Scottish Independence Referendum
Comments
-
I've noticed an interesting thing this morning - lots of tweets, FB posts etc up here saying that they're definitely going to vote "yes" because Ukip did so well.
Not sure I can see why the success of a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party down south should make people want to vote for a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party up here?0 -
From the information that I have received, it will because the majority of Scots want to be within the EU and fear a UKIP/Conservatives withdrawal.bompington wrote:I've noticed an interesting thing this morning - lots of tweets, FB posts etc up here saying that they're definitely going to vote "yes" because Ukip did so well.
Not sure I can see why the success of a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party down south should make people want to vote for a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party up here?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
haha, you could thank a bunch of trots north of the border when you celebrate St Maggie Day every yearStevo 666 wrote:
You get no Tory government in Scotland and we get one in England. Win - win situation, although it would be ironic if the likes of you deliver a Tory majority in Englandnathancom wrote:The biggest benefit is the certainty of no further Tory governments for an indefinite period if we go independent.
0 -
I think the all question is whether Scotland will be better off taking advantage of the right of exploitation of the North Sea oil or worse off because without the oil the economy is lagging behind the rest of the country.
If you look at what is left, it appears Scotland will be worse off, but maybe there are reserves still to found (although between finding them and making money out of them there is almost a generational gap).
So, once again, squeezing the crap out, it's once again all about the oil... :?left the forum March 20230 -
Err, no. This has almost nothing to do with the EU - it's all about resentment of the English. That's really pretty much it.PBlakeney wrote:
From the information that I have received, it will because the majority of Scots want to be within the EU and fear a UKIP/Conservatives withdrawal.bompington wrote:I've noticed an interesting thing this morning - lots of tweets, FB posts etc up here saying that they're definitely going to vote "yes" because Ukip did so well.
Not sure I can see why the success of a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party down south should make people want to vote for a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party up here?0 -
In which case I cannot think of a link between UKIP and independence either.bompington wrote:
Err, no. This has almost nothing to do with the EU - it's all about resentment of the English. That's really pretty much it.PBlakeney wrote:
From the information that I have received, it will because the majority of Scots want to be within the EU and fear a UKIP/Conservatives withdrawal.bompington wrote:I've noticed an interesting thing this morning - lots of tweets, FB posts etc up here saying that they're definitely going to vote "yes" because Ukip did so well.
Not sure I can see why the success of a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party down south should make people want to vote for a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party up here?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
In answer to this, I do not believe that true independence is either possible or desirable in the modern world. Technology have interconnected us to such a degree that we are constrained by the larger regional or even global economic realities.verylonglegs wrote:In one thread you argue that the Scots should seek to get away from the UK politically so that they are not ruled by those with different interests to them yet in another thread you lament the rise of UKIP and appear to take the opposite view, that isolation is a bad thing and nationalism would be detrimental to the long term future of the voters. Genuinely interested in how you see the differences in these scenarios.
Technology has also improved the capability of maintaining stability in larger nations. This has allowed countries such as USA, India and China to grow in the modern world where before they were a mass of tiny kingdoms or separate states (the outcome of the American civil war was in many ways the imposition of Federal government over State government) This means that smaller nations more than ever are outnumbered and incapable of competing against larger nations which are now able to leverage their large populations efficiently.
As such I believe that the European project is essential for the continuance of prosperity amongst its nation states and I would much rather Scotland be a region of the EU than a region of a region of the EU. We are more likely to be able to influence the direction of the EU and to state Scotland's case. I am also unsure that the UK as a whole will remain within the EU if a referendum is held so would like to see Scotland leave the UK and become an independent member of the EU and the Eurozone. In other words, I see independence as a route towards greater integration with Europe, whereas continued membership of the United Kingdom strikes me as the road towards isolation and irrelevance.
There are other benefits to independence that I have mentioned elsewhere. Though obviously these can be balanced by the clear risks involved with such a split.
I hope that clears up the apparent contradiction, whether or not you agree. (Though I am aware that being pro-European is not a very popular position these days!)0 -
Have the SNP made any statements to suggest an anti immigrant stance like UKIP, or do you mean simply an anti-English stance when you say xenophobic? It would change my opinion of Salmond's lot significantly if there has been any of the former. The later seems natural during an attempt to gain independence from a nation you view as an overmaster.bompington wrote:
Err, no. This has almost nothing to do with the EU - it's all about resentment of the English. That's really pretty much it.PBlakeney wrote:
From the information that I have received, it will because the majority of Scots want to be within the EU and fear a UKIP/Conservatives withdrawal.bompington wrote:I've noticed an interesting thing this morning - lots of tweets, FB posts etc up here saying that they're definitely going to vote "yes" because Ukip did so well.
Not sure I can see why the success of a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party down south should make people want to vote for a narrow-minded xenophobic nationalist party up here?0 -
Whichever way you look at it, taking approx 40 Labour MP's out of Westminster can only benefit the Tories. Whether it will make the difference needed will of course depend on how things play out in next years general election, but it can only be good for Tories and bad for Labour.PBlakeney wrote:
I am paying attention to this issue as I have relatives living in Scotland so i already know this attitude to be complete bumkin.Stevo 666 wrote:
You get no Tory government in Scotland and we get one in England. Win - win situation, although it would be ironic if the likes of you deliver a Tory majority in Englandnathancom wrote:The biggest benefit is the certainty of no further Tory governments for an indefinite period if we go independent.
"Analysis shows that most general election results would have been the same, albeit with changed majorities. In recent times, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives would have enjoyed a massive 174-seat majority in 1983, bigger even than the 144-seat majority they achieved. In 1992, Tory John Major would have had a 71-seat majority, as opposed to the 21-seat majority which occurred. And, without Scotland, Tony Blair's Labour majority would have been cut from 179 to 137 seats in 1997, from 167 to 127 seats in 2001, and from 66 to 43 seats in 2005."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27129813
Changed majorities which may lead to coalitions but not a full reversal as you predict."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
VTech wrote:pliptrot wrote:My goodness VTech, your evaluation of the quality of a shag in/on a car is based on what car is involved? No comment on the other person? The sympathy you've expressed for others (or their families) because they diasgreed with you is, I feel rather misplaced. Take a mirror, and imagine what it would be like to see the person in it thinking about people rather than cars, and about the issues in the threads on which you spend so much time, rather than boasting about where you are and what you are doing (which must be pretty boring if you can find time to be on a cycling forum chatting with a moron or two (your word, not mine).
The reply from me was "tongue in cheek" as you are well aware.
Having said that, do you honestly believe that in general, you will get the same reaction from owning a £3500 Rover as you would a £350,000 Lamborghini ?
Now of course, it's fickle. The car shouldn't matter but we all know on the whole it does.
If I go to a decent resteraunt in my van do you honestly think I get the same treatment as I do if I turn up in my Ferrari or Lamborghini ?
I'm not suggesting that it is fair. But it is the way it is.
I'd suggest you work on your delivery skills a little before trying humour. As to the rest of your post, you do seem to live in a strangely depressing place. Can you please tell me the names of the sexual conquests you have had because of your wealth, so I can avoid these people (I like people with developed personalities). Fickle is not the word - mental cripple is the phrase required. Also those restaurants you frequent in your fancy cars - in the world where you live, if I turn up on my bike can I expect to be refused service?0 -
I love Scotland. I care for its future and the future of England and Wales so I'm not keen on Scottish independence because I think that will harm us all.
However, how about we give Scotland its independence, we allow them to keep the pound and we take into account Scotlands needs when setting monetary policy, and we don't haggle too much over North Sea oil and we continue to build warships on the Clyde. Providing Scotland gives compulsory nationality to everybody who voted UKIP...........Faster than a tent.......0 -
Can I ask why everyone is concerned with the Oil ?
What difference will that make to Scotland ? It isn't theirs.
England will NOT let go of the control of taxes as the Scottish were not around to fund it and in no way will the UK government give it back. They may allow a slice of profits but not control.Living MY dream.0 -
May i suggest that you do a little research on the subject before supplying opinions.VTech wrote:Can I ask why everyone is concerned with the Oil ?
What difference will that make to Scotland ? It isn't theirs.
England will NOT let go of the control of taxes as the Scottish were not around to fund it and in no way will the UK government give it back. They may allow a slice of profits but not control.
"There seems little argument that Scotland would secure its 90% stake in the oil, on the basis of the fields being located below the seabed of its teritorial waters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... ndependent
Which leaves me wondering. Scotland may or may not be able to survive based on oil income but what is to become of England the day after the oil revenue is cut by 90%?
Again, it is scary stuff.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
May i suggest that you do a little research on the subject before supplying opinions.VTech wrote:Can I ask why everyone is concerned with the Oil ?
What difference will that make to Scotland ? It isn't theirs.
England will NOT let go of the control of taxes as the Scottish were not around to fund it and in no way will the UK government give it back. They may allow a slice of profits but not control.
"There seems little argument that Scotland would secure its 90% stake in the oil, on the basis of the fields being located below the seabed of its teritorial waters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... ndependent
Which leaves me wondering. Scotland may or may not be able to survive based on oil income but what is to become of England the day after the oil revenue is cut by 90%?
Again, it is scary stuff.
Read my comment more carefully.
Are you saying that based on a newspaper report the British government will give away the share of the oil fields. ?
This isn't a simple case of draw a line and lets play fairly.
Scotland did NOT invest to build or explore, they also have NO control of the fields.
I stick by my comment above.Living MY dream.0 -
I have read you comment.VTech wrote:Read my comment more carefully.
Are you saying that based on a newspaper report the British government will give away the share of the oil fields. ?
This isn't a simple case of draw a line and lets play fairly.
Scotland did NOT invest to build or explore, they also have NO control of the fields.
I stick by my comment above.
I have also read the report with analysis from experts.
I know which one has the greater validity.
I don't know which is scarier. The report telling us that England is to lose a huge revenue, or your opinion that we will go to war.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:"There seems little argument that Scotland would secure its 90% stake in the oil, on the basis of the fields being located below the seabed of its teritorial waters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... ndependent
Unless Shetland and Orkney votes for independence...........Faster than a tent.......0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
I have read you comment.VTech wrote:Read my comment more carefully.
Are you saying that based on a newspaper report the British government will give away the share of the oil fields. ?
This isn't a simple case of draw a line and lets play fairly.
Scotland did NOT invest to build or explore, they also have NO control of the fields.
I stick by my comment above.
I have also read the report with analysis from experts.
I know which one has the greater validity.
I don't know which is scarier. The report telling us that England is to lose a huge revenue, or your opinion that we will go to war.
Where did I mention that ?
Do you HONESTLY believe that the UK government will give up the revenue from something they almost totally funded ?
I am not saying this is fair, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.Living MY dream.0 -
That is the logical conclusion given that it has been agreed that the oil is in Scotland's waters.VTech wrote:Where did I mention that ?
Do you HONESTLY believe that the UK government will give up the revenue from something they almost totally funded ?
I am not saying this is fair, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.
If England try to hold onto it, what happens next?
Should it happen, Scotland will get the oil. They will also get a bill for a share of the National debt and have to clean up the North Sea afterwards.
Also, the UK government haven't funded one single penny. All the investment has come from companies like BP who will be as happy to pay tax to Scotland as it will to England if the rates are the same. Alex Salmond's fantasy dream even has them paying less tax.
As I said earlier, try dealing with the facts.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
That is the logical conclusion given that it has been agreed that the oil is in Scotland's waters.VTech wrote:Where did I mention that ?
Do you HONESTLY believe that the UK government will give up the revenue from something they almost totally funded ?
I am not saying this is fair, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.
If England try to hold onto it, what happens next?
Should it happen, Scotland will get the oil. They will also get a bill for a share of the National debt and have to clean up the North Sea afterwards.
Also, the UK government haven't funded one single penny. All the investment has come from companies like BP who will be as happy to pay tax to Scotland as it will to England if the rates are the same. Alex Salmond's fantasy dream even has them paying less tax.
As I said earlier, try dealing with the facts.
Ive had this chat several times with several people who work for the biggest co-ordinator in edinburgh.
One thing they are certain about is that there are no real facts, thats a fact. Living MY dream.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:I think the all question is whether Scotland will be better off taking advantage of the right of exploitation of the North Sea oil or worse off because without the oil the economy is lagging behind the rest of the country.
If you look at what is left, it appears Scotland will be worse off, but maybe there are reserves still to found (although between finding them and making money out of them there is almost a generational gap).
So, once again, squeezing the crap out, it's once again all about the oil... :?
We don't need their oil any more, haven't you heard that Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire are sitting on millions of tons of shale oil, I'm digging up the back garden as we speak "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
Which has been touted.Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:"There seems little argument that Scotland would secure its 90% stake in the oil, on the basis of the fields being located below the seabed of its teritorial waters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... ndependent
Unless Shetland and Orkney votes for independence...........
Sorry I missed your comment earlier as it was lost in the trash.
PS:- They started an oil fund which already leaves the population very well off already.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27138927The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
As long as the UK gvt doesn't ask for the Darien project rescue payment to be returned with compound interest applied then Scotland should be ok...
I think the main danger to post independence UK would be Scotland slashing corporation tax, eroding the tax base further. There is plenty of scope for population growth in the Central belt still so it could become and attractive proposition.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Which has been touted.Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:"There seems little argument that Scotland would secure its 90% stake in the oil, on the basis of the fields being located below the seabed of its teritorial waters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... ndependent
Unless Shetland and Orkney votes for independence...........
Sorry I missed your comment earlier as it was lost in the trash.
PS:- They started an oil fund which already leaves the population very well off already.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27138927
Crikey - didn't realise it had been! I just thought it an amusing idea which arguably has more justification than independence for the rest of Scotland. Thanks for that link - interesting stuff......Faster than a tent.......0 -
PBlakeney wrote:Which leaves me wondering. Scotland may or may not be able to survive based on oil income but what is to become of England the day after the oil revenue is cut by 90%?
The net flow of cash between central government and Scotland after all revenue from the oil industry has been taken into account is £38 per person, per week*, into Scotland. That's approx £10.3 billion per year, so if Scotland get independence, the rest of the UK will be better off to the tune of £10.3bn and 5.2 million Scots are going to get pissy about the tax increases required just to break even.
*this figure I read n a report relating to this issue,18 months or so ago, can't remember the source, sorry.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
That would be very reassuring.MattC59 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Which leaves me wondering. Scotland may or may not be able to survive based on oil income but what is to become of England the day after the oil revenue is cut by 90%?
The net flow of cash between central government and Scotland after all revenue from the oil industry has been taken into account is £38 per person, per week*, into Scotland. That's approx £10.3 billion per year, so if Scotland get independence, the rest of the UK will be better off to the tune of £10.3bn and 5.2 million Scots are going to get pissy about the tax increases required just to break even.
*this figure I read n a report relating to this issue,18 months or so ago, can't remember the source, sorry.
But then part of me cannot help but think, why doesn't Cameron just say - "Bye"?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The very fact that the Tories seem to be using fear rhetoric and not tangible facts and figures suggest that Scotland maybe better off and England worse off.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
seems to me that one side sets out a series of assumptions that lead to utopia and the other side has nothing to say and is unwilling to debate.
oh and UKIP does the same on Europe without the utopia bit.0 -
That would appear to be the most articulate summary that I have read to date.florerider wrote:seems to me that one side sets out a series of assumptions that lead to utopia and the other side has nothing to say and is unwilling to debate.
oh and UKIP does the same on Europe without the utopia bit.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pinarello001 wrote:The very fact that the Tories seem to be using fear rhetoric and not tangible facts and figures suggest that Scotland maybe better off and England worse off.
I think the English are willing to take the risk. 0 -
the English will probably just invade 5 years later anyway for something to do.Ballysmate wrote:pinarello001 wrote:The very fact that the Tories seem to be using fear rhetoric and not tangible facts and figures suggest that Scotland maybe better off and England worse off.
I think the English are willing to take the risk.0
