SNP, Scotland and the Navy

[msralmjs]

If the SNP are successful in next year's elections and work towards full indepencence takes place.... where does that leave the Navy?

If we have to split the fleet, they can have the P2000s!

 

[buster]

f**k that sideways !

 

[higthepig]

If the SNP are successful in next year's elections and work towards full indepencence takes place.... where does that leave the Navy?

The Goverment want the RN manpower down to 20,000, done at a stroke.

 

[sulzer]

Why is there surprise at the SNP's desirefor independence? TScotland onle joined us to improve its economy and lsiev well on us for years. I started school in Paisley in 1940 and was treated very roughly by the natives and I have heard of other expats being treated in the same way. However we shall see.

 

[SILVER_FOX]

Maybe Scotland knows something about the future of this country that we're not seeing ... :roll:

SF

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Maybe Scotland knows something about the future of this country that we're not seeing ... :roll:

SF

The future's submarine... glug.. glug... glug... :lol:

Of course if we get global cooling instead of warming Scotland faces a bleak future. If the SNP win we may of course need to invest more in the RN as Scotland may try to claim sovereignty over the Orkneys, which were of course sold by the Danish Crown to the English Crown and are therefore English Crown property, along with the oil. :roll:

 

[FlagWagger]

Of course if we get global cooling instead of warming Scotland faces a bleak future.

Cooling or warming - there's no real difference. What would affect the UK, Scotland particularly, would be an upset to the Gulf Stream; currently the warm water from the Gulf of Mexico means that the climate is artificially warmer than it otherwise would be. Divert the Gulf Stream and the UK's weather will be more typical of the UK's latitudes. Snow tyres anyone?

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Of course if we get global cooling instead of warming Scotland faces a bleak future.

Cooling or warming - there's no real difference. What would affect the UK, Scotland particularly, would be an upset to the Gulf Stream; currently the warm water from the Gulf of Mexico means that the climate is artificially warmer than it otherwise would be. Divert the Gulf Stream and the UK's weather will be more typical of the UK's latitudes. Snow tyres anyone?

Sorry, that's what I meant.

 

[simonjgriffithshr]

Ah, the old gulf stream effect! I remember a very good edition of Horizon on the potential effects of global warming on the gulf stream, and therefore the potential cooling effects on Britain. (I love Horizon, and hate Panorama - completely irrelevant, but I thought I'd throw it in...)

That was a number of years ago now (must have been when I was in year nine, or sometime around then). Only a few weeks later we started studying global warming in Chemistry and we had to write an essay on the potential effects of global warming on Britain - the Chemistry teacher was impressed that I'd gone for this unusual, more scientific view. Of course it did help that I had very recently watched that Horizon!

 

[simonjgriffithshr]

Back on topic.

Maybe Scotland knows something about the future of this country that we're not seeing ... :roll:

SF

Will they take Blair, Brown and Kinnock back with them? (Please...)

 

[mikh]

Back on topic.

Maybe Scotland knows something about the future of this country that we're not seeing ... :roll:

SF

Will they take Blair, Brown and Kinnock back with them? (Please...)

Think Kinnock was a taff, but they woul probably pay us to keep Blair, Brown and the rest of the freeloading MP's from north of the border.

Just as a point of interest did you know there was more MP's per head of Population from Scotaland than any other part of the UK (with the lowest being England), and that there is a large number of Scottish born MP representing English constituecies, but I could'nt find a single Englishamn representing a Scotish seat!!!

 

[F169]

Always a civvie please provide facts to support your argument about the Orkneys, even if you meant the Shetlands (with their later Danish rather than Norwegian connections) I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[slim]

Scotland want their independance so that they can emulate France and send all their illegal immigrants into England.

 

[Nutty]

Always a civvie please provide facts to support your argument about the Orkneys, even if you meant the Shetlands (with their later Danish rather than Norwegian connections) I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Just to join in this little private argument, you seem to be making an assumption that the Orkney's and Shetlands would wish like to be part of a Scottish Nation or have full Independence as do the Faro Islands. Also there seems to be an assumption that borders for exploitation of under sea surface resources will run East to west or North to South and not follow the natural line of land borders i.e. Carlise to Berwick on Tweed.

Of course if the Orkneys prove to belong to HM Liz. then will she sell them or keep them as a private Colony or ask HM Gov. to take them as Independent Protectorates like the Falklands, Tristan De Cuhna, Ascension etc.

I think it is a great leap of faith by the SNP to think that all that is commonly thought of as Scotland will want to go down the same path.

A botched referendum in Ireland in the early 20's, to prevent a civil war, has resulted in 80 plus years of Irish troubles. That was when HMG asked the counties of all Ireland to vote county by county on the question do you wish to join an Irish Free State or remain part of the UK. Look what that brought us, would you today pose the question County by County in the current UK "Do you with to remain part of or leave the European Community" then have Surrey leave and Hampshire stay in. GET REAL.

Let the Jocks go independent but sort out who wants what before they do so.

Nutty

PS I have no interest in how any of you think Surrey, Hampshire or any other part of the UK may vote in any possible election/referendum before you put your opinion to paper it is a rhetorical question

 

[Nutty]

Always a civvie please provide facts to support your argument about the Orkneys, even if you meant the Shetlands (with their later Danish rather than Norwegian connections) I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

This is where AAC is coming from briefly;

In 1468, Orkney and Shetland were pledged by Christian I of Denmark and Norway for the payment of the dowry of his daughter Margaret, betrothed to James III of Scotland, and as the money was never paid, due to the fact that Margaret died in the crossing, their connection with the crown of Scotland has been perpetual. The town of St. Margaret's Hope on South Ronaldsay was named in her memory. In 1471, James bestowed the castle and lands of Ravenscraig, in Fife, on William, Earl of Orkney, in exchange for all his rights to the earldom of Orkney, which, by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, passed on February 20, 1472, was annexed to the Scottish crown.


i.e. in 1468 th Jocks nicked the Orkneys having promised to pay for them and never did. Sounds like theft of Island, people, Fish, oil etc to me.

"Yer Nicked Scotland get yer 'at" "Master I want this Nation charged wiv Theft"

Nutty

 

[F169]

Nutty, the only point I was trying to extract from AAC was that the Orkneys (as do the Shetlands) belong to the Scottish Crown. The Scottish Queen is, of course, Queen Elizabeth, who may well find herself (finally) styled Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland, a title many Scots found it very strange she didnt take at the time of her coronation. As such, I dont see what choice the Orkneys or Shetland have if the Scottish Nationalists win................

 

[dunkers]

Just as a point of interest did you know there was more MP's per head of Population from Scotaland than any other part of the UK (with the lowest being England), and that there is a large number of Scottish born MP representing English constituecies, but I could'nt find a single Englishamn representing a Scotish seat!!!

Well those in England who have a Scotsman representing their constituency obviously don't mind - they voted for said Scotsman after all!

 

[mikh]

Well those in England who have a Scotsman representing their constituency obviously don't mind - they voted for said Scotsman after all![/quote]

Sorry Dunkers, but most vote for a political part rather than a person, I would like to point to the borough of Copeland in God's own County of Cumbria, represented for many years by one Jack Cunningham (Lab) who did'nt seem to have the universal support and admiration (does Admiral dervice from said word??? but I digress) of the borough, but said borough was Labour through and through so it was either a case of voting for Jack and labour or voting against concience and upbringing!

 

[dunkers]

Well those in England who have a Scotsman representing their constituency obviously don't mind - they voted for said Scotsman after all!

Sorry Dunkers, but most vote for a political part rather than a person, I would like to point to the borough of Copeland in God's own County of Cumbria, represented for many years by one Jack Cunningham (Lab) who did'nt seem to have the universal support and admiration (does Admiral dervice from said word??? but I digress) of the borough, but said borough was Labour through and through so it was either a case of voting for Jack and labour or voting against concience and upbringing!

That may be so but the system (as you know) is that you vote for a person rather than the party. So if enough people did not want someone Scottish they could vote for the other candidate. It may be of benefit to a party you don't like but I would like to point out that (for example) the Labour party of today is a world apart from the Labour party our forebears voted for. What I mean is that a family/area of the country might be die hard Labour for generations but if that continues then they will no longer be voting for the party they once knew (old Labour) but a different one altogether.

 

[F169]

Mikh, dunkers is quite correct the British parliamentary system means you elect the individual, not the party. If people prefer a candidate because of his party fine but it is still the individual they are electing to represent them.