View Full Version : North sea oil.
piratelassie
13-Jul-12, 21:59
I read in some of today,s press that the Unionist parties are at the scare mongering over oil revenues again. They were sucessful in the 1970s, please do not be conned this time round. There is obviously years and years of production to come from the North Sea.
Aye right, Scotland does not own the North Sea for a start, provide us with proof that there is lots of oil left in the North Sea.
piratelassie
14-Jul-12, 00:25
Oh ye o little faith.
piratelassie
14-Jul-12, 00:27
Aye right, Scotland does not own the North Sea for a start, provide us with proof that there is lots of oil left in the North Sea. Oh ye o little faith.
I read in some of today,s press that the Unionist parties are at the scare mongering over oil revenues again. They were sucessful in the 1970s, please do not be conned this time round. There is obviously years and years of production to come from the North Sea.Which is fine, providing this can be substantiated. But your point being......
I'm assuming from previous postings that your point is something along the lines of loads of oil in the North Sea so Scotland can be independent. ???
Would you care to elaborate?
oldmarine
14-Jul-12, 04:53
Aye right, Scotland does not own the North Sea for a start, provide us with proof that there is lots of oil left in the North Sea.
I agree with golach. It would be great if true.
provide us with proof that there is lots of oil left in the North Sea.
Provide us with proof that there isn't!!!
C3.
I doubt it is about how much there is (and if Scotland can have it :lol: ) but how much it costs to extract compared to the price. With pretty much the world now in recession and the price rocketing downwards from recent unprecedented highs, all these foreign companies that extract it have easier pickings elsewhere.
If Scotland has nowt but NS Oil to balance to books, forget it.
If Scotland has nowt but NS Oil to balance to books, forget it.[/QUOTE]
Best thing you can have to balance books...Is Oil
Also there's a fair bit on Engineering in Scotland..What else?
Mrs Bucket
14-Jul-12, 11:30
Eggs and Baskets spring to mind.
equusdriving
14-Jul-12, 11:40
Provide us with proof that there isn't!!!
C3.
oh I get it, its like the Emperors new clothes :lol:
Does it really matter how much oil there is left to be found in the North Sea. If Scotland has only Oil to rely on then in the not too distant future it will be in a sorry state. Mind you it will not worry me as I wont be around to if this happens as I will be 6ft under long before then.
piratelassie
14-Jul-12, 13:53
Eggs and Baskets spring to mind. Our "eggs" are obviously not all in one basket.
To add an interesting aside - in Alaska, because of the revenues from the oil (remember, it's a state not a country), there is no income tax, no vat, virtually no tax at all.
And every single person, man woman and child, receives a bounty from the interest on the $35 Billion (approx.) oil fund every year. I believe that the least it has been was $800 and the most $2200.
But Thatcher (Tories) needed the oil to shore up her ailing regime didn't she?
billmoseley
14-Jul-12, 19:11
north sea oil will be gone in years to come so we will have to find some other way of making ends meet Scots are good at that. But i'm sure the big eck will provide us with detailed budgets for the next 20 years after independence
To add an interesting aside - in Alaska, because of the revenues from the oil (remember, it's a state not a country), there is no income tax, no vat, virtually no tax at all.
And every single person, man woman and child, receives a bounty from the interest on the $35 Billion (approx.) oil fund every year. I believe that the least it has been was $800 and the most $2200.
But Thatcher (Tories) needed the oil to shore up her ailing regime didn't she?
Alaskan oil revenues (from the figure you've quoted) are roughly twice as much ($35B vs £12B) as that of the north sea.
The Alaskan bounty (again, from your figures) is between £520 and £1400 per year.
So that's between £260 and £700 for Scotland with half the revenues.
But Alaska has a population of 13% (720,000 vs 5.2Mililion) that of the Scotland.
So Scotland would get between £33.80 and £91 bounty per person, per year.
Interesting indeed.
To add an interesting aside - in Alaska, because of the revenues from the oil (remember, it's a state not a country), there is no income tax, no vat, virtually no tax at all.
And that's not strictly true, is it.
The still have to pay federal income tax of between 10 and 35%, plus several other national taxes.
AND they don't get free heathcare.
How would the Bounty of $35Billion be shared between the 720,00 Population of Alaska?
If it was a straight share, ie $35Billion divided by 720,00, then each share would be $48,611 So I am confused by the $2,200 figure.
Also £12Billion divided by 5.2 million would be £2,307.
How would the Bounty of $35Billion be shared between the 720,00 Population of Alaska?
If it was a straight share, ie $35Billion divided by 720,00, then each share would be $48,611 So I am confused by the $2,200 figure.
Also £12Billion divided by 5.2 million would be £2,307.
The $35 Billion is the total oil revenue.
The "Bounty" is the profit "given back" to the people.
Some might call it an incentive, others a bribe.
Yes it is like the emporers new clothes. I know a 6 year old who loves that story.
How would the Bounty of $35Billion be shared between the 720,00 Population of Alaska?
If it was a straight share, ie $35Billion divided by 720,00, then each share would be $48,611 So I am confused by the $2,200 figure.
Also £12Billion divided by 5.2 million would be £2,307.
Maybe if you read my original post accurately you would find the answer :-))
And anyway, the post was to illustrate the kind of benefit to Scotland, that having control of North Sea Oil, from the start might have brought
Yorkshire didn't have control of it's coal, Cheshire it's salt why should it be any different for Scotland?
And anyway, the post was to illustrate the kind of benefit to Scotland, that having control of North Sea Oil, from the start might have brought
No doubt, it would have been a great benefit from the start. But it's not now a viable argument for the future, which is what the independance debate should be about.
If the seperatists spent as much time planning ahead as they do moaning about the past, maybe there would be real answers to the pressing questions that need answered.
Yorkshire didn't have control of it's coal, Cheshire it's salt why should it be any different for Scotland?
These are counties in England - Scotland is a nation, therefore clear difference.
No doubt, it would have been a great benefit from the start. But it's not now a viable argument for the future, which is what the independance debate should be about.
If the seperatists spent as much time planning ahead as they do moaning about the past, maybe there would be real answers to the pressing questions that need answered.
Aye, maybe.
And maybe if there hadn't been strange parameters placed on the first vote things would have been different.
And maybe if lies hadn't been told about the prospects for oil wealth things would have been different.
Hindsight's braw!
piratelassie
14-Jul-12, 23:50
Norways Oil fund, need I say more?
piratelassie
15-Jul-12, 00:44
Norways Oil fund, need I say more?
These are counties in England - Scotland is a nation, therefore clear difference.
Not really. Scotland wasn't devolved at the time, so regions of the UK, same difference.
Actually, as the coal and salt is actually under the regions involved, and not miles and miles away in British territorial waters, you could say they have more right to exclusively keep the revenue. :D
The persistence in Calling Scotland a region like yorkshire or cheshire puzzles me. As English person moving to live in Scotland in 1997 I didnt feel that I was moving to another county. I felt I was moving to another COUNTRY. It was different - different education, different house buying laws, different language (and thats before they put the gaelic signs up). It maybe took me weeks rather than months to understand the locals but Living in Caithness was as different from living in Rochdale as living in France was. The people are different too although I maintain that the people of the North of England and those in The Highlands share a "what you see is what you get" sort of approach to life. Perhaps it was more pronounced because I moved to Caithness rather than say - Edinburgh or Dundee but I always thought I was moving to a different country and the people that I have met and shared my life with since moving also think that Scotland is a different Country - a Nation in its own right. IT seems a bit dismissive to refer to Scotland as North Britain.
The oil will stay or run out and its like the economy - the YES campaign say one way the NO Campaign say another. Both have the most eminent experts to support their position and both believe what they are saying is the truth. People will make their decision about independence based on more than the economy or the oil.
They believe what they are saying is the truth.
Sweeping statement there squidge as they are just as likely to say the opposite the next day, what they need to be saying is what the voters will believe and the chance of that happening is about odds of 100 to 1.
I'm more concerned by what they don't say if I'm honest as it makes me wonder what's being swept under the carpet.
Not really. Scotland wasn't devolved at the time, so regions of the UK, same difference.
Actually, as the coal and salt is actually under the regions involved, and not miles and miles away in British territorial waters, you could say they have more right to exclusively keep the revenue. :D
Have a look at this link
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Act-of-Union/
and this one
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/1
Scotland was a kingdom, not a kingdom, not a county.
A different country all together...
They believe what they are saying is the truth.
Sweeping statement there squidge as they are just as likely to say the opposite the next day, what they need to be saying is what the voters will believe and the chance of that happening is about odds of 100 to 1.
I'm more concerned by what they don't say if I'm honest as it makes me wonder what's being swept under the carpet.
You are right lizz and on both sides of the political viewpoint. The evidence is there to support both views and its up to us to choose which one we want to accept because there is NO chance of making an informed decision based solely on the Economy or Oil - whatever political view you take. I find it frustrating and irritating and I hope it becomes clearer as we progress through the next couple of years but I doubt it. Lies, damned lies and the economy! I struggle to believe anything the UK government says and I accept that this is a flaw in my reasoning so I have tried to be as objective as possible. I have read stuff by economists and avoided the SNP comments on the matter. I have asked people I know who are knowledgeable and involved in this field but it is no clearer - for every argument there is a counter argument and so we continue. The YES experts give a good argument to say that Scotland CAN afford independence and the NO experts give a good argument to say that Scotland will struggle and the oil question is part of that. Even David Cameron says on the one hand Scotland IS able to stand on her own two feet and then on the next breath that Scotland will struggle to do so. I tuned into Scottish Questions last time it was on to see if that would help enlighten me and I wished I hadn't bothered. It seemed to consist of conservative and lib dem MPs standing up and asking variations of the same question which was largely "does the Right Honorable gentleman ( Michael Moore) agree that Scotland will be rubbish at x,y, or z under independence? and with Michael Moore responding with a variation on " Absolutely and the sooner they realise this the better" The only change came when in response to Labour questioning he replied with variations on " Its not our fault You started it and left your mess behind". SNP questions were jeered and booed and treated with derision. I nearly lost the will to live watching this and I wont bother again.
As for me? Well my decision to support independence is based on other things apart from the economy and oil and I am happy with that. I will continue to research and consider the economic arguments in the hope that it will become clearer or that I will become smarter and able to understand the whole thing but I doubt it.
Norways Oil fund, need I say more?Yes you do. This is not Norway and we do not have, nor will get, an oil fund regardless of independence. Norway is one of the most expensive countries to live in in the world, but again, independence in Scotland isn't going to change that or history.
oldmarine
15-Jul-12, 17:10
You are right lizz and on both sides of the political viewpoint. The evidence is there to support both views and its up to us to choose which one we want to accept because there is NO chance of making an informed decision based solely on the Economy or Oil - whatever political view you take. I find it frustrating and irritating and I hope it becomes clearer as we progress through the next couple of years but I doubt it. Lies, damned lies and the economy! I struggle to believe anything the UK government says and I accept that this is a flaw in my reasoning so I have tried to be as objective as possible. I have read stuff by economists and avoided the SNP comments on the matter. I have asked people I know who are knowledgeable and involved in this field but it is no clearer - for every argument there is a counter argument and so we continue. The YES experts give a good argument to say that Scotland CAN afford independence and the NO experts give a good argument to say that Scotland will struggle and the oil question is part of that. Even David Cameron says on the one hand Scotland IS able to stand on her own two feet and then on the next breath that Scotland will struggle to do so. I tuned into Scottish Questions last time it was on to see if that would help enlighten me and I wished I hadn't bothered. It seemed to consist of conservative and lib dem MPs standing up and asking variations of the same question which was largely "does the Right Honorable gentleman ( Michael Moore) agree that Scotland will be rubbish at x,y, or z under independence? and with Michael Moore responding with a variation on " Absolutely and the sooner they realise this the better" The only change came when in response to Labour questioning he replied with variations on " Its not our fault You started it and left your mess behind". SNP questions were jeered and booed and treated with derision. I nearly lost the will to live watching this and I wont bother again.
As for me? Well my decision to support independence is based on other things apart from the economy and oil and I am happy with that. I will continue to research and consider the economic arguments in the hope that it will become clearer or that I will become smarter and able to understand the whole thing but I doubt it.
Interesting comments by squidge. I picked up on a separate Scotland or a United Kingdom. I remember reading about the United States as opposed to two separate countries during its civil war. Would both separate countries be as strong as one un-divided country? I doubt it. But then that is supposition and it's my view. Others may have stronger and better arguments.
piratelassie
15-Jul-12, 18:01
Yes you do. This is not Norway and we do not have, nor will get, an oil fund regardless of independence. Norway is one of the most expensive countries to live in in the world, but again, independence in Scotland isn't going to change that or history.With oil and gas revenue Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest nation per capita in the developed world.
weezer 316
15-Jul-12, 18:55
Hahahaha! paratelassie your either unable to cite refernces or your Alex salmond. Its well knows mnorth sea oil is down by a third in production since the late ninties and no amount of nonsese on a forum will change that. Further more, can I ask why has scotland been in deficit for most fo the past 30 years yet our oil has contributed to our tax take thats paid into the treasury? Can you also clarify how you figured out we would have the 6th highest per capita income in the world please!?!?
Maybe I can help with Pirate Lassie's Comment weezer.
Firstly there is the issue of why North Sea Oil production is down and that does NOT appear to be because there is not enough of it. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62155862-66ed-11e1-9e53-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20iQ1LPqn and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/22/centrica-north-sea-oil-gas-profits indicate that it costs more to get oil from the North Sea and that due to lack of investment and age there are higher maintenance costs. Something an investment in the industry might sort out.
Secondly - the deficit over the last 30 years is a UK deficit. The Oil has indeed contrinuted to our tax take which has gone into the UK coffers and been spent on UK policies. An Independent Scotland would spend taxes raised in Scotland here - in Scotland. There is evidence that if Scotland had kept the oil revenue over the last thrity years it woul have had an economy with a surplus or a small deficit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland but that is debatable.
It also seems to be widely accepted that Scotland would have the 6th highest per capita income see http://fullfact.org/factchecks/scotland_independence_salmond_economy-3239 and even the Unionist Express concedes this point. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/293619/Economic-boost-puts-Scotland-on-par-with-wealthy-south-east-
That wasnt particularly hard to find and I know that the economy is a no win argument but use your own google finger next time lol
I have tried not to use SNP sites but I might have made a mistake and done so - if I have im sorry - I always try to find an alternative reference for this stuff.
Have a look at this link
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Act-of-Union/
and this one
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/1
Scotland was a kingdom, not a kingdom, not a county.
A different country all together...
I'm not doubting Scotland is a seperate country, just why that gives it the right to keep British assets to itself. Scotland has gained great economic benefit from oil. Aberdeen and Grangemouth testify to that.
Oh ye o little faith.
faith and fact have only one thing in common: the letter "f". Fact is that oil is finite. Extracting it is requiring ever more ingenious engineering. And then we burn it. I have no idea what is going to be done when we do not have oil for all the other things we need it for, other than fuel. but I believe (and maybe this will be my reference to faith) that future generations, probably still in some of our lifetimes, will despair at our greed, wastefulness and sense of entitlement to resources to te point of their exhaustion.
With oil and gas revenue Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest nation per capita in the developed world.
No.
IF Scotland had oil and gas revenue for the last 40 years, it might have been.
But it didn't.
That's living in the past. What about the future?
Exactly theone - what about the future? Staying with the Union will be we can do what? We can be what? We can achieve what?
I only ever seem to see Unionist arguments which say If we are independent then the oil will run out, the economy will crash and we wont get accepted into the EU and therefore we will become small and insignificant. Have we any positives? Staying with the Union will mean we can do what? We can be what? We can achieve what?
The oil will still run out if we are in the Union, the economy is rubbish anyhow and we spend millions and millions on trying to play with the big boys for what? So our soldiers can die in some corner of a foreign field? Lets have some optimism from those of you who support the Union and not simply "the oil will end and we are just too poor too wee and too stupid to be anything without it".
Exactly theone - what about the future? Staying with the Union will be we can do what? We can be what? We can achieve what?
Squidge, what are the economic advantages to leaving the Union going to be? What will we achieve if we leave?
No Golach I asked first lol. Do you have an answer for MY questions? If you do then I will happily come back to you with an answer for yours... although I struggle with the economy for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous posts. I will at least give it a go but I asked first so on ya go - lets have an answer. I'm not being confrontational here I would like to see real answers and positive ides for Scotland within the Union. I may very well agree with the answers - its about debate not point scoring.
Lol Squidge 30 - love to you [lol]
bluechesse
16-Jul-12, 10:05
Norways Oil fund, need I say more?Yes, quite a lot more, because so far nothing of what you have said actually means anything.So as far as I know, Norways oil fields are operated by Statoil, which is a company operated by the norweigian government. This means the profits from the oil goes directly in to the country's coffers. All UKCS licences have been sold to various independent oil companies, some based on the UK with head offices in LONDON, and many others based abroad.Firstly this means that the UK government sees only the tax they levy on these companies, not the total profit.Secondly, should Scotland gain independence, who would be able to tax the oil companies? Since they will become English companies as opposed to British companies, unfortunately I would think the Scottish government would not be the one to benefit from the tax....Might have some of this wrong, if so I'll be happy to be corrected (as long as you have some basis for this and are not just blethering a load of old guff). But as I understand it, you can not possibly compare Scotland to norway, for the reasons listed above as well as many other listed in this thread.Also, you can't possible hope to base Scotland's income as an independent country on the oil industry, regardless of it's finite lifespan.Let's face it, unless you think we can survive on tourism, whiskey, farming and national pride alone, regrettably it's a bit of a struggle to see how this nation would make ends meet.I'm all for national pride, and I've listened to all of big Alec's ideas and plans, along with those of all the other members of the SNP and all the nationalists on here, but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that we can prosper as an independent country.
piratelassie
16-Jul-12, 10:50
Yes, quite a lot more, because so far nothing of what you have said actually means anything.So as far as I know, Norways oil fields are operated by Statoil, which is a company operated by the norweigian government. This means the profits from the oil goes directly in to the country's coffers. All UKCS licences have been sold to various independent oil companies, some based on the UK with head offices in LONDON, and many others based abroad.Firstly this means that the UK government sees only the tax they levy on these companies, not the total profit.Secondly, should Scotland gain independence, who would be able to tax the oil companies? Since they will become English companies as opposed to British companies, unfortunately I would think the Scottish government would not be the one to benefit from the tax....Might have some of this wrong, if so I'll be happy to be corrected (as long as you have some basis for this and are not just blethering a load of old guff). But as I understand it, you can not possibly compare Scotland to norway, for the reasons listed above as well as many other listed in this thread.Also, you can't possible hope to base Scotland's income as an independent country on the oil industry, regardless of it's finite lifespan.Let's face it, unless you think we can survive on tourism, whiskey, farming and national pride alone, regrettably it's a bit of a struggle to see how this nation would make ends meet.I'm all for national pride, and I've listened to all of big Alec's ideas and plans, along with those of all the other members of the SNP and all the nationalists on here, but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that we can prosper as an independent country. Bluecheese, are you seriously suggesting that Scotland would not be better off with oil revenues coming to Edinburgh not Westminster?.
What are these revenues and are they greater than the treasury budget is currently issued by Westminster?
Let's face it, unless you think we can survive on tourism, whiskey, farming and national pride alone,
Ok, so we stay in the UK and when the oil runs out what do we survive on then? Are you suggesting that the UK parliament will look after Scotland with no funds coming in? When the oil runs out the UK is doomed, we have been living off it for the past 50years and no UK Govt has made any plans for when it runs out! I fear it will be chaos and I am convinced that SE England will try and look after itself to the detriment of the rest of the UK. If Scotland has an uncertain future then I think the UK is going to be struggling with an even greater uncertainty.
C3...........:eek:
equusdriving
16-Jul-12, 11:12
are you seriously suggesting that Scotland would not be better off with oil revenues coming to Edinburgh not Westminster?.
That surely will depend on whether the total out goings of an independent Scotland would be less than the total income,
Ok, so we stay in the UK and when the oil runs out what do we survive on then? Are you suggesting that the UK parliament will look after Scotland with no funds coming in? When the oil runs out the UK is doomed, we have been living off it for the past 50years and no UK Govt has made any plans for when it runs out! I fear it will be chaos and I am convinced that SE England will try and look after itself to the detriment of the rest of the UK. If Scotland has an uncertain future then I think the UK is going to be struggling with an even greater uncertainty.I'm afraid he SE UK has been looking after itself for quite sometime, and I know people don't like the comparison of regions to country's but SE UK has been screwing the rest of England and Wales for a good while and it's not just Westminster v Scotland. It's Westminster politicos (many of Scottish birth or decent (with 'second' first homes) in the SE) sticking two fingers up to the rest of UK.
It is REALLY hard to understand the economics of an Independent Scotland but there are a couple of points which are worth making.
1. An Independent Scotland keeping ALL the revenue it receives, how ever much it is, would be able to spend that on Priorites decided by the Scottish Government for Scotland.
2. Those priorities would be decided by Parties voted in at the election AFTER the referendum which will select the party to take Scotland into Independence. Therefore WE - the people that live here in Scotland would decide with our vote the party which offers the policies which WE - the people of Scotland decide are our priorities.
3. http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-releases/scots-thousands-of-pounds-better-off-after-independence is one view. There are others and its impossible to know whether they are right or not whatever your side of the argument is. But given that the two options above apply it seems to me that we are best placed to decide how to raise our money and how to spend our money.
Oh and yesterday there was this reported in the Telegraph. Something ELSE to think about - my head is mince lol
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9401798/North-Sea-gets-second-wind.html#
equusdriving
16-Jul-12, 12:11
1. An Independent Scotland keeping ALL the revenue it receives, how ever much it is, would be able to spend that on Priorites decided by the Scottish Government for Scotland.
So we may end up with naff all but at least we can decide what we do with our naff all, or put another way, we may be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire but at least its our oil that's burning on the fire
That's fine squidge that an independent country should keep all it's revenues but there is no assurance that The Crown Estate would relinquish their claims and even if they did, how long would it take for the necessary legislation to be passed and implemented?
In the interim, with a small and aging population where are the funds to come from that are needed to run even basic services?
With a burdgeoning health service that is already collapsing in it's duty of care and other social commitments the task would seem to be impossible.
I have tried numerous times to get the figures but neither the council or Holyrood seems able to supply them and those that have been widely quoted more often than not have holes in them that would make a colander seem water tight!
Unless the laws of economics have changed then some thing some where is just not adding up.
It's always a delight to discover a coven of Scots all mouthing to each other "we're doomed" every time a "hopeless" situation arises (as in a situation which will not work to their direct and immediate benefit), but in the case of "when the oil runs out" I am reminded of the MP who got to his feet at the end of the 19th century and pronounced doom all round "Do not the honourable members realise, that with the increasing volume of horse-drawn traffic in London, then scientists and other experts tell us that the Capital will be chest-high in horse excrement by 1910".
Mr Henry Ford and others were thinking differently, and the internal combustion engine became the necessity which was the mother of invention.
By the time whosever oil runs out, there will, I am sure, be a superior replacement in the market place.
We are not all doomed. Not even in dear old Scotland.
Calvinism has a lot to answer for......
Well naff all seems a bit pessimistic lol - even David Cameron says that Scotland is able to hold its own economically although it does depend on what day you catch him on. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
It is the assumption that things will stand still that baffles me. We will change and grow and develop and things will be different - I believe in a positive way nut that is my choice. We are sitting here as part of the UK with the commonly accepted suggestion that we have at least 10 more years of austerity and in the meantime Scotland is contributing money to things like the newly announced rail upgrade, whilst the A9 is surely heading for the title of Scotland's deadliest road.
Lizz - things ARE failing there is no doubt about that . If they are failing now then are they going to get any better under the UK government? An Independent Scotland would be able to target its spending in a way that it isn't able to just now. We would have borrowing capacity which we dont have now. the grant to Scotland from the Uk is reduced by the savings that the UK government expect to make by the NHS reforms which we are not implementing - despite that the savings have been applied to the block grant. The same with higher education - the block grant is reduced by the savings that tuition fees are making depsite the fact that Tuition fees are not charged in Scotland. If you choose to believe the experts that say we will be better off - the new scientist, the Adam smith Institute, or those who say we will be worse off - look them up - that is up to you - No one is going to change their mind based on the economic arguments because you cant unravel them.
This is what I think and me only. I beleive that we can make an Independent Scotland work. Now - note that I said WE not the SNP. The changes in the political landscape will be significant after a YES vote in the referendum and WE will have a better choice. Things are not going to change overnight - we are only starting the process and its up to us how it works out.
By the time whosever oil runs out, there will, I am sure, be a superior replacement in the market place.
We are not all doomed. Not even in dear old Scotland.
.
My, what sweeping statements, you ought to be a Politician!!
I see you have nothing to back up these sweeping statements and I am really looking forward to this "Superior replacement" that you speak of!
Wishful thinking has a lot to answer for!!
C3..............:roll::eek:
bluechesse
16-Jul-12, 13:11
Bluecheese, are you seriously suggesting that Scotland would not be better off with oil revenues coming to Edinburgh not Westminster?.Um, no. That's absolutely not what I'm suggesting. Read the post! I'm telling you that the revenues from the North Sea oil industry simply WON'T flood in to the Scottish government coffers. The profits will continue to go to the oil companies who bought the rights to each block from the UK government. And the taxes levied on these companies are likely to continue to go to Westminster as the companies are registered in London, not Edinburgh.
equusdriving
16-Jul-12, 13:25
. We are sitting here as part of the UK with the commonly accepted suggestion that we have at least 10 more years of austerity and in the meantime Scotland is contributing money to things like the newly announced rail upgrade, whilst the A9 is surely heading for the title of Scotland's deadliest road.
Yes and if there is any change left from the oil revenue perhaps it could be used to pay back the money used to bailout the Scottish banks :D
bluechesse
16-Jul-12, 13:25
Ok, so we stay in the UK and when the oil runs out what do we survive on then? Are you suggesting that the UK parliament will look after Scotland with no funds coming in? When the oil runs out the UK is doomed, we have been living off it for the past 50years and no UK Govt has made any plans for when it runs out! I fear it will be chaos and I am convinced that SE England will try and look after itself to the detriment of the rest of the UK. If Scotland has an uncertain future then I think the UK is going to be struggling with an even greater uncertainty.C3...........:eek:When the oil runs out we are doomed? Geez, wouldn't want to meet you on a bad day...... Is you glass always half empty? Yes, I'm suggesting we stay in the UK, because before the oil runs out we'll continue to benefit from the revenue it creates, from the employment it creates, and compared to other poorer countries, we will continue to live comfortable life's. If we were to gain independence, I'm not sure that we would benefit from it. People need to stop assuming that because the oil platforms are off the coast of Scotland it's Scotland's oil, this simply is not the case. It belongs to the oil companies who bought the exploration blocks.Your argument seems to be that we should vote for independence because the oil will run out. Oh no! Woe is me! The oils running out! Think of the children! Vote for independence quick!Sorry, I just can't see the logic there at all.
Yes, I'm suggesting we stay in the UK, because before the oil runs out we'll continue to benefit from the revenue it creates, from the employment it creates, and compared to other poorer countries, we will continue to live comfortable life's.
That is short term thinking surely? You are saying before the oil runs out we will be fine but after it stops flowing? What then? Have you ever stopped and imagined a UK without oil?
An Independent Scotland would be better positioned to recover from oil shortages than if we stay in the UK because we all know that recovery in the UK will be SE England based and the rest of the UK would be the ones suffering. Also, an Independent Scotland could entice oil companies to Scotland by reducing the high taxation which is imposed on them at the moment. That would give the oil companies more money to invest in exploration which they are reluctant to do at present.
We also have a brilliant engineering background which was and still could be the best in the world but which has been ravaged by past Governments.
It's not about sentiment and Braveheart, it's about securing a future for generations to come!
C3.............;)
Yes and if there is any change left from the oil revenue perhaps it could be used to pay back the money used to bailout the Scottish banks :D
Aha lol the banks - ok. Firstly there is a whole lot of nothing being talked about what ifs - people on this board have given others a row for saying that if we had been independent then we would have had an oil fund and now we have you saying that if we were independent we would not have been able to bail out the banks. Its all conjecture isnt it.
Lets see
We do have conflicting views ..... However there is the view that we probably wouldnt have had to... says Andrew Hughes Hallet - Professor of Economics at St Andrews University.
“By international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks. In the case of the RBS…roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland.” RBS is about as Scottish as I am. Im going to give you this link - http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2011/07/scotland-and-the-banking-bailout-time-for-the-truth.html I know it is Joan Macalpine and I try to avoid the SNP pages but it includes links to the interviews and the newsweek interview itself so you can check out the veracity of the comments. I thought it was ok.
In addition, I would expect that an independent Scotland would avoid the mistakes which led to the banking crash. We wont be able to change things quickly but there should at least be more of a will to do so here in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, where there appears to have been a culture of lets fiddle everything we possibly can whilst the politicians look the other way. Once again WE can vote for the parties which meet our priorities and offer us - the voters - plans for a more robust and better financial framework for Scotland.
bluechesse
16-Jul-12, 17:41
That is short term thinking surely? You are saying before the oil runs out we will be fine but after it stops flowing? What then? Have you ever stopped and imagined a UK without oil?An Independent Scotland would be better positioned to recover from oil shortages than if we stay in the UK because we all know that recovery in the UK will be SE England based and the rest of the UK would be the ones suffering. Also, an Independent Scotland could entice oil companies to Scotland by reducing the high taxation which is imposed on them at the moment. That would give the oil companies more money to invest in exploration which they are reluctant to do at present.We also have a brilliant engineering background which was and still could be the best in the world but which has been ravaged by past Governments.It's not about sentiment and Braveheart, it's about securing a future for generations to come!C3.............;)Am I thinking short term, or are you thinking of a long term solution to a problem that might be so for in the futurewe can not possibly hope to plan for it successfully?No one knows when the oil will run out, estimations both educated and completely uneducated vary dramatically. And, as someone posted earlier, when it does hopefully we will have developed somwthing viable to replace it (personally I think we already have-nuclear energy-but that's a whole different debate). Personally I think we are better off as part of the UK now, and still will be when it does run put. Yes, the South of England may well benefit from recovery first, but I don't see that as being any different to the current situation. They are benefiting from the recovery from recession first, but most of us on here still choose to live here. That alone tells it's own story.Going from part of the union to independence now will simply leave us with a much smaller national income, and whether the oil runs out in 2 year or 200 years will make not a jot of difference to this situation. The only way I can see a Scottish government being able to fund running this country is by raising taxes. I firmly believe that will be the case on the end, and as such I find the idea that they may lower the taxes levied on the oil companies, although it's undoubtedly a god long term strategy, to be completely unbelievable.
As with anything in the Indy debate both sides are using subjective variables as a defined fact or truth and chanting it like a mantra. And the oil issue is just another diversion as no one can offer up facts or how the finances of it will work. Frankly a business plan is needed, however a business plan devised by politicos is doomed to failure!
subjective variables? Is that the same as saying you pays your money and takes your choice. People will make their minds up on other things and take the line on the economy which supports their general view. There is nothing else to do. Both sides have their own experts and supporters and it is absolutely impossible to get to the bottom of the whole thing. Its not a mantra - its a matter of finding a route through the forest of economic madness.
Anyhow I still havent had any answers to the question I posed a bit earlier. "Staying in the union will mean that we can be what? We can do what and we will achieve what? Any takers?
In my mind, if noone can offer a credible argument for either side of the debate, then I would be for keeping it as it is. There is no problem in my opinion not living in the South East (I never have), there is a lot of paranoia about it though.
For its size, Edinburgh is just as financially vibrant as London. (I have lived and worked there).
Anyhow I still havent had any answers to the question I posed a bit earlier. "Staying in the union will mean that we can be what? We can do what and we will achieve what? Any takers?
I don't know what you want to hear. You have made it clear you are dissatisfied with the status quo. I'm not. You don't like the coalition, wait a while, you don't like globalisation, market lead economys, our relationship with the US. Independence won't change much of this. (I certainly don't like a burgeoning relationship with China!
You seem to suggest that an independent Scotland will be more careing, why? Do you think Scots polititians have a better moral or social ethic? Westminster is full of 'em.
I don't think an independent Scotland will crash and burn, but I do think in an uncertain world, we would be worse off.
I do think it is being used to procrastinate. If you see something that ought to be changed, do something about it. If you don't now why would you after independence?
For its size, Edinburgh is just as financially vibrant as London. (I have lived and worked there).
Edinburgh, never had any heavy industry, it relied on Banking, Insurance and Law to become financially vibrant, sadly that was history, all the Banks are broke, the Insurance companies have moved elswhere, well what can I say about the Law and Lawyers? All right if you are one. Edinburgh has a tram system who's costs are endless, a corrupt former Council, who have been found out, but are still in power ( http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/workers-from-five-firms-face-charges-over-repairs-scandal-1-2414255 ). In my opinion if Scotland goes Independent, Auld Reekie is up the Forth without a paddle.
subjective variables? Is that the same as saying you pays your money and takes your choice........... Its not a mantra - its a matter of finding a route through the forest of economic madness. Anyhow I still havent had any answers to the question I posed a bit earlier. "Staying in the union will mean that we can be what? We can do what and we will achieve what? Any takers?Not at all, the point being both sides can argue the toss over the oil and other issues. But we see the repetition of how wealthy Scotland will be with its Indy oil but little independent fiscal fact to bolster this and the amount of oil left is subjective. The Unionist stance that an independent Scotland will fail, again subjective and no facts. Sticking wih the thread topic of oil, what are the revenues that an Indy Scotland would get assuming the output is based on say a mean average over the last 10 yrs?
In my mind, if noone can offer a credible argument for either side of the debate, then I would be for keeping it as it is. . The problem is not that there is NO credible argument, it is that both sides DO have credible arguments.
You have made it clear you are dissatisfied with the status quo. I'm not Absolutely I am dissatisfied.I am sitting fairly comfortable with a roof over my head and food on my table, happy, healthy and warm - i might have too much month at the end of my money but Im not struggling like many people but that doesnt mean that I am happy with a society which is failing children in care by the bus load, where people are dying in hospital for want of proper care, where benefit recipients are treated like they are to blame for the state of the economy and where bankers bonuses are worth more than you or I might earn in our lifetime whilst those in work are worried they will be paid off next week. I cant be satisfied whilst these things are happening.
You don't like the coalition, wait a while, you don't like globalisation, market lead economys, I dont like the coalition because they dont care about people as mentioned above - the weak the vulnerable and the disaffected. ~As for the other two, I dont really know what they are Ducati.
our relationship with the US I dont dislike our relationship with the US. I have concerns about certain aspects of it - like the inequality that appears to exist in the extradition process but I am not overly concerned about our relationship with the US.
Independence won't change much of this. (I certainly don't like a burgeoning relationship with China! I can understand that too - Im not a great fan of developing a close relationship with them either.
You seem to suggest that an independent Scotland will be more careing, why? Do you think Scots polititians have a better moral or social ethic? Westminster is full of 'em. Thats not quite true, I believe an Independent Scotland has the opportunity to be more socially responsible because of the people of Scotland. They have more of a left of centre voting record which actually translates into a more socially responsible and aware electorate. I hope that in an independent Scotland the politics will lead to a better and fairer society and I believe that people WILL vote for the parties - whoever they are, that try to achieve this. I do actually think that across the board Politicians in Scotland are less likely to be fiddling and messing around with their expenses and the like but that''s probably because this is a new parliament and it isn't mired in the idea that they are "entitled".
I don't think an independent Scotland will crash and burn, but I do think in an uncertain world, we would be worse off. worse off how? Higher taxes? Less money in our pockets? Well maybe that isn't important to me personally - I would pay higher taxes for health and welfare reforms, on changing society and on better education and not on Trident or the Olympics or Railway links that go as far as Birmingham. If they went to Scotland for things that are important in Scottish society. Idealistic? You bet, Optimistic? Definitely and hopeful and excited and energised. I think this can be what we WANT it to be. It is an opportunity for change and I will try to make that happen.
I don't know what you want to hear......I do think it is being used to procrastinate. If you see something that ought to be changed, do something about it. If you don't now why would you after independence? Procrastinate? I have answered every question asked of me in this thread to the best of my ability and acknowledging that there are credible alternatives for those of a NO persuasion.
As for doing stuff now I am doing stuff to change things - I am writing, I am speaking, I am going to as many events as I possibly can to discuss and influence in any small way I can Scotland's future. Not because I think I am special or matter any more than the next person but I think I owe it to my children and to those who dont have the voice and the hard neck to do so. Im also doing other stuff to help those people who need help as best as I can but here isnt the place to talk about that.
What I want to hear positive ideas for the future - I want to hear the Unionists say that a future in the Union will enable Scotland to do THIS or THAT. That being in the Union means we can do this or this or this and that a future within the Union would be better because and I am NOT hearing it. Are you?
It may surprise you Ducati to know that I am GENUINELY interested in this debate and open to positive pro union suggestions. I care about the society we live in and I want it to be different and by god Im going to try to make it different as hard as I possibly can. What are you doing? Oh that's right we are back where we came in - you are happy with the status quo........
equusdriving
16-Jul-12, 21:32
What I want to hear positive ideas for the future - I want to hear the Unionists say that a future in the Union will enable Scotland to do THIS or THAT. That being in the Union means we can do this or this or this and that a future within the Union would be better because and I am NOT hearing it. Are you?
and I would also like hear that from the Independence side as all I seem to see and hear is , "everything will be better after independence" with no legit explanation or proof of why it will be so oh yeah and of course "oil,oil oil"
Lol I asked first Equus :) Thats how a debate works I say or ask something and then you answer and then ask something back. I have answered all the questions I have been asked so far to the best of my ability and now I would like a couple of answers - any takers?
Oh so true
Would be fine if Scotland could go it alone but nah me thinks .
equusdriving
16-Jul-12, 22:30
Lol I asked first Equus :) Thats how a debate works I say or ask something and then you answer and then ask something back. I have answered all the questions I have been asked so far to the best of my ability and now I would like a couple of answers - any takers?
I will be the first to admit I dont really have any answers lol but I am trying to find them ,but I just want to hear the honest pros and cons for both sides backed by facts and proof so I can make an informed decision
Oh that's right we are back where we came in - you are happy with the status quo........
In as much as I like being part of the UK. So sue me!
I don't disagree the world is messed up but that will require lots of very rich countrys to fix and it won' be quick.
I will be the first to admit I dont really have any answers lol but I am trying to find them ,but I just want to hear the honest pros and cons for both sides backed by facts and proof so I can make an informed decision
Me too!!!
In as much as I like being part of the UK. So sue me!
I don't disagree the world is messed up but that will require lots of very rich countrys to fix and it won' be quick.
I wasnt being derogatory Ducati - I simply meant we are back where we started. No it wont be quick but we have an opportunity - perhaps the best opportunity we will have in a generation - to start to make a difference and have a better society why would we not take that chance? because we are lazy? disinterested? dont care? I am making my decision by looking at both sides and trying to choose the one that will give us the best opportunity to change the things that are not working. I think the chance to make our own decisions and take responsibilty for raising our own revenue and setting our own priorities is the best way to do that.
And still, no one has answered the questions I asked
And still, no one has answered the questions I asked
As far as I can see, staying in the Union will retain the status quo. There are no 'gains' as such, but there are no apparent losses.
Stronger together and all that etc. etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Which, in a certain way is a good argument. It works, it ain't perfect but it works.
As far as I can see, staying in the Union will retain the status quo. There are no 'gains' as such, but there are no apparent losses.
Stronger together and all that etc. etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Which, in a certain way is a good argument. It works, it ain't perfect but it works.
Totally agree Phill, and what I would like is for Squidge, and her cronies to tell me what the advantages of going independent will be , then I may change my mind.........but I dinna think so!!!
I would like is for Squidge, and her cronies to tell me what the advantages of going independent will be Golach you are so rude sometimes. "Squidge and her cronies" What on earth does that mean? Just so as you know this Golach - I dont speak for anyone else except me. I don't belong to any political party - despite the fact that you always seem to want to think I am an SNP member - I am not. I respect you for your views and beliefs so please be respectful when asking me about mine.
Ok what do I think the advantages of Independence are.
There are a couple of things you need to understand about my beliefs before I start - Firstly you need to know that I thinnk Scotland is a different country country from Wales, Ireland and England. I dont beleive that it is "North Britain" or that it is just another region - like the North West or the Midlands. That isnt a new thing - I was taught in school that Scotland was a different country and I cant quite get me head round those who say it isnt.
The second thing is that I have quite a soapbox about fairness and equality for all people -I cant beleive that there is anyone out there who doesnt know this about me lol but its worth saying because it means that I am dissatisfied with the society we have today.
So given these two basic things - here is what I believe the advantages of Independence will be.
1. Absolutes
We will be able to raise our own money.
We will be able to spend our own money.
We will be able to target our spending to the priorities of Scotland
The political landscape will change after the referendum and offer more choice and so we will be able to vote and get a government which reflects the voting by the Scottish People.
No Trident
Free Education
2. Aspirations
We will be able to develop a democratic process which suits the People of Scotland and is our own. Last weekend the Electoral Reform society held "The people's gathering" which took 129 randomly selected people ( I was invited but didnt go because I have been ill ) and asked them for ideas about the sort of democracy Scotland could have - they will be taking forward this work to look at different ways of developing the ideas they received further. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk
We will be able to develop Scottish solutions to the problems we face here in Scotland with terrible health inequalities, social deprivation and lack of opportunities for the poorest in society.
We will be able to work towards creating wealth through inward investment, through an economy which puts growth and the creation of jobs at its heart and we can work to develop a more diverse business sector developing rules and regulations which try to curb the worst excesses of big business - tax avoidance, and banking shenanigans for a couple. Maybe even look at improving ethics within large companies.
We will be able to promote Scotland as an Independent country - this can only benefit things like tourism and rural issues. Although Edinburgh is not very close to places like Caithness it IS closer than Westminster and better able to understand the peculiar needs of the different areas within Scotland and therefore be able to address these issues better than Westminster.
We will be able to focus everything we do on creating a more equal and fairer society - closing the gap between poor and rich and working toward every child having the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
We will be able to develop a better welfare system which doesn't demonise people as wasters and scroungers and which could offer real help for those trying to find work by focusing on growth and investment to create jobs and help people back into work.
We will be able to make all decisions about Scotland's future, here in Scotland, by people that know Scotland and want the best for the people of Scotland.
That's a start but before you all jump up and down and say that I dont KNOW these things will happen. You are right I dont know but the overriding advantage of Independence for me is that we have the CHANCE to change things. We have the CHANCE to grasp an opportunity to do all of the above. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow or referndum+1day but it will change over the following weeks, months, years and decades. I might be dead before the things I want to see happen will happen but I honestly and truly beleive that I can do the best thing for my children and the future of Scotland by voting for Independence. The politicians cant make any of this happen. I don't believe there is a will to do any of the above at Westminster. Either with this government or with the current Labour Party. The only way any of the above things even stand a remote chance of happening is if WE make them happen - the people of Scotland by voting YES in the referendum.
That's it. That MY view on Independence. You can agree or disagree and I guess that Phil and Golach are right - if you are happy with the Status Quo and satisfied that we live in the best society we could live in then vote NO and be happy with that. I wont think you are stupid or ignorant - I am happy that I have looked at the issues which are important to me and made my decision based on those things and you have to do the same.
Squidge I never called you an SNP member, the term "Cronies" means friends and companions, and like thinking folk. So come off your political high horse.
As for your claims on when if ever Scotland becomes independent I would like to know a bit more detail on one or two of your Absolutes. Firstly how will we raise our own money? And will the priority targets be?
I see nothing wrong with having Trident bases in Scotland.
Now off to nurse my wrath at offending you
Aspirations much to be admired squidge but saddly you have not factored in how you would change attitudes and perceptions of those who currently have responsibility for the governance of the country at all levels.
It is quite obvious that at some points you too have been nonplussed by the crassness of many who should know better.
We already have a country that is divided purely by concentration of population and wealth generation so although on a lesser scale there is little difference between Scotland and England and we would just substitute Glasgow for London as an example.
Independent or not, oil rich or not, nothing will change unless attitudes change and a vote at the ballot box has never suceeded in doing that.
We will raise our own money through taxation and borrowing and other revenue streams which may be open to us - depending on the Government elected by the people of Scotland at the time.
The priority targets will be those decided by the elected government of Scotland. The people of Scotland will vote for the government they want based on the manifestos they put forward and therefore decide the priorities which are most important to Scotland at the time.
I dont want Nuclear weapons full stop and I dont want them in Scotland so that is important to me - it doesnt HAVE to be important to you Golach - Im not making YOUR decision for you.
And as for cronies - Im not going to argue etynmology with you golach but it isnt a nice friendly word - its a bit sneering and I thought it was rude. You tried to make a cheap political point and I think you are better than that.
Aspirations much to be admired squidge but saddly you have not factored in how you would change attitudes and perceptions of those who currently have responsibility for the governance of the country at all levels.
It is quite obvious that at some points you too have been nonplussed by the crassness of many who should know better.
We already have a country that is divided purely by concentration of population and wealth generation so although on a lesser scale there is little difference between Scotland and England and we would just substitute Glasgow for London as an example.
Independent or not, oil rich or not, nothing will change unless attitudes change and a vote at the ballot box has never suceeded in doing that.
the political landscape of the country has to change and it will. If there is a vote for an independent Scotland then the parties will change and new parties will emerge. The media will change and they are often responsible for changing attutides. Attitudes and perceptions will however not change overnight - I dont expect them to but I beleive that the only way we can influence that is by a vote at the ballot box and speaking up for what we beleive in and hold dear. If we raise our democratic voices and vote we can change things. Im not prepared to say "ITs too hard so why bother". I dont do that in the rest of my life and so I wont do that with this.
Again if you are happy with the status quo then thats fine. I am not and I HAVE to try to change it or what's the point????? What's the point in women dying so I could have a vote and not work my damndest to try to make it count? What's the point in being here if we dont try to be the best we can be individually and collectively? Allmy life I have done my best to influence the people I can to be better and achieve more - this is just an extension of this.
You are probably rolling your eyes and thinking Im a complete numpty but you know what.... I dont care. I will do the best that I - ME can do to be the best I can be and to bulid the best life I can for my children and everyone elses children and to influence society to be the best it can be. At the end of the day when I drop dead I will at the very least be able to say I did my bloody best. That's all I want. My best isnt your best - or anyone elses - its mine.
You can agree or disagree and I guess that Phil and Golach are right - if you are happy with the Status Quo and satisfied that we live in the best society we could live inMaybe I didn't expand on my comment. It is not my answer or argument for the Union, it is just what I can see as the argument for the Union, simply there is no gain or additional benefit to stay in the Union.
So given these two basic things - here is what I believe the advantages of Independence will be.
1. Absolutes
We will be able to raise our own money.
We will be able to spend our own money.
We will be able to target our spending to the priorities of Scotland
The political landscape will change after the referendum and offer more choice and so we will be able to vote and get a government which reflects the voting by the Scottish People.
No Trident
Free Education
Quite agree with the raising and spending our own finances to a degree, however, if an Independent Scotland joins the EU (as is being pitched) there will be a certain amount of budgetary control from Brussels. Along with other EU directives dictating many things.
News I've also seen today is an Independent Scotland joining NATO, so that's like being in the UK really but with Scotland picking up the tab.
I quite agree the political landscape will change, and I think possibly for the better across the rest of UK too. The political establishment as is, needs breaking up.
Trident will be with us for a long while.
Free education is fine, so long as we can afford it. I understand recent budgets for education i.e. new schools have been revised down.
We will be able to develop Scottish solutions to the problems we face here in Scotland with terrible health inequalities, social deprivation and lack of opportunities for the poorest in society. Caithness & Sutherland suffers from some of the worst disparities in health inequalities and social issues. All of which are run from, managed and financed by Inverness.
Let not the rose tinted glasses of Independence skew the facts. Money from the devolved Govt at Holyrood which is set aside for and 'ring fenced' for projects in Caithness & Sutherland gets swallowed up in Inverness.
We will be able to work towards creating wealth through inward investment, through an economy which puts growth and the creation of jobs at its heart and we can work to develop a more diverse business sector developing rules and regulations which try to curb the worst excesses of big business - tax avoidance, and banking shenanigans for a couple. Maybe even look at improving ethics within large companies.Sounds good. but how is this to be achieved, what is the proposed taxation system? (I know you don't have the answers, but neither do the SNP. And this is the concern, lots of grand ideas and talking the talk but there are no plans for delivery)
We will be able to promote Scotland as an Independent country - this can only benefit things like tourism and rural issues. Although Edinburgh is not very close to places like Caithness it IS closer than Westminster and better able to understand the peculiar needs of the different areas within Scotland and therefore be able to address these issues better than Westminster.As above, Inverness will suck up first. Places like Caithness are not likely to get any significant change. Possibly worse as SNP want to 'Centralise' many services.
We will be able to focus everything we do on creating a more equal and fairer society - closing the gap between poor and rich and working toward every child having the opportunity to achieve their full potential.But we can do that now, and are doing with free education.
That's a start but before you all jump up and down and say that I dont KNOW these things will happen. You are right I dont know but the overriding advantage of Independence for me is that we have the CHANCE to change things. We have the CHANCE to grasp an opportunity to do all of the above. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow or referndum+1day but it will change over the following weeks, months, years and decades. I might be dead before the things I want to see happen will happen but I honestly and truly beleive that I can do the best thing for my children and the future of Scotland by voting for Independence. The politicians cant make any of this happen. I don't believe there is a will to do any of the above at Westminster. Either with this government or with the current Labour Party. The only way any of the above things even stand a remote chance of happening is if WE make them happen - the people of Scotland by voting YES in the referendum.
But we can already do a lot of this by bothering to get off our arses and kick the arses of the councillors and service representatives that are incompetent at delivering what we deserve.
One thing I have noticed, especially up here, is the amount of grumbling about the lack of this or that but when change is proposed no one wants change. So things just plod on in the status quo and bit by bit the LOCAL govt & SCOTTISH NHS in Inverness just chips away at the services available up here.
Lol squidge me think you a numpty, I think you know better than that!
I suspect we might be fighting the same battles but from differing perspectives and differing influences but at least we are prepared to stand up and be counted.
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 12:34
The oil will still run out if we are in the Union, the economy is rubbish anyhow and we spend millions and millions on trying to play with the big boys for what? So our soldiers can die in some corner of a foreign field? Tony Blair, yes you know,the Scottish one LOL In his first six years in office ordered British troops into battle five times, more than any other prime minister in British history. This included Iraq in both 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29) and 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War); Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) (1999); Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War) (2000) and Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) (2001)
And David Cameron, yes you know the one from Scottish descendants LOL is not adverse to a bit of war.In March 2003, he voted against a motion that the case had not yet been made for the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War),[/URL]and then supported using "all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction"]weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#cite_note-149)"
So be carefull what you wish for:lol:
Going back to the original topic of oil....this is some good news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18862038
As for Independence, if we don't try it we will never know if it is a good thing or a bad thing but this will be the only chance we have of finding out!
I like Squidges posts because she has a vision, something a lot of Members on here don't have. Staying with the status quo is fine as long as you like being ruled by either Labour, the Tory's and now the LibDems. I personally don't like it and would much prefer to be governed by someone who actually loves and has faith in Scotland and it's people. If we get Independence it won't be the SNP or any other party running Scotland, it will be us, the people.
As for Phill's thinking that money will not come any further North than Inverness, well, it would be up to us, the people and the voters to make sure we did get our share.
C3.........:)
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 12:55
As for Independence, if we don't try it we will never know if it is a good thing or a bad thing but this will be the only chance we have of finding out!
surely we should make sure before committing to it and possibly avoid a worse future?
I like Squidges posts what not because she also wants Independence LOL
Staying with the status quo is fine as long as you like being ruled by either Labour, the Tory's and now the LibDems.
and how do you know what party will get in after Independence
I personally don't like it and would much prefer to be governed by someone who actually loves and has faith in Scotland and it's people. If we get Independence it won't be the SNP or any other party running Scotland, it will be us, the people.
yeah right lol now say that without laughing
Tony Blair, yes you know,the Scottish one LOL In his first six years in office ordered British troops into battle five times, more than any other prime minister in British history. This included Iraq in both 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29) and 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War); Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) (1999); Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War) (2000) and Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) (2001)
And David Cameron, yes you know the one from Scottish descendants LOL is not adverse to a bit of war.In March 2003, he voted against a motion that the case had not yet been made for the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War),and then supported using "all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction)"
So be carefull what you wish for:lol:
Ah, I remember them.........Tony Blair, Leader of the Labour Party.
David Cameron........Leader of the Tory party.
Who wants to be Governed by Parties who spend so much on arms, takes us into wars that are non of our business. Are quite happy to keep seeing our troops killed for what? All that you have quoted above should be a reminder that both of these parties are warmongers who cannot be trusted and all the while are looking to save a few £'s from our own sick and disabled.
I want nothing to do with parties that take us into war, how about you?
C3..........:eek:
As for Phill's thinking that money will not come any further North than Inverness, well, it would be up to us, the people and the voters to make sure we did get our share.But why wait for independence to start getting bothered, this has been happening and is happening now. Why is is going to be different in an Independent Scotland?
so that's like being in the UK really but with Scotland picking up the tab.... Hmmm maybe it is and maybe it isnt - maybe its like being in NATO but being Norway or Belgium or other european countries... The policy announced today is not simply about NATO it is about other things too and is more detailed about spending and planning and buliding a defence force. Its a start.
I quite agree the political landscape will change, and I think possibly for the better across the rest of UK too. The political establishment as is, needs breaking up.
Trident will be with us for a long while. LOL.... Im not expecting it to be got rid of overnight but I think it will go sooner rather than later/
Free education is fine, so long as we can afford it. I understand recent budgets for education i.e. new schools have been revised down. that as I understand and I cant find the article I read now sigh... but the amount awarded to Scotland within the block grant is reduced by the amount of tuition fees the government would expect scotland to chatge for university places for example. Even though we dont charge fees we still take the hit. We HAVE to afford free education - its important.
Caithness & Sutherland suffers from some of the worst disparities in health inequalities and social issues. All of which are run from, managed and financed by Inverness.
Let not the rose tinted glasses of Independence skew the facts. Money from the devolved Govt at Holyrood which is set aside for and 'ring fenced' for projects in Caithness & Sutherland gets swallowed up in Inverness. Absolutely and we need to work to make changes again money included for Health in Scotland is reduced by the savings that are expected in England with health service reforms, We still take the hit.
Sounds good. but how is this to be achieved, what is the proposed taxation system? (I know you don't have the answers, but neither do the SNP. And this is the concern, lots of grand ideas and talking the talk but there are no plans for delivery)
This is perhaps the most important point of all - It is not up to the SNP to DECIDE what will happen after independence. The SNP can put forward their manifesto IF they remain the same party as they are now and I sort of doubt that. Other parties will have their theories and manifestos and the system will be decided as we move from the referendum to actual Independence. Iam absolutely sure the SNP have "plans" so do other parties like the SDA and we will hear them as we move forward. We probably wont hear any plans from labour or the conservatives until there has been a YES vote in the referendun because they will do nothing to affect their campaign on that issue. There are however groups appearing now on facebook which are "labour voters for Independence" "Conservative voters for independence and Lib dem voters for Independence as the argument starts to cross party boundaries and that can only be a good thing.
Tony Blair, yes you know,the Scottish one LOL In his first six years in office ordered British troops into battle five times, more than any other prime minister in British history. This included Iraq in both 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29) and 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War); Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) (1999); Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War) (2000) and Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) (2001)
And David Cameron, yes you know the one from Scottish descendants LOL is not adverse to a bit of war.In March 2003, he voted against a motion that the case had not yet been made for the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War),and then supported using "all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction)"
So be carefull what you wish for:lol:
Hmmm now this is an argument I have heard for a wee while now. that Tony Blair particularly and Gordon Brown and now David Cameron(????) are scottish or of scottish descent so made their decisions in the same way as they would for an independent scotland. They didnt. They made their decisions as part of a UK Labour or Conservative party. Not as independent Scots and that is different.
piratelassie
17-Jul-12, 13:38
Reap your own harvest and ring your own till.
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 14:05
Hmmm now this is an argument I have heard for a wee while now. that Tony Blair particularly and Gordon Brown and now David Cameron(????) are scottish or of scottish descent so made their decisions in the same way as they would for an independent scotland. They didnt. They made their decisions as part of a UK Labour or Conservative party. Not as independent Scots and that is different.
yes but my point is that there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would not at some point be run by greedy selfish war mongers in the same way as Britain Has, these traits are not generally advertised when touting for votes in elections lol ie Blair Cameron etc etc
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 14:09
Hmmm now this is an argument I have heard for a wee while now. that Tony Blair particularly and Gordon Brown and now David Cameron(????) are scottish or of scottish descent so made their decisions in the same way as they would for an independent scotland. They didnt. They made their decisions as part of a UK Labour or Conservative party. Not as independent Scots and that is different.
and who is to say that the governing party will be Independent and not Scottish labour etc
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 14:19
Ah, I remember them.........Tony Blair, Leader of the Labour Party.
David Cameron........Leader of the Tory party.
Who wants to be Governed by Parties who spend so much on arms, takes us into wars that are non of our business. Are quite happy to keep seeing our troops killed for what? All that you have quoted above should be a reminder that both of these parties are warmongers who cannot be trusted and all the while are looking to save a few £'s from our own sick and disabled.
I want nothing to do with parties that take us into war, how about you?
C3..........:eek:
that is my point ,there is no guarantee that the leaders of an Independent Scotland will not be of the same core ideals, after all Blair didn't get elected by telling every one he would send troops into 5 conflicts did he, but that's what he did when elected and the party he was in at the time is irrelevant, or do you somehow think that only honest peace loving generous non corrupt politicians will stand to lead Scotland or that somehow the voters will be able to see through the respectable veneers of the corrupt ones
I dont know but i would hope that an Indpendent Scotland would have a constitution and a political system which would make it more difficult to take Scotland to war. I dont know how we do that equus but there are people for whom that is massively important and better minds than that are working on it right now. If we accept the status quo we KNOW there is nothing to stop any of our westminster prime Ministers from taking the UK to war so even on that point we seem to have nothing to lose and everything to gain
Ah, I remember them.........Tony Blair, Leader of the Labour Party.
David Cameron........Leader of the Tory party.
Who wants to be Governed by Parties who spend so much on arms, takes us into wars that are non of our business. Are quite happy to keep seeing our troops killed for what? All that you have quoted above should be a reminder that both of these parties are warmongers who cannot be trusted and all the while are looking to save a few £'s from our own sick and disabled.
I want nothing to do with parties that take us into war, how about you?
C3..........:eek:
That's a good one! Who is complaining bitterly about reduction in defense spending in Scotland, the break up and disbanding of the regiments and who has a heavy focus on the future look of the 'Scottish Defence Force'?
Personally, I would be largely persuded despite other misgivings if the SNP said; You know what? Do we really need armed forces? Who are we going to fight?
equusdriving
17-Jul-12, 14:36
I dont know but i would hope that an Indpendent Scotland would have a constitution and a political system which would make it more difficult to take Scotland to war. I dont know how we do that equus but there are people for whom that is massively important and better minds than that are working on it right now. If we accept the status quo we KNOW there is nothing to stop any of our westminster prime Ministers from taking the UK to war so even on that point we seem to have nothing to lose and everything to gain
Yes to a degree I agree on that front, but how will it effect Scottish troops ie redundancies etc and will it put us in a vulnerable position or will we just rely on the rest of Britain or Europe to defend us, if the need ever arose, and obviously the comments I made regarding politicians changing once elected are applicable to all government policies not just defence
That's a good one! Who is complaining bitterly about reduction in defense spending in Scotland, the break up and disbanding of the regiments and who has a heavy focus on the future look of the 'Scottish Defence Force'?
Personally, I would be largely persuded despite other misgivings if the SNP said; You know what? Do we really need armed forces? Who are we going to fight?
Well the full text is here http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/in-full-snp-resolution-on-nato-1-2414919 and whilst it stops short of "wha daur meddle wi me" It does say "conventional military threats to Scotland are low ". George Robertson once said that the post indpendent plans were "incoherent and irrelevant" but I think this is fairly straightforward. Im happy to stay in Nato and think that its a good plan to start with.
Now staying in NATO one would presume that an independent Scotland would have all three armed forces albeit small ones I would suspect.
I am puzzling as to how this would be worked out. will they lease existing facilities from The MOD, set up their own dedicated army,navy and air force or would scots presently serving be offered the chance to join the new set up and if so, who will re-imburse who?
Would an independent Scotland be classed as a foreign country? If that were to be the case, then it's citizens would be excluded from serving in British units and any existing facilities would have to close.
The strands that bind The United Kingdom together are welded by centuries and will not be unraveled easily and without some considerable cost.
Would an independent Scotland be classed as a foreign country? If that were to be the case, then it's citizens would be excluded from serving in British units and any existing facilities would have to close.
Not advocating it but just to make a point here...
If Nepalese Gurkha soldiers can fight in the British Army then why not Scots?
There are reciprocal arrangements which allow this to happen so i don't see it as an issue. I havent really seen much discussion about citizenship but as we are all "British Citizens" they would not remove that citizenship from us after Independence. If there is a Scottish Citizenship they we may be entitled to dual nationality. The article sets out that Scotland would have a combined force of 15000 regulars and 5000 reserves. As for the bases well there is a division of assets and liabilities and so it is likely that the bases will form part of this agreement which will be made after the referendum and before Independence.
Not advocating it but just to make a point here...
If Nepalese Gurkha soldiers can fight in the British Army then why not Scots?
Scots will continue to serve in the British Army just the same as people from Southern Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Fiji and a variety of other countries with which Britain has ties.
The question is how many Scottish Military personnel will want to transfer to Scotlands Defence force? The SNP mentioned 'taking over' the five Battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. These units are part of the British Army and it is naive to believe that members of these units will just change career to suit a bunch of politicians who have scant knowledge of military matters.
i think you are right Gronnuck but there will be some and if we continue as a member of Nato then that will give us an outward looking role which is going to increase the appeal. It might also allow us to pull in experts on secondment to help to build and develop the new defence force as well as giving us access to expertise in other areas.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.