Scottish Independence
Comments
-
If the scots want independence then they should be given it, its up to them and not us.
A recent report highlights Scotland could gain an additional £200bn over the next 20 yrs from increased investment in oil.
If so, may explain that wzzzker Camerons keeness to stay as a "union" this and having no where else to keep Trident.0 -
mamba80 wrote:If the scots want independence then they should be given it, its up to them and not us
A recent report highlights Scotland could gain an additional £200bn over the next 20 yrs from increased investment in oil.
If so, may explain that wzzzker Camerons keeness to stay as a "union" this and having no where else to keep Trident.
Maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps that's what the referendum is for ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Scottish Independence will be a lot like having an affair. It seems interesting and exciting at first, but then you realise you're just being f*cked by somebody different, no better, no worse. But you're still being f*cked.
Alex Salmond may promise the world, but he has shallow pockets. Personally I'm looking forward to the 5th year after Independence when the penny finally drops that Scottish voters have ousted a corrupt British Parliament for a corrupt Scottish one. But then it's too late, and there's never going to be a 'Union Referendum'.0 -
Nairnster wrote:Anyone who is deciding to vote "Yes" based on the presumptions that Salmond is making, is going to be in for a rude awakening I feel.
Still way too many unanswered questions for anyone to make a proper decision on if it will be good for Scotland or not, and lots of statements of "so called fact" that wouldn't be purely up to Scotland if they got independence.
Can't help feeling that Independence will only be a bad thing for Scotland, or in fact any part of the UK except London. I hope not, it's good being one community, but I don't know jack really.0 -
Joelsim wrote:it's good being one community, but I don't know jack really.
"one community'? :shock:
"I like riding in my car, it's not quite a Jaguar."0 -
and there's never going to be a 'Union Referendum'.
Probably not, but one can imagine a mechanism by which union is re-established; nothing nice & democratic, more a slicing the salami cross between EU “ever closer union” and the financially driven union of 1707.
De jure reunification certainly wouldn’t happen (politicians have their pride) - but a de facto return to something alike to the current status quo?0 -
So Scotland had only one Police helicopter.
and now it's got No Police helicopters. None at all. That surprised me.0 -
RideOnTime wrote:So Scotland had only one Police helicopter.
and now it's got No Police helicopters. None at all. That surprised me.
Yip - 1 police helicopter / 2 or 3 air ambulances, about 3 SAR helicopter ( currently transferring from the Services to private contract).
Not too bad really.All the gear, but no idea...0 -
Salmond seems to be talking about a 'sterling zone' which to me would suggest some form of fiscal union. Of course, Scotland would be completely free to use the £ in an unofficial, or even an official, capacity, but to my mind if it does it can have no control over interest rates etc. To do otherwise would invariably require the remainder of the UK to allow Scotland, by then an independent nation, to have some say in the setting of fiscal policy throughout the currency zone. For this to occur in any democratically acceptable manner the whole of the UK population would require consultation, as unless this was done then a 'sterling zone' would see some sovereignty over UK fiscal policy being handed to Scotland and in doing so limit the fiscal sovereignty of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. On top of this any fiscal union would see the remainder of the UK having to underwrite the independence project, in much the same way that Germany has effectively underwritten the economies of nations such as Greece. Again any such move, done without UK wide consultation, would be deeply undemocratic.
To my mind the fiscal union option is simply not acceptable. However Scotland simply using the pound, without any say in monetary policy, would seem crazy, as it would leave the new state with less say over monetary policy than the devolved government currently has.
More generally though, if the Scots want independence then the UK should not stand in their way but seek to facilitate this. The important players though, must seek to properly inform the electorate if a truly informed choice is to be made instead of a hope of what a new nation may mean.0 -
The one good reason for Scottish independance is democracy. Currently the system of 52 votes against 502 can lead to some crackers like the poll tax.
For those of you that say that Scotland cannot live within the pound as an economy with no influence over the Bank of England then I ask what is the difference to the last 400 and odd years based on the above voting structure. We have never had a large sway on the interest rate as our economy is small.
I expect a campaign of scare stories from the unionists as to how Scotland won't have a pot to piss in. This then leads to the natural conclusion that if we are such a bunch of spongers then why is the UK so interested in keeping us in giros and buckfast?
If Scotland can get a handle on its idle generation similar to the North of England then it stands to reason that it can be as successfull going forwards. Scotland has good natural resources and a resourceful population. Corruption is easier tackled in a small countries parliament than a larger one.0 -
bdu98252 wrote:The one good reason for Scottish independance is democracy. Currently the system of 52 votes against 502 can lead to some crackers like the poll tax.
For those of you that say that Scotland cannot live within the pound as an economy with no influence over the Bank of England then I ask what is the difference to the last 400 and odd years based on the above voting structure. We have never had a large sway on the interest rate as our economy is small.
I expect a campaign of scare stories from the unionists as to how Scotland won't have a pot to wee-wee in. This then leads to the natural conclusion that if we are such a bunch of spongers then why is the UK so interested in keeping us in giros and buckfast?
If Scotland can get a handle on its idle generation similar to the North of England then it stands to reason that it can be as successfull going forwards. Scotland has good natural resources and a resourceful population. Corruption is easier tackled in a small countries parliament than a larger one.
A poll of the entire UK may give you a different answer. I have no idea how such a vote would go, but it could have been interesting. The rest of the UK may not be so keen to hang on to the Scots.0 -
I am all for two votes. One for the Scots to let them decide their future and then another a day later for the English to kick us out. After all this is what you are implying you want.0
-
On a related point I think a 'yes' vote could lead to some rather interesting changes to the politics of the remainder of the UK.
For example, Labour would be somewhat weakened if it looses its Scottish seats, leading to the risk of Tory hegemony. As such I do wonder whether new parties may come to the fore to (a) compete with the Tories for the right of centre, and (b) provide a left wing alternative to the Labour party which could seek to challenge for government. More boringly it may just lead to a shift in Labour politics.
Also, should Labour win the 2015 election, and then Scotland becomes independent in 2016, potentially removing the Labour majority, what will we do?0 -
bdu98252 wrote:I am all for two votes. One for the Scots to let them decide their future and then another a day later for the English to kick us out. After all this is what you are implying you want.
Where did I say that. For the record, my mother is Scottish, my father was English. I regard myself as being British and would like to keep the Union. I was just pointing out that my view is by no means universal, south of the border.0 -
-
Looks like London isn't just bleeding Scotland dry...0
-
mamba80 wrote:If the scots want independence then they should be given it, its up to them and not us.
A recent report highlights Scotland could gain an additional £200bn over the next 20 yrs from increased investment in oil.
If so, may explain that wzzzker Camerons keeness to stay as a "union" this and having no where else to keep Trident.
studies can produce anything...0 -
By the looks of things, if Scotland leaves the Union then Trident will end up down the road from me...0
-
Ballysmate wrote:bdu98252 wrote:I am all for two votes. One for the Scots to let them decide their future and then another a day later for the English to kick us out. After all this is what you are implying you want.
Where did I say that. For the record, my mother is Scottish, my father was English. I regard myself as being British and would like to keep the Union. I was just pointing out that my view is by no means universal, south of the border.
id say fairly confidently that most english would welcome the split.
i hope the scots vote yes. it will go along way to addressing the west lothian question, and make left leaning governments imposed on england, that is naturally conservative, a rarer thing...although the current guise of the conservative party is left leaning itself, despite the moronic attempts by certain factions to make out its imposing unfair cuts etc etc.
they may well do fine on their own, i dont care, but it will reduce the impact of the left, i would hope, on things that impact me.0 -
andyk19 wrote:By the looks of things, if Scotland leaves the Union then Trident will end up down the road from me...
that will be interesting0 -
Plymouth that is.0
-
I'm not entirely sure the English population is that keen on the current situation. Personally I'd like to see Scotland make its own plans if that's what it wants. And then the Hebridean population could apply for independance from the rest of Scotland, and then the man in the Post Office will want independence from the rest of the island.bdu98252 wrote:I expect a campaign of scare stories from the unionists as to how Scotland won't have a pot to wee-wee in. This then leads to the natural conclusion that if we are such a bunch of spongers then why is the UK so interested in keeping us in giros and buckfast?
In fact, I'd rather Scotland was independant ragardless of what it wants to do. Then ths Scots could all hate Alex Salmond when they realise that taxes have to be raised to pay for services and the promises of growth are just promises with no delivery. Anybody who trusts their politicians is an idiot.0 -
RideOnTime wrote:So Scotland had only one Police helicopter.
and now it's got No Police helicopters. None at all. That surprised me.
I thought when they said on the news "Scotland's police helicopter", that they didn't mean it's only helicopter, but seems they do! You would think they would want at least two, if only so there is one that can fly while the other is refulling, being maintained, etc.0 -
Maybe there is only the need for one?markhewitt1978 wrote:RideOnTime wrote:So Scotland had only one Police helicopter.
and now it's got No Police helicopters. None at all. That surprised me.
I thought when they said on the news "Scotland's police helicopter", that they didn't mean it's only helicopter, but seems they do! You would think they would want at least two, if only so there is one that can fly while the other is refulling, being maintained, etc.
Less population = less crime = less resources required.
Now, air ambulances, they really need them for the remote locations.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
The police helicopter service is provided by a company called Bond. Bond run a fleet of helicopters so it is likely that when one is out of service for maintenance or whatever then another helicopter would stand in. I would imagine that the down time of a helicopter is thought into the contract albeit they probably did not plan on putting one through the roof of a pub.0
-
I have no issue with Scottish independence, however:
If Scotland wants independence it should be complete. They're either indepedent of they're not. If they want to keep the monarch, the GBP etc etc, then they're not independent. That's particularly so for the GBP, as they will still be governed by UK financial policy.
Make your fookin mind up and have the courge of your convictions. All or nothing.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Agreed but there are many in Scotland who are afraid of the consequences of such a change, so will look for things like keeping the pounds etc.0
-
If there is enough then there will be no independence.markhewitt1978 wrote:Agreed but there are many in Scotland who are afraid of the consequences of such a change, so will look for things like keeping the pounds etc.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
As much as I want independence it's just not going to happen IMO. Speaking to those around me I am usually in the minority. My prediction is the YES vote will be lucky to achieve 40% of the vote, mark my words.
At the erse end o' a coo!0 -
Aw.TheCoo'sTail wrote:As much as I want independence it's just not going to happen IMO. Speaking to those around me I am usually in the minority. My prediction is the YES vote will be lucky to achieve 40% of the vote, mark my words.
Dont let facts get in the way of a heated debate.
I was looking forward to having fun for the next 9 months.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
