Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?

1234568

Comments

  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Damn and blast Google and not enough time to read through things properly.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

    I don't think it will happen but even with all of the above stated, I don't see that the UK Government could prevent Scotland seperating if the will was there. It might get messy but if there is enough will.....

    As an aside - Scotland ceased to be a sovereign nation when it joined the political union that became Britain. Where will Britain stand within the political union that is the EU? Forget that. That's more than enough for a full thread of it's own :wink:

    Bottom line is that this is all hyperbole. Alex Salmond promised a referendum so for his credability he has to deliver. There will be a "No" vote and we can all get back to where we were.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    UndercoverElephant wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    cjcp wrote:
    Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)

    Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Not Alex Salmond, but John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister -
    http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/j ... conference.

    Never been to NZ but I am going next year. It looks very nice! :wink:
    John Swinney wrote:
    As the global economy recovers from recession all countries run a deficit but the UK deficit is higher than that in Scotland. In 4 out of the last 5 years Scotland has run a budget surplus. The UK was in deficit in each of these years. Scotland contributes more to the UK in tax revenue than we get back in UK public spending. Scotland is subsidising the rest of the UK. Our country pays her way.

    ...

    The figures show that with a geographical share of our offshore resources Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest country in the world - ten places ahead of the UK at sixteenth. This is the time to put the wealth of Scotland to work for the people of Scotland.

    Interesting, given the perception from darn sarf, no?
    Depends on what he means by "a geographical share of our offshore resources".
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
    Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.
    Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?

    So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.

    The nature of separatist politics.

    The issue affects Scots in a way it doesn't the rest of the UK.

    It will have no noticeable affect on my life, for example. It will on Scots.

    Then no-one in England will vote or care.

    More importantly, the Scottish would be scared that, rather than leaving the Union, they are kicked out by the English.

    Ooor, a load of English will vote on something that won't touch their lives. Say, hypothetically, you get a good strong majority in Scotland pro-independence, and a good load in England who are anti.

    Then what? That's a recipe for disaster.

    If people have an established, recognised identity, and the Scots do, it makes sense to let them decide their own national destiny.

    It's not that hard to grasp, surely?
    It's equally not that hard to grasp that the break-up of a Union should require the agreement of both parties, and not the unilateral action of one.

    I think you are underestimating the impact on England that the loss of Scotland might cause.

    The Cornish will be next.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Greg66 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I understand Westminster has the final say, in the same way the Queen has the final say on whether parliament is opened or not.

    No. That really isn't the same at all. You need to do some research on constitutional matters.
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    In reality, if Scotland reasonably choose independence, on what ground would Westminster say "no, we're not going to let this happen, since we have the final say" ?

    It wouldn't need a ground. It can say that just because. I think you're confusing legalities with politics.


    What is it like then?

    You think I care about the legalities. LEGALLY you are correct. I'm saying that, if the Scots want it and demonstrate it, the legal framework won't matter in reality. Politically they will HAVE to give a reason for not granting independence, whether they're legally entitled to or not.

    Not sure why you can't see that.
    _
  • neiltb
    neiltb Posts: 332
    I remember the devo vote, the politicians in westminster really didn't get involved, they ere a bit meh. I voted no, no.

    Now the full independence is being muted and everyone loves Scotland? They usually complain at the subsidies.

    One thinks the gentlemen doth protest too much. Maybe Eck is on to something.
    FCN 12
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    W1 wrote:
    Depends on what he means by "a geographical share of our offshore resources".

    Indeed... Surely thats what this will really be about. The UK stands to lose a great deal if Scotland declares independence and takes all their oilfields with them.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • EKE_38BPM
    EKE_38BPM Posts: 5,821
    notsoblue wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Depends on what he means by "a geographical share of our offshore resources".

    Indeed... Surely thats what this will really be about. The UK stands to lose a great deal if Scotland declares independence and takes all their oilfields with them.

    Forget the oilfields, what about the Shortbread mines and fresh Whisky springs?
    FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
    FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
    FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees

    I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    EKE_38BPM wrote:
    Forget the oilfields, what about the Shortbread mines and fresh Whisky springs?

    And the tartan plantations... You're right, I hadn't really thought that through at all!
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    All I want to know is - would it make Whisky cheaper or more expensive?
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Il Principe wrote:
    All I want to know is - would it make Whisky cheaper or more expensive?

    It's never going to make it taste nicer, so who cares?
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    Philistine.
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    W1 wrote:
    UndercoverElephant wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    cjcp wrote:
    Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)

    Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Not Alex Salmond, but John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister -
    http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/j ... conference.

    Never been to NZ but I am going next year. It looks very nice! :wink:
    John Swinney wrote:
    As the global economy recovers from recession all countries run a deficit but the UK deficit is higher than that in Scotland. In 4 out of the last 5 years Scotland has run a budget surplus. The UK was in deficit in each of these years. Scotland contributes more to the UK in tax revenue than we get back in UK public spending. Scotland is subsidising the rest of the UK. Our country pays her way.

    ...

    The figures show that with a geographical share of our offshore resources Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest country in the world - ten places ahead of the UK at sixteenth. This is the time to put the wealth of Scotland to work for the people of Scotland.

    Interesting, given the perception from darn sarf, no?
    Depends on what he means by "a geographical share of our offshore resources".

    Ok, had a look at that. Lots of anti-Westminster stuff, but no mention of how they intend to raise money beyond oil resources and increasing business rates. Nothing about income tax, VAT, future spending projections and stuff like that. The SNP effectively need to create a business plan. No evidence of it in that speech.

    Btw, NZ's ace. You'll love it.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    Il Principe wrote:
    Philistine.

    IP - Greg speaks the truth. It's rancid stuff.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    cjcp wrote:
    Ok, had a look at that. Lots of anti-Westminster stuff, but no mention of how they intend to raise money beyond oil resources and increasing business rates. Nothing about income tax, VAT, future spending projections and stuff like that. The SNP effectively need to create a business plan. No evidence of it in that speech.

    Btw, NZ's ace. You'll love it.

    You would expect anti-westminster stuff from the SNP.
    I would imagine that their plans to raise money outside oil would be income tax, VAT, stuff like that :wink:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed. Oh, and the water.

    PS:- Cheap whisky is rancid. The expensive stuff is the dawgs. With just a touch of the afore mentioned water.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,372
    Il Principe wrote:
    Philistine.

    +1
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    daviesee wrote:
    cjcp wrote:
    Ok, had a look at that. Lots of anti-Westminster stuff, but no mention of how they intend to raise money beyond oil resources and increasing business rates. Nothing about income tax, VAT, future spending projections and stuff like that. The SNP effectively need to create a business plan. No evidence of it in that speech.

    Btw, NZ's ace. You'll love it.

    You would expect anti-westminster stuff from the SNP.
    I would imagine that their plans to raise money outside oil would be income tax, VAT, stuff like that :wink:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed. Oh, and the water.

    True, but they need the cash to develop all that, and that's the sort of stuff the SNP need to tell the Scottish people. They'll effectively be a start-up business, looking to borrow heavily, and the banks will ask, "Where are you going to get the money to repay us?"
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    daviesee wrote:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed.

    Is there any truth in the rumour that the Scots have found a way to harness the energy of a midge, and convert its wing movement into electricity?

    If so, I will concede now that the Scots will be powering the world within a few years.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Greg66 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed.

    Is there any truth in the rumour that the Scots have found a way to harness the energy of a midge, and convert its wing movement into electricity?

    If so, I will concede now that the Scots will be powering the world within a few years.
    Just rumours I'm afraid. But on the other hand, the Republic of Salmondia Defence Force's new secret weapon...
  • UndercoverElephant
    UndercoverElephant Posts: 5,796
    bompington wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed.

    Is there any truth in the rumour that the Scots have found a way to harness the energy of a midge, and convert its wing movement into electricity?

    If so, I will concede now that the Scots will be powering the world within a few years.
    Just rumours I'm afraid. But on the other hand, the Republic of Salmondia Defence Force's new secret weapon...

    That's why we don't need Trident.
    Sun - Rain - Snow
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Greg66 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    The other thing is that their (wet) dream is that Scotland will be a net energy exporter once hydro, wind and wave power is up to speed.

    Is there any truth in the rumour that the Scots have found a way to harness the energy of a midge, and convert its wing movement into electricity?

    If so, I will concede now that the Scots will be powering the world within a few years.

    There is a fine line between madness and genius! :wink:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15875522
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    daviesee wrote:
    cjcp wrote:
    Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)

    Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Not Alex Salmond, but John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister -
    http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/j ... conference.

    Never been to NZ but I am going next year. It looks very nice! :wink:
    Comparisons between an independent Scotland and NZ are flattering (I think :)), but a wee bit daft. Draw a 1,500 mile radius circle around Edinburgh and it'll include all of the EU and almost touch Moscow. Do the same around Wellington and the only foreigners covered are a bunch of bored seagulls! The language might be the same, but not much else is...

    Scotland can look closer to home for comparisons. Wasn't there (isn't there?) a sign up in arrivals at Glasgow airport which says something like "Welcome to the best small country in the world!"? That's a pretty bold statement, going up against quality-of-life heavyweights like Finland, Norway and Denmark!
  • Stone Glider
    Stone Glider Posts: 1,227
    O T Hullo W1, thank you for explaining why your friend Dave was doing the only reasonable thing. BTW have you, or can you access, some funds? Only I have this investment opportunity which would be tailor-made for a person with your intellectual skill set. Obvs. I can't reveal too much but it involves a pretty big U S group with widespread energy interests. Or you could try an investment in a Colombian pharmaceuticals operation.Otherwise there is this Rover on e-Bay.

    In fact I was quite impressed with Dave, I had imagined him to be just a Tory posh boy but he was truly devious with the referendum. The Cleggsters didn't know what had hit them.
    The older I get the faster I was
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    jamesco wrote:
    Comparisons between an independent Scotland and NZ are flattering (I think :)), but a wee bit daft. Draw a 1,500 mile radius circle around Edinburgh and it'll include all of the EU and almost touch Moscow. Do the same around Wellington and the only foreigners covered are a bunch of bored seagulls! The language might be the same, but not much else is...

    Scotland can look closer to home for comparisons. Wasn't there (isn't there?) a sign up in arrivals at Glasgow airport which says something like "Welcome to the best small country in the world!"? That's a pretty bold statement, going up against quality-of-life heavyweights like Finland, Norway and Denmark!

    Ok, geographically speaking, the hypothetical Martian doesn't live much further away than someone living in NZ :wink: , but I compared the two because their English-speaking countries with similar scenery, so would try to attract your non-beach dwelling tourist (that bit north of Auckland aside), similar weather (ahem, sort of), skiing and because I met a good few people down there whose ancestors were from Scotland.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • mitchell_inman
    mitchell_inman Posts: 101
    W1 wrote:
    mitchell_inman wrote:
    I will be quite happy for the Scottish Govt to hold a 3 option referendum in 2014, and then make my choice. I'd even be happy for the referendum to be held earlier.

    I'd be less than happy to see a yes/no independence referendum, imposed by the UK govt, the purpose of which wouldn't be to give the Scottish people an opportunity to voice their opinion, but rather to gerrymander a particular result (No to independence).

    Personally, I'm quite happy with devolution and would probably vote for devo-max, and it looks like I'm not alone. I suspect that many Scots would feel that they hadn't had the opportunity to settle the issue if it was a simple yes/no vote. You can't just make the support for devo-max vanish simply by insisting it's not on the ballot.

    Maybe the Tories don't like the idea of a govt actually doing something they promised...

    FFS - do you want true independence or not? It really is a yes/no answer, unless what you really want it to be able to retain the benefits of the Union whilst ditching the bad bits - which is evidently unreasonable.

    We already have devolution, and I'd like to see the powers afforded by that extended.

    Personally, I don't want "true independence", but I would like to be able to express my preference for devo-max at any ballot held.

    I'm not sure which bad bits of the Union anyone's suggested ditching.
    There's a future for you in the fire escape trade...
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    This interview between Channel 4 and Alex Salmond shows a bit of, well, bare-faced cheek and hypocrisy, really...
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Well. I had a listen and didn't hear too much hypocrisy there.
    He wants Scotland's share of the oil and is prepared to incurr Scotland's share of the debt.

    Where is the hypocrisy? The banks?

    As he said, he is not asking for Scotland to get the corporation taxes or oil revenues during the time the bank debts were accrued so why should Scotland pay the debts?

    PS:- I am not for independance but as someone who will be voting, I am interested in ALL points.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Scotland has a lot of 'governement' jobs, what if the English voters wanted them back in their own country?

    Salmond wants his cake and to eat it. He knows he would lose a vote tomorrow that is why he needs 2.5 years to make some stuff up and campaign. Scotland would effectively have no rail link to the channel via HS2 (potentially developable) as 'England' would not see a need to develop competition in cities to the north of the border.

    Lets face it Salmauron has harnessed a lot of self interested local groups under the banner of nationalism. If they ever got their own government it would be a bunfight amongst the lot of them. A fact that he is not willing to let Scottish voters know.
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Stone Glider wrote:
    O T Hullo W1, thank you for explaining why your friend Dave was doing the only reasonable thing. BTW have you, or can you access, some funds? Only I have this investment opportunity which would be tailor-made for a person with your intellectual skill set. Obvs. I can't reveal too much but it involves a pretty big U S group with widespread energy interests. Or you could try an investment in a Colombian pharmaceuticals operation.Otherwise there is this Rover on e-Bay.

    In fact I was quite impressed with Dave, I had imagined him to be just a Tory posh boy but he was truly devious with the referendum. The Cleggsters didn't know what had hit them.

    The loony left are out again - watch out for your wallets.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    mitchell_inman wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mitchell_inman wrote:
    I will be quite happy for the Scottish Govt to hold a 3 option referendum in 2014, and then make my choice. I'd even be happy for the referendum to be held earlier.

    I'd be less than happy to see a yes/no independence referendum, imposed by the UK govt, the purpose of which wouldn't be to give the Scottish people an opportunity to voice their opinion, but rather to gerrymander a particular result (No to independence).

    Personally, I'm quite happy with devolution and would probably vote for devo-max, and it looks like I'm not alone. I suspect that many Scots would feel that they hadn't had the opportunity to settle the issue if it was a simple yes/no vote. You can't just make the support for devo-max vanish simply by insisting it's not on the ballot.

    Maybe the Tories don't like the idea of a govt actually doing something they promised...

    FFS - do you want true independence or not? It really is a yes/no answer, unless what you really want it to be able to retain the benefits of the Union whilst ditching the bad bits - which is evidently unreasonable.

    We already have devolution, and I'd like to see the powers afforded by that extended.

    Personally, I don't want "true independence", but I would like to be able to express my preference for devo-max at any ballot held.

    I'm not sure which bad bits of the Union anyone's suggested ditching.
    Cake and eat it then - what a surprise.
  • leodis75
    leodis75 Posts: 184
    W1 wrote:
    mitchell_inman wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mitchell_inman wrote:
    I will be quite happy for the Scottish Govt to hold a 3 option referendum in 2014, and then make my choice. I'd even be happy for the referendum to be held earlier.

    I'd be less than happy to see a yes/no independence referendum, imposed by the UK govt, the purpose of which wouldn't be to give the Scottish people an opportunity to voice their opinion, but rather to gerrymander a particular result (No to independence).

    Personally, I'm quite happy with devolution and would probably vote for devo-max, and it looks like I'm not alone. I suspect that many Scots would feel that they hadn't had the opportunity to settle the issue if it was a simple yes/no vote. You can't just make the support for devo-max vanish simply by insisting it's not on the ballot.

    Maybe the Tories don't like the idea of a govt actually doing something they promised...

    FFS - do you want true independence or not? It really is a yes/no answer, unless what you really want it to be able to retain the benefits of the Union whilst ditching the bad bits - which is evidently unreasonable.

    We already have devolution, and I'd like to see the powers afforded by that extended.

    Personally, I don't want "true independence", but I would like to be able to express my preference for devo-max at any ballot held.

    I'm not sure which bad bits of the Union anyone's suggested ditching.
    Cake and eat it then - what a surprise.

    +1

    They wont get devo-max as its not up to AS though he would love to think it. I imagine him on a weekend dressed up like a William Wallace. I wonder how many repeats of Braveheart will be shown on Scottish TV over the next couple of years.

Categories