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.

RFA Tidespring

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.”

HMS Forth in Scotstoun, the first of five new Offshore Patrol Vessels.

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.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

258 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago

I think its time we move the Ships now. Scotland seems hell bent on gaining their independence and that’s up to them, but frankly its a security risk and we aught to start making preparations now. Also if an independence vote is to be allowed (brigudgingly thinking it should) then the deal of such withdraw should be determined before such vote. hopefully it will include keeping HMNB Clyde, passing on Scotland’s debt on to itself, stop all money going to Scotland, give them 15% of the North Sea Oil fields and move all naval ship building from Scotland.

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Scotland is not hell bent on Independence, the SNP are, and they do not represent the majority of the people living in Scotland.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Thursday would suggest overwise.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Hi Harry. Don’t look just at the number of SNP MPs. Look deeper at the actual vote share in each constituency. More people voted for other parties than the SNP.

Jo Swinson lost her seat by a hundred or so votes. Hardly the landslide the SNP want people to believe.

They had 55 MPs in 2015, down to 37 in 2017, and I think 47 now? Topsy turvy stuff.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago

Fair enough. My apologies.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry! No need to apologise mate. Just trying to reassure.

david russell
david russell
4 years ago

Just to be clear SNP got a bigger %age than the Tories, on a higher turnout and a much higher %age of seats. If that isn’t a mandate for the SNP in Scotland then the Tories, and no UK government ever, has or has had a mandate for anything. Same election, same rules. If Tories got a landslide and massive majority then the SNP’s was bigger.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago

That video of Nikki celebrating Swinson’s defeat. Is it just me or was that done with just a little too much enthusiasm? Seems an obvious point but we would need to ensure we repatriated the nuclear weapons.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

That, would be a problem, as in where to store them with comparable levels of security that Coulport has.

C Jones
C Jones
4 years ago

Milford Haven in West Wales would welcome them. They’d need to spend a large amount of money to re-make the underground bunkers, but the geology of the area would work. It’s a deep water port and has easy access to the western approaches.

Biggest problem I can see is that it’s also a CNG port so has massive tankers going in and out daily which would need careful coordination.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago
Reply to  C Jones

I think the Irish might have something to say about that, they very much resent having Sellafield on their ‘doorstep’.

Chris
Chris
1 year ago

Not entirely sure why that would be. The subs coming out of Faslane have to travel much closer to Ireland than they would if they were based in Milford Haven.

Jim Camm
Jim Camm
10 months ago
Reply to  C Jones

Milford Haven might indeed need to become a naval base in the event of an independent Scotland, but I think it’s more likely that it would be replacing HMNB Faslane & basing the nuclear subs there instead of building ships. My guess is BAE (Clyde) would move all its resources to the Mersey (as BAE Cammell Laird is already there) as they have plenty to space to build a new frigate factory to move the capacity there. I’d then expect Babcock to move to Newcastle and the Tyne as there are still some shipbuilding facilities there and space to expand… Read more »

Ian
Ian
1 year ago

Allocate money to where it’s needed.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

Couldn’t we just do what America did with Guantanamo Bay and just keep it. Since we basically hold all the top cards in any negotiations.

Martin
Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

No Harry the Americans had a lease in Guantanamo. England’s got no lease at Faslane. I’m guessing your English and probably never been to Faslane but it’s at the top of a Fiord which is accessed through a river deep inside the middle of Scotland. I think its beyond the resources of a small country like England to attempt to occupy the entire Strathclyde region not to mention the damage a country like England that can neither feed nor fuel itself would suffer as a result of the international sanctions from illegally occupying another country. That being said the Scottish… Read more »

Barry White
Barry White
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

For your information the armaments depot at Ernesettle used to store nuclear weapons (i admit it was not missiles but nuclear depth charges) And that being on the outskirts of a city of 300000 Plus Devonport was the home or one of the homes of the nucleared powered sub fleet before basing them all in Faslane just to try and stop the women moaning Also Devonport refits and refuels the missile subs So it would seem to me that its a case of finding a suitable base similar to Coleport down south or maybe Pembroke to construct a new base… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

Hi Barry.

Ernsettle had occurred to me too. It is partially inside a hill, like Coulport, next to the water ( for a new EHJ ) and has a rail link.

Yes Devonport is the obvious choice for the SSN’s, for the reasons you outline.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

Getting bombers into and out of Guz is tricky with tides etc, its no easy feat compared to the deep water of the Clyde. I’d guess it would cost a fortune to make it deep enough but I could be wrong.

Barry White
Barry White
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Andy
If thats the case
How do they get in and out to be refitted and refueled

Gfor
Gfor
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

They are in ballast with no missiles or other certain bits on them before they make the passage from the Clyde.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

Very gingerly Barry and as said by Gfor, as lightly as possible and when the tides are right. Quite narrow windows as I recall.

Barry White
Barry White
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

I think you seem to have read my post wrong
I never said Base them in Plymouth if you read on you will see i said the bases for the missile subs should be somewhere south (Cornwall perhaps) or Pembroke
All other subs based at Plymouth

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

Barry I was replying to your second post about how they got in and out of Guz to be refitted and refuelled. Thankfully I only had a limited time on bombers (1 patrol) so didn’t take one in or out of Guz but have been down there when mates were taking one out of refit and as I recall a LOT of things have to be right. The submarine refits should never have left Rosyth, it was perfect but as ever, politics got in the way.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Andy r I live a couple of miles from there and the picture you paint doesnt resonate with me .Faslane only closes the main gates during CND protests and uses another gate to service entrance and exit, it operates 24hrs a day 7 days a week

Nick Tutill
Nick Tutill
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

There’s tidal problems nowadays at Faslane. UK Govt looking to relocate at some point because of this. Wales looks likely

Darren Sharrocks
Darren Sharrocks
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

what utter rubbish, stop talking nationalist nonsense

Martin
Martin
4 years ago

support for independence was running at 35% when Cameron came to power and its now polling over 50% consistently. With Boris in the numbers just keep going up. Maybe people in England like a bunch of Eton educated Toffs ruling them but people in Scotland have had enough. Also remember its not just the SNP that are pro independence the Green Party are also. We had a good run for 300 years and achieved many great things together but England decided to go another way as did Wales. Scotland and NI want to stay in the EU so seems fair… Read more »

Shane Ramshaw
Shane Ramshaw
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Had enough of what?

David
David
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Good point Martin. Being English, i’d like to see Scotland go independent. Not because I believe either of us would benefit but because i’m sick of the potential for years of Sturgeon and the (admittedly small group of Scott’s) blaming everything on England as a national obsession. I think it’s time to move on and the prospect of holding a referendum every five years until Sturgeon gets her dream is not one that I believe is in the national interest of either Scotland or rUK. Sturgeon has made it clear (perversely) that they want independence from the UK but want… Read more »

Jim Camm
Jim Camm
10 months ago
Reply to  Martin

…As did much of England, including London (a region with both more people and richer than Scotland). It does rather seem that while the rest of us who lost out are just putting our heads down and trying to make the best of a bad situation, Scotland is just acting like a child throwing a temper-tantrum as soon as they didn’t get their own way, despite equally taking part in the same democratic process that everyone else did FAIRLY. There are plenty of people south of the border that are unhappy with how the Brexit referendum turned out (and the… Read more »

Sean
Sean
4 years ago

The SNP only got 45% of the popular vote.
It would need >50% of the popular vote to win a referendum.

The SNP are deflecting the news ahead of Alex Salmond’s trials next year.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

Better to look at the last vote 55/45, which is very close. If the SNP gets another vote, it’s too tight to call and I suspect with the policitical weight they have now and Brexit, the chances are independence will be voted for.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago

Like more people didn’t vote for the Tories!!! Swinson was a high profile UK party leader.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
5 months ago

Look at the vote share and numbers of what gives the UK parliament its authority, consistently less than 50%, yet taken as authority to impose unwanted legislation.

Johnny
Johnny
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

The SNP had less than 50% of the vote, food for thought

maurice10
maurice10
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

The SNP needs to take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Have they truly costed independents? The lead up to a second vote (whenever that is) could drag on its economy, with people south of the border changing holiday plans to elsewhere in the UK? I know a few friends who have expressed doubts. The possible withdrawal of naval shipbuilding and the definite closure of the Barnet Formula funding, could have a knock-on effect on Scottish household budgets. The possible closure of Faslane would mean the loss of thousands of jobs in the Western Highlands, and… Read more »

MattW
MattW
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

1.2 million voted for SNP out of the 5.5 million people in Scotland. It was approximately a 66% turn out from memory which is 3,630,000 voters. This equates to roughly 33% voted SNP (assuming my maths is working this morning)

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  MattW

You need to back out @1million + under 18

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

You’re not the other Mike then! Good to know many Scots value the union with their fellow Brits. Most of the English do too I hope.

Martin
Martin
4 years ago

The blessed Union, Most people in England don’t even know what it is and it had never even been referenced in popular culture until 2014.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

And yet, we all learned of it in School Martin. Depends what lefty teachers brainwashed you I guess.

Pete
Pete
4 years ago

And how many of us were taught of Scotlands role in the ’30 years war’ ? A history kept silent.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

As with countless other UK residents in England, I have recent Scottish ancestry (some of you may have assumed that). I have also numbered vehemently patriotic born-and-bred Scots among my aquaintance, who happen to live down here i.e. because its the UK. They are proud of that together with the influence their country has had on the UK**. As such I remain puzzled by the view that some currently resident Scots hold that they have been really hard done by within the Union. Examples might include: the Union was a Stuart objective; the empire was built by them; many of… Read more »

Cam
Cam
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Well said Mike, people always confuse the SNP with the scottish as a whole!

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Cam

Like the whole of England being Tory then?

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

They do. And at worst it is only a 50/50 split. Don’t make silly definitive statements like that.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike

A swithering majority of the population says otherwise, in the face of Tory practices! Independence is about people not a singular political party. Votes say otherwise to your contention.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry, I think Scottish waters account for about 90% of the total UK value of some £20billion. Having said that, North Sea oil is running down and oil prices vary to some degree, I dont see how you could plan a budget on something so volatile. Also, take into the account arguments from the likes of The Shetlands whoc ould claim a majority of those fields are actually in their waters.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

the oil wouldn’t be divided by sea, but rather by ownership. The UK owns the oil and not Scotland, therefore an independent Scotland would receive its oil share based on population. therefore around 10%.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Not sure is going to matter Harry. Why should Boris lift a finger to help the SNP after the abuse they gave him over Brexit. Boris should get two terms (Labour recovery won’t be that quick). Maybe if the SNP attitude changed there might be a referendum in 2035 and then it will be ten years making everything happen. The oil will be gone or surplus to requirements.

Colin Miller
Colin Miller
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

as a proud Scot who opposes independence on every level…
even I say your interpretation of where the oil goes is pants!

an independent country has the right to the water that surround it, it does not magically up and move to another country…

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin Miller

It’s nothing to do with the water. It’s about the resources under it which belong to the United Kingdom not Scotland. In all fairness dividing it up by the sea is the most practical and recognised way of doing it. But dividing it by population is also a legally justified if not complicated way of doing it. Which we could do since we hold all the top cards in any negotiation. If the EU has taught us anything it’s not to negotiate fair.

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin Miller

Spot on.

Martin
Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

You do know that the sea is already divided into England and Scotland right? Your not that badly informed are you? You know this thing called the union means that there are different legal systems for Scotland and England and have been for 300 years which means that the sea is divided already based on legal systems?

Martin
Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

that’s why Scotland already has its own OPV’s to patrol the EEZ all the way out into the Atlantic. The English Government (DEFRA) outsources this to the Royal Navy which is what the River Batch 1’s are used for in the fisheries protection squadron while the Scottish government has its own three OPV’s

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Once again its not the sae. Its the resources below it.

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry. There is clear UN / international law and precedent on this. Martin is spot on. By same argument Scotland would have 15% access to resources in the balance of the Uk

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Really… I feel you dont understand the concept of an Exclusive Economic Zone below the surface of the sea. Im not a nationalist but the economic royalties would stay north… And those numbers dont currently contribute to economic balance sheet accredited to Scotland.. Another major revenue stream would be potentially export tax on @1billion bottles of whisky leaving Scotland annually… Again revenue not currently accredited to scotland due to the consumer pays approach to alcohol excise applied by HMG. A basic bottle of Scotch costs about #1 to make, #1 to store and #1 for advertising and distribution. The balance… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

I do have an understanding of what EEZ is, although i also understand their negotiable. Now my “theory” comes from an article i read back in 2014. Been spending all night trying to find it, with no success. Although I’m begging to think that perhaps it wasn’t the most well informed article. So i apologies for my rather ill informed statement. Although even if Scotland received 90% of the oil fields as Steve points out it isn’t exactly that beneficial for Scotland.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

How much tax is placed on exporting goods I thought the receiving country placed the tax therefore gets the revenue Scotland would get the tax the owner makes selling it

Pete
Pete
4 years ago

Hey 700.. Govts have the option of import duties, export duties, consumption tax or production tax. I would simply imagine that with a global market leading brand Scotland would tax production a couple of quid a bottle and take that benefit rather than allowing other governments to take all the fiscal benefit.

Steve R
Steve R
4 years ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

Even if Scotland had all that North Sea oil, it’s an export that will continue to dwindle. In coming decades we will see a huge decline in petrol and diesel powered vehicles as much of the world moves to electric. Give it 50 years and there will barely be a petrol or diesel car or lorry on the road! Same for much of Europe, Japan etc. USA will take longer but eventually they will too, as will China. This will lead to a massive decline in the international sales of crude oil. The Middle East’s economy will crumble as their… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve R

Yup! But the UK economy relies on it too!

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry , I realise that you prob don’t look to deeply into this matter but I’m getting really sick and tired of English folk who know squat about what the crack is up here.let me explain – 1-It’s only the snp who are hell bent on this , they are just 1 political party 2- the polls don’t show any increase in appetite for independence 3- if you add up the votes of the pro union parties at the election they are 55% so more than the snp votes 4- many people voted snp as they don’t want brexit –… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago

Id like to take your word for it, and very much would like to believe that Scotland wishes to remain part of the union. The issue is that it seems that British politicians only want to please to groups of people. Londerners and Scotts and frankly a lot of English people are getting feed up of it.

Colin
Colin
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

So are Scots, it’s just the media is so full of BS. The sun ( I know scum but) in England says let’s get out of Europe urgently the sun in Scotland says we need to stay in Europe and leave the UK. The bbc in Scotland will do anything so the snp don’t say their bias, for instance the BBC Scotland channel it’s pants! But it’s costing us all millions to keep a few idiots who think they are William Wallace or Bonny Prince Charlie happy! If the message gets out stop listening to the media we would work… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin

Very true. Thanks for the insight.

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin

Colin Dunno if you know this but all the regional BBC channels are pants and there is a lot of them and they all cost money .In particular BBC Wales oh and the utter drivel that is BBC oxford oh nearly forgot BBC one south that’s utter dog? good try though ?

Colin Miller
Colin Miller
4 years ago

I know what you are meaning yes they are all pants but no they are not the same. BBC oxford is similar to the original BBC Scotland, both of these (unless I am mistaken) show regional info on BBC One.

what I am pointing out is a complete separate BBC channel in Scotland. Have a look here, even if you change the location you still get the separate Scottish channel

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/guide

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin Miller

Anyways man we are just heading down a never ending spat of inconsequential nonsense way off topic we Cana lol agree the BBC is utter ?is nothing but bias propaganda and should be scrapped along with the rest of the media outlets and invite real journalists who’s job it is to INFORM the public as opposed to FORMING public opinion which I’m afraid to say these cheeky wee monkeys have done a blinding job of doing the latter to some folks in this site

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Bro no need to be sceptical , take my word for it I as I’ve maybe mentioned before I’m a Scot and I live here ,and the election results /figures are facts with regard % .Frankly it’s laughable when I hear some of you guys getting all uppity over what is basically London centric media driven hysteria from down your way, however it’s not reality……. so relax man kick back and get back to discussing what is the whole point of this site U.K. military matters . I for one will be extremely disappointed if Bojo doesn’t up the MoD… Read more »

Colin Miller
Colin Miller
4 years ago

I live in Scotland too, a small village called Glasgow……

I just don’t like people getting information where the whole of scotland is on the march to freedom, which is wrong….

anyhow, hopefully the new ships will be pushed to be built faster..

Mike
Mike
4 years ago

And the Greens, and many Scottish Labour Party members.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago

Agree with you ‘The Artist….’, this site can work itself up into a frothing rage about Scottish independence and its a pity as most of it is ill informed gibberish based on opinion and wishful thinking. Plenty malice thrown in too, quite telling how some of our southern neighbours view us. I mean I know the internet is 90% forums for people working themselves up into a fervour, and pornography (where they’re working themselves up into a different kind of fervour) but even on articles that have sod all to do with Scotland/ship building/independence we see the same rants, conflating… Read more »

Expat
Expat
4 years ago

TAFKALPC…. Also Labours collapse was throughout the UK for those who want a left of centre government in Scotland the SNP was obvious go to party.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 years ago
Reply to  Expat

Hi Expat, Good point. I’m no expert of Scottish politics (we only only see the very limited headines south of the boarder it seems) but even with that limited information it is possible to understand that the SNP is a centre left party. Scotland has a very strong centre left tradition so with the Labour Party going all middle class socialist with strong unilateral pacifist tendencies the SNP was an obvious place to put your X, even if you do not agree with Independence. In England there are still only 2 real contenders for government. I believe [and more than… Read more »

JD
JD
4 years ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

HARRY,
YOU ARE SO RIGHT, JUST CLOSE THE cLYDE, MOVE SHIPBUILDING SOUTH AND THEN TREAT THE SCOTS AS eu CITIZENS AS THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE AS SOON AS NS GETS HER WAY

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
4 years ago
Reply to  JD

Unfortunately for them they won’t be EU citizens. Even if they leave before we leave the EU, they would still be a new nation so won’t have membership. They also won’t meet EU standards of having a defecite of 3%, since theirs is 7%. So no Scotland will be neither in the EU or the UK.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

No ‘our’ deficit is based on Westminster’s deficit, which is based on Tory economic priorities. Post independence economys and measures will be different. No London based vanity projects, no disproportionate National Grid charges, exports from Scotland being recorded there and not in London…….

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Hear Hear.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago

Pretty much a dead cert they won’t be building much, but I’m sure Xenophobic Mike will raise his head and give us a lecture!

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

I’m no xenophobe. After all, you voted to leave the EU. Xenophobic or what? You voted Tory (likely to cut your defence spending) Xenophobic or what? An independent Scotland would need only a small navy of patrol vessels in my opinion but I know that former RN RAF and Army officers who are now members of the SNP will have the matter under consideration. As for enemies – who exactly? England? Eire manages well enough. The most recent opinion poll looks good. A Survation Poll carried out on 11 December indicates 46% for and 47% against independence. 7% are unsure.… Read more »

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

I’m no xenophobe. After all, you voted to leave the EU. Xenophobic or what? You voted Tory (likely to cut your defence spending) Xenophobic or what? An independent Scotland would need only a small navy of patrol vessels in my opinion but I know that former RN RAF and Army officers who are now members of the SNP will have the matter under consideration. As for enemies – who exactly? England? Eire manages well enough. The most recent opinion poll looks good. A Survation Poll carried out on 11 December indicates 46% for and 47% against independence. 7% are unsure.… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I suspect Mike that for the next 5 years Boris is going to be focused on those that voted for him – he has a lot to do. Yes if you get polls with a thumping majority say 60%+ it might tempt him to lance the boil but none of this 52-48 nonsense. I sense that our attention is going to drift away from Westminster and we will just be interested in seeing if Boris does what he said and/or Labour gets its act together or disintegrates completely. We will focus again on defence and discuss some kid making UAVs… Read more »

Daniel
Daniel
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I don’t see how you are in any position to make assumptions about what any of us voted for at various times. For your information I neither voted for Brexit or for the Tories. The difference between you and I, however, is that I am willing to accept the democratic will of the rest of my country instead of trying to jump ship because a vote didn’t go my way. And by “my country” I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with all its constituent parts. Scotland is in my opinion, along with England, Wales and… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Daniel

I don’t think the EU vote was at all fair. However, Boris has his majority and we are leaving the EU.

John Clark
John Clark
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I think we have been here before Mike. It’s great that you are passionate about your cause, but, stop for a moment and take stock about how an independent Scotland would find itself.. Now the UK election is out of the way, we ( that’s all of us, like it or not) are leaving the EU. If (that’s a big if) Boris allows you another referendum, it won’t be until the withdrawal has been completed, say two years from now for good measure. So it’s 2023, Scotland gets its referendum, let’s focus in on the economic facts. No1, Scotland already… Read more »

James
James
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Mike are you suggesting Labour would have increased defence spending?

Martin
Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I think I would rather be in a small Scotland with a small navy and part of the largest nation block on the planet (EU) than a medium sized country with a dwindling military only able to provide support for US operations carried out in US interest. Cameron ended Britain and the British military in 2010 when he let Osbourne run defence spending. Such a hollowed out force (literally aircraft carriers with no plains) is not worth investing 40 billion a year into. Better to realise and accept the limitations and be a small country like Denmark or Norway

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Ah the aircraft carrier with no “plains” nonsense! Just by saying that, negates your whole post as it’s such a repeated and incorrect analogy of building up a carrier capability that it shows a total lack of military knowledge and understanding.

John Clark
John Clark
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

Airborne, I am sure the carriers will have at least one plain in the workshop for work on the captain’s teak finished launch, assuming they still have such things!

John Clark
John Clark
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

As already discussed Martin, you are taking a blind leap of faith. No guarantee that the EU will accept you, even if they do, it could be many years before you are accepted, especially if Macron had anything to do with it. He wants to pause any additional membership until the EU sorts itself out. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boris does a backroom deal to block Scottish membership of the EU as part of trade negotiations. The EU don’t need another country to carry and would far prefer you remain within the Union. Such skulduggery is par of the… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Wow what a xenophobic rant, with added froth!

Rob
Rob
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Using the term ‘Xenophobia’ in the context of the EU referendum is a rather lazy way of trying to explain the result. Yes there are a minority of people who are like that in any country, including Scotland. After all the Scots who are anti English are Xenophobes by definition. The result came about due to a myriad of issues, not least a sense of trying to stick two fingers up at the Establishment in times where the gap between the rich and poor is widening. Also because the EU has turned into something no-one voted for, rightly or wrongly.… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Yaaaaaaawn

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

PS – 18 vessels are not under construction. Several have been built and delivered. Several have not even been ordered!

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Damn you can’t stop can you xenophobic Mike!

Jason Holmes
Jason Holmes
4 years ago

More people DIDN’T vote for SNP than voted for them in this election. I know that non SNP voters doesn’t necessarily mean a vote to remain, but it seems likely it would be another vote in favour of remaining. First-past the post means they get what seems to be very disproportionate representation in government, 45% of votes and 48/59 seats…I can’t see this carrying on for long.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Jason Holmes

Quite. The exact opposite of UKIP in 2015 with neat 4 million votes and 1 MP, a defector at that.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Holmes

Like more people didn’t vote for Tories at Westminster either! Look at the figures and percentages!!!!

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago

Scotland currently doesn’t have the numbers to win a referendum (45% or less based on SNP votes at the election). If that changes for whatever reason I’m a democrat and think they we should start planning their exit. Before they make up their mind though I think we should learn the lessons of Brexit and specify in writing the details of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship. I would also want to know how they intend to defend their country with a third of the land mass and 9% of the population. That needs to satisfy the rest of… Read more »

Daniel
Daniel
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

I understand your points but I think we should be careful to avoid using phrasing like “Scotland currently doesn’t have the numbers to win”. Characterising the SNP and their pro-independence supporters as “Scotland” would only serve to creata an “us and them” mentality which is exactly what the SNP would want.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Daniel

Humble apologies Daniel – point well taken.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago

I hope they would not build a single vessel.

Pull out of Faslane. Invite the Clyde work force south where the work is. Insist they take their share of the national debt, or have no claim to any assets.

Dealing with security would be a problem. Scots form a valued part of the SS, the SIS and GCHQ, and would need to be completely removed. Same with SF and Defence Intelligence.

They can then apply to rejoin NATO and the EU, losing their recently acquired sovereignty they crave, by merging with our continental neighbours but splitting from fellow Brits. Strange.

Johnny
Johnny
4 years ago

I agree 1000000%, sturgeon (Jimmy Cranky) always seems to forget about the Barnet formula. VERY CONVENIENT!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Johnny

Let her. It is the people themselves I hope remember it. Many of us English, myself included, see ourselves as British, and I would be devastated if my fellow Britons, the Scots, left.

You cannot compare this situation with the EU and Brexit. The EU has morphed into something the EEC we joined was not, and we never voted on it til 2016. The union is over 300 years old between BRITISH people.

David Barry
David Barry
4 years ago

No like button.

English shipyards must be rubbing their hands in glee.

However, re-siting the Deterrent will be a problem; then there is the problem of the de-commissioned subs that will have to be taken under tow.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  David Barry

SNP want a share of assets, and the debt. Well, they can have some of those.

Barry White
Barry White
4 years ago

Daniele Mandelli
” Invite the Clyde work force south where the work is”
That is one thing i totally dissagree with as it would mean all their wages going back to Scotland helping to support a country that turned its back on the union

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

Maybe Barry. I would think – one, some of that workforce are not Scots but English and Welsh, and two, if they are the experts at what they do what choice do we have?

David Barry
David Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry White

They’ll have to pay rent 😉

Bob
Bob
4 years ago

No, no. No more ships built Clyde or Rosyth post independence.

It must all be relocated to places like Teeside – ensuring that forward thinking voters benefit from government contracts before socialist cartels like the Mersey.

Colin Miller
Colin Miller
4 years ago

there is a lot of discussion taking place regarding the Scots leaving as a proud Scot, I have no intention of allowing the SNP taking me out of the UK. The ability of the SNP is to divert attention away from Scotland to Westminster for their mistakes is why this is happening. the SNP has some wonderful ideas of a future military in scotland For example the SNP post independance plan to use our cadet forces (12-20yo kids) as part of the front line defence of scotland.. as stated in a written response by the then first minister A. Salmond… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin Miller

I tend to agree. I feel a need to get back to standard politics and let the politicians get on with it. No more referendums etc.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

They cannot become the norm. We had two. Both results should be respected, and move on.

Sadly groups of lefty teenagers with no respect for anything rioting in London, and Woke Celebs who never leave the London bubble to go beyond the M25 to see what the country actually thinks think differently.

Let them. A few hundred versus tens of millions.

Herodotus
4 years ago

Come on Daniele….you chastise me for the odd generalisation whilst engaging in yourself. I am certainly not a teenager and I don’t live in London. As do millions of people who wanted a 2nd referendum on Brexit. Remember that more people voted for parties that supported a 2nd referendum than this sleazebag government!

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin Miller

Well said. Voting Labour or Tory never achieved half as much as the pressure of the S.N.P. has so there’s a the reason they do well; bread and butter issues matter more. As for full independence the first question should be ‘Why take the risk? Especially when you could more easily soak the English for more cash!

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago

Now I’ve had my rant (I quite enjoyed that!) the answer is Scotland is unlikely to decide to leave and if they do they will be building ships of their own to defend their country. It should be a condition of leaving.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
4 years ago

The site would improve by about 100% if it switched the comments off.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Taylor

Not sure you are right there Steve. I think it adds an interesting dimension. Yes sure we would still have the articles however people’s viewpoints on the subject matter can be quite illuminating. The is no obligation to read the comments.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Taylor

The comments are the best thing about UKDJ!!

Without them UKDJ is just another defence site.

So many characters, some you agree with, some you don’t. Some you loathe, some I’d love to meet and buy them a pint.

And you learn from the posts, not just the articles.

Martin
Martin
4 years ago

I think people in Scotland would be pretty happy for ship building to go to England in exchange for independence and a rapid return to the EU. Its a very small amount of jobs relative to the size of the Scottish economy. That being said there is no way BAE can switch production out of Glasgow any time soon. The T26 are already contracted and Barrow which is BAE’s only other facility is full for decades with Dreadnought SSBN’s. Cammel Laird might be able to be brought up to speed but it will take years. No Point in looking at… Read more »

Shane Ramshaw
Shane Ramshaw
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

I think the EU (and NATO for that matter) have made it abundantly clear there would be nothing rapid about Scotlands’ return to the EU (or NATO). There is a process to be followed and it is a slow one.

I also find it rather amusing that the Scottish plan for independence appears to be to tell other countries what they are going to do/provide Scotland and poof, it happens. It rather ignores the fact these other countries and organizations may actually have different ideas.

Amir Taheri
Amir Taheri
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

I would be very surprised if the contracts with BAE did not contain some form of diplomatic clause, designed specifically for this type of issue.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Martin “I think people in Scotland would be pretty happy for ship building to go to England in exchange for independence and a rapid return to the EU”. Your comments are not correct; I feel you’ve made a number of false assumptions – the SNP does not speak for the majority of people in Scotland. I do agree ship-building is a small part of the Scottish economy (which is predominately services based). However, we do not wish to lose another industry, nor countenance the loss of jobs. In addition, many of us feel British, and have an emotional connection with… Read more »

geoff
geoff
4 years ago

Just to summarise -45% of the electorate voted for pro Independence parties in the election-i.e. the SNP and Greens and 55% for pro Union-Tories,Labour and Libdems. In addition, even Nicola said that not all of those who supported the SNP wanted independence. Rather they saw the SNP as better custodians of Scotland’s interests but within the UK. Jo Swinson lost her seat to 20 000 SNP voters despite the Unionist vote being 32 000! OK so that is first past the post as in the rest of the UJ but when we talk of a one issue vote then there… Read more »

Martin
Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  geoff

We did not even mention the T31 program from Rosyth. That’s probably a better fit for a yard in England than T26. Also the prospect of two T26 to be built for NZ at some point its highly likely that T26 will be built on the Clyde well into the 2030’s. With an economy smaller than Italy I just can’t see England maintaining nuclear weapons and much of a navy in the longer term. English politics like American seems to be increasingly isolationist . Moving ship building and nuclear weapons out of Scotland will cost hundreds of billions and Boris… Read more »

Graeme
Graeme
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Italy has a gdp of 2 trillion dollars, the UK has one of three trillion. Scotland’s share of the economy is a little over 8% of the overall total. If NI and Scotland leave, it would have an even lower deficit than it does now. E&W are certainly not smaller than Italy, and their economy is in the doldrums, like much of the Eurozone. Scottish nationalists seem utterly deluded about reality. There isn’t a chance of future navy contracts going to Scotland because A) it would mean the UK government wasn’t investing in a strategically vital domestic industry providing jobs… Read more »

Rob
Rob
4 years ago
Reply to  Graeme

England and Wales, lets not forget that.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Yeh, I had noticed that Wales was not getting a fair mention in this thread…

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  Graeme

Hi Graham. Im a scot but not a nationalist. However, there are two key exise generators that currently bypass the scottsh accounts published by the treasury. 1. Export Tax on 1 billion + bottles of scotch leaving Scotland each year. (currently ultimate consumer pays and costs to produce and distribute are only @ #3 per bottle. Balance of price is consumer tax of some sort.) 2. Oil and gas royalties. While these will not be significant for 60 million people in coming decades they would be very significant for 5million people for decades to come (i work in that industry)… Read more »

Expat
Expat
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

However. on point 2 Scotland has declared a climate emergency so how does it reconcile continuing oil and gas production when its saying that very production is a threat to the environment. Even Saudi is selling off the Crown Jewells (Aramco)and diversifying away from oil and gas. But Scotland real problem is what’s going on south of the boarder, if the rUK has lower income tax and corporation tax its likely to see business relocate south of the boarder. So on point 2 even scotch may not be safe, it could be bottled in Scotland then ‘sold’ at break even… Read more »

Pete
Pete
4 years ago
Reply to  Expat

Its not ideal i acceot but nirth sea oil is, as oil goes, got higher auality properties and much if the bye products of norrh sea oil goes into lubricanirs, nylons, plastics etc (hence the high premium for Brent oil over usa WTI prices and the gas, which is a signifiant volume in North Sea is a much cleaner burn for powerstation use relative to oil and coal and will be part of a balanced energy portfolio for decades to come. Im not a nationalist… I believe uk is stronger together…. Saying Scotland Scitland cant go it alone is devisive… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

Great post Pete.

I cringe when I see some of the ‘shoes and socks off arithmetic’ being used to say why an independent Scotland would be doooomed. Like you, its not something I crave but small countries do manage and some have far less resources than Scotland. To suggest somehow Scotland would wither on its own is just the kind of rhetoric that would goad people to prove them wrong. Not that I think the world and his dog are sweating on the to-ing and fro-ing of us intellectual stalwarts on here……

Expat
Expat
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

Pete not saying Scotland can’t survive just saying its economics will be heavily influenced buy its neighbour. I think you’d acknowledge Scotland would need to set higher taxes than rUK, its already doing that on income tax. Its not economic scaremongering just stating how global business works these days. Lets take a UK example, say a UK bases car company buys the drive chain from another country the tax on profit is higher in said country so the company sells the drive chain at 1% over cost (1% profit so very little taxable profit and therefore limited tax revenue) to… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Pete

Pete, I hope you sell more Scotch than that. Tax is about £10 a bottle I think be is normally taken in the country where it is sold. You should be well placed to say about oil and gas – is production now only about a third of its peak?

I am hoping & believe that Scotland is way beyond your two points however I see two things firstly there does not seem to be the appetite for independence some would have us believe and secondly there is no way Boris will permit it certainly in his first term.

geoff
geoff
4 years ago

Sorry bout spellos

Amir Taheri
Amir Taheri
4 years ago

I think that Scotland could vote for independence within the next 5 years. I don’t think they ought to, but ah well. But I suspect many Scots appear to have missed the moral of the story from Brexit… you cannot have your cake and eat it too. So many people thought we could leave the EU, but that the EU would give us everything we wanted – all the benefits of membership but with zero responsibility. It doesn’t work that way and we found that out the hard way. Realistically, what does that mean for Scotland if they choose independence?… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
4 years ago

There’s plenty of communities around the RUK that have had their RN shipbuilding industries removed, mainly to Scottish yards. I’d expect they’d love to see that reversed if Scotland left us.

Geoff
Geoff
4 years ago

Considering the build quality of HMS Forth, maybe it should move anyway….

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Geoff

Hi Geoff, Maybe you should factor into your considerations two 65, 000 ton aircraft-carriers, also built largely by the Clyde work-force.

Paulfliessouth
Paulfliessouth
4 years ago

Supporters of the Union need to reflect on the implications of the election result and see it for what it was; a tactical victory for the SNP…but a strategic defeat nonetheless. They went into the GE on a ticket to stop Boris (fail), stop Brexit (fail), support a minority Corbyn Government in exchange for a vote on Scexit (fail) and secure a majority of votes (also fail). What is important is that we have a Conservative Government that will block a Scexit vote for the next five years and there is nothing that Ms Sturgeon can do about it. Even… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
4 years ago

As a proud Brit I think Scotland should stay in the UK. Sturgeon and the SNP have simply used Brexit as an excuse for another independence referendum; had the vote gone Remain in 2016 I’m sure she would have tried to find another excuse. I honestly believe that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are stronger united. United, we will far better cope with changes once we leave the EU. I did vote remain in the referendum in 2016, I respect the result although I do believe we will be worse off once we leave. However, I believe that the… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

Hi Steve,

Your point about the EU not wanting to admit a potential net receiver is a good one and one that is not often mentioned. Many people seem to think that the EU would welcome Scotland back without question, especially given the scale of Scottish waters (fishing and oil), but as you say it is not that clear cut.

Leaving the Union and on the basis of re-joining the EU is a risk – not a certainty. I wonder how many Scottish voters have thought of that given the noise and bluster around IndyRef2…

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

ChariotRider, you’re right that nothing is certain and there would be a lot of horse trading to be done in any request to join by an indy Scotland. One thing to bear in mind is the egos involved, there might be some in the EU who would see it as a bit of a victory if some of the UK applied to join the EU. All spit balling on my part and hopefully it won’t be an issue. As for the “noise and bluster around IndyRef2…” that’s exactly what it is and its aimed at the SNP’s core support. The… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Andy P,

Egos! An interesting point. All too easy to think politicians make decisions based entirely on calculation…

I do kind of admire the SNP’s single minded sense of purpose and the fact that they are, as you say, well organised to achieve their ambition and momentum is a powerful tool.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

ChariotRider, its a pet theory of mine but I think our egos (in the true sense ie sense of self) is massively underrated as one of our biggest influences. People bend themselves into all sorts of compromises to fit boxes that they see themselves as fitting. We ‘need’ others to see and appreciate it too. Funnily enough, we’re pretty good at spotting it in others (virtue signalling etc), just not so good at seeing it in ourselves, egos eh ? As for the SNP, while they are good at whipping up an angry mob, I’d like to see opposition parties… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Hi Andy P,

Pet theory or not I suspect you have a good point. Ego is often seen as a flaw so it is more about admitting weakness in ourselves rather than recognising a reasonable / human trait. As such we tend to find that a challenge and certainly not something any politician would admit to…

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago

If I had a crystal ball (which I don’t) I would anticipate Government policy post Brexit attracting investment into the Northern Powerhouse. The Barnet formula will be changed to work on regional rather than National lines. The SNP will be politely ignored and will either begin to run Scotland properly or give up power to a party who will. This maybe the beginning of the end for the SNP. Shipbuilding is likely to change in its nature. A natural opportunity to find a new permanent home? No further referendums are likely unless something substantial changes. I think it might be… Read more »

Sean
Sean
4 years ago

NO.

Helions
Helions
4 years ago

On the subject of shipbuilding. Not too sure of how effective a dated ex-Soviet design will be but it can be touted as proof the PLAN is the equal of the USN (not) and to intimidate its neighbors – Taiwan comes to mind…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7800999/Chinas-second-aircraft-carrier-Shandong-enters-service-amid-tensions-Taiwan-US.html

Cheers

Rob
Rob
4 years ago

This is actually a very misleading article. Firstly the T26 frigates are under construction in Glasgow, you can’t just pack up a half finished programme and transport it south. Secondly the only dry dock large enough for the QEC is at Rosyth; building a new one somewhere else would be hugely expensive. Thirdly the infrastructure for a new fleet submarine base would take several years to build. I am no fan of Scottish independence but these points need to be looked at realistically. The future of RN builds in Scottish yards is therefore quite secure for the short to medium… Read more »

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob ships partially built could be completed to float then towed or placed on a barge and moved, to be completed elsewhere, skilled people could be transferred and so on however Scotland would lose the yards , and when these close it’s very hard to get them started again , I think Harrland and Wolf have maintained their dry dock which I think would be big enough for the QE class . SNP forget they would be negotiating against a United British govt unlikely to make any unnecessary concessions to an emerging Scotland

Gfor
Gfor
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Rosyth is not the only dock that can take the QE class. Harland and Wolfe and a couple of others that have been covered at length on this site.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
4 years ago

Appeasing Scotland probably has done more harm to our defence capability than anything else in the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Taylor

Steve, As a proud Scot and Brit, I’m mystified over your comments …….. “Appeasing Scotland” in the latter half of the 20th century, and 21st century? Scotland causing harm to “our” defence capability ……… Eh!?! You do realise that Scotland is a full partner in the United Kingdom? You are also aware that Scots have spilt blood and treasure in the pursuit of UK foreign policy objectives during the timescales you’ve highlighted – in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the Gulf Wars, and Afghanistan? You also realise that a few miles from Glasgow is the biggest nuclear weapons facility in Western… Read more »

Mike
Mike
4 years ago

On the news this evening and I think it will have been on your BBC Radio 4 – a Minister of the Government of Scotland announced the plan is for a referendum in June 2020 (with Westminster’s permission or not) then for independence to have been achieved by June 2022. This is it folks. A Nation once again!

Right, having given a lot of time to campaigning, I must return to work before New Year.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I suppose this was inevitable if a little unwise. Her last throw of the dice. Things could get interesting.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Hi Mike, I agree – it’s time for you to return to work, and stop “winding-up”
our friends on this forum. As a fellow Scot (although not a separatist like yourself), can I suggest that you find a second chip for your other shoulder – and maybe develop a more balanced point of view.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

More like a bag of chips mate!

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

hmm you must be Xenophobic Mike. Very amusing. Oddly I found that vaguely believable – I’m not sure that reflects well on my view of what Nicola might do to get her own way. I’m not sure you are a friend of Scotland.

HF
HF
4 years ago

Behind the SNP argument is the simple fact that they need this work in Scotland because they can’t actually afford independence without continued support from what the SNP are pleased to call rUK. I hasten to add that I have great sympathy with the Scots who must be completely fed up with the mess ‘old Etonians’ have created. As for the shipyards if – God forbid – if Faslane came under nuclear attack places producing warships would almost certainly be attacked, as would numerous targets in England, many near or in big cities.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  HF

If you are expecting a Nuclear exchange to politely respect the Scottish border I would think again. I would assume a full salvo to blow us all into the dark ages including cities, energy, pipelines, military facilities etc. One of the key things deterring this for the past 70 years is everyone’s best hope. Seems to have worked for far …

HF
HF
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

With respect, I am not expecting that – I’m saying exactly the opposite.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  HF

My misunderstanding. Perhaps when you mention English cities I got the impression that they would not target Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen. Nuclear war tends to be a scorched earth policy unless of course the enemy wants to occupy the area themselves.

HF
HF
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

Glad we cleared that up ! 🙂

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  HF

Get your facts correct. It has nothing to do with affording independence. FYI there are MANY countries the sze of Scotland who operate quite satisfactorily without any so-called charity support. If you base your argument on Scotland continuing exactly as Westminster does with its economic plans then your point is dubiously more valid – maybe. The facts are that Scotland would NOT do the same vanity projects as Westminster and neither would it engage in extra-territorial expeditionary objectives. The amount of work around warship assembly is in the grand scheme of things economically very very small. Scotland would also not… Read more »

HF
HF
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

My goodness, you’re only three years late ! I’m no fan of the UK government since 2010 but if an independent Scotland keeps Sterling you’ll be bound to UK economiuc policy, which means the hedgefunds etc who I also detest will be in control of Scotland. While the Westminster administration is nothing to boast about the SNP has proved incapable of running things efficiently as well.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 years ago

The assumption is that the Scots wish for independence based on some historical notion of being controlled by England. There is no English government. There would have to be a new English government if Scotland breaks up the U.K. In fact, Scottish independence is the only way England would regain its independent government. In all other matters Scotland is a different country and governed so. The budgetary arrangements between the two countries were reformed last century by Labour under the Barnett formula because Labour’s vote went up at the time and the party wished to secure it; in 1959 there… Read more »

HF
HF
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

I think the Barnett formula was an attempt, among other things, was an attempt to forestall Scottish independence rather than some Tory/DUP electoral bribe. Joel Barnett himself said that it was not intended to last so long. Successive governments have been too scared to change the funding because of the boost it would give to the SNP – though Cameron’s attempt to buy off the ‘ERG’ for his political benefit has given the Nationalists a boost they could never have hoped for after the 2014 referendum.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

The government in UK is controlled by the massive number of English MPs who collectively significantly outweigh (and ignore) those from the other home nations. What England votes for is what the UK gets, so while technically you are correct that Westminster is not England’s parliament, in practical effect it is.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

There is no English Parliament that alone votes on English matters. All M.P.’s vote on government measures including Scot and Welsh even when these measures only impact on England. You will see from today’s reports English views on Scottish legislation is regarded as interference. No one is ever accused of interfering with ‘English legislation’ because it does not exist. Following Brexit I do not believe any feasible Westminster government would call for a vote on English Independence.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Yes you are technically correct. However, Scottish and a few other MPs do not vote on purely English matters. Have you heard of Cameron’s EVEL? The point is that Westminster is England’s parliament, a) due to there not being an alternative and b) the vast majority of MPs who sit there are English and collectively massively outweigh all the others. So if England votes for it everyone gets it, even if all the other nation’s MPs vote against.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago

To answer the original point it would be foolish of the RUK to build ships in Scotland , this could be the start of Boris promise to Northern England providing high skilled jobs to area suffering de-industrialisation, I live near to Faslane and its closure would devistate the local area, also the loss of over 6000 tax payers plus that in the Clyde and Rosyth yards not to mention Barnett transfers would put strain on the economy. Re oil this is a double edged sword as the uk govt could walk away leaving Scotland to pick up the massive decommissioning… Read more »

HF
HF
4 years ago

Quite a few places were considered along the west coast from Cornwall, Wales and up into Scotland. I assume you’re just making a point when you suggest the Thames but even if there wasn’t the question of London the river isn’t deep enough and doesn’t provide quick access to the North Atlantic to avoid detection. If the UK was attacked it wouldn’t just be Faslane. Lots of cities have important military targets near them. The RAF command bunker at High Wycombe third on the Soviet UK target list, and the AWRE near Reading, 30 miles west of London would also… Read more »

Gfor
Gfor
4 years ago

Strange statement considering that there is a considerable amount of nuclear ‘garbage’ already sitting on the devon and cornwall border (and in Rosyth) in the form of decommissioned submarines.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Gfor

Gfor, the decommissioned boats have minimal radiation, thankfully the rules are incredibly tight here in The West about half life’s and that so they sit there. Waste of good razor blades, some fantastic steel sat there doing hee haw, the nasty stuff has been long removed and buried or whatever they’re doing with it.

That’s completely different to both the working reactors and the big phallic things. They could potentially really ruin your weekend.

Gfor
Gfor
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Andy P, that’s exactly the point. It isn’t buried and they are doing nothing with it to tackle the long term disposal of the boats.
It is negligence to keep putting off dealing with the boats and the waste until a later date.

peter french
peter french
4 years ago

Sturgeon has been told ad naseum that Scottish yards would not get the work if Scotland went independent , So Nicola you cant have it both ways , youve been favoured against English yards so far not so if and when you go independent, What happens to ships in build should you go independent well i guess youll complete other than that “No Go” goodnight sweet heart.
You,ll be happier on your own not so your shipyard and Faslane workers but they,ll understand its all in the interests of Scotland or rather the political interests of Sturgeon and co

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  peter french

See navy ships being built in Spain
Which shows this is no more than a scaremongering of Scotland and its people

Andy
Andy
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

No Royal Navy ships are being built in Spain. RFA ships are often built abroad.
The Clyde and Rosyth are building Royal Navy ships not RFA ships.
The contract is with BAE who would move people, machinery and whatever else they like to a rUK facility to complete any build.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

No ships being built in Spain. Yes, A block may be built there but assembly of the blocks , setting to work etc will be done in Belfast.

Because a specific car engine is made abroad doesn’t mean the whole car, when assembled in the UK, is classed as having been built in the engine manufacturers country.

Knight7572
Knight7572
1 year ago

Yeah do the SNP forget the ships built on the Clyde over the decades plus wouldn’t it become the SNP’s responsibility to monitor the deterioration of the ships sunk up in Scapa Flow 

plus a non-UK Scotland would need to pass a law to stop people even attempting to salvage anything from the wreck of the St Vincent Class Dreadnought Battleship HMS Vanguard and the Revenge Class Super-Dreadnought Battleship HMS Royal Oak because they would lose their protected status as war graves under an Independent Scotland 

CaliScot
CaliScot
1 year ago

Thanks to the guys that run this site, love keeping updated on UK defense policy. A newly independent Scotland will have the naval service and shipbuilding capability at the level required to patrol the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland gap as a newly independent NATO member, joined at the hip with the US and NATO partners. It’s a strategic imperative for the United States that the nations of the high north continue to be members of NATO so as to deter Russian, Chinese or other anti-NATO actors. This is an imperative that goes beyond the view of the UK govt too (even though it’s… Read more »

Bill
Bill
1 year ago

WHEN Scotland goes its own way its established government is noted for its long term deep seated Anglophobia, It would be against British defence and security interests to build warships in Scotland or to retain our forces in Scotland. Just like any other Commonwealth nation that severed ties with the UK they have to stand on their own two feet. I think no more contracts should be given to Scotland so long as this independence campaign continues. Scotlands loyalty is to itself as it should be, and so should be the UK’s. Many constitutional experts point out that if Scotland… Read more »

David Flandry
David Flandry
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

If Scotland goes independent Britain should not have ANY warships built there.

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  David Flandry

Indeed, I concur. And regardless of how it will happen, it will happen. Thats why the UK should not be spending any more money in Scotland.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Don’t forget that Scotland pays taxes too.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  David Flandry

Who said they would be?

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

You clearly only read what fits your narrative. There is NO Anglophobia. The phobia is against the dictatorial attitudes of Westminster. Nobody has said British warships should only be assembled in Scotland. Do we not have forces stationed in other countries already? Are there no foreign forces in Britain now? Facilities are provided on a share basis with all NATO countries already.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago

The UK only builds warships in Scotland. The UK sources non-warships from around the world already. That does not mean there are no shipbuilding activities. Rosyth is underused. In the event of independence then Scotland would want to build warships too, but there would be a refocus on commercial shipping rather than the all but complete dependence on Royal Navy orders. In any event the argument is about independence from GB not the UK as unless going to be a republic (which is a completely different question anyway) the Crown of Scotland remains tied to the existing monarchy. UK standing… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Ummm no it’s independence from the UK…GB is an island not a nation. Anyway nations can have the Monarchy as the head of state and not be part of our nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As for transferring the Scottish shipping industry to commercial shipping, not a snowballs chance in hell…there is a reason large scale civilian ship building does not really happen in Europe, it just cannot compete on the world stage.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No, perhaps you haven’t read what you wrote! UK stands for United Kingdom. That relates to the union of crowns of 1603 when James VI of Scotland became James the 1st of England. Similar to Queen Elizabeth the Second, who was Queen Elizabeth 1st in Scotland. So Scotland can remove from the GB Parliament at Westminster, while still being part of the British Isles and the United Kingdom, which would still retain that title, until any part decided to become a Republic. If UK shipbuilding only exists to make warships then that is a very limited market. It doesn’t stop… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

No your not understanding the difference between the UK as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the crownS of Scotland, England and wales. The United Kingdom as a specific entity is not the same as the totality of the monarchy. Creation of the UK history line: 1603 related to the Union of the crowns under one monarch not the Union of the nations…they stayed separate, there was the kingdom of Scotland as a separate nation and the kingdom of England and wales….no UK. 1706/7 the Union of the nations of Scotland, England and Wales…creating the… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Not sure what your waffle achieves! The united Kingdom refers to the monarchy! That is not in dispute at present. A kingdom relates to the monarchy. The names are irrelevant in this context. If Scotland were to become independent it would remain in the monarchy, until voted or not otherwise. So Scotland would be part of the British Isles and therefore would remain British by virtue of the land mass it remains part of, and pedantically geographically so is Eire, in the same way we all remain European. However that does not mean that the British Isles (excluding Eire) would… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

It’s not waffle it’s the actual constitutional and legal history of the nation. The UK is not the monarchy. The monarchy is the head of state. You really need to understand the difference. you stated that that Scotland could be removed from the GB parliament but stay part of the UK….no it cannot.. 1) there is no GB parliament, it does not exist, it’s made up in your head. There is a UK parliament, that is made of of the two houses, these are the legislature of the UK they check and agree the laws of the nation, the government… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It is waffle. You are going off on a tangent and either not reading or over thinking. UK stands for United Kingdom. A kingdom is a monarchy. A name is a name and means nothing more than that. Which is actually all I was referring to, In the event of Sottish Independence the names would probably change as they would no longer be relevant or correctly state the constitutional position. The independence argument is about the treaty of parliamentary union, not (despite some wishes) about giving up the monarchy the union of which predated that of parliaments. In any event… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

You’re utterly confused about what is the UK and I’m trying to explain why Scotland would be leaving the UK if it became independent where it keeps the monarchy or not. You’re using monarchy in the wrong context and kingdom in the wrong context and so keep making a fundamental constitutional mistake. The person of the monarch is separate from the kingdom. Just because a person is the monarch of more than one county does not make them the same kingdom ( Charles could be king of Scotland of Scotland becomes indecent from the UK it would become kingdom of… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No I am not! You are over thinking what I started off with. Scotland would leave the current constitutional structure of course. The name is one thing, but I was referring to the dictionary definition of ‘kingdom’. The UK cannot and does not have copyright to that term. And since the united bit comes from the joint and single monarch that will not change. I was referring to the fact that Scotland is now and will be until it decides to reject the monarchy a part of the same kingdom. The full title is United Kingdom of Great Britain and… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Hi Nike I’m not over thinking it I’m trying to help explain the actual constitutional and historic position, the things that are essentially enshrined in treaty and fully documented. the issue with your argument is you cannot use the dictionary definition out of context and as an argument against the actual constitution, law, treaties as written and agreed historic and documented facts. dictionary definition of kingdom “ a county, territory or nation having a monarch as the head of state” you have used this as an argument that every county, territory or nation that a monarch reigns over or rules… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A name is something that anyone or any group can decide to call itself. All I said was that Scotland may not be part of the British Government post indepemdence but that it would remain with the common monarch as it is at present. In other words the united crown, monarch, kingdom, fiefdom or whatever. The point also is that if Scotland were to be independent then calling it a United Kingdom wouldn’t be grammatically correct, even though it could still call itself that. Scottish independence is not about leaving the kingdom (monarchy) but Westminster dictatorship! People are trying to… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

no your utterly missing the point, there is no such thing as a common monarchy structure. Nations may share a monarchy but they are not in any way in the same kingdom or anything else together they just happen to have the same king….unless they form a political Union. and so if Scotland left of course we could call ourselves the UK, we would still be the United Kingdom, unless we legally changed the name through an act of parliament….it would just be the UK and the second name would change to something like the United Kingdom of England, wales… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Didn’t say what we term rUK cannot itself what it likes. What has common monarchy structure got ot do with it. Either a King (or Queen) has a Kingdom or not. By definition a monarch has a kingdom. The constitutional way it works is variable though. That Kingdom is the domain over which that monarch ‘rules’ so therefore it is a common kingdom! Having a name does not excluced a broader definition, a name is not copyright when it refers to a generic structure. Under the current nomenclature Scotland would remain in the united kingdom under the same monarch. So… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

It will still be the the United Kingdom that’s the kingdoms/nations nam in law, it will not change if Scotland leaves. please just look up what a joint monarchy actually means, you can just read it. Just because two kingdom’s have the same monarch does not make them the same kingdom, never has never will. Just look up the massive history on different kingdoms that shared a monarchy. Dictionaries don’t say anything about only one king and one kingdom, your again making that up. you have literally made it up in your head that a king makes a kingdom and… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Perhaps but that law would only apply in England/Wales. Think about it.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

No it’s the internationally recognised names of our nation according to the UN and all other extra national legal bodies.Think about it.

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

The United Kingdom refers to the Act of Union 1707 and NOT the Monarchy

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Kingdom definition: a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen. After independence we would still be in the same Kingdom! What the constituent territories choose to call themselves in that eventuality is something else. And since there is no alterative monarchic line for NI and Wales the successor name to the UK is not possible to define at this stage.

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Utter rubbish, you would be an idependent sovereign state OUTSIDE of the UK, And in the UK the King does not RULE he is simply a figurehead. Once the Act of union is ended Scotland will NOT be part of the UK. The Scots wil have no more RIGHT to live, work or travel in the UK than an Australian.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

He is unfortunately completely confused between the difference between the monarch as a person and kingdoms as nations. Therefore he profoundly miss understands the history and constitution of the nation he lives in. I’ve tried to explain and give details but he just says I’m waffling….sad

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Many people do, I have met good decent nice Scots folks who think if Scotland leave the union almost nothing will change including the Barnett agreement, Border controls, miigrants laws, etc. They did not grasp that leaving the UK even if they invite Charles to be head of state they still lose the right to live, travel and work in the UK. Like Australia and Canada they have Charles as head of state, but they have no free right to travel to the UK.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Those good decent folk who think that nothing will change keep their heads in the sand and fail to understand things. Nobody has ever said nothing will change. Do not be so sure about your certainty about living, travel etc. That is down to later agreement. In fact it is the English voting for Brexit that stopped all those rights. But we can still travel to any other country, live and work there depending on the various rules, so why would that be any different?

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

No no no.I give up…just read a book on constitutional monarchy and the difference models of shared monarchy….please.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I never said we would remain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! That is the whole point of independence after all. UK or even United Kingdom is merely a name of convenience or shorthand that has many possible interpretations.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nick Cole
Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

What you said is they would stay part of the same kingdom…Im trying in every way to show that’s not possible…..what ever name you choose to give them, they would be separate kingdoms..one of those would be the UK (like it or not) the other kingdom would be whatever Scotland chose to name itself, but they would be separate in every way…just like we are separate in every way with Canada….just because Charles may stay king of both is irrelevant to the shape and structure of the kingdom’s.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

It is not the name of convenience, that’s one of your mistakes. United Kingdom is the formal name of our nation and kingdom as per the act of Union 1801, it is a name of the political body that covers Scotland, england, Northern Ireland and wales..It will stay legally the name of our kingdom even if Scotland leaves and becomes a separate kingdom…which if it leave it leaves everything and all names behind, it has to due to every applicable law related to the constitution. If it wants to stay in the same kingdom as England and wales it has… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Read my words! The words United and Kingdom means a shared monarchy. The title United Kingdom is not our collective name. It is shorthand for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As shorthand it can mean other things as well, including the dictionary definitions of both words. It is the Union of Parliaments that independence is the subject of not the Union of the Crowns so it would still be a single monarchy and as such it would be a United Kingdom. Following independence the UK would not exist as such other than the name the remaining parts… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

The United Kingdom ( short version UK) is the name of our nation, it’s the legal in statute name. The name The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also the legal in statute name of our kingdom. This is where people become unstuck as we have to formal legal names with equal legal validity. The United Kingdom is not short hand, we are just unusual in the fact our nation has two equally valid names, one is just shorter than the other. The union of crowns was and is the same thing as the union of parliaments,… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I am not arguing about whether or not there would be any legal standing or breach of copyright, etc. I merely said we would be in a united kingdom. You still read far too much into a valid dictionary based observation.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

But Scotland will not be in A United Kingdom, having the same monarch do not make two nations the same kingdom, just look it up it never has,

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon
1 year ago

If Scotland becomes independent there is no longer any UK. The UK was created by the Act of Union 1704 between England and Scotland. England no mores owns the military than Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. It’s precisely that kind of Anglo-centric attitude that drives calls for independence!

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

Well actually the rest of the UK can call itself what ever it wants….you may have forgotten but there are other nations in the UK other than Scotland and England. As for England owning the Military…well Scotland will get its share..which is about 8% if you go by population so that’s about 1 or 2 escorts, half a squadron of typhoons etc. for historic accuracy the UK was not created in 1704 (1704 actually saw the parliaments of Scotland and England having a proper slanging match with the Scottish Parliament taking forward the act of Security having a bit of… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Why are you arguing about the use of the name. You have just agreed with what I have written!!!

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

No I’m trying to point out some of the more interesting aspects of the monarchy and how it interacts constitutionally with the nation ( the UK has a particularly interesting history in regards to monarchy, because of having two revolutions and an empire). Especially around the monarchy and the situation of a shared monarch and the formation of the United Kingdom. It’s especially interesting around the separate crowns as well as the use of the formal Name The United Kingdom. I’m point out the formal and legal name “The United Kingdom” will still be a valid and legal name of… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

Wrong. The union of crowns was in 1603, merely meaning that we had a joint monarchy (kingdom). James VI of Scotland became James I of England. The Parliamentary Union in 1707 created the single parliament and country, but that is separate to the Kingdom, which would continue until voted otherwise. Currently the only part of the British Isles that is a republic is Eire. It would no longer be Great Britain, and in effect become the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. You are right though about the disproportionate size of England’s voting population whuch means the whole… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

No sorry there was no Union of kingdoms in 1603 James of Scotland inherited the English crown in 1603…it became know as the Union of crowns, but this is just a name there was no Union of kingdoms. James then tried to create a Union of the two nations he he ruled but the parliament of England effectively told him to sod off. So although England and Scotland shared a common head of state they remained two kingdoms the kingdom of England and the separate Kingdom of Scotland they only become one nation for a bit as part of the… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan
Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

From the UK Parliament web site “Act of Union 1707The Acts of Union, passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain on 1 May of that year. The UK Parliament met for the first time in October 1707.” https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Monarchic government was absolished in the 1600s, We are governmed by Parliament

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

No kidding! The parliament is built around the monarchy, its procedures and authority is done in the name of the crown. IE monarchy, or kingdom. I am not arguing the semantics of the constitution but pointing out that the Kingdom is based around a shared Monarch. That will remain unless one or more parts decide to become a Republic. Perhaps the debate should be about what the parts will call themselves after any separation. In any event all I was saying and yes I do know the history, was that the ‘name’ United Kingdom, can mean several different things depending… Read more »

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Stop digging yourself into a hole.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Not digging a hole, those who refuse or are unable to see what I am saying are! The words ‘united kingdom’ as signified by the shorthand abbrevation UK have a different meaning to the name ‘United Kingdom’! There are of course lots of constitutional, grammatical and other implications.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

UK is short hand it’s a formal name of our nation, our nation has two names both equally validated in parliament. 1) the UK is the United Kingdom it does not have a different meaning it is the legal name of our nation. 2) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also the legal name of our nation. there are not other grammatical means or constitutional meanings as these are legal names NAMEs of our nation not descriptions. .stop this nonsense around having a shared king makes a United kingdom, it does not and never has, it’s… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan
Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Shorthand isn’t a formal name. Read the words united and kingdom. Look up what they mean. Anyway you are MASSIVELY overreading what I started off with. I merely pointed out tongue in cheek a comment interpreting the name. However the name is not copyrighted. It may be recognised and the short hand may also be recognised but it does NOT change the meanings of the word(s). In 1603 the crown and monarchy hence kingdoms became united did they not? I am not arguing the constitutional position which is not for you or I to decide.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

The United Kingdom is the formal name for our nation, that’s one of the limits of your understanding it is not short hand it is the name in law. Our nation have two legal and equally valid names..The United Kindgom is not short hand. This is legal fact written into law.

in 1603 the crown and monarchy hence the kingdoms did not become United. The two nations retained separate crowns and were separate kingdoms this is also historical and lega fact.

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

1707

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

Actually the name UK has nothing to do with the act of Union 1707…it officially become one of the names of our nation in 1801 after the act of Union with the kingdom of Ireland…..we kept the name UK after Eire left the UK in 1920…so no reason to think we would not still use the UK…we would probably change the longer official name to something like The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland….but the UK would still be the UK.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

It is quite clear that the RN should not build its warships in foreign countries. If Scotland left the Union they should not build RN ships.

Also we should be making arrangements now to secure the SSBNs south of the boarder. We currently have too many eggs in one basket when it comes to Scotland…

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

The Navy doesn’t build ships. They are assembled from bought in parts from around the world, by civilian companies. Who said that Scotland wants or expects to build ships for the Navy anyway? And yes there should be SSBN and ammunition facilities somewhere in English/Welsh waters.

Ian
Ian
1 year ago

I don’t think the jocks would last five minutes without us subsidising them.

David Flandry
David Flandry
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

If Scotland goes independent, only politicians of the SNP will benefit, everyone else loses. Stop this nonsense now!

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  David Flandry

Not sure where you get that idea from? Have you actually looked at proposals or do you just get your misleading parrotted comments from elsewhere? If you only believe what fits your narrative or dictated opinion then you miss out.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

No Scotland is not being subsidised. If you think that is the case keep pressurising the English parliament! Scotland pays taxes as much as anyone else.

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

In 2020-21, Scotland (including a geographical share of North Sea revenue) raised £62.8 billion in 2020-21, compared to £99.2 billion of public spending for Scotland. Source the Scots government

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Most if not all of that was for Scotland’s share of other expenditure. Budgets have been set and published based around the estimate of Scotland’s GDP.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Scotland does actually have a better GDP per head than the wider UK. But it does actually spend a lot more on public services per person than the wider UK, for instance the NHS Scotland is better funded than the NHS England on a per head basis.

David Flandry
David Flandry
1 year ago

An independent Scotland will benefit only the SNP.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  David Flandry

Like an independent England only benefits the Conservative oligarchs?

Bill
Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

English Conservative oligarchs of course,

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Sadly I think some of them are in Scotland too.

PGS
PGS
1 year ago

Navel ship building will be returned to the remaining parts of the UK in the event Scotland goes independent, no ifs no buts, as is only right and proper.

Shane Ramshaw
Shane Ramshaw
1 year ago

What Nicola Sturgeon fails to recognize is the UK has no obligation to consider Scottish jobs in any decision making process if and when Scotland decides on Independence. The current promise of ship building on the Clyde is premised on Glasgow being part of the UK. Independence would make any promises null and void.

Chris
Chris
1 year ago

The logic of building warships in Scotland is that it’s within the UK. There is no way the rUK govt would build warships in Scotland after independence. There are plenty of location within E&W where warhsip building could transfer. It make both economic and security sense to relocate warship building in the event of independence.

Lazerbenabba
Lazerbenabba
10 months ago

The question as posed has now been overtaken by the recent events with the sinking of the SNP through its gross corruption if not incompetence.
Independence if ever a possibility before is a very dead duck now.

Alastair
Alastair
8 months ago

There is a repeated mistake in your blether,in that if Scotland leaves the UK, there then is no UK, you should be talking about England Wales and Northern Ireland(unless the latter two go independent also, in which case you are talking England.)
Will England be able to afford what you are discussing? Will England want to continue as a so-called international power?
Those are the questions you should be addressing.

Rob N
Rob N
5 months ago

No – we do not build our warships in other peopled countries….

if the RN was not propping up Scottish ship building it would collapse.

Independence would be a disaster for Scotland, the SNP would lead it into poverty….

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
5 months ago

Assembly of ships for what would be what is left of the parliamntary UK many well cease. But the UK has always bought major components and sub- assemblies from anywhere we can get them. However Royal Navy shipbuilding is not the only shipbuilding going on, and the expertise can still be used to be build warships for others.

Rob N
Rob N
2 months ago

It is quite clear that an independent Scotland would loose it naval shipbuilding and likely its civil shipbuilding too. The skilled workers would leaveScotland in search of work many going to England to build the ships not being built in Scotland. It would not just be ship building. Many UK military bases in Scotland would likely close with the loss of more jobs. The UK nuclear deterrent would also go south eventually, as would the maintenance work on RN ships and subs. in short an independent Scotland would de financially worse off with many skilled jobs leaving the country. There… Read more »