Scottish Independence

[swerve]

....
England has something to lose here as the Scots pay the majority part of the taxes levied over the UK's population ...

What? Do you really believe that Scotland (8% of the UK's population) pays over half the taxes? Even Salmond doesn't claim that. It'd require Scotland to be the richest country in the world per head, & by a big margin. It'd also make England more lightly taxed than any developed country. Nope, it's nonsense.

In terms of military and defense agreements there is so much for both at stake that i am sure that there will be some sort of agreement that suit both,

Only if Scotland agrees to accept different terms than those Salmond is promising. What he's saying is that NATO will change its own rules, just for Scotland: that Scotland will be a special case, privileged over all other NATO members. Really? Tell me, do you really think that any sane person believes that?

Diplomacy wise the EU might have a problem with Scotland but this will sort itself over time, as Scotland with its vast resources will be to important to ignore.

You're arguing that Scotland, with 1% of the population of the EU, is so crucial to the existence of the European Union that it'll be able to dictate its own terms for joining, & the EU will make special rules for Scotland - & only Scotland - to keep it in the EU. Just like you're arguing for NATO.

Try thinking for a moment, instead of living in some tartan dream. What happens to the EU if Scotland drops out of it? Well, not much. Scotland will still sell oil & gas, & at the same price. The infrastructure is in place, & the nearest customers are the cheapest to supply. Scotland would get less money selling to anyone else. And the same for everything else.

It's a fantasy. Denying it isn't scaremongering, it's honesty & truthfulness.

 

[Beatmaster]

Yes. it's just 'scaremongering' that all of these companies representing many different areas of industry voicing big concerns over their operations in Scotland in either relocation (by law), jobs or price rises.

That's what it is, them crafty English people. Not legitimate concerns from companies who have one priority - make as much money as possible.

This morning there was another half dozen (this time telecoms) saying their prices in Scotland will go up.

You mean those 'vast' resources of oil which the top oil businessman (said by both Cameron and Salmond) says the predictions coming from the SNP are severely inflated and that claim has been backed by both Shell and BP? You mean *those* vast reserves?

Hmm what about Scottish offshore and Wind energy options? How about the fact that Scotland could be a regional powerhouse in energy exporting?
Shell and BP have agreements with London, which benefit London, but when Scotland becomes independent then things will have to be changed ill guess.
Keep in mind many Scots do believe that they are being robbed of their resources, so agreements need to be changed where more sides will benefit, not just London...

I am sure companies have legit concerns and thats something that has to be ironed out, keep in mind Rome has not been build in 5 days, so yes there are lots of doubts, questions and what iffs.
But its ridicule to say the world will end if the Scottish become independent.

Down the line London's policies with regards to the north have backfired for years now and how these things are going to be solved is up to London and the Scottish people, either by changing and remaining in the union, or either by breaking free from the union. That is what is has come to...
But my point is that those so called "crafty" Englishman forget that benefits have to go both ways and right now the North is being told they cannot have the pound, they cannot have this they cannot have that.... So why would they share the massive UK debt? Ill guess London cannot have that then.
Down the line London and Scotland need to see eye to eye and stick to promises made, this would save the union.
But as long London is trowing sand and candy towards the Scottish people they will want to break free. And it does not take a genius to say that there will be huge problems to solve on both sides, and yes the industry has a big concern and voice here and rightfully so...
But its not the end and its not unsolvable, it just needs time and a good diplomatic talk where all sides see eye to eye.
But hollow promises by the British parliament is just a laughing stock.
Anyway there will be people voting yes, there will be NO voters and people in the middle, and regardless how this will end, London has a wake up call and will have to change their policies and internal regulations.
And thats the real issue here, ask any Scot if they agree to many of the UK's policies and internal laws... and you will see who they respond.
That said London's industrial lobby will work overtime to play both sides... So lots of things are unclear about how this is going to end, don't you think?
So that being said if the cards are being played right then the Scottish do have something to gain, and give them one good reason not to play their cards?
Public opinion says it all i think...

 

[Beatmaster]

What? Do you really believe that Scotland (8% of the UK's population) pays over half the taxes? Even Salmond doesn't claim that. It'd require Scotland to be the richest country in the world per head, & by a big margin. It'd also make England more lightly taxed than any developed country. Nope, it's nonsense.

Yeah poor word choice of mine... let me explain.
Maybe you need a good chat with a Scottish person who owns a company..
Maybe you need to ask them what benefits do apply to them and which are not, then you need to put those "benefits" next to the benefits the south has and you will see the differences. That said what i mean with taxes is that Scotland is bringing a large chunk of the London cash-flow all together not just taxes...You have to view it across the whole spectrum. Or would you say that the revenues generated by Scotland are not as significant? It would be more then enough to sustain them for many many years to come as Scotland has enough options to build a good economy.


Only if Scotland agrees to accept different terms than those Salmond is promising. What he's saying is that NATO will change its own rules, just for Scotland: that Scotland will be a special case, privileged over all other NATO members. Really? Tell me, do you really think that any sane person believes that?

I would not know... and it remains to be seen how the EU/NATO is going to react on it. But does it matter what i think? or what you think for that matter? As it seems there are a few million Scots thinking exactly that...But i was talking economy wise.

You're arguing that Scotland, with 1% of the population of the EU, is so crucial to the existence of the European Union that it'll be able to dictate its own terms for joining, & the EU will make special rules for Scotland - & only Scotland - to keep it in the EU. Just like you're arguing for NATO.

Well Scotland is not that vital, but you seem to forget that oil & gas & wind energy is a massive card to play, not to mention the vast offshore options Scotland has. As i said i was talking economy wise. As NATO and EU ambitions are imo to far fetched for the time being, maybe in time
Down the line this will make them to big to ignore.
So even if the EU does refuse them, it would not be the end of Scotland. But then again ALL the industry will leave Scotland, all the natural resources will be shipped out, water will dry up all all the people will suddenly lose their jobs and the whole world comes crashing down...
No really? ..you kidding me right?
If Scotland goes independent and if things are being worked out properly then overtime NATO and the EU might change their mindset in regards to Scotland.
Yet you have to argue if Scotland would want the EU and would want NATO given the fact that Scotland has no global ambitions, The like to get rid of London, So why change one evil for another called Brussels?

Try thinking for a moment, instead of living in some tartan dream. What happens to the EU if Scotland drops out of it? Well, not much. Scotland will still sell oil & gas, & at the same price. The infrastructure is in place, & the nearest customers are the cheapest to supply. Scotland would get less money selling to anyone else. And the same for everything else.
It's a fantasy. Denying it isn't scaremongering, it's honesty & truthfulness.

Well i am not living a Tartan dream, but ill guess that the Scottish do then because propaganda and scaremongering a side, there is a reason why people want to break up the union and by doing so there will be benefits and there will be downsides, and yes London does have something to lose here, as i do not believe that Scotland would care much for the EU and NATO.
Now i am not Scottish so i would not know how deep things really go, but some of the things you claim are just not true... or would you say that all those 8% are lost their minds? Are on crack and living a fantasy? Try thinking...

As i said i am not a Scottish person yet i have family there, and we talk alot about this whole thing, and down the line most posters are right, everything is being colored to bright and sound to good to be true.
This is all correct, it a big step and as such there will be gains and there will be losses.
But giving the idea that its a fantasy or a tartan dream is just BS...

 

[Beatmaster]

I would like to add a article from the guardian regarding the energy sector in Scotland.
How much North Sea oil revenue can an independent Scotland extract? | Politics | theguardian.com

I think that it sums it all up pretty much. Ill guess that any figure given by the article combined with a favorable tax regime could help Scotland achieve enough to build up a solid economy..

 

[phreeky]

I think that it sums it all up pretty much. Ill guess that any figure given by the article combined with a favorable tax regime could help Scotland achieve enough to build up a solid economy..

There's a lot of guess work and optimism involved, but even if you ignore all of that then you still have some problems:
- A lack of diversity in the economy (way too much reliance on one resource)
- Therefore a heightened need to be able to defend it
- Basing the countries future on a single FINITE resource

Unless I'm missing something, Scotland is a small country in both area and population. I'm struggling to see any booming industries to come out of all this.

I hope that the Scots wake up and vote NO. Not for my benefit - I'm a long way removed - but because a lot of people will hurt from a break up.

 

[RobWilliams]

There's a lot of guess work and optimism involved, but even if you ignore all of that then you still have some problems:
- A lack of diversity in the economy (way too much reliance on one resource)
- Therefore a heightened need to be able to defend it
- Basing the countries future on a single FINITE resource

And EU membership (wanting to have more autonomy and yet join the EU don't really go hand in hand), NATO membership, currency, defence, economy, all areas which have yet to be discussed with any sort of basis in truth and reality.

Unless I'm missing something, Scotland is a small country in both area and population. I'm struggling to see any booming industries to come out of all this.

Indeed, significant areas have already indicated their willingness to either leave Scotland or create seperate companies in Scotland which would mean increased prices to cover the overhead.

 

[Beatmaster]

So solar and wind count as 'national resources' now? Rather than just a resource available to be harnessed by everyone else on the planet?

Nice bit of warped logic there.

Robbed of their resources? That's a massive DERP right there. Nothing like a bit of blind 'they took our jerbs!' to add things into the mix with no basis in the real world.



But you just said it was all scaremongering, that's what you literally just said, said it was something being orchestrated by London.

But now you say that *isn't* the case, that the idea its scaremongering is bullsh!t and that rather than it being 'those sneaky southerners' that the business community might actually do what's best for their business and their customers where possible?

Lots of doubt and what ifs, that's for sure, it would be nice if Salmond would actually respond to it than saying they're lies, bluffs and never going to happen. That's severe pandering to the dumbest of the population if ever i've seen it.



You mean those policies being brought in from the 13 year long Labour government which Scotland overwhelmingly supported in every General Election? They're angry at their own elected sponges for screwing them over?

Or is it conveniently since the Coalition government in 2010 that everything went wrong?

That's some great logic right there.



Again, policies and promises being made from 1997 - 2010 from a Labour Government which Scotland actively put into office.

Or - again - was it all the Coalition?



Yes, all of those you are completely fairly made.

The issue is that the information you're being fed from that imbecile that is Scotland's First Minister is so deluded and divorced from reality that the people making the decision are not basing it on facts. They are basing it on a fantasy, a fantasy which - according to Salmond - everyone will submit to Scotland, everything will be great, nobody will oppose whatever we do and it'll all be grand.

That's b*llocks.


London's industrial lobby? The same people you say are making all the scaremongering then swiftly agreed that it wasn't scaremongering in the first place?

Not really, it's pretty clear what the result is going to be, you can see industry making its choice what side of the fence it wants to sit behind and giving indications (i.e increasing cost warnings) about what it will do in response.

It's actually pretty clear, really.

As for the public opinion, down to the 'No' campaign by 6 points now isn't it?

Maybe so, But then again i am not claiming i am right.
There are multiple sides bringing out information, and i am sure that both sides have valid points to make. But even if both sides spread lies and doubt, fact remains that there is a vote with a simple yes and a simple no, and loads of people are voting yes and loads will vote no.
Imo the issue is not what you or me think, the issue is what London does and what Scotland does and how this will play down.
All rhetoric a side people are being fed up and thats the big case here.
And IMHO both London and Scotland in terms of Government have screwed up in a major way.
The union is not just being attacked from the outside, its being broken from the inside out by the very people that "value" the union.

Ill guess the big question is can Scotland become successfully independent if they wish so? And while it might be a hard job to accomplish it seems that all the ingredients are there to do so.
So Salmond can claim his wildest dreams, who is there to proof him right or wrong?
You? Me? Public opinion? I am sure its not all smack talk.
Same goes for the British leaders, they will feed any info to the media that would make a yes vote look bad, in the same way as Salmond does his best to make a yes vote look good.
Both sides are spreading rubbish and both sides have valid points, but one question remains: Give London one good reason to actually say that Salmond has some valid points? Knowing that if Scotland breaks away that the rest of the UK will suffer arguably the biggest loss.

And its not about me being right or wrong, it does not matter.
if you are right and this Salmond guy is full of shit, then the only way he can do that is because London lets him... So seeing eye to eye and making hard agreements between both sides seems to be the only solution that will save the union in the long term, because as long both sides do not see eye to eye you will see another referendum in some years assuming this one fails.

And given the huge amount of voters who seem to swing to the yes vote, would that not be reason enough for London to start doing some thinking on their own?
Its easy to say that Salmond and his idea's might be based on a fairy tail and maybe you are right, maybe this is all rubbish.
But from a Scottish pov this rubbish seems to be more valid then Londons it "rubbish".

But hey look at the bright side... this issue is going on for what? 200/300 years now?
Scots will be Scots and English will be English and as such this was bound to happen sooner or later...

And there is nothing anyone of us here on DT are going to change about that.

 

[Beatmaster]

And EU membership (wanting to have more autonomy and yet join the EU don't really go hand in hand), NATO membership, currency, defence, economy, all areas which have yet to be discussed with any sort of basis in truth and reality.

Indeed, significant areas have already indicated their willingness to either leave Scotland or create seperate companies in Scotland which would mean increased prices to cover the overhead.

True however keep in mind there are other EU nations that have larger population but do not have nearly as much of the potential Scotland has in the long run, so even if the overhead drives up prices, this will normalize when time passes.
Its to early to say anything about this, for the simple reason if the industry does leave Scotland but Scotland adopts a favorable tax regime then in time investors and other key elements will return.
As mentioned before Scotland does have enough opportunities to be successful in the long run so when time passes Scotland can achieve way more then its size and population justifies and i think that this is something we cannot deny.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scottish-independence/55716/pros-and-cons-of-scottish-independence-the-referendum-countdown

 

[Nick underscore]

Maybe so, But then again i am not claiming i am right.

Imo the issue is not what you or me think, the issue is what London does and what Scotland does and how this will play down.

The union is not just being attacked from the outside, its being broken from the inside out by the very people that "value" the union.

Both sides are spreading rubbish and both sides have valid points, but one question remains: Give London one good reason to actually say that Salmond has some valid points? Knowing that if Scotland breaks away that the rest of the UK will suffer arguably the biggest loss.

And its not about me being right or wrong, it does not matter.
if you are right and this Salmond guy is full of shit, then the only way he can do that is because London lets him... So seeing eye to eye and making hard agreements between both sides seems to be the only solution that will save the union in the long term, because as long both sides do not see eye to eye you will see another referendum in some years assuming this one fails.

And given the huge amount of voters who seem to swing to the yes vote, would that not be reason enough for London to start doing some thinking on their own?
Its easy to say that Salmond and his idea's might be based on a fairy tail and maybe you are right, maybe this is all rubbish.
But from a Scottish pov this rubbish seems to be more valid then Londons it "rubbish".

And there is nothing anyone of us here on DT are going to change about that.

Let me ask you a question. You're not Scottish as you say, but you're British right? How would you see the City of London moving to a principality, such as Monaco?

Now, I'm not saying that Scotland shouldn't have independence, but the obvious move by 'Westminister' (not London as you keep saying) after this vote (assuming No succeeds) will be more devolution of powers away from rUK anyway.. We are beyond the point, as demonstrated by this vote.

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah little teasers like a kid gets a piece of candy... But for the Scots there is nothing to gain, losing their jobs, losing health-care, losing education programs and so on.

Health care has been fully devolved for fourteen years - if they're losing anything, they need to look closer to home than London.



And has the SNP ever laid out plans to salvage Scots ship builders in the event of an exit, or are we still on the pantomime response of "oh no, we won't" ?

 

[Beatmaster]

Let me ask you a question. You're not Scottish as you say, but you're British right? How would you see the City of London moving to a principality, such as Monaco?

Now, I'm not saying that Scotland shouldn't have independence, but the obvious move by 'Westminister' (not London as you keep saying) after this vote (assuming No succeeds) will be more devolution of powers away from rUK anyway.. We are beyond the point, as demonstrated by this vote.

Me British? Hell no i am a happy Dutchman lmao.

 

[swerve]

Scotland would be viable as an independent country. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. But the chance of it being anything like what the SNP claims is approximately zero - & that's the point. It won't be spectacularly rich & fast-growing.

People have been fooled. They're being told, for example, that Scottish shipbuilding will thrive - but right now, it survives on orders from the Royal Navy, & that only buys from Scotland because it's in the UK. Salmond says the RN will continue to buy its ships from Scotland. The RN, the MoD, & everyone else involved says otherwise, & EU rules would make it very difficult. One can give preference to one's own shipyards, but not to those of another country.

And so on. I'm accustomed to dishonest politicians, but I'm not used to British politicians telling such bare-faced lies.

A couple of Scottish products have been mentioned.

Gas & oil: doesn't make any difference to the EU if Scotland is in or out. It'll still have to sell its gas & oil. It'll need the money. And it's not going to last forever. Production & revenues are going down. The Scottish government's predictions of income have consistently been far too high, & there's no reason to believe their predictions for post-independence income are any more accurate.

Wind power. Not really an export market. It's subsidised at the moment, so exports would be a drain on the economy, not a money-maker. And even if prices come down to be competitive against other sources of electricity, it's hard to export it over long distances, because of transmission losses - & the erratic nature of wind makes it ill-suited to exporting. And again, being an exporter of a product EU countries want doesn't buy you membership. The price of the product doesn't come down if you're in the EU.

An independent Scotland would probably be a middling prosperous W. European country. Nothing wrong with that: it's comfortable. But it's not what the pro-independence campaign is promising, which is another Norway, but with bigger & better financial & manufacturing industries. And there'd be heavy transition costs.

 

[FirstSpear]

Oh no you don't...

Scotland says it's automatic, the EU disagrees and Spain and I think Belgium will actively veto Scotland's membership on the grounds of them having their own problems with regions wanting to split away.

Sincerely, Belgium vetoing this is about the last thing that's likely to happen. This article at the beginning of the thread is a nice passive/aggressive bit of political banter.

It strikes me as really telling that the Brits who are so quick to interpret every UK poll showing discontent of the EU as the proof something is terribly (if not morbidly) wrong with Brussels' authority, see a poll where half the voters of Scotland saying "we've had enough with you lot" as telltale of Scottish political immaturity and not, as I think is the case, as a classic contest vote with the condition of the nation they live in and the political misdeeds of British authorities.

The fault is not in the stars, as it were, but perhaps in yourselves...

Back to Belgium, as the point was elegantly made earlier, if Flanders were to want its independence, it would have to take its proportion of Belgian debt and assets.

I for one, and many others, would warmly welcome this neo-nazi state's formation so its disgusting pull of the country to the far right would end. The economic reality about Belgium is though the Flemish deny this, the wealthiest part of the country is Brussels, NOT Flanders. And the ridiculous rule that has allowed Flemish commuters to come work in Brussels but pay taxes in Flanders would immediately be abolished after Flanders split off. They can go to hell trying to take Brussels as a capital, as it's 85% French speaking and much of the rest is international (EU), not Flemish. They can therefore take their far right voting population, their per capita of the debt, I'd even let them take all the military junk they've foisted on the Belgian military as they've monopolized the leadership positions for thirty years and have wrecked the Belgian military with their piss poor management of it. Belgium would be wealthier per capita without them and able to start anew with its leaner forces. In fact, those plans exist and frankly represent a more projectable force that could coordinate very well with France and Germany and even reequip quickly on leased gear from recently stored materials made available in both those countries in recent budget reductions.

Back to Scotland, I think the fear of independence is normal anxiety by the English because the basing rights would naturally be negotiable and not the maddening problem described. The Scots can't be told the oil and gas in NS are running out after the UK just showed rating agencies that their reserves were larger than thought. You can't argue one thing and it's exact opposite. Naturally, RBS would move. It's 80% or more owned by the UK taxpayers so it should be where the majority live. It also needs the largest last resort lender possible (BoE) because it's management has proven to be somewhat less than prudential, hasn't it?

Aren't there large Scottish 'labelled' and recruited units in the UK military? Wouldn't their staff, colors and traditions be inherited by Scotland in a split? Wouldn't these still train and project together with UK forces? I would be a bit surprised if Scotland voted to split off as I think the polls reflect a protest sentiment about London-centric pols more than any real animosity for Britain as a project. But if this happened, I can't believe the apocalyptic vision suggested by some. Scotland would be richer per capita initially but it couldn't turn into Norway without prudent management for decades... And why would it be so tragic if some RAF and RN units were Scottish? Yes, projection would require more political consultations but within an alliance that's part of the cost of doing business, right?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Aren't there large Scottish 'labelled' and recruited units in the UK military? Wouldn't their staff, colors and traditions be inherited by Scotland in a split?

Not necessarily. Those people might choose to stay with the UK military - they have British nationality. And certainly the equipment would not be Scottish, as it was paid for centrally and therefore owned by the UK state.

 

[StobieWan]

There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.

 

[2007yellow430]

There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.

Exactly. And if the banks leave, watch the economy fall on its face. Businesses need money sources and if the large banks go, that source drys up. This would be a disaster of great magnitude.

 

[the concerned]

I was wondering if anyone knows if Scotland does vote for independence what are their armed forces going to be called. Would it be the Scottish armed forces or the Royal Scottish armed forces. Because as every member of the UK armed forces pledges to serve Queen then country and the Queen is head of the UK armed forces then they have a oath to this country.

 

[Systems Adict]

I have to ask, seeing how the internet considers Scottish an obscure language, what is a 'guddgel' ?

1st, I have to correct my spelling, it SHOULD read GUDELL. :nutkick

A Gudell is another way of saying "it' s right old mess !"

 

[swerve]

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.

Absolutely. The Scottish state would suddenly find its credit rating would make Argentina look good. It'd be dependent on cash receipts to make payments.

... I can't believe the apocalyptic vision suggested by some. ...

There shouldn't be an apocalypse, but the SNP has suggested that it'd trigger one in a fit of pique, if the UK refuses (perfectly reasonably) to enter a currency union.

That suggests to me that Scotland would not be a well-managed country.

 

[FirstSpear]

There's a useful post regarding the split and the distinction between institutions and assets

The hidden costs of independence | Notes from North Britain


Broadly, equipment for local use sited in Scotland would stay in place, and vice versa so there'd be no possibility of say, a radar station being relocated to another place if it were used locally for instance. Mobile assets would be a bit thornier.

People may be subject to TUPE regulations but that would be complicated by questions of nationality. The Scots regiments have struggled to recruit to numbers over the years, which is why a number of badges have been integrated into other organisations over time.

There is no chance, zero, non at all however, of Scotland being able to renege on UK debt fractions and survive one day in government as anything other than a road wreck of a country and it amazes me that anyone can take this seriously.

Oh, I agree completely that if they go their own way they will HAVE to take a chunk of the UK's debt but that is also where, in the pre-split negotiation, there would have to be an initial "allotment" of all assets, with the immobile ones essentially being assigned a value against with some fraction of debt is assigned.

In theory, the Scots would, if let's say population was used as the initial guide for fractioning, "inherit" 5/65th of all debt and assets, (1/13th) so although they'd own all the mineral rights on their territory, they might have to 'buy back' the majority of any UK owned drilling gear in place... Where the proverbial rUK couldn't get too cute about this is the Scots might be assigned one of RN's nuclear subs in theory which in practice rUK would have to also buy back. Of course all the back and forth 'buying' is 'only' in the form of taking on additional existing debt.

So, in the end, the Scots would have a fair chunk of debt but because the UK is no Norway in terms of prudential management, it might take them decades to improve their balance sheet enough to start their own sovereign wealth fund and so on... SNP dreams notwithstanding...

I don't really believe the oaths taken pre-independence by commissioned officers would be the issue as I'd expect some royal decree releasing all who chose to serve Scotland from this oath. Remember the royals like to vacation there so they wouldn't want to piss off the locals any more than absolutely necessary... Now, about those royal castles...