View Full Version : Positive Independence Thread
Thanks Phill, I will....
So lets buck the trend and only talk about the positives.
So let's start listing positive reasons to go Independent or stay in the UK.
I believe that Scotland is stronger, more robust, with a more secure future in the UK than out. And so is the rest of the UK. Scotland has a very strong potential for serious growth at the back end of this recession, but I can't believe it would be better able to take advantage as a small independent state than as part of the Union.
Positive Independence Thread
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
Besides...
Isn't it going to be a bit of a one sided conversation... more like Propaganda rather than a genuine discussion.
Wishful thinking on your part I think.
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
Besides...
Isn't it going to be a bit of a one sided conversation... more like Propaganda rather than a genuine discussion.
Why? I want to hear the reasons both for and against. And I'm sure others do too.
A once in a lifetime opportunity to be our own Masters and run our own affairs instead of being tied by the UK Parliament who do very little for Scotland in my opinion!!
I don't know of one Scottish Man or Woman who doesn't have a wee bit of pride in them at being Scottish, it is in the blood and this opportunity gives us a chance to show the world that although we are only a small Nation we are able to make Independence work. We can and will do it!! Pride and Faith will be restored to the people of Scotland !
C3...................:):)
A once in a lifetime opportunity to be our own Masters and run our own affairs instead of being tied by the UK Parliament who do very little for Scotland in my opinion!!
I don't know of one Scottish Man or Woman who doesn't have a wee bit of pride in them at being Scottish, it is in the blood and this opportunity gives us a chance to show the world that although we are only a small Nation we are able to make Independence work. We can and will do it!! Pride and Faith will be restored to the people of Scotland !
C3...................:):)
I have no doubt Scots all over the world have pride and faith in their country. You can see what Scots influence has been in every corner of the globe. However that doesn't mean we have the calibre of leadership, the financial wherewithall or the political clout to be an influential voice in the world. The world is a big place and the global markets intimidating. It would be great if Scotland could be independent but I'm a realist and I believe in the strength of the United Kingdom. That doesn't make me any lesser a Scot for a' that.
I have no doubt Scots all over the world have pride and faith in their country. You can see what Scots influence has been in every corner of the globe. However that doesn't mean we have the calibre of leadership, the financial wherewithall or the political clout to be an influential voice in the world. The world is a big place and the global markets intimidating. It would be great if Scotland could be independent but I'm a realist and I believe in the strength of the United Kingdom. That doesn't make me any lesser a Scot for a' that.
Got to agree fully with the above opinion, and just because I dont follow Eck or want any truck with him or his party, does not make me less proud of being a Scot, I just dont want to end up like the Irish or the Icelanders.
weezer 316
29-Jan-12, 20:27
Well I just want whats best for this country. being part of the Uk has been nothing short of a massive success, and by any measure it will continue to be so.
DeHaviLand
29-Jan-12, 21:43
Thanks Phill, I will....
So lets buck the trend and only talk about the positives.
So let's start listing positive reasons to go Independent or stay in the UK.
I believe that Scotland is stronger, more robust, with a more secure future in the UK than out. And so is the rest of the UK. Scotland has a very strong potential for serious growth at the back end of this recession, but I can't believe it would be better able to take advantage as a small independent state than as part of the Union.
Can you back that up with figures? My bet is that you cant!
I have no doubt Scots all over the world have pride and faith in their country. You can see what Scots influence has been in every corner of the globe. However that doesn't mean we have the calibre of leadership, the financial wherewithall or the political clout to be an influential voice in the world. The world is a big place and the global markets intimidating. It would be great if Scotland could be independent but I'm a realist and I believe in the strength of the United Kingdom. That doesn't make me any lesser a Scot for a' that.
See above!
Well I just want whats best for this country. being part of the Uk has been nothing short of a massive success, and by any measure it will continue to be so.
Again, lets have some proof.
Sure, platitudes are nice, but lets have some proof please. I'll be really surprised if any of you can actually supply it. Belief wont put food on the table, belief wont provide jobs, pensions and a growing economy. Belief wont take you out of the worst recession in modern times. Just show me the figures that prove Scotland is better off under a Government that screws us at every turn and massages the figures to make us look like subsidy junkies. I'll tell you where to find your proof, and its not in the figures kindly supplied to us by Wastemonster, you have to go search it out and work it out for yourself. Just one piece of proof that we are better off with the scraps we're served, and I promise to vote for the union.
weezer 316
29-Jan-12, 22:54
Well I can trust govt figures for things, seeing as they need to be accurate for things like spending, benefits, pensions to be on track. You believe they masage the figures, fine, but as you say, supply proof.
The case for the union is made mate, its right in front of your face. We are one of the worlds most properious countries, with an internationl reach and influence far beyond our borders with things like a seat on the UN security council to show for it. We have the full might of the UK economy at our backs internationally, our govt pays less to borrow from international markets (even when the UK and Ireland were both AAA rated, we still paid half the interest they did) and of course the small fact our economy is integrated with England they are practially inseperable.
But....as you demand....facts/.............. lets not forget those damned banks eh?? We would have had to have spent around 3x our ENTIRE GDP to bail out RBS and Bank of Scotland, or watch our single largest company (valued at more than double the entire scottish GDP at its height) go down the drain. I think that qualifies as "more robust" so I expect you to be voting for the union in 2014 no?
weezer 316
29-Jan-12, 22:56
And when your at it, I would like soem proof we are served scraps??? Can I ask, are you religious by any chance?
Come on guys and girls, why would Scotland be better off Independent? Someone must know!
All we've had so far is better the devil you know or some kind rising up of the downtrodden, clap trap.
Come on guys and girls, why would Scotland be better of Independent? Someone must know!
Well we wouldn't have our whinging neighbours compaining about the Barnet formula for a start ;)
DeHaviLand
29-Jan-12, 23:24
And when your at it, I would like soem proof we are served scraps??? Can I ask, are you religious by any chance?
Scotlands contribution to the defence budget is £3.6bn annually. The total spend on defence in Scotland is £1.7bn. Scraps!
You can ask, but I dont see what good me answering it will do!
Well we wouldn't have our whinging neighbours compaining about the Barnet formula for a start ;)
So you don't know then?
Sure, platitudes are nice, but lets have some proof please. I'll be really surprised if any of you can actually supply it. Belief wont put food on the table, belief wont provide jobs, pensions and a growing economy. Belief wont take you out of the worst recession in modern times. Just show me the figures that prove Scotland is better off under a Government that screws us at every turn and massages the figures to make us look like subsidy junkies. I'll tell you where to find your proof, and its not in the figures kindly supplied to us by Wastemonster, you have to go search it out and work it out for yourself. Just one piece of proof that we are better off with the scraps we're served, and I promise to vote for the union.
The United Kingdom has a long and prosperous history with a few ups and downs. Investors have confidence in the UK. It works. An independent Scotland starts from scratch with very little. Everything of worth is owned and controlled by foreign investors - it's them you have to convince that Scotland can go it alone.
What makes you think a Scottish government would be any less likely to screw us at every turn and massages the figures?
DeHaviLand
29-Jan-12, 23:30
Well I can trust govt figures for things, seeing as they need to be accurate for things like spending, benefits, pensions to be on track. You believe they masage the figures, fine, but as you say, supply proof.
The case for the union is made mate, its right in front of your face. We are one of the worlds most properious countries, with an internationl reach and influence far beyond our borders with things like a seat on the UN security council to show for it. We have the full might of the UK economy at our backs internationally, our govt pays less to borrow from international markets (even when the UK and Ireland were both AAA rated, we still paid half the interest they did) and of course the small fact our economy is integrated with England they are practially inseperable.
But....as you demand....facts/.............. lets not forget those damned banks eh?? We would have had to have spent around 3x our ENTIRE GDP to bail out RBS and Bank of Scotland, or watch our single largest company (valued at more than double the entire scottish GDP at its height) go down the drain. I think that qualifies as "more robust" so I expect you to be voting for the union in 2014 no?
I refer you to this chap, Professor of Economics, Andrew Hughes Hallett, who will refute your outrageous and unfounded banking allegations much more eloquently than I ever could. Time to stop falling for Unionist lies and propaganda. If we really cost Westminster money, why do they want to keep us? Why would they bear that millstone if there was nothing in it for them?
DeHaviLand
29-Jan-12, 23:34
The United Kingdom has a long and prosperous history with a few ups and downs. Investors have confidence in the UK. It works. An independent Scotland starts from scratch with very little. Everything of worth is owned and controlled by foreign investors - it's them you have to convince that Scotland can go it alone.
What makes you think a Scottish government would be any less likely to screw us at every turn and massages the figures?
Because we would have a say in who that Government is. As part of the United Kingdom, we in Scotland cannot control which party rules over us. We are forever burdened with the party chosen by those who live in England.
I think the positive sides of Independance are about scottish solutioons to scottish problems. I think that the figures CAN be manipulated and you can search and find evidence that Scotland more than punches above its weight in the Financial pots. I am not saying I dont trust the governments figures but I know enough about statistics to know that they can be presented in any way to support or undermine. I think that Independence will create a new political landscape which focuses on Scotland. I think that Indpendence will offer Scotland to develop services and a society which puts people at the centre of everything it does. An independent Scotland will offer the chance to develop a new Taxation and benefit System, to look at the broken Social care system and change it. It will offer an opportunity to examine the way we support business small and large to benefit the people of Scotland. If there are savings to be made they will be made by a Scottish Parliament which is focused SOLELY on Scotland and whats best for its people.
Some of this might happen, none of it might happen and we will find out over the next two years the plans to start building a new country and it is worth taking the time to do this and just waiting before we make our mind up.
I've said it already a few times. What I want is a list of advantages for Scotland remaining a part of the UK (with examples of these advantages from recent history), not a list of supposed disadvantages for leaving. If Britain is so great, why can't they sell it to us? Seems to me the unionist campaign, Westminister politicians and the majority of the media have been focusing on the negatives.
It makes me wonder if there are any positives or if it's just hard for them to get away from decades of accusing us of being lazy benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies. Every second sentence mentioning crime and poverty in Glasgow or talking about something being deep-fried. You know the usually dismissive and low level propoganda stuff.
I've said it already a few times. What I want is a list of advantages for Scotland remaining a part of the UK (with examples of these advantages from recent history), not a list of supposed disadvantages for leaving. If Britain is so great, why can't they sell it to us? Seems to me the unionist campaign, Westminister politicians and the majority of the media have been focusing on the negatives.
It makes me wonder if there are any positives or if it's just hard for them to get away from decades of accusing us of being lazy benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies. Every second sentence mentioning crime and poverty in Glasgow or talking about something being deep-fried. You know the usually dismissive and low level propoganda stuff.
That's what I want too. But you haven't come up with the list for Independence either.
Because we would have a say in who that Government is. As part of the United Kingdom, we in Scotland cannot control which party rules over us. We are forever burdened with the party chosen by those who live in England.
Serious question. Don't you have the choice to vote in Scotland.
DeHaviLand
29-Jan-12, 23:43
Of course we do, but you just have to look at the demographics to see that a Scottish vote makes no difference to who holds power in Westminster. Example, how many Tory MP's did Scotland return at the last General Election?
Because we would have a say in who that Government is. As part of the United Kingdom, we in Scotland cannot control which party rules over us. We are forever burdened with the party chosen by those who live in England.
Just as voters with needs and aspirations in different parts of Scotland might be burdened with the parties that dominate the central belt :confused
Serious question. Don't you have the choice to vote in Scotland.
I think the point is that Scotland is fairly left leaning, England is fairly right leaning. Now if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but wanted to go another way in terms of national policy then we really couldn't do anything about it even if politicans from all three allied they could still be dictacted to by politicians in England and that would 'democratic'.
Just as voters with needs and aspirations in different parts of Scotland might be burdened with the parties that dominate the central belt :confused
Thing is all of Scotland is fairly left leaning regardless of party and we at least have a system of PR which makes coalitions likely unless a vast majority go in one direction.
I had a chuckle to myself when I heard that Michelle Mone was going to move her business out of Scotland if it gained independence. It transpires that she employs just 42 persons in Scotland but she employs 1200 in China. It sounds like she has nearly moved out already!
I suppose the positive thing about independence is that people who run Scotland down or won't invest here will leave.
Well i don't lean anywhere. They are all the same. Out for them selves. People in the North of England are second rate citizens.
Scotlands contribution to the defence budget is £3.6bn annually. The total spend on defence in Scotland is £1.7bn.This is part of the problem with the figures, whether we think this is scraps or massaging the figures it is actually very hard to 'see' how they work.
Just because we contribute X, does it follow we must get X spent in that sector in return?
If the UK MoD spend £50m on a new boat and that boat is built on the Clyde but the bill is paid in England, how does that work?
Come on guys and girls, why would Scotland be better off Independent? Someone must know!I think this is part of the problem, no one really knows. It's speculation and best guesses really. Educated guesses maybe but guesses none the less.
I've said it already a few times. What I want is a list of advantages for Scotland remaining a part of the UKSerious, detailed advantages from both sides would be good. Why stay, why be independent. What seems to be coming from the SNP is a mantra that everything will be better in an 'Independent Scotland'. But that's the limit of the detail. Why, How?
I had a chuckle to myself when I heard that Michelle Mone was going to move her business out of Scotland if it gained independence.Just a publicity exercise, again it doesn't help with balanced information.
How are you ever going to acquire 'balanced information?' The United Kingdom has worked fine for the best part of 300 years; that has taken us through the industrial revolution, a good track record by any account. What is the future for an independent Scotland – wishful thinking and nebulous projections. How can you balance the evidence of the past accomplishments with ideas of what might happen and sell that to the global business community?
The United Kingdom has worked fine for the best part of 300 yearsBut no one knows if Scotland may have been better going it alone for 300 years?
How can you balance the evidence of the past accomplishments with ideas of what might happen and sell that to the global business community?It's the 'might' that's the problem isn't it? There is very little detail in how an Independent Scotland will prosper. Similarly there is very little detail in how a Scotland within the UK is going to prosper.
Of course we do, but you just have to look at the demographics to see that a Scottish vote makes no difference to who holds power in Westminster. Example, how many Tory MP's did Scotland return at the last General Election?
Lets take that a step further then.
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have never voted for a pro-independence party in uk elections. The highest was 23% in 1997.
So, does the demographic of the "northern vote" reflect that of the rest of Scotland?
No.
Does that mean we should split away, and further separate ourselves?
Something that nobody seems to be mentioning in the independence debate is the voting patterns of the northern isles. Orkney and Shetland is roughly 62% Lib Dem, 10% Labour, 10% Conservative and only 10% SNP.
What if, just for an idea, after Scotland voted for independence, the northern isles decided to hold their own referendum to either stay part of the UK, or become independent on their own?
That's not outwith the realms of possibility for me (perhaps even probability based on election results).
Suddenly the majority of oil in "Scottish" water would find itself in "Northern Isles, or UK" water, and Scotland would suddenly become very, very poor........
It's a one way vote people. Any "going back" would be out of our control.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16698626 Never mind an idea after!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16698626 Never mind an idea after!
I never realised that "my" idea had been mooted at such a high level.
There are arguments and debates whether an Independent Scotland could survive or flourish. They're mixed, but most put a large emphasis on oil revenue.
If Shetland and Orkney aren't part of a "new Scotland", and they take "their" oil with them, the "Scotland" being currently debated suddenly becomes significantly poorer.
I quite find the oil issue to be something of a white elephant. Yes there are oil reserves and yes there will be a tax revenue from them. But we don't actually know how much for how long.
And I suspect some financial forecasts have been over calculated to support and Independent Scottish budget. Also I think many people just 'believe' that 'Scottish' oil will save the day!
What has to be considered is how the Independent Scottish Gov't (for now the SNP) is going to treat the oil co's. There is a difficult balance to strike, not only do they want the direct oil revenues but they want the corporate & support side of the business to be Scottish based to get full benefit. To do that they need to give them a better tax break than England, but then what about the 'Green / Renewables' commitment.
Can't be seen to be giving oil co's an easy ride whilst joe public are subsidising the renewables.
(this is not a pro/anti green statement just a an issue to deal with)
I don't like opening new threads for stuff like this so - Salmond Hitler spoof MP apologises (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16580573) - It's a well known internet meme video, basically people post versions with different subtitles for things they don't like. To be honest my main problem with this is that it isn't funny, it seems contrived. The meme is a bit hit-and-miss but most of the ones I've seen have at least got a chuckle.
I quite find the oil issue to be something of a white elephant. Yes there are oil reserves and yes there will be a tax revenue from them. But we don't actually know how much for how long.
And I suspect some financial forecasts have been over calculated to support and Independent Scottish budget. Also I think many people just 'believe' that 'Scottish' oil will save the day!
What has to be considered is how the Independent Scottish Gov't (for now the SNP) is going to treat the oil co's. There is a difficult balance to strike, not only do they want the direct oil revenues but they want the corporate & support side of the business to be Scottish based to get full benefit. To do that they need to give them a better tax break than England, but then what about the 'Green / Renewables' commitment.
Can't be seen to be giving oil co's an easy ride whilst joe public are subsidising the renewables.
(this is not a pro/anti green statement just a an issue to deal with)
This seems relevant - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120125/debtext/120125-0003.htm#12012538003285
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this short Adjournment debate on North sea oil and gas taxation. It is a very serious and important matter. It is not one in which I have previously been concerned, but I think the Economic Secretary should know that I was invited to a briefing the other day, given by the oil industry, on the impact of taxation changes in the North sea and it excited my interest. I had always been aware of what a very substantial business it was but had no idea of how very important it is to the United Kingdom economy on the scale of employment and other matters, and I thought it right to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I am therefore, as I said, very grateful to you, Sir, for allowing the debate.
The United Kingdom is indeed fortunate to be endowed with significant resources of oil and gas. Over the years, hundreds of millions of pounds of hard-earned, always risky and sometimes very courageous investment and endeavour have allowed the nation to realise these resources, and for the British people to enjoy substantial benefits of employment, sophisticated and high-level skills at all levels of the skill chain, tax revenues and balance of payments, and to develop a leading position in the global oil and gas supply chain—all of which has stood this country in good stead down the recent years.
Figures for 2011 show that around £16 billion was spent by the oil and gas industry on exploration, development and operations. This included £8 billion in new capital investment, an increase of 25% over 2010. I know that the Economic Secretary will agree that in anyone’s terms these are massive numbers, and thus once again make the oil and gas sector the single largest investor of all the industrial sectors in the United Kingdom.
The positive benefits of this remarkable industry are not confined to Scotland. They extend throughout the United Kingdom, supporting employment for more than 400,000 people, and those jobs are widely distributed throughout the whole country. Unsurprisingly, of course, a substantial proportion—45% in fact—are in Scotland, but that means that 55% of the jobs, which is the majority, directly benefit employment throughout the rest of the UK.
The taxes forecast to be raised from the industry in 2011-12 include some £6 billion in income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax paid by the supply chain companies, with an additional £11 billion from taxes on production itself. That amounts to 25% of all the corporation tax received by the Exchequer. The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit, and the supply chain added another £5 billion to £6 billion with exports of oilfield goods and services. Incidentally, that is an aspect of the industry that is doing extremely well here and overseas, and it is flying the flag for Britain effectively.
The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit.
Scotland, with about 8.4% of the UK population, are contributing 25% of corporation tax. And the £35 - £40 billion totals far exceed the typical £8 - £12 billion usually put forward (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/douglasfraser/2011/04/scotlands_oil_tax_reckoning.html) as 'oil revenue' - i.e. it is 3 to 4 times that.
Some good figures there RecQuery and although figures are important they mean nothing without other ingredients.
Its interesting that those unionists amongst us who are the most voicifourous and derogatory towards independence use figures to support their cause and an assumption that we have lived well for over 300 years as part of the union. That may well be the case but its no evidence of an independent Scotland crumbling to ruin under its own steam. Economic figures are created in the same manner as a nationalistic feeling. Although figures appear more solid the truth is they come from a feeling and its a similar feeling as the roots of nationalism. Its called confidence. Confidence cant be seen like figures on an economic spreadsheet but without it the spreadsheet wont make good reading. Confidence is the foundations of anything positive. Propeganda is designed to stifle confidence and thats all the unionists are doing and they have the cheek to call it positive. :eek:
Some good figures there RecQuery and although figures are important they mean nothing without other ingredients.
Its interesting that those unionists amongst us who are the most voicifourous and derogatory towards independence use figures to support their cause and an assumption that we have lived well for over 300 years as part of the union. That may well be the case but its no evidence of an independent Scotland crumbling to ruin under its own steam. Economic figures are created in the same manner as a nationalistic feeling. Although figures appear more solid the truth is they come from a feeling and its a similar feeling as the roots of nationalism. Its called confidence. Confidence cant be seen like figures on an economic spreadsheet but without it the spreadsheet wont make good reading. Confidence is the foundations of anything positive. Propeganda is designed to stifle confidence and thats all the unionists are doing and they have the cheek to call it positive. :eek:
Oh I agree, ideally it's one of the things civil service should do: provide impartial figures and statistics. Even then legitimate numbers can be manipulated by skilled people. I though these were a bit better as they were read out in parliament by a Conservative so I though that gave them more weight than usual.
This seems relevant - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120125/debtext/120125-0003.htm#12012538003285Good link and interesting read, thanks.
The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit.For the UK?
Scotland, with about 8.4% of the UK population, are contributing 25% of corporation tax.??? Really, how is that worked out? I'm reading that as the UK oil industry amounts to 25% corp' tax.
And the £35 - £40 billion totals far exceed the typical £8 - £12 billion usually put forward (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/douglasfraser/2011/04/scotlands_oil_tax_reckoning.html) as 'oil revenue' - i.e. it is 3 to 4 times that.But this is where a breakdown of the figures needs to be addressed. The 8 - 12 £billion is the production tax, the rest is revenue associated with the industry (income tax from employees, NI, VAT etc.)
How much is currently Scottish? How much would be Scottish post immediate independence and how much could be attracted to Scotland longer term?
These are the actuals we need to see without any political spin. An oil Co' could operate out of, and be financially based in England but draw Scottish oil and pay the oil production side of the taxation to Scotland, the remainder to England.
What are the proposals to maintain & encourage Scottish oil industry in Scotland as a whole?
tonkatojo
30-Jan-12, 12:27
Well i don't lean anywhere. They are all the same. Out for them selves. People in the North of England are second rate citizens.
You must be evenly balanced Shazzap and I bet you don't require the services of misss Mone;), but don't pull us down even more by admitting the regional problems we have up/down here.It will all come out in the wash of next elections.
All right, just one good reason to go independent or stay in the UK. Anyone?
So far we've had, we don't like this that or the other (or all three) :lol:. Its been alright so far, we might or might not keep the oil. And some women that makes Bra's in China might leave. [lol]
Doesn't seem to me that there is any pressing reason to do anything, other than Alex Salmond wants to.
Bobinovich
30-Jan-12, 18:11
I think it's fair to say that one of the main reasons many Scots want independence is so that Scotland can truly govern itself, thus making all decisions relating to, and in the best interests of, its people, as opposed to governance from Westminster which doesn't.
As an independent nation we'd have no way of knowing how well it might work - we've nothing to compare it too in modern times. Yes we can look at other nations who have split/seceded but, while it may give an indications of how things might go, there are no two the same. However I think that so long as a good deal can be brokered then Scotland can look after itself - yes it may be true that an Edinburgh-based government may still concentrate on the central belt rather than the periphery, but it's still a damn sight closer than Westminster!
However there is a Catch 22 situation. Most people will want to know prior to voting what kind of deal an Independent Scotland would get, however if the vote then goes against independence then a lot of costs (in both time and money) with regards to pre-negotiations will have taken place for nothing. On the other hand a vote to gauge opinion could be held first but without knowing that vital information beforehand, many will opt for the union as it's often better the devil you know etc.
weezer 316
30-Jan-12, 18:53
This always decends into a farce. Nationalists are almost religious in thier thinking at times I swear. Its quite incredible.
Can those who want independence please, please please please please put accross a summary of the pro's of independence. A default position of "westminster screws us" is both false and totally at odds with the facts that are right in front of our face. And please articulate in which way we are screwed. I will list below, for the 3rd bloody time in recent months, the things which makes the UK better to be in.
Common & shared history
Common culture
Common language
Full economic integration
Larger voice in the world combined with the rest of GB with real influence far beyond our borders
Union worked pretty darn well by any measure for 300 years
Pooled resources and risk make us more robust in all spheres
Some actual clout in the EU. Scotland would have none.
A few points like the above from nationalists please. That is all I ask.
All right, just one good reason to go independent or stay in the UK. Anyone?
So far we've had, we don't like this that or the other (or all three) :lol:. Its been alright so far, we might or might not keep the oil. And some women that makes Bra's in China might leave. [lol]
Doesn't seem to me that there is any pressing reason to do anything, other than Alex Salmond wants to.
Screw it, I'll take a crack at fleshing this out a bit. Some of the reasons I'm in favour of independence:
I'm a fan of smaller or rather more accountable and accessible government.
Politically and culturally Scotland is different from the rest of the UK or South-East England at least if you won't give me that.
Scotland doesn't have enough votes to do what it thinks is best for itself within the UK, we have some devolved powers but not what we need to shape our country.
Many people - I'd go so far as saying the vast majority - in Scotland have been against several recent actions by the UK government on the International and even local stage.
Scotland has been ignored and side lined and insulted in many instances for too long by an anglo - or at least - London centric government. Which is to a certain extent understandable but then why do they deny us the right to go and do our own thing. Sure this applies to other parts and I feel sorry for and support then, but Scotland is not a region of England.
There's too much baggage attached to the UK.
I can't think of pro-unionist arguments beyond the fact that the UK is big (personally I think that's dillusional and its's trying to punch above its weight but whatever) and we could be in a gang with a bully or that's how its always been in recent history. That being said I welcome hearing some pro arguments.
weezer 316
30-Jan-12, 19:02
Sorry rec, clearly I was still tryping when you were typing that.
Firstly I would say a majority in the Uk have been against many UK govt actions (ironic isnt it the last 2 prime ministers were born in scotland.....) so I think thats a moot point.
As for culture I would definetly disagree. Unless its suddenly the 14th century again. We have a common taste when it comes to sport, films, music, even food to a large extent. Infact I would go as far as to say we are practically homogenous (if thats the right word) in that area as you cna easily get a chippie of similar taste in Thurso or truro, and scottish bands and actors have done well in England, as have Scottish sportsmen.
I would certianly concede politically we are different form southern England. But midlands up we are very similar. infact i suspect many in northern England would love as left a party to vote for as the SNP seeing as Labour have lurched way to the right.
...the things which makes the UK better to be in.
Common & shared history - History will not change, the future will.
Common culture - It'll still be there whichever way the vote goes.
Common language - Apart from the risk of Gaelic being enforced as the first language (which I doubt), it'll still be there.
Full economic integration - But isn't the Independent view that is a negative?
Larger voice in the world combined with the rest of GB with real influence far beyond our borders -Like illegal wars!
Union worked pretty darn well by any measure for 300 years - In the modern world we have today couldn't this be improved upon?
Pooled resources and risk make us more robust in all spheres - Granted.
Some actual clout in the EU. Scotland would have none. - Hmmm, debatable. But being a smaller democracy at least the individual has more clout with their vote.
Some of the reasons I'm in favour of independence:
I'm a fan of smaller or rather more accountable and accessible government. - An opportunity to have a streamlined civil service, a new start with some fresh dynamics.
Politically and culturally Scotland is different from the rest of the UK or South-East England at least if you won't give me that. - Bit wishy washy that one, differences are apparent across the UK.
Scotland doesn't have enough votes to do what it thinks is best for itself within the UK, we have some devolved powers but not what we need to shape our country. - As above, being a smaller democracy at least the individual has more clout with their vote too.
Many people - I'd go so far as saying the vast majority - in Scotland have been against several recent actions by the UK government on the International and even local stage. - And across the UK so again, negligible.
Scotland has been ignored and side lined and insulted in many instances for too long by an anglo - or at least - London centric government. ........... but Scotland is not a region of England. - Does it make it right that London can sideline the North East of England, Liverpool, Wales or anywhere. I can accept the viewpoint and argument but this can be reduced to an Inverness centric Highlands. (Would an Independent Scotland improve the NHS services in Caithness?)
There's too much baggage attached to the UK. - An Independent Scotland could well be left with a chunk of the baggage.
Still I am, as an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for 20 years, confused, as I understand there is a passion for Independence but I just don't see it here. I see peeps who bother to respond, wracking their brains trying to come up with reasons. And this is not going to convince anyone.
There are at least 1/2 a million none Scots residents in Scotland, well enough numbers to swing the vote either way. We are going to have to do a lot better if they/we are to be convinced one way or the other.
whitechina
30-Jan-12, 21:12
Scotlands contribution to the defence budget is £3.6bn annually. The total spend on defence in Scotland is £1.7bn. Scraps!
You can ask, but I dont see what good me answering it will do!
Where did you get this information? I (as I'm sure others would) would like to verify it.
And all I see is unionists dimissing and sidelining anything about independence, coming up with strawman arguments, personal attacks or trying to insert some fake humour when they don't wish to tackle a point. Which is what has been happening to Scotland for years. I suppose I should be glad they have no real advantages in the long run. No wonder I usually try to avoid these threads, my own fault I suppose for trying to engage people every now and again. I'll try to avoid that mistake in the future.
weezer 316
30-Jan-12, 22:03
Hes talkng nonsense, I was going to post earlier about it but I forgot. Here is a rebuttal.
Our total tax take in scotland is £42.7bn, as seen here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/6
According to the guardian, uk defence spending is £39.46bn, as seen here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/11/08/Public_spending_2710.pdf
So, as a per capita share, our 8.6% of the popultion, our spend in Scotland should be £3.39bn (39.4bn / 100 * 8.6)
Now, defence spending acounts for about 6.7% of all govt spending according to that graph.
If Scotland was independent, spending at the same 6.7% of our tax take would produce a defence spend of.......£2.86bn. (42.7 / 100 * 6.7). On a per capita basis this is how much we contribute to defence spending, not the balony figure you produced.
Now unless you can somehow show we receive 1.7bn instead of the per capita 3.39bn, you are in trouble. but dont fret, your figures are broadlin in line with nationalist claptrap. So your in good company.
Now can you show me where you got 1.7bn from?
Where do you all get the idea we will be independent? As far as I can see if we do break away from the UK, Salmond is planing to integrate us in the EU and if we are ill off now it will be far worse under Brussels. Where is the independence in that?
piratelassie
31-Jan-12, 16:15
I coul not agree more
A once in a lifetime opportunity to be our own Masters and run our own affairs instead of being tied by the UK Parliament who do very little for Scotland in my opinion!!
I don't know of one Scottish Man or Woman who doesn't have a wee bit of pride in them at being Scottish, it is in the blood and this opportunity gives us a chance to show the world that although we are only a small Nation we are able to make Independence work. We can and will do it!! Pride and Faith will be restored to the people of Scotland !
C3...................:):)
piratelassie
31-Jan-12, 16:26
Independence is just around the corner, embrace it.
Independence is just around the corner, embrace it.
Thats one corner I will not be turning, follow Eck blindly, never!!!!
As everyone else is doing stuff like this. Therefore a gaming analogy comes to mind:
Scotland is Skyrim (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Skyrim),
David Cameron is the Thalmor (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Thalmor),
Nick Clegg is the Emperor Titus Mede (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Titus_Mede_II),
The Coalition is the White-Gold Concordat (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/White-Gold_Concordat),
Alec Salmond is Ulfric Stormcloak (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Ulfric_Stormcloak),
We need to give the unionists an arrow to the knee (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee).
Scotland is Skyrim (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Skyrim),"Skyrim, It is the home of ......women who have a strong resistance to frost, both natural and magical" That be the binge drinking then!!
Lets see if we can get some positive answers! I don't have any political allegiance on Independence, I am very open minded to the idea, I suppose I was (and to a certain degree, still am) in support of the Union. I am an Englishman living in Scotland (in some peoples eye's I guess that removes any validity in my opinion and possible vote!).
But I am now on the fence, swinging if you like (cue the one liners), I can be swayed. I have been looking at this as objectively as I can, dispassionately, factual and as balanced as I could. And bliddy hell it ain't easy.
So, first up is the passion and desire to be Independent and free from the rule of London / Westminster (or us Inglish). The desire to control one's own destiny. Now that cannot be argued. One cannot argue passion, it can't be shouted down or stifled.
But that isn't enough to make it work, so Scotland gets independence then what?
It's like the petulant teenager that hates their parents rules and decides to leave home, all of a sudden they are out in the wide world with their freedom. But with no money, no transport and nowhere to stay. (I'm not likening Scotland to a petulant teenager before anyone starts, just making the point of: how is Independence going to work if that is the road we go down)
So the second bit:
How is independence going to work?
The key part - financially, what is the income? What is going to be the expenditure? How much debt would Scotland be lumbered with?
What is going to be the direct cost of independence i.e. the actual process of 'divorcing' the UK?
Factors here include the cost of govt borrowing for a 'new' country, the potential for any amount of UK debt we pick up is that it could cost the Scot's more per person to pay it down than paying down the current UK deficit.
EU - Is Alex Salmond going to officially approach the commission and find out the options before a referendum. (if he and Cameron were wise, they should and together).
Freedom to set your own tax etc. is fine but how much is going to be aligned with England / rest of UK? (no point being independent if your just going to do what your neighbours do, make too many differences then it becomes an administrative burden to business)
How much damage to international trade is being independent going to do? How much good to international trade is being independent going to do?
Will I have to double my overheads and operate an English company as well as a Scottish company?
Positive answers?
John Little
31-Jan-12, 21:50
Not being 'Scottish' - are you a 'Scottish Nationalist' if you vote for independence?
Or a Secessionist?
The latter appears to me to be much more .........venal?
Not being 'Scottish' - are you a 'Scottish Nationalist' if you vote for independence?
Or a Secessionist?
The latter appears to me to be much more .........venal?
I know plenty of English settlers that are into voting for Independence, they are good folk who have had enough of the UK as it stands. They have come up here for a good life, free from crime, the rat race and from crowds !!!
I welcome them with open arms, I can see where they are coming from having had to spend some of my working life in England. England is finished, lets face it !! Now is the time to break away. Here is our chance, we can do this, we maybe wee but we have the guts to go it alone without our English Masters.
I put my trust in the SNP.......I AM SURE THEY WONT LET ME DOWN !!
C3....:roll::)
John Little
31-Jan-12, 22:14
C3- you are Scottish and therefore may claim with justification to be a Scottish Nationalist.
However, if one is not Scottish and votes for Independence, then what is the difference between that and an economic migrant?
And you have no English 'masters'. That's a myth born of an inferiority complex whose roots I do not understand.
It has no basis in history or the current state of affairs that I can discern.
Contradict me....
As far as europe I heard a friend of mine this weekend - a very knowledgeable guy saying that there is a formal route for recognising Independant countries and once Independance is agreed that process will swing into place. It isnt a case of there having to be a decision made as to whether the EU would accept Scotland or not as an independent country - they have to as there is a recognised protocol.
we had our annual Burns party on Saturday night and there were 71 people squashed into our house eating Haggis - guess what was referred to in all the speeches and took up a lot of the conversation!!!! There were some who would have independence at any cost and some who were sitting on the fence and some who didnt want it at all. We had a lot of fun discussing it and it was a lot more good humoured than some of these threads have been. In fact we had it all ironed out by 5am and it was such a shame that no one could remember the detail on sunday morning.:lol: hic!
Everygain the average man or woman has made on either side of the border over the last 65 years has been as a result of the labour party. An independent Scotland, which could lead to an independent wales will abandon most of the north of england to the tories. Labour may never again be able to hold a majority in Westminster, which personally worries me. When people say that Cameron is playing in to Salmonds hands I am not so sure.
weezer 316
31-Jan-12, 22:42
I know plenty of English settlers that are into voting for Independence, they are good folk who have had enough of the UK as it stands. They have come up here for a good life, free from crime, the rat race and from crowds !!!
I welcome them with open arms, I can see where they are coming from having had to spend some of my working life in England. England is finished, lets face it !! Now is the time to break away. Here is our chance, we can do this, we maybe wee but we have the guts to go it alone without our English Masters.
I put my trust in the SNP.......I AM SURE THEY WONT LET ME DOWN !!
C3....:roll::)
Corrie your a nutter I swear. we dont have english masters!! The last 2 prime ministers were born in Scotland for god sake!! I assume they now become english do they?
And as for crime.....well i give you one of the most densly populated areas of western Europe in the central belt. Glasgow is is absolute toilet in places with the average life span at 60 in some areas like shettleston and estates literally full of 3 generations ( or 4 sometimes) of white, old firm supporting, irn bru driking scottish people who have never worked a day in their lives.
My family moved up here to get away from that. And outside of the central belt you have Aberdeen and dundee as major population centres but thats it. So your argument of leaving england because its crime ridden simply doesnt add up!
Infact, im not sure if this is true or not, but I wouldnt be suprised if there are sections of the central belt where crime is higher than anywhere else in the UK. Its that bad....
And thats bonnie scotland!
Everygain the average man or woman has made on either side of the border over the last 65 years has been as a result of the labour party.Like gaining a load of cheap RBS shares? Like gaining many losses & injured from an illegal war?
You never know, if independence works out and pays off, maybe Northern Ingerlund may want to breakaway and join Scotland!!
Corrie your a nutter I swear. we dont have english masters!! The last 2 prime ministers were born in Scotland for god sake!! I assume they now become english do they?
And as for crime.....well i give you one of the most densly populated areas of western Europe in the central belt. Glasgow is is absolute toilet in places with the average life span at 60 in some areas like shettleston and estates literally full of 3 generations ( or 4 sometimes) of white, old firm supporting, irn bru driking scottish people who have never worked a day in their lives.
My family moved up here to get away from that. And outside of the central belt you have Aberdeen and dundee as major population centres but thats it. So your argument of leaving england because its crime ridden simply doesnt add up!
Infact, im not sure if this is true or not, but I wouldnt be suprised if there are sections of the central belt where crime is higher than anywhere else in the UK. Its that bad....
And thats bonnie scotland!
And some would say that its the fact that we are governed from Westminster that means we dont have the wherewithall to resolve some of the many social problems. Years if underinvestment, years of Londoncentric policies which ignore the needs of Scottish cities. Indeed many say that the policies during the 80s seemed designed to kill Scottish industry and prevent Scotland being a thorn in the side of Westminster. My mother-in-law moved her family from Easterhouse to Invergordon when my husband was 10 - she may very likely have saved his life. Murder was the greatest killer of young men in Easterhouse for several years and it may still be the case. My husbands auntie has lost two sons to alcohol and drugs and cares for her grandchildren because her daughter is addicted to drugs and not fit to care for them.
These are some of the issues that an independent Scotland will need to plan for and they will need to be able to demonstrate how they will improve social and health inequalities. So far though westminster has not sorted them out and shows no sign of being able to do so. Indeed many of those people who will die at 60 in glasgow are being "welfare reformed" as we speak. Their ill health not considered bad enough to keep them on their benefits.
Positive answers?
Your concerns over being branded as something other than Scottish at heart are part of the problem. Its more important you know what you want and I can see you have an open mind. I have too and theres over 2 years to hear what they have to say. But itll never work by being negative. Thats positive?
Its not necessarily about passion although I know what you mean. Its about feeling and theres nothing stopping an Englishman feeling Scottish at heart. Thats positive?
Your concerns about the economics of it all would ultimately have to go on trust but with a few million people working in the same direction theres no reason scotland couldnt be Independent. Economic refugees would surely be welcome as long as they paid their way. Thats positive too.
John Little
31-Jan-12, 22:54
"And some would say that its the fact that we are governed from Westminster that means we dont have the wherewithall to resolve some of the many social problems."
Would they say the same of Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol......?
. Its about feeling and theres nothing stopping an Englishman feeling Scottish at heart. . or an Englishwoman????;)
[QUOTE=John Little;925024
Would they say the same of Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol......?[/QUOTE] yes they may very well do but they are not as yet able to vote on independence - Scotland is.
John Little
31-Jan-12, 23:01
So I'm getting the message that this is all about a better life.
If any part of the UK, whatever its ethnic or cultural make-up thinks that it has a chance of a better life, or can tackle social problems etc, then it can secede from the Union at will.
It's not about traditional 'Nationalism' at all because you do not have to be 'Scottish' to support it.
So ultimately it seems to be about the failure of mainstream politics to represent Scotland.
John Little
31-Jan-12, 23:02
yes they may very well do but they are not as yet able to vote on independence - Scotland is.
Why then this is not about national aspirations but economic and social advantage.
So I'm getting the message that this is all about a better life.
If any part of the UK, whatever its ethnic or cultural make-up thinks that it has a chance of a better life, or can tackle social problems etc, then it can secede from the Union at will.
It's not about traditional 'Nationalism' at all because you do not have to be 'Scottish' to support it.
So ultimately it seems to be about the failure of mainstream politics to represent Scotland.
I think that is absolutely right John. If you look at the fact that the SNP have a majority in a parliament that has a system which makes it more difficult for parties to win a majority, that becomes apparent. it means that many people voted SNP who ahd not done so before and that they were prepared to accept that this gave the SNP a mandate to carry out a referendum, even if they did not believe in Independence. This could only be because they beleived that the SNP offered the best prospects for Scotland. When you are around people like we were at the weekend they want what is best for the country they live in, whats best for their families and their futures and the tories, labour and libdems dont appear to offer any positive plans for the future of Scotland.
Dont get me wrong there are plenty of people who would have Independence at any cost - my husband is one of them. He would take independence tomorrow even if he was worse off and life was harder and bleacker than it is now. It still isnt about anti english feeling though. He believes that it is his birthright as a Scot to live in an Indpendent Scotland. That as a Scot he has a right to demand that his country makes its own decisions and raises its own taxes and is the architect of its own success or failure. He believes that with everything he is and it is his passion. Mostly people are like me. Slightly less fixated lol.
John Little
31-Jan-12, 23:13
I think that is absolutely right John. If you look at the fact that the SNP have a majority in a parliament that has a system which makes it more difficult for parties to win a majority, that becomes apparent. it means that many people voted SNP who ahd not done so before and that they were prepared to accept that this gave the SNP a mandate to carry out a referendum, even if they did not believe in Independence. This could only be because they beleived that the SNP offered the best prospects for Scotland. When you are around people like we were at the weekend they want what is best for the country they live in, whats best for their families and their futures and the tories, labour and libdems dont appear to offer any positive plans for the future of Scotland.
Or indeed for the future of the UK. It's a fine condemnation of our system where we have hard line Tory policies being imposed on the UK when so few people actually voted Tory as a proportion of the electorate.
Perhaps I would be attracted more to devo-max if I were a Scottish Unionist,
But given the present antics of the juveniles running our country I would probably vote SNP in despair.
It's a fine mess ain't it?
It's a fine mess ain't it?
It absolutely is!
"And some would say that its the fact that we are governed from Westminster that means we dont have the wherewithall to resolve some of the many social problems."
Would they say the same of Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol......?
Social problems would need to come high up the list of must does before I would vote for independence
So I'm getting the message that this is all about a better life.
If any part of the UK, whatever its ethnic or cultural make-up thinks that it has a chance of a better life, or can tackle social problems etc, then it can secede from the Union at will.
It's not about traditional 'Nationalism' at all because you do not have to be 'Scottish' to support it.
So ultimately it seems to be about the failure of mainstream politics to represent Scotland.
It's not as simple as that. Of course its got traditional nationalism at its core. Thats where it comes from and no one should feel ashamed for feeling it. I take your point about the regional nationalism and who knows, maybe if sctland developed a system to be proud of others parts of the uk could use it to become autonomous.
....... others parts of the uk could use it to become autonomous.[Thread drift]There is a limit to independence, there is only so far it can go. In reality it is our own fault, we are the voters! If we bother to turn out, if we bother to do something....anything!
In reality what we need is to rejuvenate a modern day non violent Guy Fawkes and put a virtual bomb under Westminster. Start again!
Change the political system, ensure the 'commons is for commoners. Remove the bliddy gravy train for starters.[/thread drift & ramble]
[Thread drift]There is a limit to independence, there is only so far it can go. In reality it is our own fault, we are the voters! If we bother to turn out, if we bother to do something....anything!
In reality what we need is to rejuvenate a modern day non violent Guy Fawkes and put a virtual bomb under Westminster. Start again!
Change the political system, ensure the 'commons is for commoners. Remove the bliddy gravy train for starters.[/thread drift & ramble]
Aye, but it's positive. Thats another tick.
Aye, but it's positive. Thats another tick.:) Aye, but in which box?!!
One thing that isn't positive for me, is it seems, one of the very first debates was about raising armed forces.
Wouldn't it be great if a new Scotland didn't need any?
Shabbychic
01-Feb-12, 01:05
I was just reading this article (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound), which is one positive reason for Independence.
Here is a wee film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5leiwEiTM) to help the unionists to keep up their opposition to Scotland going it alone.
One thing that isn't positive for me, is it seems, one of the very first debates was about raising armed forces.
Wouldn't it be great if a new Scotland didn't need any?As far as a standing army to go raping n' pillaging then no, I don't think so.
But as a civil contingencies force to provide a response for the unforeseen and natural disasters etc. Then Yes. Search & Resue too, Although this could be catered for on a private basis as current helo provision is planned to be UK wide, but there are also military Mountain Rescue teams, again this could go private but what then for volunteers?
A maritime unit could be provided for as an enlarged coastguard (to include SAR Helo's) but with powers to intercept & search etc. in support of / replacement for current UKBA vessels for counter drug / immigration etc.
Air defences....not in so much as defence from invasion but there is a certain amount of 'policing' to do of the airspace and again SAR & civil assistance.
So the reality we need something however we don't need a fighting force as such.
Restlessnative
01-Feb-12, 20:27
I've not read the whole thread as I'll probably fall asleep, just thought I would add my current tuppence worth.
Independence would be great if someone could show me how it will work.
What worries me is;
If it happens the Highlands could be forgotten by our fellow country men in the Central belt, the loud annoying one's....
and
If it doesn't happen do you think the English are going to be very nice to us??? I liken it to a couple splitting up but the one that wants to leave can't because they can't afford their own place.... not good.....
Don't tell me we would stay in the union if we had stacks of money because we all know that we would up our kilts and bare our backsides over the border.
Just a thought, suppose it's not positive at all.
Time for a pint then hahaha :D
John Little
01-Feb-12, 20:33
'What has the Union ever done for us?'
'Well ...... there's the aqueduct.....'
'Yes- alright, but apart from the aqueduct, what has the union ever done for us?....'
John Little
01-Feb-12, 21:50
Anglorum eunt domus!
John Little
01-Feb-12, 22:05
Anglorum ite domum!
Now write it out 100 times!
And if I catch you doing it again!...........
Just a thought.
If England is so bad, why do 794,948 Scots born folk now live down there - that's one hell of a lot out of a population of c5 million..
Now write it out 100 times!Do I get 'til sunrise?
John Little
01-Feb-12, 22:43
Yes - but Caithness time, not Jerusalem....
One thing that isn't positive for me, is it seems, one of the very first debates was about raising armed forces.
Wouldn't it be great if a new Scotland didn't need any?
So what happens to all those service men and women already in the armed forces? Throw them on the scrap heap? There certainly is'nt any jobs.
Shabbychic
02-Feb-12, 00:21
Just a thought.
If England is so bad, why do 794,948 Scots born folk now live down there - that's one hell of a lot out of a population of c5 million..
Just another thought.
Maybe Scottish folks don't think England is bad at all. Maybe they just think Westminster is bad in the way they dictate to Scotland. Perhaps many of the folks that have moved to England have done so because of the destruction of, and lack of investment in Scottish industry over the years, and therefore have to move to where the money is.
because of the destruction of, and lack of investment in Scottish industry over the years, and therefore have to move to where the money is.The destruction an lack of investment has not been aimed just at Scotland. Huge areas of England and Wales have lost out and have seen industry and manufacturing disappear over the years. It's almost a paranoia sometimes "Is it cos I is a Jock".
Shabbychic
02-Feb-12, 01:12
The destruction an lack of investment has not been aimed just at Scotland. Huge areas of England and Wales have lost out and have seen industry and manufacturing disappear over the years. It's almost a paranoia sometimes "Is it cos I is a Jock".
No, it is because this thread is about Scotland, and the quote I was responding to was about Scotland. So, it's no me that's paranoid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrvrXBJv3U&feature=related).
Just another thought.
Maybe Scottish folks don't think England is bad at all. Maybe they just think Westminster is bad in the way they dictate to Scotland. Perhaps many of the folks that have moved to England have done so because of the destruction of, and lack of investment in Scottish industry over the years, and therefore have to move to where the money is."Dictate to Scotland"? I thought that Holyrood had a devolved Parliament and is responsible for, 'agriculture, fisheries and forestry, economic development, education, environment, food standards, health, home affairs, Scots law – courts, police and fire services, local government, sport, and the arts, transport, training, tourism, research and statistics and social work. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to alter income tax in Scotland by up to 3 pence in the pound'
The intimation that Westminster (not England per se - and don't overlook the fact that England has not got Independence) has Scotland under the mythical jackboot does not hold water.. Conversely that 408,948 People born in England now living in Scotland (every 12th person North from Gretna) are escaping the destruction and looking for a land of plenty.
Scotland has been well represented in Westminster, from John Stuart the first Scottish Prime Minister 1762, to Blair and Brown.
Me? I'm for the union; 'together we stand, divided we fall' 'unity is strength'
As you say "we wont all agree if we did life would be boring" I quite agree!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16844830
Potentially a double vote now!
OK. So we may be faced with question 1, as posited by the First Minister "Do you agree...." etc. Then, afterwards - a few weeks later - , we ask "And exactly how much Devomax do you actually want?" Why can't we ask the second question at the same time as the first one? - I'll tell you why not! If we did ask 2 questions at the same time....
1. Do you agree, etc. (NOT a loaded question)
2. If you don't agree with full Independence, how about some Devomax then?
This would elicit three answers
a) I want Independence
b) I don't want independence but I want some Devomax
c) I don't want independence OR any Devomax, thankyou. I'm quite fond of the Union, really.
This would split the vote three ways (of the percentage who could be bothered to vote).
Which means the possibility of diluting the independence issue altogether. What if the Devomax adherents voted in large enough numbers to utterly undermine those going for full independence? Or vice versa? Whichever way the anti-Unionists vote, it is THEIR vote which is split. Not the Unionists.
Which is why there won't be a second contemporaneous question. The First Minister would not risk the likely outcome.
Let's face it, if we're going to remain with Her Majesty and Sterling, the only game in town IS Devomax, whatever the First Minister calls it.
I think the Unionists will be magnanimous enough to let him think Scotland is now "free from the Oppressors of Westminster".
And then we can all get on with what really matters......
OK. So we may be faced with question 1, as posited by the First Minister "Do you agree...." etc. Then, afterwards - a few weeks later - , we ask "And exactly how much Devomax do you actually want?" Why can't we ask the second question at the same time as the first one? - I'll tell you why not! If we did ask 2 questions at the same time....
1. Do you agree, etc. (NOT a loaded question)
2. If you don't agree with full Independence, how about some Devomax then?
This would elicit three answers
a) I want Independence
b) I don't want independence but I want some Devomax
c) I don't want independence OR any Devomax, thankyou. I'm quite fond of the Union, really.
This would split the vote three ways (of the percentage who could be bothered to vote).
Which means the possibility of diluting the independence issue altogether. What if the Devomax adherents voted in large enough numbers to utterly undermine those going for full independence? Or vice versa? Whichever way the anti-Unionists vote, it is THEIR vote which is split. Not the Unionists.
Which is why there won't be a second contemporaneous question. The First Minister would not risk the likely outcome.
Let's face it, if we're going to remain with Her Majesty and Sterling, the only game in town IS Devomax, whatever the First Minister calls it.
I think the Unionists will be magnanimous enough to let him think Scotland is now "free from the Oppressors of Westminster".
And then we can all get on with what really matters......
What about a 4th answer : "I want independence but I'd settle for devomax."
There are two workable ways do it. The first is to have two question in the referendum and allow people to vote on both. The first would be a yes or no for full independence. The second would be a yes or no for devomax. The other way would be numbered preferences like we have in EU, council and MSP elections.
Edit: It's important that if it is a two question referendum that we have both at the same time and that they're on the same ballot.
I stumbled across this on another forum, rather interesting:
"As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners. This was, of course, before the oil boom.
I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed nationalistic tendencies north of the border, which at that time were very weak. I took the decision to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time. However, the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear. This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979. Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot.
There were no attempts to refute these figures, which caused much embarrassment to the Tory Government of the day. However, the facts were quickly covered up by the Unionist controlled media.
Then a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell. Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league. The UK was at 17th Place.
When the Labour government came to power it announced a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax. From my detailed knowledge of income tax, I felt that this was the worst possible thing that they could do, as extra monies would be needed following on from the Thatcher era, if they were to fulfil even a fraction of their promises to the electorate. I came to the conclusion, and I still feel that I was right, that this was done by Labour to prove to the voters of Middle England that they could match the Tories in tax cuts.
Despite the disclosures of 1998, attempts to deceive the Scottish electorate did not end there. In March 1999 a Labour Party leaflet appeared which said that if the SNP were to forego Gordon Brown's 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, every family in Scotland would be £250 worse off. This became the major topic of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar. Salmond tried to point out to Dewar that he was using the wrong figures. Watching the debate, I saw Dewar's eyes roll in his head for a few moments but he carried on regardless.
After the debate it took the Labour Party a whole week to admit that they were wrong. There was in fact a whole chain of errors which the Labour Party tried to blame on "printing mistakes". However Labour could not deny the fact that in their calculations the UK average figure, which included the high wage earners in the city of London and the booming economy in the South East corner of England (which if I may say so were the result of the selfish policies of Mrs Margaret Thatcher), the figure used was almost double those of the average Scottish wage which at that time stood at £17,000 per year.
Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child. In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion.
In November 2006, the U.N. published its annual "Human Development Index". For the sixth year running, oil rich Norway topped the list, and won on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy. Norway, has of course, less than a third of the amount of oil than Scotland in its waters. Norway wisely created an "oil fund" in 1995 which in 5 years reached a total of £250 billion, so that Norway sailed through the Credit Crunch.
Who are the real subsidy junkies?
Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007. Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38. Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).
Analysis
It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK. In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income. Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.
With the oil boom, Scotland's economy was transformed. Scottish oil has to date funded the Treasury with £300 billion, which has pushed Scotland up from 7th place in World Wealth rankings, had it been in control of its own resources, to 3rd place.
On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades. There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars. This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.
Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate. For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million. They have continued to rise, although I don't have more recent statistics.
On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil. The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.
Even if nuclear is excluded, the future looks bright, the new Glen Doe hydro station on Loch Ness which was opened by Scotland's First Minister last year can produce enough electricity for 240,000 homes. Further projects down the Loch which have now reached the planning stage will increase this to over 1,000,000 homes. Wind and wave energy will also contribute significantly in the future.
No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies."
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London. His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.
weezer 316
02-Feb-12, 13:43
Oh my god.....Oh my god.....Oh my god.....Oh my god.....Oh my god.....
I stopped reading at the point "Norway, has of course, less than a third of the amount of oil than Scotland in its waters"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
They cant even get somethign as basic as that right. Thats why youi cant trust nationalists, they are like republcians, they just make it up and hope you dont know otherwise.
There are many issues around the last few posts. here is my take on some of them. Firstly England is not bad, - this isnt a case of good versus bad, or right versus wrong or again, anti english feeling. Does anyone argue that Scotland is a different country to England? Unionists accept that Scotland and England are different countries. We make a lot of our shared history but we also have different History, different cultures and different needs. Scotland is not England and as a different country is part of Great Britain. Currently Westminster has the overall say on many of the political issues affecting Scotland. Now, Phill you are right to say that there are parts of England that have suffered in a similar way to Scotland with economic difficulties emanating from decisions in Westminster, however these parts of England are not a differnt country and there is the nub of the matter. Treating Scotland as a region of England will not work. Scotland is and ALWAYS has been a differnet country even unionists agree on this. Some would say that if Yorkshire had the opportunity it would go it alone but Yorkshire isnt a stand alone country and so the comparison doesnt stack up. Since devolution it has been apparent that the Scottish Parliament has the opportnity to do things for Scotland and people want more of this. Many people beleive that to be fully independant would improve things because decisions would be made in Scotland for Scotland and its hard to argue with this. We currently enjoy better funding for care, higher education, presecriptions and the like in Scotland than the rest of the UK. The emphasis for spending has been different and may continue to be so under INdependence.
In addition to the above there will be a change in the political landscape after any Independence. Where todays natural tory voters - those right of centre just now are not really represented by the Tory Party then post Independence there is likely to be somethng better to spring up which offers those voters real choice and the opportuntity to be truly represented in Scotland.
Weezer you can hardly blame folk for still beleiving the issue about oil after the McCrone report was stifled and indeed kept secret in the 1970s - why should anyone beleive a system that buried this report to discourage any serious discussion of the Independence question. IT may have been the 70s but there are many of us that remember the 70s as if it was yesterday! There are so many conflicting pieces written about Scotlands financial situation that its up to each of us to read as much as we can and decide who is more likely to be right. This is likely to depend on which side of the referendum you stand. Unionst will no more concede that Independants are correct about finances than the other way round. Both sides have financial information to back up their position and Im not sure how that can be overcome.
'
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London. His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.'
His blog states he was a Senior Executive Officer - a middle manager - nowhere near being a 'Senior Civil Servant'.
From his Blog (yes a SEO): [just edited that as put CEO by mistake]
After completing my National Service in 1954 I continued my career in the Civil Service as an Executive Officer with the Inland Revenue until 1961 when I was transferred to the Accountant and Comptroller-General’s Office at Somerset House, London, where I remained as a Senior Executive Officer until I left the Civil Service in 1976. In 1979, I joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), originally serving as Liaison Officer of the Highland Federation of twenty-two CND Groups. I was then elected National Convener of the Scottish Campaigns' Committee and served as a member of the Scottish National Executive. I am currently Vice President of Scottish CND.
There are many issues around the last few posts. here is my take on some of them. Firstly England is not bad, - this isnt a case of good versus bad, or right versus wrong or again, anti english feeling. Does anyone argue that Scotland is a different country to England? Unionists accept that Scotland and England are different countries. We make a lot of our shared history but we also have different History, different cultures and different needs. Scotland is not England and as a different country is part of Great Britain. Currently Westminster has the overall say on many of the political issues affecting Scotland. Now, Phill you are right to say that there are parts of England that have suffered in a similar way to Scotland with economic difficulties emanating from decisions in Westminster, however these parts of England are not a differnt country and there is the nub of the matter. I quite accept that and understand. It is just all too often a statement rolled out in such a manner as to suggest that everything South of the border is all rosy and bonnie, masses of industry whilst all the English are guzzling champagne. Very much like the statement that England is subsidising a broke Scotland filled with alcoholic benefit scroungers.
In addition to the above there will be a change in the political landscape after any Independence. Where todays natural tory voters - those right of centre just now are not really represented by the Tory Party then post Independence there is likely to be somethng better to spring up which offers those voters real choice and the opportuntity to be truly represented in Scotland. There is a possibility that in one sense there is a benefit to the English regions if Scotland were to go independent, it may well refocus the grubbiment and political parties onto the regions in realisation that England would need it's own representation and the party's may have to fight harder for the support. So in a political representative sense, it may be better for the electorate.
So what happens to all those service men and women already in the armed forces? Throw them on the scrap heap? There certainly is'nt any jobs.
A very poor reason to have an army...employ soldiers :roll:
oldmarine
06-Feb-12, 03:28
Served with GB troops (both Scotland & England) during WW2. Was happy to have them nearbye.
Just back from a few days in Engerlandshire. Spoke to quite a few people about Independence and the concensus there is; YES! and the sooner the better! :eek:
Just back from a few days in Engerlandshire. Spoke to quite a few people about Independence and the concensus there is; YES! and the sooner the better! :eek:
Awesome, I take it that's changed your potential vote to a yes. Guess the unionist propaganda has had the opposite affect in Englandshire.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 13:53
I don't think it's that.
From where I am, if you talk to people the attitude is very much that if that's what Scots want then let's get on with it.
If it turns out that it's not what Scots want then they'll be fine with that too.
It really is up to you I think.
I take it that's changed your potential vote to a yes. Guess the unionist propaganda has had the opposite affect in Englandshire.
Certainly has not changed my mind not to go with Eck and his cronies, but the following link, has helped me make up my mind.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/hundreds_of_millions_leaking_out_of_scotland_1_209 9451
Certainly has not changed my mind not to go with Eck and his cronies, but the following link, has helped me make up my mind.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/hundreds_of_millions_leaking_out_of_scotland_1_209 9451
This is nothing related to independence anyway, just some editor putting a spin on it. Big businesses have always had an advantage when competing for public contracts. This is currently being reformed at both a UK and Scottish level because of the backlash against over priced and useless government IT contracts.
Even if it were somehow relevant are you saying that you're going to vote no so that they don't punish Scotland any more, I'll make a note that you respond well to threats and bullying.
If anything this is an argument for independence as there would be more incentive to award contracts to local companies.
Awesome, I take it that's changed your potential vote to a yes. Guess the unionist propaganda has had the opposite affect in Englandshire.
No. I think the attitude is "why don't the whingin' bleepin', Scottish, bleeperty bleeps just go and bleep off". Or words to that effect!:lol:
I'll make a note that you respond well to threats and bullying.
I do not respond to bullying, and this is a bully, he throws insults at a BBC advisor because he was not allowed to spout his Nationist drivel, on Sports programme.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/alex_salmond_under_fire_for_nazi_jibe_at_bbc_advis er_1_2099301
Certainly has not changed my mind not to go with Eck and his cronies, but the following link, has helped me make up my mind.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/hundreds_of_millions_leaking_out_of_scotland_1_209 9451
Same issues affecting England and Wales. If we're in the EU (either as an independent Scotland or as the UK) we need to play by EU rules.
I do not respond to bullying, and this is a bully, he throws insults at a BBC advisor because he was not allowed to spout his Nationist drivel, on Sports programme.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/alex_salmond_under_fire_for_nazi_jibe_at_bbc_advis er_1_2099301
Nice way to avoid the points of my post BTW. I wonder if Cameron will be banned from being on TV during the London Olympics. I suppose he finally got annoyed of being compared to every dictator people can think of and he is seeing what the reaction would be if he did the same. Alex Salmond Dictator-Comparison Bingo! (http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=14254)
It's no as if he has any reason to question the impartiality of the BBC... oh wait he has a lot of reasons. I've counted 10 examples the past two weeks alone.
Im not surprised Alec Salmond is hopping mad with the BBC - my husband is doing his nut at the way the BBC is reporting on the possibility of Independence. There is a recognised protocol for having politicians on TV at the time of an election and that should be applied to the refernendum in the same way. I find it really hard to be the voice of reason when the BBC report negatively on stuff which should be a positive story for Scotland. I also find it annoying that I read/watch stuff and think its accurate and then find out on some website or other or by my husband stamping his feet and snorting fire that it might be something else entirely and I have to go rummaging around the internet to see which side is right. I am getting to be a little disappointed that it isnt tending to be the BBC!!!!
John Little
06-Feb-12, 16:49
I have often found that when people grumble about the BBC it's because the BBC is not saying what they wish to hear.
What, exactly are BBC Scotland doing?
And this - on page 20- looks Scottish run. Are they all Unionists?
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/aboutus/management_review_2010_2011.pdf
Shabbychic
06-Feb-12, 17:03
BBC Scotland and the Scottish media in general, have been spinning stories for a good while, but they are being closely monitored now. Here are a couple of recent examples (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4263-so-think-you-can-trust-bbc-scotland-well-read-on-). Anything positive newswise for Scotland is spun out of recognition, and always has a negative slant on it. It seems to be that when a big story emerges, they have to make the SNP look bad at all costs, but if they can't do it, they miss the story out completely. I can't blame AS for being angry at how he is being treated (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/4274-pressure-increases-on-bbc-as-first-minister-questions-political-impartiality), and in truth, it goes far beyond just a game of rugby. We pay our licence for the BBC whether we like it or not, and are entitled to unbiased news coverage, allowing the people of Scotland to make an informed decision on their future.
Here is interesting article on the Arts of Propaganda (http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/the-black-arts/).
I have often found that when people grumble about the BBC it's because the BBC is not saying what they wish to hear.
What, exactly are BBC Scotland doing?
And this - on page 20- looks Scottish run. Are they all Unionists?
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/abou (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/aboutus/management_review_2010_2011.pdf)tus/management_review_2010_2011.pdf (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/aboutus/management_review_2010_2011.pdf)
Quickly, just off the top of my head:
They've been publishing FUD stories and as each scare story or lie is exposed as just that (EU membership, forced into Euro, cannot use the pound, lose trade opportunities for whisky in UK embassies, will pay for removal of Trident etc) the BBC replace it with another. Way too many examples here, each could probably be its own thread.
The BBC using the pejorative term ‘separation’ or ‘separatists’ when referring to independence and independence supporters.
The way SNP politicians are treated in interviews and coverage compared to others.
The fact that Salmond was banned from the rugby by the BBC political editor in London, the guy basically overruled his own editors and journalists in the manner you’d expect in a banana republic for some frankly BS reasons.
BBC Scotland and its obsession with football, old firm and sectarian stuff to the exclusion of much more relevant and interesting stories. They've even ignored major events in Scotland and not even filled it with crap sometimes.
As I've said there are various examples of BBC Scotland being overridden by BBC UK. Also just because someone happens to be Scottish or of Scottish descent that doesn't mean they operate in the best interests of Scotland and just because someone isn't Scottish that doesn't they aren't operating in the best interests.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 17:14
It appears that 'spin' works both ways. I note that it is 'London' that demands the license fee and that it is a 'Tory, peer who is making the outrageous suggestions (which might appear differently to people in Orkney and Shetland). Not until you play the clip does it emerge that the Tory is the Earl of Caithness.
I read on...
It appears that 'spin' works both ways. I note that it is 'London' that demands the license fee and that it is a 'Tory, peer who is making the outrageous suggestions (which might appear differently to people in Orkney and Shetland). Not until you play the clip does it emerge that the Tory is the Earl of Caithness.
I read on...
Oh come on not that Malcolm Sinclair rubbish. See my last point in the previous post.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 17:23
Okay - I've watched the second clip.
The Samsung investment was mentioned and is commensurate with its size. £100,000,000 is a lot of money to me and you, but in terms of meeting targets for renewable energy it seems to me a drop in a very big ocean. Much much more would be needed, and any larger news treatment of it might look, to me at any rate, to be much ado about not very much.
Raymond Buchanan's remark at the end, delivered in a splendid Hebridean accent appears to me no more than a reasonable observation under the circumstances. The targets are ambitious.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 17:24
Oh come on not that Malcolm Sinclair rubbish. See my last point in the previous post.
I do not know who Malcolm Sinclair is. I am responding to the clips as I watch them.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 17:32
Alex Salmond does not use the word 'regret' appears to be the thrust of the objection to the third clip.
It is true - he does not use the word.
However the import of what he said is quite clear; in stating the general idea that many people with hindsight would do things differently he quite clearly regrets what he did. This does not come over as a smear or reflecting badly on him, for what he is saying is quite reasonable and completely true.
If this sort of thing is the thrust of nationalist objections to BBC coverage then I have to say I think it's a storm in a teacup and that nationalists had better be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot with the bullet of over-sensitivity.
I speak only for me, but I get no anti-nationalist message from these reports whatsoever.
Shabbychic
06-Feb-12, 17:43
Okay - I've watched the second clip.
The Samsung investment was mentioned and is commensurate with its size. £100,000,000 is a lot of money to me and you, but in terms of meeting targets for renewable energy it seems to me a drop in a very big ocean. Much much more would be needed, and any larger new treatment of it might look, to me at any rate, to be much ado about not very much.
Raymond Buchanan's remark at the end, delivered in a splendid Hebridean accent appears to me no more than a reasonable observation under the circumstances. The targets are ambitious.
I think you are really missing the point. It is not about the individual items linked to, it is about the whole thing in general. If you can't see what BBC Scotland have been doing, then I won't even attempt to convince you. There are others out there however, many not even SNP supporters, who can and are getting angry at the lies and propaganda being dished out in large portions. Funnily enough, there have been regular spikes in SNP membership over the past few weeks, after some of the BBC antics, so I suppose all is not lost.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 17:53
It is true that I cannot get the general picture since I do not live in Scotland, but based on the link you provided, and if it is representative, then the case that the BBC is engaging in anti-nationalist propaganda looks a bit thin.
But you are right - since I don't get BBC Scotland, and lacking an overall picture, I shall refrain from general comment.
However these particular pieces of evidence have not convinced me.
Conversely, now I see that Malcolm Sinclair, the Earl of Caithness, is the 'Tory' cited in the first clip, I can see that the BBC is not the only side engaging in spin.
Of course all is not lost.
What could be 'lost'?
Nothing is lost to anyone until the people of Scotland have had their say.
Which they will do.
And with what they decide - all should abide...
I think you are really missing the point. It is not about the individual items linked to, it is about the whole thing in general. If you can't see what BBC Scotland have been doing, then I won't even attempt to convince you. There are others out there however, many not even SNP supporters, who can and are getting angry at the lies and propaganda being dished out in large portions. Funnily enough, there have been regular spikes in SNP membership over the past few weeks, after some of the BBC antics, so I suppose all is not lost.30th December 2011: The SNP is ending a historic year for the party on a high with a record 20,139 card carrying members.. Don't seem that many?
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2011/dec/snp-reach-over-20000-members
Hmm interesting...
In light of that disregard what I said, I was wrong. The BBC and in particular BBC Scotland are doing a wonderful stellar job long may it continue.
John Little
06-Feb-12, 19:45
You may not be wrong- you may be right.
But not based on those 3 clips.
But this is something on which people must be very very careful.
It is very useful, as numerous examples in history show, for a small group to portray itself as somehow embattled, victimised, the object of hostile propaganda from a greater power.
It is also useful to such groups to portray faceless oppression from outside . I always remember asking someone why they disliked Neil Kinnock so much and the reply was 'Because he's a Boyo'. When I pressed on this I kept getting the same reply.
If 'London' or 'Englandshire' or 'Westminster' are seen as somehow oppressing Scotland then it garners votes for independence does it not?
Yet Scotland is represented in the UK government as well.
Creating a feeling of siege can create a bandwagon effect, increasing the numbers of supporters; it could be seen as a necessary illusion.
But now I'm curious to hear from others, not committed either way.
Is BBC Scotland biased?
Or are some Nationalists whipping up a sense of persecution to further their own ends?
In 2007 the SNP won 27 seats, Labour 50 and Tory 18 seats, Libdems 16, others 3
Consequently the SNP formed a minority Government..
I don't like Labour so I - and I believe Mrs Beks - voted SNP in the last election - pointless voting Conservative, it was NOT a vote for Independence, but to keep Labour out; A tactical vote.
For some reason or another many believe that the voters who won the 87 seats for the combined 'others' did so because they supported the SNP's aims..
Well I suppose freezing the Council Tax, Free prescriptions, Free University places, Old Farhts Homes free, and disillusioned with Labour might well have had a bearing on voting intentions?.
IF those who voted SNP and followed their dictates I am sure we would see an avalanche in the opinion polls FOR Independence, and not the wimpy and lack-lustre showing that is both historic and recent..
All I seem to read here is damn those bloody English; governing us from London. It's a United Kingdom 'England' is a part of the UK, same as Scotland - 'England' is not independent. .
Of course I'm one of these near half a million English that have made their permanent home in Scotland - whilst near 900,000 Scots have done likewise by moving and being domiciled in England - I've been here for near a quarter of a century, and feel I have a right to 'raise my head above the parapet'.
Plans to give up to 60,000 EU nationals living in Scotland a vote in the independence referendum have been defended by Scotland's Finance Secretary.. First Minister Alex Salmond said the people who "live, work and bring up their families in Scotland" should be the ones taking the decisions about the country's future" and as they have been living and working in Scotland for 10, 20 30 40 years - why not.
Please don't think that because the SNP got voted in this time it's a green flag for Independence; it ain't...
In 2007 the SNP won 27 seats, Labour 50 and Tory 18 seats, Libdems 16, others 3
Consequently the SNP formed a minority Government..
I don't like Labour so I - and I believe Mrs Beks - voted SNP in the last election - pointless voting Conservative, it was NOT a vote for Independence, but to keep Labour out; A tactical vote.
For some reason or another many believe that the voters who won the 87 seats for the combined 'others' did so because they supported the SNP's aims..
Well I suppose freezing the Council Tax, Free prescriptions, Free University places, Old Farhts Homes free, and disillusioned with Labour might well have had a bearing on voting intentions?.
IF those who voted SNP and followed their dictates I am sure we would see an avalanche in the opinion polls FOR Independence, and not the wimpy and lack-lustre showing that is both historic and recent..
All I seem to read here is damn those bloody English; governing us from London. It's a United Kingdom 'England' is a part of the UK, same as Scotland - 'England' is not independent. .
Of course I'm one of these near half a million English that have made their permanent home in Scotland - whilst near 900,000 Scots have done likewise by moving and being domiciled in England - I've been here for near a quarter of a century, and feel I have a right to 'raise my head above the parapet'.
Plans to give up to 60,000 EU nationals living in Scotland a vote in the independence referendum have been defended by Scotland's Finance Secretary.. First Minister Alex Salmond said the people who "live, work and bring up their families in Scotland" should be the ones taking the decisions about the country's future" and as they have been living and working in Scotland for 10, 20 30 40 years - why not.
Please don't think that because the SNP got voted in this time it's a green flag for Independence; it ain't...
I realise it isn't a green light for independence despite the fact it was in their manifesto, my problem is with people immediately bringing out the FUD and scare tactics about the SNP and independence before the dust had even settled on the Scottish parliament elections.
I need to make it clear that just because someone happens to be English, Indian, Polish, whatever that doesn't mean that Scottish independence will be bad for them. I'm sure there's a part of the SNP that is anti-English but all groups have their extreme fringes I can come up with some pretty shocking quotes and positions from people who support the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats. I think this harkens back to scare tactics and FUD again.
People have to realise that there is a very anglocentric feel to the UK, every other part can be outvoted by England, major parts of the government are based there, British stereotypes are basically English stereotypes from a different side/angle, to most people outside the UK, England and Britain synonymous with one another. etc. Also just because people rail again London or England that doesn't mean they have a problem with people who happen to be English or those of English descent living any where in the UK. Again this is another scare tactic and FUD.
For anyone who doesn't know, when I say FUD I mean Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt).
You seem to be using the following quite a bit Req:
'FUD and scare tactics'
'this is another scare tactic and FUD'
'I think this harkens back to scare tactics and FUD again'.
'They've been publishing FUD stories and as each scare story or lie'
Where the hell is FUD (Fear Uncertainty and doubt) in that post?
I'm given to understand that 'FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information' - don't see that myself.. I'm sure the voters of Scotland are not all susceptible to this. Or are they?
Not being facetious, but I note from your profile your age and being born and bred here, am I wrong in thinking you are cosmopolitan in your outlook through travel and working/living in other parts of the 'UK' - If I'm wrong I apologise
Well, despite my best efforts, nothing positive. The only arguments put forward I see are to justify your own position not persuade anyone else to your view.
My fear is that when the vote is counted and as it is now, the vote is no. We Scots will all be tarred with the same brush by the rest of the UK as dissatisfied Nationalists. Unfair as at least half of us won't be.
Bekisman - whilst you didnt vote for Independence when you voted SNP - you voted KNOWING that an SNP victory meant that there would be a referendum on Independence.
I want the discussions to be fair and above board and to have both sides represented equally. I am worried that is not happening and so it sends me off on a search for the ins and outs and its wearisome. I get really annoyed when some tory peer - unelected I might add starts to talk about Orkney and Shetland staying as part of the union and The UK keeping rockall after any independence vote, and I get really angry when I hear stupid interviewers compare Alec Salmond to Mugabe, and I get really cross when the BBC report in such a way as to negatively spin things that might be positives for Independence and its not because I am a nationalist ( although the more I watch programmes like last weeks with Jim Wallace, Johann Lamont Lesley Riddoch and Nicola Sturgeon the more inclined I am to think the Nationalists are the only 'together' party = the other two politicians were dreadful) it makes me cross because stuff like that trivialises the unionist arguments and makes it seem like they are patronising numpties.
I want a fair fight. I want information and opinion without stupid put downs and ridiculous overreaction ( cue Jim Wallace and yon mannie from the BBC) I am wise enough to know this is not what Im going to get but I wish the unionists would get their flaming act together and give us something to listen to that actually is meaty and coherent. I dont feel out of this discussion because Im english, I dont feel that I dont have a say, I dont feel persecuted and vilified either because of my nationality. I already live in a different country than the one I was born in because I moved here and I just want whats best for the country I live in.
Shabbychic
07-Feb-12, 01:35
30th December 2011: The SNP is ending a historic year for the party on a high with a record 20,139 card carrying members.. Don't seem that many?
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2011/dec/snp-reach-over-20000-members
A wee update (http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/jan/membership-and-online-support-snp-soars) from the 28th of January.
You seem to be using the following quite a bit Req:
'FUD and scare tactics'
'this is another scare tactic and FUD'
'I think this harkens back to scare tactics and FUD again'.
'They've been publishing FUD stories and as each scare story or lie'
Where the hell is FUD (Fear Uncertainty and doubt) in that post?
I'm given to understand that 'FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information' - don't see that myself.. I'm sure the voters of Scotland are not all susceptible to this. Or are they?
Not being facetious, but I note from your profile your age and being born and bred here, am I wrong in thinking you are cosmopolitan in your outlook through travel and working/living in other parts of the 'UK' - If I'm wrong I apologise
People use FUD because it works, therefore it must influence some people. I'd love to live in a world where it didn't work or was called out for what it is, where people could have civilised debates and actually have their minds changed by a good well constructed argument.
I've travelled quite a bit and worked in a few locations around the UK and Europe. I've also had exposure to a variety of opinions and cultures through university, reading and the internet but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I held pretty much the same opinions and views before as I did after, such things were not a catalyst for anything. I would hope this is not a prelude to calling people who stay in Scotland unambitious or provincial or that those sort of people are predisposed to supporting the SNP or Scottish independence. I've heard those a few times, so apologies if it was not your intention.
Bekisman - whilst you didnt vote for Independence when you voted SNP - you voted KNOWING that an SNP victory meant that there would be a referendum on Independence.
Of course I knew that - it was in their manifesto for heavens sake. Mine, like a huge number of others I've intimated, was a tactical vote.
KNOWING the apathy shown by historic polls,, it would be highly unlikely that Independence would have been achieved. Do you yourself have any idea why the SNP - who won so handsomely have not been inundated with new members or why latest opinion polls are so derisory ?
A wee update (http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/jan/membership-and-online-support-snp-soars) from the 28th of January.Sorry, read your link, but can't actually see a number of total SNP members; can you help?
People use FUD because it works, therefore it must influence some people. I'd love to live in a world where it didn't work or was called out for what it is, where people could have civilised debates and actually have their minds changed by a good well constructed argument.
I've travelled quite a bit and worked in a few locations around the UK and Europe. I've also had exposure to a variety of opinions and cultures through university, reading and the internet but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I held pretty much the same opinions and views before as I did after, such things were not a catalyst for anything. I would hope this is not a prelude to calling people who stay in Scotland unambitious or provincial or that those sort of people are predisposed to supporting the SNP or Scottish independence. I've heard those a few times, so apologies if it was not your intention.
My apologies Req, I merely ask, as I've come across rabid English-haters (not you of course) who base their sentiments on locally domestic opinions gained without the assistance of many many things; travel among them. Years ago my house sign was spray-painted with "English Settler B....d", Though various means I uncovered the person, who turned out to be someone who had lived their whole life in a certain area up here, but was quite happy to ignore the fact his four brothers and two sisters lived and worked in England - without the hate [envy?] espoused here..
I've found in my own very extensive travels that a more detailed idea of 'the way things really are' is gained by such action as you yourself have experienced in your passage through life, which does often act as a catalyst..
Shabbychic
07-Feb-12, 23:38
Sorry, read your link, but can't actually see a number of total SNP members; can you help?
Well let's put your link and my link together.
31st December - 20,139 members
Since David Cameron's chaotic intervention into Scottish Politics on 8th January - when on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show - 1,595 new members have joined the SNP increasing party membership by 8% in just three weeks.
So, 20,139 plus 1,595 = 21,734, on the 28th January.
I do not have the total amount of members as of today, but believe the membership is rising, which was the initial claim I made.
I do not have the total amount of members as of today, but believe the membership is rising, which was the initial claim I made.
Are there cut price memberships for the under 13's [lol]
Shabbychic
07-Feb-12, 23:50
Are there cut price memberships for the under 13's [lol]
Going through your second childhood are you golach??
Going through your second childhood are you golach??
Why would I be in my second childhood? I was a card carrying member of the SNP, for a long time, until Fat Eck showed his face
Shabbychic
08-Feb-12, 00:15
Why would I be in my second childhood? I was a card carrying member of the SNP, for a long time, until Fat Eck showed his face
Yes, you mentioned before. Thing is, I will be voting for the future of my country, not for one man. I don't care who is leading the cause. Even if it was David Cameron who fought for the rights of Scotland to make their own decisions, I would not cut off my nose to spite my face.
An Independent Scotland could be totally being at the mercy of the world if Spain throw a spanner in the works. Spain has indicated it could block an independent Scotland joining the European Union, Spain already refused to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Spain fears such a move will encourage separatist’s ambitions for independence in the Spanish regions of Catalonia and the Basque region. Spain’s refusal to recognize Kosovo could also frustrate the ambitions of Scotland to enter the European Union if independence is inevitable.
An Independent Scotland could be totally being at the mercy of the world if Spain throw a spanner in the works. Spain has indicated it could block an independent Scotland joining the European Union, Spain already refused to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Spain fears such a move will encourage separatist’s ambitions for independence in the Spanish regions of Catalonia and the Basque region. Spain’s refusal to recognize Kosovo could also frustrate the ambitions of Scotland to enter the European Union if independence is inevitable.
Really? We've covered this already, that claim came from a Whitehall official not someone from Spain, basically:
One of the most common unionist lies is that Spain would veto an independent Scotlands entry in to the EU. This canard has been about for years and is assiduously spread by unionists. I have discussed it in the past with senior Spanish diplomats, and they have been unanimous that it is impossible that Spain would seek to veto Scottish membership.
Firstly, nobody in the EU has ever left the EU voluntarily, let alone been expelled, and the idea that 5 million EU citizens in a strongly pro-EU country would be thrown out against their will is not in the realm of practical politics. The whole dynamic of the EU is expansive, with countries continually accepted into membership who technically should not be. Everybody knows, for example, that Romania and Bulgaria were not remotely close to compliance with the acquis communitaire when they were admitted. There is no appetite anywhere in the EU to argue that an EU member successor state would have to re-apply.
Secondly, Scots are much liked internationally. There is a strong popular understanding throughout Europe of Scottish desire for independence – bagpipes, Braveheart and a separate football team are an intrinsic part of this strong Scottish popular recognition. There are no votes in Europe in being nasty to the Scots, and that includes Spain. The Spanish government are not stupid. It would be very unpopular in Spain to act against the Scots, and would infuriate the Catalans and actually boost the independence movement there. Tactically, there are times when it is best to pretend to be relaxed about self-determination, as Cameron is doing.
Thirdly, there is a real difference here with the Kossovans. Spain does not oppose Slovenia, Croatia or other parts of the former Yugoslavia from EU membership. It did not oppose the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Spain does not automatically argue against EU membership for splitting states – that is a lie spread by unionists. Unlike Kossovo, the Scottish state is not inextricably links with organised crime, and is not outside the EU.
Another one of your views copied and pasted from elsewhere?
Bit old but have a look at this:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/68.pdf
Wasn't this 'story' raised by a UK, i.e. Westminster, Minister?
Anyhow, Kosovo is a very different puppy from Scotland, there is still a long way to go before Kosovo could join the EU.
Another one of your views copied and pasted from elsewhere?
Bit old but have a look at this:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/68.pdf
Wasn't this 'story' raised by a UK, i.e. Westminster, Minister?
Anyhow, Kosovo is a very different puppy from Scotland, there is still a long way to go before Kosovo could join the EU.
It's from an extract from an article, only bit of copypasta I've done in this independence thing except from things I've written elsewhere.
I read that link, I have several problems. Mostly that it seems to completely ignore established points from international law and contradict other more recent sources. Still an interesting read I think I read a book the author contributed to actually.
It's been attributed to 'senior Whitehall sources' at least in the original Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html) article that made the claim.
So much for the respect agenda:
Mandarins 'freeze out' Alex Salmond' s civil servant from independence talks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9066439/Mandarins-freeze-out-Alex-Salmond-s-civil-servant-from-independence-talks.html)
Cameron orders civil service to send Scotland to Coventry (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4291-cameron-orders-civil-service-to-send-scotland-to-coventry)
It seems “free and frank discussions” means "policy about Scotland that we don't want the Scottish government to know about"?
So much for the respect agenda:
Mandarins 'freeze out' Alex Salmond' s civil servant from independence talks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9066439/Mandarins-freeze-out-Alex-Salmond-s-civil-servant-from-independence-talks.html)
Cameron orders civil service to send Scotland to Coventry (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4291-cameron-orders-civil-service-to-send-scotland-to-coventry)
It seems “free and frank discussions” means "policy about Scotland that we don't want the Scottish government to know about"?
There is no such department as "Scotlands Civil Service", there are civil servants who work in the Scottish Office, which is still a Westminster dept, this is the nasties stirring it.
There is no such department as "Scotlands Civil Service", there are civil servants who work in the Scottish Office, which is still a Westminster dept, this is the nasties stirring it.
Well to be fair Westminster are the ones who said Sir Peter Housden went native, they're the people that put up the divide. I suppose it should be classed as work place bullying then if they're all one big happy organisation.
Westminster are ........ the people that put up the divide.Are we sure on that? In this case. I don't know one way or the other and I'm not saying they didn't, but is this just another example of misleading spin regardless of which 'side' it came from.
Does it really matter who said what about what? Surely the educated layman is discerning enough to make his own mind up?
Luckily there's well over 2 years for us to make our minds up and if the orgs anything to go by its just more of the same arguments. Links to this and that and depending on your present potition it will either confirm or deny where your at. Thats what makes the world go round. I wouldnt bother voting for an independent scotland just for that to happen. I'm not interested in more of the same. Im not particularly interested in the economics of Independence although Im aware of their importance but they mean nothing without audience participation. I would like to see social reforms in an independent Scotland. Social reforms would have to start in education. One question I will ask the powers that be is why is there a trail of litter from the nearest shops to a school? How come the state hasnt worked out how to make children aware of their responsibilities to society? Thats positive.
Another one of your views copied and pasted from elsewhere?
Bit old but have a look at this:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/68.pdf
Wasn't this 'story' raised by a UK, i.e. Westminster, Minister?
Anyhow, Kosovo is a very different puppy from Scotland, there is still a long way to go before Kosovo could join the EU.
Take your mouse, and place your cursor at the beginning of the text in the box below, then click and hold the left mouse button, while pulling your mouse over the text. This should highlight the text. Now release the left mouse button. Now, with the cursor over the highlighted text, right click the mouse for options, and select 'copy'. Now over the empty box below, right click your mouse again, and select 'paste' and you will have copied and pasted the text. Apparently these individuals must think one is not capable of memory!
Oh dear, what politico thought this was a good idea: Attorney General blocks release of devolution papers (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/attorney_general_blocks_release_of_devolution_pape rs_1_2104336)
Still no positive arguments!
Here is why I will vote no; I would rather be part of an organisation that raises it's income from 50 million people, and a huge variety of natural resources, a massive number of large successful global businesses, and the interest generated by truly mindboggling foreign loans.
The alternative is from 5 million people, a bunch of SMEs and some larger, but mostly foreign owned companies. (and some oil, maybe).
John Little
11-Feb-12, 09:17
Still no positive arguments!
Here is why I will vote no; I would rather be part of an organisation that raises it's income from 50 million people, and a huge variety of natural resources, a massive number of large successful global businesses, and the interest generated by truly mindboggling foreign loans.
The alternative is from 5 million people, a bunch of SMEs and some larger, but mostly foreign owned companies. (and some oil, maybe).
Scotland will be the new Saudi Arabia funded from renewables!
Scotland will be the new Saudi Arabia funded from renewables!
Yeh right. At what point do we become funded by renewables instead of funding renewables? :confused
It will not be an economic argument that convinces me. Thats maybe a naive way to make a decision about independence according to some folk but I dont beleive we are getting an objective picture on the finances. All the information you see is discredited by one side or the other - lets see - here is an expert saying scotland will be richer when independent - the unionsts cry that he is a nationalist and so not to be trusted; here is one saying we are better as part of the union so the nationalists cry that he is a unionist and not to be trusted.
I will vote for independence if I can beleive the following
that independence will focus on the people of Scotland and what is best for them
that independence will offer us better care for the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick
that independence will give us fairness in the tax system and the benefit systems
that independence will improve the Health service we have
that independence will reduce inequalities in health
that independence will strive to promote a sort of "social ethical politics" ( thats a rubbish phrase but I mean that I want people in politics to understant their jobs are to do whats best for the people that put them there and not line their own pockets and do deals that let the rich off paying millions in taxes whilst cutting benefits for the poor and the sick)
I am prepared to wait for these things to happen as I know they wont happen overnight. I have to say that I do not beleive that the Westminster government can promise ANY of the above as it stands just now and so I may very well be predisposed to voting yes but thats it - i guess Im wanting a different way. I want Scotland to be the best country it can be with a social conscience that leads us to care for the weak and try to look after each other. If they can show me that Independence will take us in that direction - Im theirs.
that independence will focus on the people of Scotland and what is best for themI would hope so.
that independence will offer us better care for the elderly, the vulnerable and the sickThe Scottish NHS is empowered to do that anyway
that independence will give us fairness in the tax system and the benefit systemsDo you have details on how this is planned?
that independence will improve the Health service we haveHopefully
that independence will reduce inequalities in healthDepends where you looking from, the inequalities we see across Caithness & Sutherland are driven by Inverness
that independence will strive to promote a sort of "social ethical politics" ( thats a rubbish phrase but I mean that I want people in politics to understant their jobs are to do whats best for the people that put them there and not line their own pockets and do deals that let the rich off paying millions in taxes whilst cutting benefits for the poor and the sick) Cobblers their politicos!
Do you have details on how this is planned?!
Nope I dont have any details but ill be watching closely
the inequalities we see across Caithness & Sutherland are driven by Inverness!
Health Inequalities are driven by many things - Im not talking about services as much as the fact that you
are more likely to die at 60ish in Glasgow than in Inverness for example - the things that influence this are poor housing, education, unemplyment, drugs and lack of opportunity. I would like to see an Independent Scotland tackling the issues that lead to health inequality - that means tacking all these things
Cobblers their politicos!
Aye you are right but this would be a new country with a new parliament and maybe we can see a true understanding of what it means to be ethical in politics. the Bruce says Im "ever hopeful" lol
Interesting read:
Soon I will be dead. But, oh, to be alive at this moment in Scotland - Ian Hamilton QC (http://www.scottishreview.net/IanHamilton230b.shtml)
Interesting read:
Soon I will be dead. But, oh, to be alive at this moment in Scotland - Ian Hamilton QC (http://www.scottishreview.net/IanHamilton230b.shtml)
What a havering owld QC, they are digging up the nearly dead now, to promote Eck and his cronies
John Little
14-Feb-12, 19:58
I really don't get that bit about Scotland having 3/4 of the wave/tide power of Europe. I've heard it before and it's like nobody else has got coastline.
Can someone please explain that to me because I am totally at a loss about it?
Well i found that moving and i hope that people, whether they are nationalist or unionist get animated and feel as much passion about the politics of a referendum as that man does.
Well i found that moving and i hope that people, whether they are nationalist or unionist get animated and feel as much passion about the politics of a referendum as that man does.
I feel the same, I am too old to enjoy the new Scotland, the Independent Scotland, the young should grasp it while they can. They might not get a second chance and will be under the influence of the Tories and London forever more!
And don't worry Golach, they wont be digging you up my friend, when you go you will be left in peace!!!
C3..........:eek::roll:;)
And don't worry Golach, they wont be digging you up my friend, when you go you will be left in peace!!! C3..........:roll:;)
I would be happy with that, as long as I am still here to vote against Fat Eck, before I go [lol] tell him to hurry up.
Alex Salmond, is going to bankrupt us, all these trips he having for example Abu Dhabi renewable trip 2012, visits to Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai 2011.
British-Irish Summit - Dublin 2012. China 2010. Would like to see his expenses, making deals to countries, scottish firms unable to win contracts in their own country - Scottish firms 'locked out' from procurement contracts , another one New Forth Bridge - Scottish Steel part of Tata Steel UK, losing out to chinese, spanish and polish steel. Windfarms own by foreign countries. Looks like he selling off the wealth belonging to scotland before we agree or disagree on independence. He is a law on his own, sorry to say he seems to be like Arthur Donaldson leader of the SNP who seems to have views in 1940s to give praise to Nazism of Germany.
Alex Salmond, is going to bankrupt us, all these trips he having for example Abu Dhabi renewable trip 2012, visits to Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai 2011.
British-Irish Summit - Dublin 2012. China 2010. Would like to see his expenses, making deals to countries, scottish firms unable to win contracts in their own country - Scottish firms 'locked out' from procurement contracts , another one New Forth Bridge - Scottish Steel part of Tata Steel UK, losing out to chinese, spanish and polish steel. Windfarms own by foreign countries. Looks like he selling off the wealth belonging to scotland before we agree or disagree on independence. He is a law on his own, sorry to say he seems to be like Arthur Donaldson leader of the SNP who seems to have views in 1940s to give praise to Nazism of Germany.
I disagree with people being likened to, or called Nazis, but it strikes me old Alex may want to look a bit closer at more recent history than the the history he wants to talk about. He talks about freedom but his predecessor, if he had had his way, would have helped to enslave us all.
Alex Salmond, is going to bankrupt us, all these trips he having for example Abu Dhabi renewable trip 2012, visits to Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai 2011.British-Irish Summit - Dublin 2012. China 2010. Would like to see his expenses, making deals to countries, scottish firms unable to win contracts in their own country - Scottish firms 'locked out' from procurement contracts , another one New Forth Bridge - Scottish Steel part of Tata Steel UK, losing out to chinese, spanish and polish steel. Windfarms own by foreign countries. Looks like he selling off the wealth belonging to scotland before we agree or disagree on independence. He is a law on his own, sorry to say he seems to be like Arthur Donaldson leader of the SNP who seems to have views in 1940s to give praise to Nazism of Germany.More sensible debate using facts and not scare tactics or utter cobblers.
a wee snippet from todays Evening News, shows to me that the cracks in the SNP are spreading.
A FORMER deputy leader of the SNP has branded the move to include a “devo-max” question in the indepedence referendum a “fraudulent claim” designed to maintain party unity and keep the Nationalists in power should it lose the vote.Jim Sillars, second-in-command of the SNP from 1991-92, has called on former ally Alex Salmond to ditch the second question on maximum devolution, warning that the SNP’s flirtation with the idea “sends out a damaging ambiguous signal about its confidence in the case for independence”, it was reported today.
He claims the devo-max option is only being touted as a back-up plan for the SNP should people reject independence, giving the SNP a cause to champion and a reason to “bounce back” for the 2016 Holyrood election
Nick Noble
15-Feb-12, 11:21
I really don't get that bit about Scotland having 3/4 of the wave/tide power of Europe. I've heard it before and it's like nobody else has got coastline.
Can someone please explain that to me because I am totally at a loss about it?
I am no expert on this John, but I guess that given that the prevailing wind direction is westerly, and that we are on the western edge of europe that could account for some of it. Plenty of unobstructed sites both coastal and inland. We also have lots of relatively shallow sea areas suitable for building off-shore windfarms.
We have about 1/8 of the total coastline of Europe so plenty of space for wave generation devices, and we have a big tidal range, so large volumes of energy due to the apparent movement of the tides, compared with the very low tidal range of both the Mediterranean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea) and Baltic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea). Of the 88,000 km of coastline in Europe I would guess that probably 2/3rds are med/baltic, so our 11000km start sounding quite impressive as an energy resource.
I really can't be bothered doing the research to check the exact length of the coastlines for the different sea basins, and their tidal range, and my friendly oceanographer is out at sea for the next few weeks.
But difficult though it is I can believe the claims made regarding Scotlands wealth in terms of wind and tidal energy resources.
John Little
15-Feb-12, 11:36
Thank you Nick - I can appreciate what you are saying but they are indeed 'claims' or so it seems to me.
The UK government canned the plans for a barrage across the Severn but it is a reminder that there are dozens of sites round the English and Welsh coasts where such schemes could work. It does seem to me that some of what is being said about renewables is a tad too much like wishful thinking; castles in the air they may not be but in the economics of Independence people deserve some hard answers.
Nick Noble
15-Feb-12, 12:34
Thank you Nick - I can appreciate what you are saying but they are indeed 'claims' or so it seems to me.
The UK government canned the plans for a barrage across the Severn but it is a reminder that there are dozens of sites round the English and Welsh coasts where such schemes could work. It does seems to me that some of what is being said about renewables is a tad too much like wishful thinking; castles in the air they may not be but in the economics of Independence people deserve some hard answers.
Totally agree with you John, all I am saying is that the claims are not as far fetched as they may at first appear. It will need some proper explanations from those pushing for independence before anyone makes up their mind.
I have always believed that it is for those advocating change to make the case, not those who wish to maintain the status quo. So during the referendum campaign we should see lots of detailed answers to the how where what when etc making the case for independence. The job of those wishing to see Scotland remain in the UK is simply to ask the questions and rebut the answers. It is not up to those wishing to see the continuation of the union to make a positive case for that.
Interesting comments from Murdoch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17106365
Could this be his revenge for being spurned by the Establishment? If he chooses to direct his media group to 'support' independence it would be a huge poke in the eye for Government Unionists.
Interesting comments from Murdoch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17106365
Could this be his revenge for being spurned by the Establishment? If he chooses to direct his media group to 'support' independence it would be a huge poke in the eye for Government Unionists.
Part of me thinks this could be a poisoned chalice or a kiss of death. Even a very elaborate tactic. Is it better for Scottish Independence to have the support or opposition of Rupert Murdock. Then again I suppose anyone is free to comment on it.
What Murdoch has a tendency of doing is finding who was going to win anyway, put his support behind them then convince them that they wouldn't have won without him.
This will help Oor Eck, with this crook backing him
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/21/rupert-murdorch-tweets-on-scotland-independence-_n_1290090.html?ref=uk
A bit off topic, but where is there any wave energy operating on the scottish coast?
I have seen the experimental project on Mainland Orkney but am not aware of any that are producing electricity to the grid.
There are how ever projects already on stream off the coast of Cornwall, in The Severn Eastuary and in Northern Ireland at Strangford Loch.
Seems a little strange that Mr Salmond keeps banging on about it but others are stealing a march on the scots.
Makes one wonder what other things he is leading up up the garden path about.
The Unionist Timeline for Scotland:
http://i.imgur.com/CXbLm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CXbLm.jpg
It's a state of mind right enough. :lol:
Well I've given up. It matters not what you say in favour of the Union, it is seen as negative by Nats.
Scotland will get what it votes for and therefore deserves. And I no longer care.
John Little
27-Feb-12, 09:06
The strongest argument that I can see in favour of the Union is that division into its component parts would be a reversion to a former state and that those components would be smaller and weaker than the whole.
I have not the slightest doubt that Scotland and Wales could go it alone - and indeed so could England. But together, in terms of wealth, influence, population, economy they are a larger unit in a world where the larger units often prosper more and where small fish do not.
A true Federalism would preserve this whilst giving the benefits of union.
I see Rupert Murdoch is in cahoots with oor Eck again, they are plotting a deal to move his UK operations north to Scotland. This Aussie billionaire has vowed to support Eck in his campaign for Independance, if Eck cuts corporation tax from 26% to between 10% and 15%. Murdoch has hinted he will then relocate Sky TV and non editorial newspaper staff from the Sun and Times in return.
Its news like this that makes me distrust oor Eck.
if Eck cuts corporation tax from 26% to between 10% and 15%. Murdoch has hinted he will then relocate Sky TV and non editorial newspaper staff from the Sun and Times in return.
Its news like this that makes me distrust oor Eck.
It is but business! And this is what an independent Scotland needs to do to get business.
As part of their location decision process, large businesses look at the tax basis like we go shopping: Beans are cheaper in Lidl than Tesco, we buy 'em from Lidl. If Tax is cheaper in Scotland, we base in Scotland. Seemples.
It is why tax hikes don't work, the money just goes elsewhere.
If 'Wee Eck' is going to create a taxation system aimed at bring business in, and putting money into the Scottish Treasury then that means we get more job opportunities and potentially less taxation as individuals then that has to be a positive!! ?
(he is dancing with the devil though)
(he is dancing with the devil though)
I think he is in bed with the devil [disgust]
Well done Golach. The most positive post on the whole thread. Well done to Mr salmond too.
He is bringing jobs to Scotland, what more do you want Golach?
Murdoch is a billionaire and we need as many of those as we can get!
Would you rather see Alex sat on his bum and do nothing?
This is brilliant news if it is true but I notice you dont post any evidence..(yet again)!!
C3.................:roll::roll:
This is brilliant news if it is true but I notice you dont post any evidence..(yet again)!!C3.................
Just read newspapers, Corrie 3, as I do, the Scotsman has the story, as does the Guardian, and of course so does the Daily Record, and a few others, possibly even Murdoch's comic the Sun will run it too, but I refuse to buy anything that News International print, so cannot comment at the moment.
Lets hope its true - so many jobs are lost to Scotland that it is good to see at the very least discussions on how an independent Scotland would increase inward investment. And as for in bed with the devil well, when i was involved in helping unemployed people I would have sold my SOUL for good long term jobs in Caithness alone - never mind Scotland as a whole. The whole system seemed stacked against people living up here.
Murdoch may be a slime ball and we might be able to sit on our laurels and pontificate about it not being the sort of man we want to do business with but by God if he is offerend good well paid jobs in Scotland then my sniffiness would disappear out the window as fast as anything. We need must and have to get people back to work and the economy moving.
Careful, if we import too many billionaires they might vote Tory and give themselves bonuses.:eek:
Liberal Democrat specific but I found this an interesting read. Guess the leaders are shooting themselves in the foot but what do I care: Leadership defeats pro-change rebels at Scottish conference (http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2012/03/leadership-defeat-pro-change-rebels-at.html)
Interesting comments on the Daily Politics today about competition between the Clyde and Portsmouth for RN contracts. Support ships aside, the RN has never sent a contract for a fighting ship outside the UK. So come independence when Scotland is outside the UK.........
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.