With the issue of Scottish independence again being discussed, the issue of Royal Navy shipbuilding in Scotland has become controversial once again.
One side, the Scottish government, say that naval shipbuilding would continue if Scotland left the UK. The other side, the UK government, say it would not.
This article is a fact checking article, if you believe we’ve made an error you can submit a correction in line with our correction policy.
“No warships would have been built on the Clyde, because the United Kingdom Government would not have chosen to build them there.”
The issue of UK naval contracts in Scotland has been a hot topic both before and after the 2014 Independence Referendum and even more so recently when several groups indicated that the work on complex warships for the Royal Navy would not go to an independent country.
Nicola Sturgeon earlier insisted that it would be a betrayal to go back the promise to build the frigate fleet in Scotland. Sturgeon said:
“Promises were made about orders to these yards and promises were made about jobs at these yards, and I think it is absolutely vital now these contracts are delivered. These yards have been through some really difficult times with a reduction in the workforce, and they thought that that was all part of the process of getting themselves into shape for the Type 26 and securing a level of employment here. This is about jobs and securing jobs in an industry. It would be a complete betrayal of these yards if there was any U-turn or going back on on promises made.”
The original plan for the Type 26 had been eight anti-submarine warfare variants and five general purpose variants, this changed when five if then were cancelled, with the gap in orders having been filled by five River class Offshore Patrol Vessels and Rosyth being awarded five Type 31e Frigates.
For more on what’s going to be built, have a look here.
Doesn’t the UK build ships overseas anyway?
Before the referendum, many were accused of exaggerating how secure the shipbuilding industry would be after independence. This came about due to comments made by Geoff Searle, director of the Type 26 Global Combat programme indicating that they had no back–up plan to the Clyde if a ‘Yes’ vote was returned. However, the Ministry of Defence, the shipbuilding union and BAE themselves all claim that major warship builds would be reconsidered if Scotland left the UK.
Many in industry rejected this interpretation, advocating the position that no alternative plan did not rule out the possibility of the UK Government rethinking investment in the Clyde in the event of independence, something which was later confirmed by ministers.
“The Government is not making contingency plans because we are confident that the Scottish people will vote to remain part of the UK. No Royal Navy warships have been built outside the UK since the Second World War for national security reasons and we have no intention of doing so in future.”
Many have also misconstrued the building of naval tankers in South Korea for the RFA as a break in this policy, that is not the case. Support vessels like this are eligible to be constructed outside the UK as only ‘complex warship’ construction (such as frigates) must stay within UK borders. Besides, no UK yard bid for the work.
Other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, the UK has not had a complex warship built outside of the UK since the start of the 20th century at least. All of the Royal Navy’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards and the UK Government says it remains committed to utilising the strengths of UK industry in this specialist and complex area.
American influence
One key factor that could potentially impact the ability of an independent Scotland to continue with its current level of military shipbuilding is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
ITAR is a set of regulations that govern the export of defence-related items from the United States. These regulations are administered by the US Department of State and are designed to ensure that defence-related items are not transferred to countries or organisations that may use them for nefarious purposes.
To comply with ITAR, countries must obtain a license from the US Department of State before exporting defence-related items. This can be a lengthy and complicated process, and it is not clear whether an independent Scotland would be able to obtain the necessary licenses.
Another factor that could potentially impact the ability of an independent Scotland to continue with its current level of military shipbuilding is the UK government’s policy on building warships outside of the UK. Currently, the UK government has a policy in place that requires all warships to be built in the UK, with the exception of certain naval auxiliaries that may be built abroad.
This policy is based on a number of factors, including the desire to maintain a skilled workforce within the UK, the need to protect sensitive technologies and intellectual property, and the importance of ensuring that the UK can build its own warships in times of crisis. If Scotland were to become a separate country, it is not clear whether it would be able to continue building warships for the UK or whether it would be subject to the same restrictions as other foreign shipbuilders.
An independent Scottish state would be a third-party country not covered by existing UK-US ITAR agreements. UK companies would not have the authority to transfer items and information subject to ITAR licence to their subsidiaries or other companies in an independent Scottish state or a Scottish national without US approval any more than it could transfer such material to organisations or individuals in other foreign states.
Every licence held by companies in Scotland working on ITAR-controlled items would have to be re-approved if Scotland became independent. This is a very lengthy process.
Isn’t Scotland the only location in the UK capable of building warships?
Claims at the time of the referendum that the only option for BAE on the event of independence was to continue to build the ships in Glasgow were refuted at the time by John Dolan, GMB convenor at the Scotstoun yard in Glasgow:
“She was saying that the Clyde is the only game in town. I’m afraid it is not. There’s shipbuilders in Cammell Laird in Liverpool. You have got the A&P Group on the Tyne, who are shipbuilders, and you have got Barrow in Furness.
So to say if Scotland goes independent we will still be building Type 26 frigates… listen, I assure you that if we go for independence we will not be building. We have been told quite clearly by the UK government and I have been told quite clearly that will not happen.”
What are the builders saying about this?
Ian King, former chief executive of BAE, had previously indicated in a letter submitted to the Scottish Affairs Committee before the referendum that shipyards on the Clyde would likely have to close if Scotland were to leave the UK. Mr King said BAE would build the ships at a location compatible with the contract awarding process of the Ministry of Defence:
“In the event of a Yes vote, and as we have made clear, we would be required to discuss the future of the Type 26 programme with our customer, the MoD. It would be for the MoD to determine how the vote affects the final decisions they have yet to make on the programme, including the future location of the build of the ships. We would take our customer’s lead in these circumstances. We cannot determine this outcome in advance, or without the direction of the MoD.”
Babcock, however, has been less clear-cut in their response. The firms chief corporate affairs officer confirmed that there are no plans to move the Rosyth Shipyard in the case of an independent Scotland. Babcock’s John Howie said that the firm’s recent £76 million investment into the Rosyth dockyard proved that the site was “a core part of our business strategy” during a Scottish Affairs Committee briefing.
Asked about a second independence referendum, Lockwood said:
“I lived in Scotland for 10 years and it was a rumbling thing then and I think it’s just going to be a rumbling thing. I think in reality there will be plenty of warning if the vote were in favour of independence. There would then be a negotiation period and at the end of the negotiation period there would be an implementation period.
I don’t think there is anything that we can’t manage as a company. When you look at the timelines, there’s nothing we can’t manage as a company. If we had to replicate this in England because we were told we weren’t welcome here – which I think would be a bad mistake for Scotland – but if that were the decision, we can replicate this in three years, and the time window of negotiations is longer than that. It’s not ideal but it is manageable.”
The company suggests it, like BAE, will stay if it can.
The Ministry of Defence, the customer referred to above by Mr King, has recently made clear that leaving the UK would influence the ‘location of the build of the ships’. The full statement, an excerpt of which is displayed at the top of this article, was made by then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology with responsibility for Defence procurement and Defence exports in response to a question from Brendan O’Hara, MP for Argyll and Bute, regarding the Type 26 frigates.
“What I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman is that, had the independence vote gone the way that he and his colleagues would have liked, no warships would have been built on the Clyde, because the United Kingdom Government would not have chosen to build them there; we made that very clear. As it is, as I have just confirmed to the House, we will be proceeding with the construction of eight complex Type 26 warships on the Clyde as and when the programme is ready.”
What about Scottish naval vessels?
Scotland would still need a navy, right? Up-to-date facts on what an independent Scotland would operate at sea, let alone what it would build, aren’t easy to come by. The SNP earlier proposed that under independence, Scotland would:
“Take over existing naval, army and air force bases within Scotland and inherit a share of defence equipment in negotiation with the rest of the UK.”
This leaves seemingly little needing to be built, and any ships that would be constructed would likely be a few Offshore Patrol Vessels.
Professor Keith Hartley recently claimed that the Scottish naval shipbuilding industry would likely end if Scotland left the UK.
“An independent Scotland will presumably have a minute Navy—it will be like Ireland’s, for example, with offshore patrol vessels. It won’t have the demand for deep-water frigates and destroyers of the sort that are currently being built in Scotland, such as the Type 26 and Type 31. It won’t have that demand. It couldn’t afford them, anyhow—the unit cost for a Type 31 frigate is £250 million at least.
I do not know the size of an independent Scotland’s defence budget, but it is not going to be large. I do not think it would put a lot of resources into building advanced warships. In short, no, I do not see a future for a Scottish warship building industry in an independent Scotland.”
Given that the already slow drumbeat of MoD orders is barely enough to sustain the yards, this doesn’t bode well for the yard’s future if Scotland chooses to leave. Put simply, a couple of ships are not enough to sustain one of the largest shipyards in the UK.
The above being said… who knows?
So, there are a couple of things that could potentially cause problems for Scotland’s military shipbuilding industry if the country were to become independent. One is ITAR and the other is the UK government’s policy on building warships.
Right now, as explained above, the UK only allows warships to be built within its own borders, with a few exceptions for naval auxiliaries. This policy is in place for a bunch of different reasons, like keeping a skilled workforce in the UK and protecting sensitive technology.
If Scotland became independent, the country would not be able to build warships for the UK. Even if it didn’t build warships for the UK, and with attempts at attracting export builds at Scottish yards largely failing, would the yards survive building solely for Scotland?
Military shipbuilding in Scotland currently supports 7,500 jobs in Scotland directly, with an estimated 9,000 being supported by the industry, many of which are highly skilled. Maintaining this employment, and a flourishing sector, relies on a regular ‘drumbeat’ of orders.
If not, would the industries that might potentially take their place be able to sustain as many high-end engineering jobs? It’s tough to say for sure how independence would impact Scotland’s military shipbuilding industry. There are definitely some potential challenges that would need to be overcome, but it’s impossible to predict exactly how things would play out.
According to the latest Polls the SNP is about to get hammered by Scottish Labour so it may be pretty irrelevant really.
Scotland will have to be content building Scotish ships military or otherwise.
Scotland would need to commit to NATO membership prior to independence obviously.
UK ships will be built in the UK.
I suspect this will be one of the last discussions on this topic for some considerable time.
I am pretty sure the SNP are about to be taught a lesson by the electorate that will set back their cause/plans by a generation..
Maybe. It will be interesting to see what direction the Scots take. Labour seems to indicate a lack of interest in defence & the remaining parties (bar Tories I suppose) suggest a lack of interest in power.
Maybe but not as much as the lesson to be probably inflicted on the increasingly right wing Tory party. The cause and plans you refer to are not the sole preserve of the SNP! Such causes remain regardless of who politically represents them.
The imperative and priority across the whole of the UK is to get rid of the Tories in government, the short term aims and consequences taking precedence over longer term objectives.
Increasingly right wing Tories? You must be joking. They have merged into the middle’ish. If only they were to the right we might have a choice next month. As far as getting rid of them is concerned do you really believe that Labour are going to make defence any sort of priority once elected. Their policy document issued two weeks ago didn’t mention defence once. Not a word.
Huh! Do you actually read the news? It is Labour who moved away from the left, the Tories have moved right and vying with Reform and Farage for the most right wing fascists we have seen. To make a valid decision it is necessary to weigh up all the policies not just focus on one or two specific areas.
If you honestly think that the Tories are right wing you must be coming from a very leftist place. As for Labour moving away from the left a good portion of their front bench including Starmer and Rayner acvtively supported Jeremy Corbyn. The strange thing is I hope you’re right when it comes to Labour. If I’m right God help us. 🙄
On what basis do you really think Tories are not right wing! They lurch ever more right with every passing year, and consider the increasing support moving from Conservative to Reform! That alone tells the story.
I’m sorryNick burt I trerally don’t know where you’re coming from. Almost evry political commentator in the U.K. regard Reform being to the right of the Tories.
Err, Labour left of centre, Liberal who knows, Conservative right moving more right approaching Reform. Compared to Reform Conservative are to their left! But not as far left as Labour who seem to be also heading right! As for Liberals who knows. Greens mainly left as are SNP.
I still don’t agree that the Tories are moving right but as positioning goes what you say is close enough.🙃
Have you only just woken up? If all the extreme right wingers in the Tory party move to Reform then your contention will probably be correct. Statistically it means that the remaining molderate Tories are then the less extreme so by definition it is closer to the centre. However, since those extreme right wingers, Truss, Rees-Mogg and colleagues are still members then they are more right wing. The more right they are the more fascist they become! It may even be the case that the average member is not extreme right wing but sadly the leaders and senior figures tend towards extremism (just as bad as the left wing extremists like Corbyn) and it is actually they who define the party.
I’m sorry Nick but enough’s enough. To call any member of the Tory party a Fascist is not only wrong. It is insulting. Conversation over.
There are none so blind as cannot see!
The parable of the Emperor’s new Clothes!
Look up the definition of ‘fascism’.
I suggest you read what I said a bit more carefully and don’t respond to something I didn’t say!
Definitely a case of cognitive dissonance!
Sentence 1, yes that has always been the case, though it should more correctly be written ‘on the open market’, dubious as that is globally.
Sentence 2, no it wouldn’t have to commit prior to independence, and in any event it would be a command transition/rebadging of existing resources already committed to NATO, not a new start.
Sentence 3 is the known current position, which is subject to possible change by whoever is the decision maker at the time.
Sentence 4 is hopefully true, since it is a load of hot air based on msinterpretations that were never correct in the first place, and subject to the previous line.
Nick Westminster is the decision maker. Westminster will be under great pressure (internationally and domestically) to ensure that most if not all of Europe remains under NATO protection. We do not want any potential Ukraines anywhere near the UK. It would be a danger to the security of the UK, Europe and frankly the world.
Anyway Scotish indepenence is not an option and probably worth forgetting about for some considerable time.
Did I say ANYTHING other than Westminster being the decision maker? Your last sentence is your opinion only. What you want is not the final arbiter. Arguing your opinion about other matters and presenting them as defacto certainty does not helop and it blinds you to all the options. And where apart from your mind has anything been argued about Europe not remaining all under NATO protection. You conflate loads of issues many of which are yet to be decided. Why would all of Europe not be part of NATO anyway? And aside from anything else preventing people from making different decisions is exactly what Putin is doing, in other words a dictatorship. Where is it written down that Scotland would leave NATO?
Nick there are two many problems with Scotish Independence. Firstly the majority of Scots don’t want it as of 2014. Secondly the whole subject distracted from other issues so much that the whole of the UK are now wary about opening that can of worms again anytime soon. Thirdly support for the NATS seems to be on the decline for a number of reasons.
I fully understnad you are keen on Independence and some day I’m sure it will happen however it needs support from the majority of the UK and I see no evidence of that.
You must remember that security is a key issue for this country – highlighted by today of all days. If the Scots want to create the conditions for independence at some point in the future it would be in their interests to provide constructive ways all countries can work together to ensure it is not just the same but better.
Anyway I think we are wasting our breath at the moment.
Aside from your off-thread diversion, before majing statements actually look at the real facts.
Firstly there is not a great majority against independence. There is still a desire for it. Ten years after an event t h e w o r l d h a s m o v e d o n, and circumstances have changed. Just as the political direction at Westminster h a s c h a n g e d! Independence does NOT depend on a third party giving permission. You must get a grip on understanding things more roundly.
In politics there are swings and roundabouts, changing opinions and so on. That does NOT mean that decisions are irrevocable and permanent. That is why we have elections and occasionally referendums.
In any event all I am doing is pointing out that there are NO policy decisions by SNP, Alba, Greens, and those independence supporters in Labour, Conservative and Liberal (yes there some) that ever ever said RN must and will continue to build warships in a newly foreign country. That is a manufactured misdirection argument NOT invented by independence supporters.
I have not argued about the status quo or relative fluctuating support, or even gone into any depth of the multitude reasons why some may prefer independence. A major point being that those who do have put a lot of thought into the reasons why they support the concept. Sadly not matched by those who blindly and unthinkingly only say NO to it. Invariably based on no more then being comfortable with the status quo. If any reasonable person actually looked at the case they would see how well founded it is, especially when those preventing change are unable to substantiate reasons why things should stay as they. A bald NO is not an answer, and neither are the false comparisons used to justify NO. Apart from anything why should people not consider a change when they see what the alternatives are? Properly reviewing those options is a perfectly normal business and personal activity. Maintaining a status quo for its own traditional sake when there are alternatives is frankly ridiculous. Everything is not rosy in the current UK constitutional setup, particularly exposed over the last 15 years or so.
I’ll give you this Nick you are persistant.
A bald NO is an answer and you sticking your fingers in your ears does not change that.
Ask yourself what is in it for everyone, not only the Scots, the Welsh, Irish & English, Americans, Europeans etc.
You might think of it as an excellent idea but you need to start wondering about everyone else’s perspective. What problems is it going to cause and how can these problems be resolved.
You need a win-win situation for everyone. If people are saying NO there is normally a reason. Rishi caused a blip the other night because he raised an awkward question of people being better off or not.
You have just exactly illustrated why the union is doomed. the arrogant and dismissive NO is the principle problem. Why should anyone not be allowed to choose their own destiny? Win – wins are not gained by sayibng NO. It looks like you are proposing a Westminster based dictatorship, similar to how Putin, Trump, Hitler, Kim and others have done or try to do. Clearly you think you get what you want and completely ignore others’ opinions, wishes and needs. And what is so bad about an independent country? What is so bad about countries getting together mutually on a friendly basis? What is better an acrimonius divorce or one based on mutual respect? You seem to be happy basing your opinion, imposing it on others, based on lies and misrepresentation. Is that the way to gaiin mutual respect and co-operation? Why should what in effect is an identifiable country (England) with a population of around 55million dictate to the remaining equally identifiable 3 nation of population of around 15 million? Mutual benefit as long as it is England’s and nobody else’s? You have failed and probably cannot substantiate why other nations cannot be independent. And the facile and false argument that Scotland cannot exist without subsidy from a gratuitously charitable England doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact on that basis alone England would be better off if Scotland (i’m not arguing for Wales or NI that is up to them) were free fronm Westminster control. England says NO to Scotland’s independence just so that England can continue to subsidise them?
Thus far Nick you haven’t convinced the electorate in Scotland never mind the other countries. The UK is sovereign and democratic. Westminster is just where the houses of parliament are (as dictated by a Scotish King I believe). Everyone is represented.
You even have your own devolved Government.
Yet Nick is saying that those Scotish voters who said no at the last referendum are a bit dim and have had the error of their ways explained to them and therefore now say yes. Nick – NO is what the Scotish voters said – and they meant it. In another 20 years or so everyone can relook at the issue until then (or whenever the British parliament decides) the issue is closed.
As a Scot and a very firm NO voter.
Well said!!
You are aware that history turns, and circumstances change? If we aren’t allowed to question the status quo why on earth do we have elections? What do you think elections are about anyway. Where does 20 or so years come into the equation? What law of physics that counters history and circumstances defines 20 years? The issue is NOT closed, which can ONLY happen when nobody questions it or has any concerns. Issues, wishes, desires do NOT stop just because a handful of people decree and deny. The issue remained open once it became apparent that the Vow and other promises were just a pack of lies. Country of equals, stay in the EU, . . . . . And FYI about half the population actively support the concept anyway, consistently so for the last 10 years too, so it is hardly considered closed. It may be closed in your mind which is your right, but that doesn’t mean to say that everybody has to follow your preferred option, which seems to be content with the shenanigans and blatant corruption from the current (now under question) ruling administration!
From where I am sitting there is little mention of Scottish independence. There have been many SNP party MPs lately that have achieved nothing. The other parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Independence is a dead duck Nick and the vast majority of Scots seem to just want the Scotish Parliament to work properly.
Everyone has to follow the British constitution Nick – without exception.
Why does someone replying always have to state the obvious and what is not being questioned? Your last sentence is completely pointless. We KNOW what the so-called constitution is – we don’t actually have one though if you did some research you would know yourself. What we have a is a series of conventions that can be broken on a whim, you only need to look at what Johnson did to see that. Instead of looking within your own narrow bubble look outside it. You may not like the idea of independence (though that position is also taken through the lens of your own perspective anyway) and you may also fall foul of cognitive dissonance meaning you refuse to consider anything other than your own preference. But, independence is far from a ‘dead duck’, and the reasons are precisely because of the so-called constitution and the anti-democratic demographics that bedevil Britain. Also actually stop reading the Daily Mail and Express and again look at the stats compare the situation in Scotland compared to England across many different aspects of society. On balance the SNP have achieved a great deal and improved things for the better – within the constraints of the funding allocated by Westminster. You do need to look outside your bubble.
But, this thread is not arguing the case for Independence it is about the single question which is one generated by the Unionists again stating the obvious that if RN have a policy of not building ships outside of the UK then it is clear to everyone that a country not in the UK is out of it. Nobody is arguing the opposite!
Nick the British Constitution does exist and has been shaping our democratic society for generations. You can’t just wish it away. I don’t read newspapers of any type and I don’t obsess over social media.
Thus far we have really only been talking about what Nick and probably many of his buddies wants. You need to manage at least a majority of the electorate preferably much better than that. You need to make it work for everyone yet you probably don’t have the first clue about making it work for just Scotland hence the reason the Scots never bought into it.
Nick if the British Parliament expelled a current part of the UK from the UK then at that point it would cease to be part of the UK that is true. However until that point all parts of the UK are by definition park of the UK. Frankly it is a daft question. The UK was in the EU until it was out and you never know one day it might be back in again. What is your point?
Nick facts that you find inconvenient you try to dismiss or argue with. We are all part of the UK – if you want that to change it must be done democratically and you need to convince the entire UK of the benefits so everyone votes it through. Currently your agruments are weak and this country has given Scots a shot at proving they are enthusiastist about it and failed. We have other stuff to do and cannot and should not be constantly distracted by this issue.
We do not have a formal constitution. It exists in name only and is in fact a series of conventions, statutes and judicial decisions. Look it up. As it is not actually specified it can be modified on a whim as we have seen in recent years. A constitution is set of fixed rules that state how rights and responsibilities are enshrined. Nothing to do with wishing anything away, but within what is laughingly called our constitution there is nothing about denying people a right to choose. The ones without a clue are the ones blindly repeating the propaganda without putting any thought into a situation. For a fact, obviously you don’t look at things that don’t agree with you, calls for independence have been hovering around 50% of the electorate for many years now, that is hardly a majority either way. I have a lot more of a clue about making it work, and that has also been set out in various documents and prospectuses. The Unionist perspective is incapable of doing the same or providing rational and realistic arguments against. You need to do some research. The ones who don’t have a clue are those who blindly repeat the MSM and Unionist misleading propaganda as well as false promises without thinking or even making real comparisons.
😂 Take that one to the supreme court and argue that. It might not be a written constitution but it doesn’t have to be. There are many books on it and it has governed our lives and those of our forebears for hundreds of years. On that basis alone it exists. You seem to be grasping at straws ….
So by definition as you have acknowledged the so-called constitution is not set in stone! You are the one blinkered. If the constitution is not written it can be updated and modified as seen fit. The other thing you are blinkered about is that just because something has been the case for a long time is not a reason for it to continue or be updated and modified as circumstances change. You also fail to see that keeping people in a relationship against their will is also illegal and in fact contrary to the UN convention. I am not grasping at straws just pointing out the anomalies and ommissions or problems. Pretending they aren’t relevant does not make them go away. I suppose you are also a fan of the flat earth as that was the wisdom and thinking for thousands of years?
Yes Nick the British Constitution is flexible which is one of the reasons why it adapted so well and lasted so long. That is a benefit. It can cater for change and does so on a regular basis.
That said the basis upon which the British Constitution rests are fundamentally democratic across the entire United Kingdom. So you are still left with that hurdle Nick – how to convince the majority of British citizens it’s a good idea.
So therefore there is no reason why things cannot be changed. It isn’t a question of the majority. Since it is not a written document then there is nothing to argue about. The constitution does not therefore prevent referenda to suit specific questions. It is the whim and opinion of one person, – the Prime Minister. That is not democractic.
Things evolve and so does the British constitution – which is why it is so successful. The method of change is defined by the British Constitution as it is and how it has been historically.
You must remember that the PM is under the constitution a person who holds the confidence and support of the House of commons – which was elected democratically. If he/she attempts to do someone which the majority of MPs disapprove of they simply make that known to the King (or they simply resign) and the King appoints someone who hasthe confidence and support of the House of commons.
It is a decision of the PM & the house of commons (a referendum) because it needs legislation to authorise it. The Government will have a majority in the house and as head of the Government the PM would need to agree as would the cabinet.
That is democratic and it is the way that this country works. The only to achieve your aims is through the ballot box or gentle pursuation probably both.
A decision based on the whim of one person supported by a demographically skewed representation. That is not democracy. Democracy is not something that one identifiable group of people can impose on another against their will. The British constitution is not successful. It works but is nothing more than a series of conventions. That is not democratic. You forget that the union of Scotland and the rUK is based on a treaty. Treaties can be renegotiated and there is no time limit on when they can or cannot be re-examined. You are looking through a prism that says there is only one way and that is wonderful and all powerful and never wrong. It is precisley the lack of a written constitution that creates the problems, especially when the associated electoral system is also demographically skewed and incapable of handling more than two groups. This is why for the last indefinite period the party with the most MPs despite more people voting against their policies gets to run the country. That is not democracy. More people voted against the Conservative party in 2019 and previous elections than for. That means that the minority get to dictate to the majority, which is also not democracy. It is the constitutional deficit that creates the problem. Aside from anything else you haven’t explained factually why Scotland cannot have an adult relationship with England addressing mutual benefit. That is the basis of the debate.
Nonsense. The relationship is built on the British Constitution. It is system we have and were born into. It might not be perfect but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Was it not the Acts of Union 1707 passed by the Scotish & English Parliaments. “United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain“.
Let’s face it Nick Great Britain was created in 1707 and the Scots were given a chance to indicate they wished to leave in 2014 which they declined. Great Britain is defined as one Kingdom – not two.
I am merely stating the facts. Just because the facts don’t suit your wishes means absolutely nothing. You can’t change it. Nobody on this forum can change it – only the will of the British people through the British parliament can change it.
Currently the basis of debate happpens through Scotish representation at the parliament. I suggest you choose your MP carefully and push your opinions through him/her. .
Lets face it. Treaties, joint enterprises, contracts, marriages are all subject to continuing acceptance by the relevant parties. Yes the relationship of the Union is historic. But as with all things remains subject to continued acceptance by the people’s involved. None of these is set in stone and immutable, and there is no defined time limit or timescale for reviews. All arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure they remain valid and fit for purpose, that is standard practice. From your position all the many tens of countries in the Commonwealth are still part of the British Empire. We know that current and historic situation, but as we see playing out with the Post Office, any and all positions based on lies and false promises continued subjugation are doomed to fail. The principle cause of the continued drive for independence by slightly more than 50% of the electorate are due to the continued failure to address the perceived failings of the undemocratic disparate imbalance of the demographics of the UK. There is no time bar on remedies or changes.
Just as states in the US have no way out of the union without the agreement of the union then there is no way out for Scotland I’m afraid.
The British empire does not exist anymore simply because the countries have been released by Britain.
I’m sure the U.K. will break up one day but perhaps not yet.
So two contributors to a treaty, and only one of the parties has full control over what the other does! Not very democratic is it? Empire rules!
It doesn’t stop the idea or drive to seek it though? Calls for independence are a consequence of the treatment, and complainst about that do no go away just because someone insists on keeping the other in a form of ‘bondage’ and ‘inferiority’. The way to stop those demands is to resolve the problems that give rise to them!
Both sides went further than a treaty. There were two acts of parliament created by each party which created a single union. That union is democratic across the entire geographic area covered by the countries previously.
So acts of union and democratic. 🤷
The British empire via acts of parliament has disappeared over the last hundred years.
So it is up to one or both sides to renegotiate! If either side wishes to do so then the other needs to take part, there is no veto in such discussions. It is the undemocratic veto that causes the problem. There is no law of physics that says treaties are set in stone for ever more. What is better a major falling out and acrimonius break up or one where there is mutual respect, consideration and future collaboration? A veto by one person does not do that. If what is in effect the English veto wasn’t so dismissive about the concerns then this issue may never have arisen.
You are missing the point. Both the English & Scotish parliaments desolved themselves and create one parliament. The British Parliament. That means there is only one side – the British side and has been for over 300 years.
You completely miss the point. If one of those parties wishes to engage in a debate to change or restructure that treaty then it is up to one or both to do so. It is not for one side (more specifically one single person) to deny the other any change. There is no immutable law of physics that says any joint arrangement is premanently fixed. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had a referendum 10 years ago. As happens in any arrangement be they contracts, marriages, other treaties like the Treaty of Rome! There may well be compromise penalties but they are not premanently fixed.
Nick you’re deliberately ignoring the point. There are NOT two sides. There is only ONE sovereign parliament. Please note the current Scotish Government is NOT sovereign.
Also the treaty of rome did not originally have any get out clause. Article 50 was added by the EU under the lisbon treaty.
Treaties do NOT have to have get out clauses and normally don’t. Besides it was not a treaty that desolved the Scotish and English parliaments it was Acts of parliament by both houses in the year 1707.
You are an example of the problem! Yes we all know there is one UK parliament. But a separate and identifiable group of people are entitled to make their own decisions, exactly as has been done around the world. You are stating the obvious. If treaties are not required to have a get out clause then it is up to anyone of the parties to that treaty to question and review that treaty, which means it remains open to challenge by any of those parties and it is not up to a single individual to decline that review and potential change of status. Yes as it stands that is how the convention works, but that is only a convention. That does not make the convention right or even democratic.
Now you are making more sense
That is essentially why parliament gave Scotland a referendum in the first place
If the Scottish people or the Welsh people or indeed the northern Irish people no longer wish to be part of the UK then I doubt the rest of the UK will want to ignore that issue in the long term. However we cannot be having referenda on a regular basis it is a total distraction . The YES voters lost and I would expect a substantial period of time to elapse unless the polls indicated a massive majority in support (say 2-1) in which case it might be done without having a referendum.
The most important thing is that the English are not your enemies in this venture Scots need to understand that Scotland is important to the defence of our islands and NATO generally so helping ensure that an independent Scotland must do everything it can to defend all NATO members could only help make independence a reality.
I have always made sense. All I argue about is the unreasonable impositions of single views usually biased and invariably intended to present a personal opinion is actual fact. We have referenda every 4 or 5 years, what do you think an election is? This is nothing to do with long or short term thinking and if there remains an issue of concern it needs to be tested, whenever those large scale concerns are raised. Not at the behest of a single person who invariably doesn’t want it to be tested, – usually because of a fear of losing. If the Unionists were so sure of their position then we could have a referendum as often as we wanted (!) as we would lose. But the point is that as long as enough people have concerns about the constitutional status they cannot be ignored and those concerns do not disappear, just because one person says no. And yes people’s opinions do matter it is all about compromise and balance, weighing up the pros and cons. Saying ‘no’ does not do that. If Westminster really understood the whole UK democratic deficit they would do somethign about it, but the issue is not even independence it is all about the unelected oligarchs who really dictate what happens in their best interests. The rest of us have to go along with it. Unlike say Russia, Iran, North Korea our dictators are behind the scenes pulling the strings.
Nonsense. Having an election where each constituent can choose someone to respresent them in parliament is nothing like a referenda which simply asks a bunch of people how they feel about something at any given point in time.
I think perhaps you have not considered the possibility that there is not a sizable majority of Scots who support independence. If and when there is such a majority everyone will know and the British Government will deal with that.
I tend to stop discussions when people start talking in conspriacy theories and powers behind the scenes becauce it is bo****cks. You are simply making up wild scenarios to explain why you are not getting your way. That is selfish, undemocratic and daft. There is no point in continuing this discussion.
While you look through your blinkers and refuse to actually apply any thought to what you are spouting it would help. You keep your delusion through not thinking. There is and has been for a long time now a significant proportion of the country hovering around 50% in support of independence. So it is patently obvious that this an issue not going away. Regardless of the opinion of those who wish otherwise. Telling people no does not go anywhere near that. The un-democratic is refusing to allow people to test opinion. And clearly you are of the view that nothing is allowed to change which is itself not a sustainable position. You are entitled to that view and even promote it, but you really need to check is that position justified? Does that position have any supporting reason, which to date has been nil, other than someone not wanting to change? The selfish, undemocratic position is actually refusibng to allow a debate and test. Since when have I mentioned any conspiracy theories? It seems that you imagine a lot of things and then ascribe them to others as your own justification. Look up Cognitive Dissonance! Those who promote independence have a reasoned and substantiated basis for those views. There has been absolutely no sustainable or supported argument in favour of the union! Just look at the inability to produce any arguments even remotely on the scale of the various independence white papers over the years. Your position is accepted as yours, that is your right, but it isn’t right to impose it on everybody else.
They can’t leave what they are not a member of.
I think your geography is lacking. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as well as England are a member. They all contribute funds (sent by Westminster on everyone’s behalf) and other resources which have also been built up collectively on their behalf. If Scotland isn’t a member then neither is England!
I think what Marked is saying is that we are all British Citizens as individuals. We elect MPs (in the area we live) who represent us in Parliament. Countries don’t really come into it.
A more realistic article this time around. Well done. Key things are any future decision is entirely up to the decision makers in UK at an appropriate time. The only real thing to note is that there is no direct or even policy expectation that RN would continue using Scottish yards and expertise in the event of independence. In fact there never has been despite some incorrect assertions and individual comments misinterpreted through out of context quotes. In that regard it should be noted that while the SNP clearly advocate for independence it is not ‘owned’ by them and the wish for independence is a movement of which the SNP are the most high profile. So all those people thinking that if the SNP diminish then independence disappears are very much mistaken. The reasons why people wish for independence remain the same regardless of political party.
At least a week since this question was last asked…no is the answer, as it always has been and always will be.
Who asked the question? It has NEVER been asked. Just some media person creating mischief, and everybody else fell for it hook line and sinker. There has NEVER been any policy announcements, documents whatever actually saying your misdirected ‘fact’. Even worse some people have taken a verbal statement (on a par with the ramblings ascribed to Johnson, Truss, etc and invariably taken as some sort of messianic truth).
This whole concept and argument has been started by someone over thinking the verbal ramblings of a range of politicians from many years ago. At no time has any substantiated policy document ever been published supporting the ascribed assertions. In fact it has been based on a misinterpetation of what was said.
If Scotland went independent, could we genuinely see a crisis in UK shipbuilding and the Royal Navy become, if only for a time, non-functional? What yard could take over from BAE Clyde? A&P Tyne? Appledore? Cammell Laird? Do any of them have the space, facilities or workers? Taking into account the investment on the Clyde which would be rendered pointless, the yard at Rosyth as well, that’s the entirety of the future frigate fleet stopped, a delay in the Type 83 and huge sums needing thrown at another site to get it up to speed which would take a few years at least. All the while the T23 force shrinks further, the T45 need driven harder to make up, no replacements coming for years.
Honestly the whole scenario sounds like a catastrophe. At least one person in Europe would be happy at the chaos.
The speed we’re building at the Tory/Reform party will probably be in power by then.🙄
No one wants Scottish Independence. The Scottish don’t want it. The SNP doesn’t want it. They should start being honest about their intentions of taking Scotland into being run from Brussels by an autocratic institution, not democratically from Edinburgh.
Wrong, if you look at the stats the figures show that at present more than 50% of Scots do support independence. And there is no automatic rejoining of EU in the event of independence. That is a decision that would be taken after that event and is not decided in advance. Where on earth do you get your peculiar third sentence from. I suggest as well as looking at stats you actually read what the SNP have said, and ignore the non-SNP who somehow seem to know something that the SNP haven’t said! You appear to be a glutton for fake news and misinformation.
We do love recycling articles don’t we, this is like the 7th time youve posted if this would continue… its getting boring lol
If keeping shipbuilding options open is a “betrayal”, all the more so is talk of independence referendums. “Betrayal” cuts both ways.
What nobody mentions is why would the UK build warships in a country that has conflicting interests and policies. One only has to look at the Nuclear issue and see defense policies don’t align. We can’t guarantee a future Scottish Government will hand the ships over much like the Germans and their defense exports to the Saudis.