. The SNP desire one thing alone, the disintegration of the UK, devo-max is really an attempt by unionists to head them off at the pass. As such it is, ironically, something that few people actually want. The SNP have included it in their proposed referendum question in order to split the unionist vote, it lays open the horrendous prospect of independence coming about despite minority support. The SNP wording of the question and the act creating it is a master class in voter manipulation that would not get past the electoral commission. No surprise then, that the nats want to bypass the commission.

On the British/Scottish identity question, I am British first and ,unthinkingly,put that as my nationality on forms, but I readily concede that that would probably not be the case with the younger generation. Michael made a good point about thinking of himself as being from 'the north', and I suspect he becomes more northern the more he is surrounded by southerners. When an Englishman (such as yourself graham) asks a Scot about identity, I suspect the answer may be different than were the question asked by a fellow countryman. I have said it before on this forum, but as an urban lowland Scot I would feel more at home in Newcastle, York, or Manchester than in Skye or even Inverness (and yes, I've been to all of those places).

I see no need for devo-max and most certainly not for independence, to me the Scottish parliament still needs to prove itself with the powers it has, but it is in the nature of parliaments to draw powers into themselves. Surely if there were a burning desire to tear apart what is, arguably, the most successful nation state ever created, in which Scots have enjoyed an entirely disproportionate influence considering our population, then we would have seen popular marches and demonstrations? Needless to say, such outpourings of the popular will have not occurred. The SNP have gained power despite their agenda, not because of it.
Richard - Edinburgh

18 May 2012

I doubt very much whether the MOD will sanction a full run of T26 ships anyway. Once the two white elephants are complete(sans aircraft) and have swallowed up the Navy's entire budget, the UK would be lucky to afford a couple of rowing boats fitted for, but not with handgrenades, in lieu of depth charges.

I wonder what excuse unionists will come up with if the independence bid fails and shipbuilding in Scotland goes with it due to the lack of RN orders?

A bit like the crocodile tears the Scottish Conservatives are shedding over the potential for Regiments to be axed by their overlords in Westminster. You have to laugh, when Labour were at it they were up in arms with outrage.

Unionist Lapdogs and appeasers.
Graeme - Inverness

18 May 2012

Richard - Edinburgh

Thanks for your well written answer. On the question of influence it must be remembered that before devolution there were 78 Scottish Westminster constituencies and after it 59 and that will fall to 52 as boundary changes and a reduction in the total number of MP's takes effect. So one can argue Scotland has already lost some influence as a result of devolution.

On the question of devo-plus (rather than devo-max proposed by the SNP) it is quite possible that the pressure will be to announce before the independence vote a further referendum will be held if Scots choose to remain in the UK. If that is the case then it may have to be multi choice including keeping the status quo as there are clear differences of opinion with Ruth Davidson saying the new Scotland Bill should be the "high water mark" to David Steele proposing devo-plus. Labour has not really made up its mind so it will depend which way they fall I guess.

Whatever happens I think we can say that in future nobody can say Scots haven't been asked their opinion as has often been said before by nationalists. It is my hope that the result will be that the UK comes out of this strengthened rather than weakened.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

Richard in Edinburgh says that the SNP have included DevoMax in their proposed referendum question. I think you might be a little confused there Richard. The proposed question is "Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country"
So you see no mention of DevoMax.
What they have said is if any other group wishes to propose a question on DevoMax they would include it in the referendum because opinion polls show it is the most popular option at the moment.
Hope that clears things up a bit for you.
Bob - Glasgow

18 May 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/03/first-battery-ferries-clyde-shipyard

Puts this article in perspective.
Marga - Edinburgh

18 May 2012

Bob - Glasgow,

Thank you for that clarification Bob, I see you are quite right. I did not realise that the 'second question' on the transfer of extra powers had been definitively dropped.

The question you quote however, remains problematic, it seems designed to send the voter down what one American academic called a 'cognitive chute'. It asks the voter to agree, and as such may not get past the Electoral Commission. It should, at the very least, ask the voter to 'agree or disagree'.
Richard - Edinburgh

18 May 2012

It's worth noting that the assets of the Royal Navy do not belong to England. they belong to "the UK", which currently includes Scotland. If Scotland decides to vote to become an independent country then 11% of the Royal Navy will belong to Scotland.

I imagine that the keys to ships won't change hands, but the total value would be used to negotiate line items from the UK asset register 'in' and 'out' and Scotland would end up just sourcing a new fleet from local BAE shop on the Clyde. Much like Norway did when it split from Sweden.
Callum - Stirling

18 May 2012

criss of herts - london

Seriously, its the people who decided that the SNP is in power, not anyone or anything else. If you are looking for the reasons of the rise in Scottish nationalism, look back to Thatcher, Major, the poll tax, the social and financial injustices between different parts of the UK and the differences in political direction that have emerged between England and Scotland over the last 2 decades. The reasons why people voted for the SNP are many, but I sense you dont read about Scotland anyway so you wouldnt know about them.
flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

18 May 2012

Bob - Glasgow

I think before the independence referendum the unionist parties will have to agree to hold a further referendum in the event of a vote to remain in the UK. It may have to be multiple choice though from maintaining the status quo through to devo-plus.

http://www.devoplus.com/what-is-devo-plus/

I think devo-plus is as far as the rest of the UK can agree to however I think a simple in-out vote needs to be held first and so long as there is a guarantee that depending on the result a further debate on what devolution Scots would prefer can take place followed by a binding referendum.

BTW the electoral commission may change slightly the question to include 'should leave the United Kingdom and..' it may seem obvious but it takes its responsibility seriously.

Marga - Edinburgh

Not really I read it and lets be clear the Koreans will mop this one up no matter what. The Clyde will only survive if it continues to supply the RN which it can only do within the UK.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

Graeme - Inverness

There are 13 T26 planned and accounted for in the budget and if anything there will probably be a need for more as 13 will not be sufficient as recent events prove.

As for white elephants and sans aircraft has NewsNetScotland.com not caught up with the news yet or perhaps it doesn't want to say but they will have F-35B.

In fact we are committing £152bn to procurement over the next 10 years with an £8bn reserve which guarantees the T26. BTW that's substantially more than the entire Scottish GDP.

Here read for yourself as you won't get this from your SNP media spin outlets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-how-hammonds-balancing-act-brought-stability-to-uk-defence-371933/
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

The Holyrood election that the SNP won their majority had a 49% turnout of which the SNP got 45%. Yes they have a majority but the percentage of Scots that voted for them is less than 25% of the electorate. I realise you have to vote to be counted but lets be clear in a referendum the turn out will be substantially higher.

Callum

Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population not 11%. Also you have no hope of keeping the Clyde open with orders for a post independence navy. The UK MoD has earmarked £152bn of spending with an £8bn reserve for the next 10 years which is greater than the size of the Scottish economy. It is facts like this that will be considered by Scottish voters when deciding how to vote.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

"The Holyrood election that the SNP won their majority had a 49% turnout of which the SNP got 45%. Yes they have a majority but the percentage of Scots that voted for them is less than 25% of the electorate. I realise you have to vote to be counted but lets be clear in a referendum the turn out will be substantially higher."

If you understand statistics at all you will know that 49% is a pretty good sample size to determine the voting intentions of the other missing 51 percent.

"Also you have no hope of keeping the Clyde open with orders for a post independence navy."

We can take care of ourselves thanks very much. So why since Scotland contributes £3billion to the UK defence budget but has hardly any vessels in its waters to "defend it" according to MOD figures? Of course we have 5 nuclear submarines sitting up the coast from its biggest city, thanks but no thanks. Scotland no longer wants this.

"£152bn to procurement over the next 10 years"

And how much will be allocated to Scotland? far less than the population proportion most likely. How much of that will go abroad I wonder? More than people realise.
flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

18 May 2012

Baron Barnett may have a few words to say about the 8.4% vs 11%

With the greatest respect, a "UK" budget of 152bn should mean that Scotland would deserve/hope for 11% of that spending (vis Barnett Formula) to occur within her borders.?!?

I'm not necessarily pro-independence - but it's pretty b annoying when I hear old chums in Whitehall (usually accidentally) assume in conversation that England = UK.

This news release is just going to turn another few percentage points of Scots towards pro-independence.
callum - Scotland

18 May 2012

callum - Scotland

1. Actually Scotland's population is 8.4% of the UK. With NSO it contributes 9.4% of UK tax revenue and 9.2% of UK government spending. However NSO revenue will decline over the next decade UK spending in Scotland will not.

2. As the Clyde is the biggest UK yard and 1/4 of engineering jobs in Scotland are defence related Scotland will probably get a fair share of the £152+8 billion that has been treasury sanctioned and therefore guaranteed.

3. This story is based on fact. It simply states that the UK can only place defence orders within its borders as if it places them abroad it has to open up the contract to all competition not just to Scotland. If you think Scottish voters are swayed by this toward independence then tough its a fact and we are going to say it how it is. In fact I think the opposite is the case Scots will get a better understanding of what the total UK economy means to Scotland (and vica versa).

4. We know the difference between England and the UK and no we don't normally say one when we should say the other. Stop repeating clichéd gripes.

Obviously 1. and 2. is assuming Scotland is part of the UK.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

Oh right so the missing 51% will vote the same way will they!

Well we will see come Oct 2014 won't we.

Oh and BTW you would have a defence budget of about £2bn which will give you a defence force about the size of the RoI now lets see how many frigates have they got!
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

callum - Scotland

"With the greatest respect, a "UK" budget of 152bn should mean that Scotland would deserve/hope for 11% of that spending (vis Barnett Formula) to occur within her borders.?!?"

Aha, defence spending does not have to be equally distributed across the UK and it certainly is not. I know for a fact that defence spending in Scotland was only 5.2% in 2008 and thats therefore not including the closure of the 2 RAF bases recently. Thats how they massage the Barnett figures to make it look like Scotland receives more when it doesnt. btw the Barnett percentage is not 11%, its around 10.2%.

And then there is the Barnett Squeeze, how Scotland gets disproportionately less every year...

Anyway thats a 5% difference of £152bn which is £7.5bn, not counted in the Barnett formula which Scotland will most likely not receive.
flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

18 May 2012

For clarity read the following article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

Would BAE Systems which is an enormous multinational company (it employs more people in the US than the UK) close it's shipyards in Scotland just because Westminster says so? I think not, Scotland would buy military equipment from England in the same way that England will buy military equipment from Scotland. And in any case the cost of building or restarting a shipyard in England would be prohibitive wasting many billions of English taxpayers money. Why would any future Westminster Government want to cancel orders from BAE which still a UK based company and send out the contracts to the Spanish or S Korea?
Lets have reasoned debate with logical arguments not hypothical scenario's based upon the argument that after independence we would cease all trading with each other.
Callum - Dundee

18 May 2012

I have read a great deal of the comments re this shipbuilding problem and what comes across to me is to basic points that comes out of the anti independence brigade is that the difference between the English and the SNP (Alex Salmond), firstly this is not an SNP who are anti English it is a SNP who are anti the Westminster Establishment, I have 2 sons in laws who are both English one Liverpool and on Harltlepool, I have 5 Grandchildren who are well loved, and my sons in law and my wife and my self love them as well, it is this thing that keeps coming out that the Scots hate the English and it is just not so it is the devious Westminster politicians who stir this up, I myself I am an ex Serviceman of 23 years in the British Army, I emphise British Army, because up until I left the army in 1978 I was a proud british scottish soldier, on retirement I by chance read the McCrone report and that changed my whole out look toward the Westminster Establishment, this is supposed to be a UNION but this is not the way that the Westminster Government see it, so please do not bring up the anti English perspective and get of this kick about Scotlands SNP Government being the Catalist for all the woes that have befalllen this United Kingdon, blame the Westminster Government for your greif.
Joe Gibson - Cumnock Scotland

18 May 2012

flyingscotsman - Ayrshire
Do we then take it, you wish to break away from great Britain, and see the break up of the uk .

you did not state, whenever you were in favour or not .
criss of herts - london

18 May 2012

Am i right in saying that Scotland will also be entitled to its fair share of the national debt?
It stands at approx 1.2trillion pounds,[is this right]
So how much should Scotland receive.
criss of herts - london

21 May 2012

flyingscotsman - Ayrshire

You mention base closures in Scotland (RAF Kinloss and RAF Leuchars), it was announced last week that Army units moving back from Germany are earmarked to move into those locations to take up the slack in the local economies, to ensure that they still receive a proportion of defence spending. Will the much reduced Scottish Armed Forces have the manpower to man both of these locations, as well as RAF Lossiemouth and keep all of the Brigade units in Edinburgh.
Rob - Telford

21 May 2012

Joe Gibson - Cumnock Scotland

For you it may be anti-Westminster establishment but I'm sorry but for a great many in the nationalist camp there is a deep rooted anti-English sentiment with perceived grievances exaggerated or simply invented to feed a grudge where the truth is often turned on its head simply to justify an anti-unionist stance.
The McCrone report was about oil and oil has always been at the heart of the independence debate. Yes perhaps if Scotland broke away 30 years ago it would be richer now but in a union it flows both ways for years before the oil flowed and for years after oil has run out (which has declined by a third since 1999) the flows will be in the other direction.

Callum

Do you really think we are going to continue to invest in Scotland if you are responsible for the break up of the UK. We have alternatives and defence contracts like shipbuilding will be awarded to Portsmouth which we will build up as an investment. To think that we will place any orders with the Clyde is fantasy. We have a £152 billion (and £8 billion contingency) procurement spend over the next 10 years which will largely be spent in the UK, where it is not is because it is part of a multinational program like JSF. BAE maybe bigger in the US than the UK these days but we will still demand that UK defence spending is spent as much as possible in the UK. Scotland will have to compete with the likes of South Korea which means that the Clyde will close. Nobody is saying we won't trade with each other but size matters.
Be clear about this Callum, right now Scotland has influence in the UK that far exceeds its percentage of the population. If you succeed in breaking away then a future "independent" Scotland will actually have to focus on gaining as much influence over the country that contains 91.6% of the population and its economic clout. You will not actually be important to us but we will be very important to you, that's the way it is. You will be dependent on a declining resource, oil, of which there is only 20% left not the 40% the SNP say. In 20 years your pension liabilities will be unfunded and you will not be in the UK to make up the shortfall.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 May 2012

criss of herts - london

It will be a damn site more than the SNP are telling Scots that's for sure (So Joe you add Holyrood to Westminster on your list, perhaps its just politicians regardless!).

They will get at minimum £100 bn in debt (8.4%) perhaps more it depends how we split things up.

The UK 10 year bond is trading at 1.85% only Germany at 1.5% is lower. If Scotland issues its own bonds not backed up by the UK it can expect to pay considerably more for its borrowing as it is higher risk with declining oil revenue and an ageing population for whom pensions will be partly unfunded. Yet under the new Scotland Bill the Scottish Government can borrow up to £12bn in UK bond issues as we will borrow the money but they will pay the interest on it (UK rate 1.85%). If they have to pay more as an independent country that will soon eat up the declining NSO revenue but you won't hear the SNP mention that!

Scotland has 8.4% of the population and 8.3% of economic output excluding NSO, 9.4% including NSO and 9.2% of all UK government spending. However as NSO revenue declines the UK will fill the gap in years to come. Also so many jobs in Scotland and its economic output depend on the union yet they still assume that that will remain if they have broken up the union! The SNP just claim they can have it both ways which is patently absurd yet Scots nationalist just go along with it unquestionably. Its up to Scottish unionist to tell the truth not us we will just be accused of interference while Scottish Unionist will be accused if "talking Scotland down" when they are actually telling it how it is.

The bottom line is the Scots have a sense of victim hood that is easy for the likes of Alex Salmond and the SNP to play on. They will always play on gripes whether real or perceived to justify a sense of grievance towards the rest of us.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 May 2012

Callum - Dundee

I have to agree with Graham, the company I work for, recently started recruiting 700 defence related jobs in Scotland to support the UK MoD, I cannot see the vast majority of those jobs surviving North of the border to support the reduced Scottish Military. The new UK MoD would not want this type of work carried out by the nationals from a "foreign" country I'm afraid.
Rob - Telford

21 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe
Thanks for your reply,

I just think they will not go for independence, and remain within the union,
But alas they may go,
But I must add, if those in authority [whoever] had done a proper job over a 1,000 years ago , we would not be having this problem now,

But having said that, even if they vote to stay or go, what happens then,
1, if they go, will they be allowed back, if all goes wrong, and how,[ i.e as Scots or as English or British only ] ]

And
2, if they stay, how long before this comes up again, we can't keep doing this every couple of years,
Either one united country, or not.
Just my opinion.
criss of herts - london

31 May 2012

Why haven't you gone the federation path like in Australia & Canada. Your current setup is decidedly odd. There should be a Scotish parlament (including Isle of Man as its way too small & probably N.Ireland unless S.Ireland wants to rejoin - they may be broke enough to consider it), Engalnd should have its own parlament as should Wales (however give Conwall back to Wales where it historically belongs - perhaps Devon as well) & have a seperate British federal parlament. Scrap the House of Lords at the federal level & create an Australian style senate where each state has the same number of Senators regardless of its population. This gives the smaller states more say in the upper house, but govt is formed by a magority in the lower house.
Dj - Australia