View Full Version : Why can't Unionists give details of any benefits Scotland gets from Union membership?
Since the referendum timescale has been set out, I have been posting on various forums, UK and foreign....challenging Unionists who post in the same places to explain why, in their opinion, Scotland is better off in the Union. To date, I have been inundated with reasons why the removal of Scotland from the Union would make problems for the UK...and even more posts on the too wee, too stupid, too subsidised, etc lines...but nothing which convinces me that I should care about the problems the rest of the UK will face without Scotland..maybe because the UK has never cared about the problems Scotland has faced as part of the UK.
I was reminded,on thinking about the cost of the Union, of a Bird and Fortune sketch I watched some time ago, and which I eventually found.....which typifies the perceived inability of any UK Government to actually spend our money sensibly. http://po.st/V72zyj Given the Nimrod and aircraft carrier fiascoes in the last few years..it still strikes many chords.
I challenge the Unionists on here to convince me that Independence is not going to work for Scotland and that the Union does now and will in future.
"Better the devil you know" will not cut it as the only reason to continue the status quo....because there is absolutely no guarantee that the devil you know is any more politically/economically competent than the devil you don't....is there, on current performance on both sides of the border? But if you think there is, I'll be happy to read your reasoning for that opinion.
I don't see that it is up to the pro-Independence crowd to make their case in isolation, ahead of time, and before they know what a future Scottish government will be, just because they are the ones wanting the divorce, while the pro-Unionist crowd get to denigrate, lie and misrepresent....but produce no facts as to the future of Scotland in the Union, just because they think they are the aggrieved senior patrner....even though they know pretty much what the policies of a UK Government will do to the people of Scotland before the referendum...and after it if Scotland votes no.
If you can't come up with any good reason for Scotland to continue as part of the Union, you could have a go at delineating your fears as to what a future independent Scotland will be like, in your opinion, and why that worries you, in order that we can calm your fears.....or not, as the case may be. ;)
What problems are the UK going to face without Scotland? Removing the population equivalent to one provincial town is going to make practically no difference.
I would worry about the effect on ordinary Scots if I were you. I disagree with independence because I live here, most of the rest of the UK are not losing any sleep over it.
In fact the opinions I have heard range from "I don't care" to "good riddance."
If you want I'll tell you my reason very simply. Pool of resources. In Scotland, in isolation, it is just too small. That is not to say it could not develop to create a sustainable level eventually but I don't fancy living through the period it will take. 5 Years? 50 years? 500 Years? Who knows? I don't.
Since the referendum timescale has been set out, I have been posting on various forums, UK and foreign....challenging Unionists who post in the same places to explain why, in their opinion, Scotland is better off in the Union. To date, I have been inundated with reasons why the removal of Scotland from the Union would make problems for the UK...and even more posts on the too wee, too stupid, too subsidised, etc lines...but nothing which convinces me that I should care about the problems the rest of the UK will face without Scotland..maybe because the UK has never cared about the problems Scotland has faced as part of the UK.
I was reminded,on thinking about the cost of the Union, of a Bird and Fortune sketch I watched some time ago, and which I eventually found.....which typifies the perceived inability of any UK Government to actually spend our money sensibly. http://po.st/V72zyj Given the Nimrod and aircraft carrier fiascoes in the last few years..it still strikes many chords.
I challenge the Unionists on here to convince me that Independence is not going to work for Scotland and that the Union does now and will in future.
"Better the devil you know" will not cut it as the only reason to continue the status quo....because there is absolutely no guarantee that the devil you know is any more politically/economically competent than the devil you don't....is there, on current performance on both sides of the border? But if you think there is, I'll be happy to read your reasoning for that opinion.
I don't see that it is up to the pro-Independence crowd to make their case in isolation, ahead of time, and before they know what a future Scottish government will be, just because they are the ones wanting the divorce, while the pro-Unionist crowd get to denigrate, lie and misrepresent....but produce no facts as to the future of Scotland in the Union, just because they think they are the aggrieved senior patrner....even though they know pretty much what the policies of a UK Government will do to the people of Scotland before the referendum...and after it if Scotland votes no.
If you can't come up with any good reason for Scotland to continue as part of the Union, you could have a go at delineating your fears as to what a future independent Scotland will be like, in your opinion, and why that worries you, in order that we can calm your fears.....or not, as the case may be. ;)
I have noticed that the biggest pro-Union argument seems to be that Scotland would better off having a 8-9% say in a larger entity than it would be having a 100% say in a smaller entity but even that is mainly about Union self interest. That and some vague statement about because something has been around for 300 years it has to be good, the longevity of something doing doesn't make it a good thing.
Everything else out of the pro-Unionist camp seems to be centred around negative campaigning which doesn't actually work in Scotland as Labour found out.
Since the referendum timescale has been set out, I have been posting on various forums, UK and foreign....challenging Unionists who post in the same places to explain why, in their opinion, Scotland is better off in the Union. To date, I have been inundated with reasons why the removal of Scotland from the Union would make problems for the UK...and even more posts on the too wee, too stupid, too subsidised, etc lines...but nothing which convinces me that I should care about the problems the rest of the UK will face without Scotland..maybe because the UK has never cared about the problems Scotland has faced as part of the UK.
300 odd years of being part of the union is surely proof enough that it works. Whatever complaints the nationalists conjure up about the way Scotland is run by the Westminster government can also be found in many of the other regions of the UK.
I was reminded,on thinking about the cost of the Union, of a Bird and Fortune sketch I watched some time ago, and which I eventually found.....which typifies the perceived inability of any UK Government to actually spend our money sensibly. http://po.st/V72zyj Given the Nimrod and aircraft carrier fiascoes in the last few years..it still strikes many chords.
It’s all very well making a joke about any government’s ability to spend our money wisely but I, and I suspect many others, have yet to be convinced that any Scottish government would behave any differently. I had great hopes for the parliament in Holyrood, the way it worked, and the politicians who promised so much. It turns out that they have shown themselves to be just another layer of bureaucracy generating lots of hot air, almost as much as Westminster.
I challenge the Unionists on here to convince me that Independence is not going to work for Scotland and that the Union does now and will in future.
I can’t accept your challenge because the simple answer is, “I don’t know.” Just as you do not know if independence would work, how can you possibly know? But I guess you can dream. I will admit that the union is not perfect but it works for Scotland just as effectively as it does for the NE of England, the SW of England as well as other regions of the UK
"Better the devil you know" will not cut it as the only reason to continue the status quo....because there is absolutely no guarantee that the devil you know is any more politically/economically competent than the devil you don't....is there, on current performance on both sides of the border? But if you think there is, I'll be happy to read your reasoning for that opinion.
I don't see that it is up to the pro-Independence crowd to make their case in isolation, ahead of time, and before they know what a future Scottish government will be, just because they are the ones wanting the divorce, while the pro-Unionist crowd get to denigrate, lie and misrepresent....but produce no facts as to the future of Scotland in the Union, just because they think they are the aggrieved senior patrner....even though they know pretty much what the policies of a UK Government will do to the people of Scotland before the referendum...and after it if Scotland votes no.
Your ‘pro-Independence crowd’ are the ones wanting change so surely it’s up to them to convince the rest of us. There might well be some pro-Unionists who denigrate, lie and misrepresent what the nationalists are saying but the vast majority just don’t know.
If you can't come up with any good reason for Scotland to continue as part of the Union, you could have a go at delineating your fears as to what a future independent Scotland will be like, in your opinion, and why that worries you, in order that we can calm your fears.....or not, as the case may be. ;)
I will admit to being a first class Fence Sitter. I don’t know if Scotland would be better off staying in the union or going it alone. Just as you question the future of Scotland as part of the union there are huge numbers of people questioning the ability of Scotland to go on to independence.
As I see it we don’t have a politician of the calibre to lead a newly independent Scotland. We don’t have anyone suitable ‘in the wings.’ We don’t have clear policies in a number of areas, in fact most areas aren’t adequately covered. All we have are dreams. Meanwhile I shall continue to sit on the fence happy to maintain that ‘tis better the devil you know.....
In addition to my comments above I have to say I am not just a Fence-Sitter, I’m a lazy Fence-Sitter. Let me be clear; I’ve been a British citizen for a long time and while a Westminster government might well have caused a couple of ‘injustices’ as far as Scotland is concerned, it’s no more than what would happen in any growing family. I’m happy with my ‘lot’ and while I see injustices across the country I cannot see how a government in Holyrood would behave any differently than the one in Westminster.
I suspect I’m not alone. Perhaps I should start a Fence-Sitting club,;).
Since the referendum timescale has been set out, I have been posting on various forums, UK and foreign....
I bet that takes up quite a lot of your time?
Thing is, the pros have to persuade the 70% who are anti if they are to win the yes vote. As it stands the only arguments I see seem designed to antagonise us.
So who needs to change their choon?
Thing is, the pros have to persuade the 70% who are anti if they are to win the yes vote. As it stands the only arguments I see seem designed to antagonise us.
So who needs to change their choon?
You attribute 70% to the ‘anti’s’, I’m not sure it’s as high as that. There will be a significant portion of the electorate who are ambivalent Fence Sitters like me as well as a large number of people who just couldn’t give a fig. We only have to look at the numbers of people who turn up to vote to know there are lots of people who either have no faith in the democratic system or any trust in the motley bunch of individuals who want to be politicians.
I'm still waitng for the nats to show me, in detail, what they're proposing - I have no time for their dreams.
Lots of 'fence sitters' who are actually closet Unionists. It's a standard tactic.
Lots of 'fence sitters' who are actually closet Unionists. It's a standard tactic.
.....and I suspect many of the nats are taking the stance, 'if you're not with us you must be against us!' Why can't they accept that there is a significant proportion of the voting public in Scotland who have yet to be convinced one way or the other? I suspect there's also a fair proportion who couldn't care less.
Many people I've spoken to are quite cynical about the process and the people involved. They speak of seeing and hearing politicians and their supporters spouting their guff year on year and yet accomplishing very little.
Like many I'm waiting for a charismatic leader to convince me independence is the way forward.
I dont think all the fence sitters are closet unionist - i think the vast majority are undecided and are waiting to see what details emerge over the next couple of years. If you look at the polls then it appears that many more than half are unhappy with the status quo and would like Scotland to have more powers and more control. You are right when you say it is up to those supporting independence to show that independence is the way to achieve that. The lack of faith in the democratic system is actually a good argument FOR independence as there is the opportunity to change the system in an Independent Scotland in a way there isnt within the union - look what happened to the house of Lords reform ..... nothing.
We are currently seeing a whole lot of nothing in the debate just now. The only place any sort of discussion or debate is going on is within the Nationalist movement itself or within face to face meetings of people who are wanting to find stuff out. Online the unionist arguments look pretty much like these........
We have the leaders ridiculed - the number of times i have seen "wee fat Eck" mentioned and comments about his manner, his “girth”, his “smirk”; his “greed” and “avarice”, his “sneer” and his “smugness”. I have seen many comments about Ms Sturgeon which focus on her appearance in a negative way, her clothes, and her hair. This is all very well but it doesnt really get us anywhere and we need to face facts that Alex Salmond is an elected representative and therefore does ahve some measure of support.
There are many accusations that Nationalists blindly follow the SNP line without thought or criticism. We are often accused of banging the same drum over and over again – never mind that we keep being asked the same questions over and over again. This is simply a grown up(ish) version of “yeah yeah yeah – whatever” and adds very little to the argument. It also ignores the FACT that there are many political parties and different individuals involved in the campaign. You only need to look at the list of speakers there were at Saturdays March and rally to see that.
There is the trouble causer argument. This includes the suggestion that pro independent supporters are nazis and suggestions that they should be silenced and shipped off to elsewhere. There is a bit of a carry on just now about the banning of nationalists and others who dare to ask questions on the facebook pages - even the Better Together page. The stushie we saw over the SRSM being at the march is part of that. These are all ways of silencing the opposition and go hand in hand with the other frequently seen unionist argument, that those who are pro-independence should be rounded up and sent to somewhere unpleasant which is usually some dictator state with the adage that “see what real oppression looks like” or a deserted island where we can have our independent country and “see how they get on then!”
Finally there is the absurdity argument. Billy Connolly called the Scottish Parliament “a wee pretendy parliament”. There have been many comments about Scotland being too wee, too stupid, and too poor to participate on a world stage as an Independent nation and whilst these seem to have disappeared from the mouths of senior politicians, they still persist in the world of online “debate”. Many unionists on Facebook and Twitter have moved on to comment on individuals – intellectually challenged is the usual accusation – stupid, ignorant and unable to grasp the evidence that shows that Independence won’t work – that it is absurd to suggest that it might. We see that all the time on this forum.
These are the main threads of the unionist debate on line just now - at least when you speak to PEOPLE about it - real people - whether pro or anti indy supporters or sitting on the fence even, then and only then can you discuss the issues properly. That is what I would urge people to do who are genuinely undecided .... get together with each other and talk about it properly - attend meetings, discuss with real people who have a good handle on the issues from BOTH sides and listen and ask questions. Thats the only way to make an informed decision.
equusdriving
24-Sep-12, 18:31
Now that's a novel idea, the people who are happy with how things are having to justify to the people who are not happy why they don't want things to change, call me old fashioned but isn't it usually the ones who have something to sell who have to convince the potential customers of the benefits of changing? not the other way around!
Hi,
I worry that an independant Scotland will not be able to maintain our current standard of living now and for the future. This is based on my view that
- The final outcome on oil/ mineral rights will be a lot less than hoped for;
- MOD work will not be forth coming
- An independent Scotland will not be immediately become part of the EU
- That an independent Scotland would not be able to create an 'industrial revolution' needed to improve the quality of life - if it was possible it would be happening now.
- I simply cant see how an independent Scotland can support itself.
So, I worry that as a result there will be increased government borrowing and taxes leading to a reduction in spending on
-NHS
- schooling and tertiary education
- social benefits - social security and state pension
- transport infrastructure
- care for the elderly
- etc etc
I know that both sides will issue propaganda to support their side, but the current position has been proven to work- yes it has weaknesses but we know what we have got. Every system has weaknesses, after all planet perfect does not exist.
IMHO the independent projected view is all talk and opinion and will always be that way until a period of time has elapsed after independence is granted and the new system will have had a chance to prove themselves. What if the projections are wrong?
Irrespective of the replies to this post and the propaganda issued as we get closer to the vote, I will always vote no - simply because we have too much to loose and don't want to see any reduction in the quality of life for me, my family and for that of the next generation.
Quite frankly, I get annoyed thinking about the waste of public money pursuing this - money to present both sides.
R
piratelassie
24-Sep-12, 20:29
In addition to my comments above I have to say I am not just a Fence-Sitter, I’m a lazy Fence-Sitter. Let me be clear; I’ve been a British citizen for a long time and while a Westminster government might well have caused a couple of ‘injustices’ as far as Scotland is concerned, it’s no more than what would happen in any growing family. I’m happy with my ‘lot’ and while I see injustices across the country I cannot see how a government in Holyrood would behave any differently than the one in Westminster.
I suspect I’m not alone. Perhaps I should start a Fence-Sitting club,;). Gronnuck, apparently your not a Brittish citizen, your a British subject, and why would you be happy for Scotland to be ruled from another country. Thats like Portugal being ruled from Madrid.
I don't want independence because I don't want to become a foreigner to my family.
Gronnuck, apparently your not a Brittish citizen, your a British subject, and why would you be happy for Scotland to be ruled from another country. Thats like Portugal being ruled from Madrid.
We already have 129 MSP's in Holyrood, and 53 MP's in Westminster, all Scots, how are we being ruled by another Country?
See I dont understand the idea that you become a foreigner to your family.... I just dont - my family live in an (independent) France but they arent "foreigners" to me. The idea I have seen elsewhere that we will somehow have our british citizenship taken off us is also something that cant happen - you cant have your british citizenship removed. crichton at least raises some interesting issues. There are many concerns around the economy and i have said my piece on that already so i wont bore you all again. I am always happy to justify my point of view as one of the people that wants the change but id sooner do it over coffee or dinner or a nice glass of wine...... mmmmmmmm
Gronnuck, apparently your not a Brittish citizen, your a British subject, and why would you be happy for Scotland to be ruled from another country. Thats like Portugal being ruled from Madrid.
'Citizen' or 'subject' it doesn't matter to me. I'm British and happy (for the moment) to be ruled from London.
What I do find strange piratelassie is that many nationalists use this sort of argument yet want an independent Scotland to be a member of the EU being ruled from Brussels and Strasbourg!
See I dont understand the idea that you become a foreigner to your family.... I just dont - my family live in an (independent) France but they arent "foreigners" to me. The idea I have seen elsewhere that we will somehow have our british citizenship taken off us is also something that cant happen - you cant have your british citizenship removed. crichton at least raises some interesting issues. There are many concerns around the economy and i have said my piece on that already so i wont bore you all again. I am always happy to justify my point of view as one of the people that wants the change but id sooner do it over coffee or dinner or a nice glass of wine...... mmmmmmmm
That is because you are on record as saying that your national identity has very little meaning to you on a personal context. You use it as a throw away to suit your political position, instead others use their national identity as something that defines them.
piratelassie
24-Sep-12, 23:26
We already have 129 MSP's in Holyrood, and 53 MP's in Westminster, all Scots, how are we being ruled by another Country? 53 MP.s out of 600 odd MP,s and obviously the vast majority are English, therefore obviously English matters come first at Westminster through simple mathematics and I dont blame them at all. I would like to see ALL Scottish matters decided in Scotland, is that too much to ask?
That is because you are on record as saying that your national identity has very little meaning to you on a personal context. You use it as a throw away to suit your political position, instead others use their national identity as something that defines them.
I dont understand what you mean when you say the above - how would your national identity change in an independent Scotland? If you are english, irish, french, polish, chinese or Scottish - how does living in an independent Scotland change YOUR national identity - if your national Identity is what defines you then it will still define you in an Independent Scotland wont it? Just like my very British mum is a british woman living in France she isnt suddenly someone else?
If your National Identity is strong and is what defines you - then it will still be strong and it will still define you - its the country that is changing not the blood in your veins.
piratelassie
25-Sep-12, 01:06
'Citizen' or 'subject' it doesn't matter to me. I'm British and happy (for the moment) to be ruled from London.
What I do find strange piratelassie is that many nationalists use this sort of argument yet want an independent Scotland to be a member of the EU being ruled from Brussels and Strasbourg! When we are independent we will have a seat at the top table in Brussels, at present we dont.We are at the mercy of a Westminster rep.
When we are independent we will have a seat at the top table in Brussels, at present we dont.We are at the mercy of a Westminster rep.
Can you show me where it states we will be accepted by the EU? I doubt Eck on this one.
To be a member of the EU cost a lot on money. How is this going to be funded?
I for one do not want to become a full member of the EU and have to start using the Euro. I also do not want to help to fund fellow EU members such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, as is happening now.
To be at the top table in the EU, you have to be a moderately wealthy country such as Germany & France, Scotland with a population of just over 5 Million, so our seat would be away down the table
piratelassie, surely Scotland has MEPs the same as the rest of The UK?
If you don't like the ones you have then vote them out of office the 1st chance you get.
To be at the top table in the EU, you have to be a moderately wealthy country such as Germany & France, Scotland with a population of just over 5 Million, so our seat would be away down the table
How long has a countries wealth been decided on how big the population is?
C3.
When we are independent we will have a seat at the top table in Brussels, at present we dont.We are at the mercy of a Westminster rep.
Did anyone ever teach you piratelassie never to count your chickens before they were hatched. An independent Scotland cannot be guaranteed membership of the EU. Greece and a few other southern European states ‘cooked their books’ and a blind eye was turned to allow them membership. This has lead to the dire financial state the EU is in now. The ‘top table,’ Germany and France, are not going to let that happen again. An independent Scotland will have to prove its worth, its financial integrity and stability over time; this could take many years.
I think we have to wait and see on the EU. I am happy for an independent Scotland to be part of the EU and I would be surprised if the EU did not want Scotland as a member. I want an Independent Scotland to be outward looking and I to look to the rest of the world and Europe in particular to find different ways of tackling some of the problems that Scotland has. I also think that the comparisons with Spain and the Catalan and Basque regions is a red herring for reasons which are to do with the type of union that Scotland and The rest of the UK have. As for the Euro - we wont be expected to join the euro straight away anyway - I think we are required to wait at least three years. Bulgaria, who agreed to join the Euro as part of their acceptance into the EU, have now said that they will NOT join the euro. It may also be that Greece will need to leave the Euro and then who knows what will happen.
As for being part of the top table.... there is plenty of academic research to show the influence that smaller countries have within the EU - it is different than the sort of influence that France Gemany and the UK have but it is valuable nontheless. Scotland in the EU would need to focus on the priorities for Scotland and those may be different than the rest of the UK.
Then there is the possibility that Scotland doesnt WANT to be part of the EU and other parties apart from the SNP have different ideas. There is the option of no membership at all or here is membership of the EEA. There are various opinions within the Pro independence supporters and this is likely to be reflected within the manifestos if we get a YES at the referendum.
Just seen at the LibDem conference that they will be looking at taking the £200 a year Winter Fuel Payments off the Pensioners. The MP who said it is a pensioner himself and say's he doesn't need it...Neither would I if I had his annual income.
They really are as bad as the Tories, equally as bad if not worse and that is saying something!!!
C3.
I dont understand what you mean when you say the above - how would your national identity change in an independent Scotland? If you are english, irish, french, polish, chinese or Scottish - how does living in an independent Scotland change YOUR national identity - if your national Identity is what defines you then it will still define you in an Independent Scotland wont it? Just like my very British mum is a british woman living in France she isnt suddenly someone else?
If your National Identity is strong and is what defines you - then it will still be strong and it will still define you - its the country that is changing not the blood in your veins.
I have a UK passport, a passport of the United Kingdom. That is my national identity, a UK citizen. Now you'll be a bit pushed to convince me that the UK is still united after Scottish independence. You may even give it your best clever speak routine that you have been practising down at the Wimmin for Independence meetings to convince me otherwise but I won't be taken in by it. The UK won't exist after independence and since I've spent my whole working life to protecting it from attack then I'm not going to sleepwalk into voting for its break up.
Look Rheg I simply didnt understand. I dont do clever speak - I just do plain speak. I have absolutely no intention of trying to convince you of anything - you are too rude to debate with just now. However it is good that I now understand that you are concerned that you will no longer be a UK national and that is what is important to you as I didnt really understand what you meant so thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
Personally I think the UK will do just fine after (never happen) inpenzance. I don' t understand the Nationalists that seem to link it with a diminished UK. It's as if they wont be happy with just removing Scotland but want to damage UK in some way at the same time. :confused
Just seen at the LibDem conference that they will be looking at taking the £200 a year Winter Fuel Payments off the Pensioners.
C3.
What? All of them?
After independance, the British Isles will still exist the United Kingdom won't. The British Isles are made up of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. The United Kingdom is made up of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. None of us are are classed as United Kingdomers we are regarded as British. Within that we all have our national identities. Rheg is talking about losing his identity as a United Kingdomer, which doesn't exist. I for one, am nailing my flag firmly to the mast of independance and I am firstly Scottish but will still regard myself British although not part of "The United Kingdom"
weezer 316
29-Sep-12, 20:41
Since the referendum timescale has been set out, I have been posting on various forums, UK and foreign....challenging Unionists who post in the same places to explain why, in their opinion, Scotland is better off in the Union. To date, I have been inundated with reasons why the removal of Scotland from the Union would make problems for the UK...and even more posts on the too wee, too stupid, too subsidised, etc lines...but nothing which convinces me that I should care about the problems the rest of the UK will face without Scotland..maybe because the UK has never cared about the problems Scotland has faced as part of the UK.
I was reminded,on thinking about the cost of the Union, of a Bird and Fortune sketch I watched some time ago, and which I eventually found.....which typifies the perceived inability of any UK Government to actually spend our money sensibly. http://po.st/V72zyj Given the Nimrod and aircraft carrier fiascoes in the last few years..it still strikes many chords.
I challenge the Unionists on here to convince me that Independence is not going to work for Scotland and that the Union does now and will in future.
"Better the devil you know" will not cut it as the only reason to continue the status quo....because there is absolutely no guarantee that the devil you know is any more politically/economically competent than the devil you don't....is there, on current performance on both sides of the border? But if you think there is, I'll be happy to read your reasoning for that opinion.
I don't see that it is up to the pro-Independence crowd to make their case in isolation, ahead of time, and before they know what a future Scottish government will be, just because they are the ones wanting the divorce, while the pro-Unionist crowd get to denigrate, lie and misrepresent....but produce no facts as to the future of Scotland in the Union, just because they think they are the aggrieved senior patrner....even though they know pretty much what the policies of a UK Government will do to the people of Scotland before the referendum...and after it if Scotland votes no.
If you can't come up with any good reason for Scotland to continue as part of the Union, you could have a go at delineating your fears as to what a future independent Scotland will be like, in your opinion, and why that worries you, in order that we can calm your fears.....or not, as the case may be. ;)
I think the boot is firmly on the other foot. Alex has not outlined in the sligtest what he would do around major issues like currency, or Defence, or several otehr issues he has taken contradictory positions on.
Anyway, hows this:
Common Language
Common Culture
Long shared History
Real world power as part of the UK where Scotlands point can be argued for.
Financial Strength (Bailout cost of RBS alone was more than Scotlands entire GDP!)
Huge UK govt investment in Scotland that Nationalists have already admitted they have no chance of matching
A budget deficit (from what we know of the SNP budget which isnt much) reliant on dwindling oil, and that's even with the record high oil price.
Pooled resources
Much less centralised country as part of the UK.
Now what exactly is it that's driving us apart again other than a a different accent and a fondness for Irn Bru?
weezer 316
29-Sep-12, 20:50
I think we have to wait and see on the EU. I am happy for an independent Scotland to be part of the EU and I would be surprised if the EU did not want Scotland as a member. I want an Independent Scotland to be outward looking and I to look to the rest of the world and Europe in particular to find different ways of tackling some of the problems that Scotland has. I also think that the comparisons with Spain and the Catalan and Basque regions is a red herring for reasons which are to do with the type of union that Scotland and The rest of the UK have. As for the Euro - we wont be expected to join the euro straight away anyway - I think we are required to wait at least three years. Bulgaria, who agreed to join the Euro as part of their acceptance into the EU, have now said that they will NOT join the euro. It may also be that Greece will need to leave the Euro and then who knows what will happen.
As for being part of the top table.... there is plenty of academic research to show the influence that smaller countries have within the EU - it is different than the sort of influence that France Gemany and the UK have but it is valuable nontheless. Scotland in the EU would need to focus on the priorities for Scotland and those may be different than the rest of the UK.
Then there is the possibility that Scotland doesnt WANT to be part of the EU and other parties apart from the SNP have different ideas. There is the option of no membership at all or here is membership of the EEA. There are various opinions within the Pro independence supporters and this is likely to be reflected within the manifestos if we get a YES at the referendum.
Right........
Current EU financila issues being caused by a fiscal union without a monetary one, woudl you not agree?
Assuming you do, you have the rather odd position of being an independent country that DOESNT have control of its money supply. It would be decided in Brussels. And even corrie would admit that at least the UK economy is aligned together. That's not the case in the EU. So not only do you not have financial independence, you also have the potentially worse scenario of no control + possible wrong policy (Germany might need rates to be higher, but Scotland doesnt. Thats not a fight we can win.) Soooo.....
The only way around that would be to launch your own currency. Now if thats that case then Alex better start arguing it cause anyone outside the uber nationlists and uber unionists will want an answer on such a critical issue before they tick that box, and that includes me.
Let me ask, what would you prefer?
I think the boot is firmly on the other foot. Alex has not outlined in the sligtest what he would do around major issues like currency, or Defence, or several otehr issues he has taken contradictory positions on.
Anyway, hows this:
Common Language
Common Culture
Long shared History
Real world power as part of the UK where Scotlands point can be argued for.
Financial Strength (Bailout cost of RBS alone was more than Scotlands entire GDP!)
Huge UK govt investment in Scotland that Nationalists have already admitted they have no chance of matching
A budget deficit (from what we know of the SNP budget which isnt much) reliant on dwindling oil, and that's even with the record high oil price.
Pooled resources
Much less centralised country as part of the UK.
Now what exactly is it that's driving us apart again other than a a different accent and a fondness for Irn Bru?
I can almost hear the Unionists marching from the Meadows to the Bandstand in Edinburgh in support of the Union singing "What do we want? facts, figures and clarity on a Scotland after Independence from the SNP! When do we want it? NOW...but we want the UK Government to confirm them or we aren't going to believe them!"
Re your first sentence, I refer you to this post http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?188392-Independance-now-certainly-handed-over-on-a-plate&p=979711#post979711
We have a common language with the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc...is that a reason to allow them to dictate to us as to how we should spend our money and live our lives?
We don't have a common culture.....we really don't...because if we did, we'd be voting Tory or at least right wing..wouldn't we? Can you give examples of the commonality of the Scottish and English cultures to illustrate your opinion?
What long shared history? Scotland and England have only been in the Union for 305 years, and the ordinary punters in neither country wanted it. As separate sovereign countries they existed for many centuries before that.
As a part of the UK, Scotland has no power...or even a voice....Scotland does not exist in the world scheme of things. The UK does, for sure, but not Scotland. If we were independent, we'd have the same voting power as any other independent country in the world in areas like the UN, we'd have the same vote as any other country, in the EU, we'd have around the same representation as Denmark...7 council votes and 13 MEPS...while as it is, we have no council votes and 6 MEPs...and we have no representation on NATO...as a few examples. In all International bodies we have, as part of the UK, the UK Governments voice, not ours...a UK voice which tends to be available on demand to the USA..and very often does it against the wishes of the Scottish people (and often the UK majority population, to be fair)
How often do Unionists have to be told that the Scottish Banks are only Scottish in name. They are global entities, paying their taxes to the UK exchequer and to the exchequers of countries in which they are licensed to operate.....and it was the countries in which they operate who had the obligation to protect their own economies by bailing them out....as the USA did. An Independent Scotland would not have had to spend anything like the UK did to bailout the banks.or even...because the vast bulk of the banks' operations in the UK was outside Scotland. And anyway, an Independent Scotland could have chosen to let them go to the wall, or dealt with them using the Scandinavian model...(which I advocated that the UK should do all over forums at the time)
Got a link for Huge UK govt investment in Scotland that Nationalists have already admitted they have no chance of matching. In fact, have you got a list of the figures for this Huge UK Investment, because I haven't noticed it? The bulk of the huge financial investment is Trident, anyway..and it is an investment we will have no worries about losing. After the USA and China, the UK is the biggest military spender in the world.....£40 billion in 2011. That would be enough to pay for Scotland's defence for more than 10 years incidentally.
Why would Scotland not have a budget deficit, given the UK has one? And given the amount of debt we have is 100% down to the mismanagement of our economy by the UK Government, even with 100% of the oil and gas revenues at the record high oil price, going to the UK exchequer, could a Scottish Government do any worse? I suppose, technically, our deficit should be our population share of the UK one...but it isn't, it is less...and if oil and gas revenues were added, as they would be in an independent Scotland, there are years Scotland would have been in surplus. We could even save £1.5 billion annually just by having a defence budget adequate for our own needs rather than paying our taxes to fund the UK geo-political ambitions. Care to tell me a country which doesn't have a budget deficit, out of interest?
According to Oil and Gas UK, which tends to be downbeat in its forecasts, UKCS oil production should still be continuing into the 2040s..but that would be dependent on the UK tax regime, which has tended to discourage investment. Perhaps an Independent Scotland would be more encouraging.
But where is the benefit in pooled resources when the largest part of them are pooled for use in England, particularly in London and the South East?
Please elucidate Much less centralised country as part of the UK. How can a Scotland run from Westminster and the recipient of pocket money be a much less centralised country as a part of the UK? How much more centralised can Scotland get? What else is the Westminster government but a centralising entity? If there was a Federal system, that would be different, perhaps, but as it stands...Westminster controls everything because Westminster controls the purse strings.
Not a different accent a lot of different accents.....and I don't like Irn Bru (or whisky, but I do like haggis).
What is driving us apart is the politics mostly...particularly the penchant England has had for the last decades for electing right wing Governments while the Scottish voter is mostly left of centre. and hasn't voted for Scottish majority Tory representation for 60 years.
What we seek is the right to govern our country for our people and to be in a position to meet their aspirations and needs, without the interference of a predominantly English Parliament with the ability to run the whole of the UK to meet the aspirations and needs of a relatively small area in the South of England. This could have been accomplished at any time since the Union with a federal system..but that would have meant loss of control over the UK purse strings.
Given that power devolved is power retained, the UK Parliament has only itself to blame for where we are now. Their "we want to control everything" attitude was unnecessary as they could still have pretended to be a big cheese in the world as long as Scotland was still in the UK even if only under their control re Foreign Policy and defence.
Given that power devolved is power retained, the UK Parliament has only itself to blame for where we are now. Their "we want to control everything" attitude was unnecessary as they could still have pretended to be a big cheese in the world as long as Scotland was still in the UK even if only under their control re Foreign Policy and defence.
Interesting. I've commented on this but no-one bit. How much less of a cheese do you hope UK is without Scotland?
I dont hope the Uk is any less of a cheese. I think the UK will retain much of its influence. If you take the UN Security council for example, UK has a permanent seat with the power of Veto and these were allocated to those who were victorious in the Second World War - that doesn't change and so I dont think that the UK will lose their seat and their influence. Russia particularly has changed since 1946 and remained a permanent member of the council. Whether the UK is a "big cheese" now depends on your political point of view and what you see as big cheeseish behaviour. The UK will still be a big player in Europe for example.
What will change is the voice Scotland has. People representing Scotland will speak for Scotland and have Scottish priorities at the top of their list - not at number 27 which they will talk about if they get down that far. Scotland will be able to decide on the issues which we need to concentrate on and work to secure the solutions for those without having to wait for the Uk to do it for us after they have discussed the issues which the current westminster government wants to discuss.
So big cheese UK will remain and Scotland will stand on its own two feet and speak with its own voice. Independence for many is not about the diminishing of the UK but about the growth and development of Scotland. As an Independent Scotlan will need to change the way things work to make its voice heard so will the remaining UK need to change the way that it operates to do the best it can for the people of England Wales and Northern Island.
weezer 316
02-Oct-12, 20:52
Ok, so many points to rebut (I would investigate before hand if your going to use figures as these cant be manipulated)......
1: UK government is the master of UK economic data. Including Scotland. No one is better qualified to say what figures are accurate or not. So yes, their figures carry more weight than the SNP/forum posters who cant get basic facts right like.......
2: Our apparent lack of a common culture. Either you live in Altnaharra and have never left or your ignoring the country and peope around you. Take 100 scotsmen and woman, and 100 Englishmen and women of similar age. Barring some eccentricities you will find a similar diet, taste in the arts, music, sports, clothes...you name it! Any aspect of culture. To say otherwise is complete and utter lunacy! ever wtch Corrie? eastenders? What about listen to the beatles or ate hotpot? Hordes of english people do this every day. I can only surmise you didnt understand what culture really meant and Im not exactly the most cultured myself!
3: The budget was last in surplus in he mid 90s So unless your 15 your either deliberately misleading people or didnt know. Im not sure which is worth in the context of the claim.
(Easiest accesable link here: http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm)
4: Scottish voice is a moot point. You have a voice as the government elected tends to command a fair proportion of the scottish electorate. Let me ask you....did Scotland have a voice when it backed labour overwhelmingly (a party who promised the same in Scotland as they did in England) in 1997, 2001, 2005? Your in an awful bind if you answer yes.
5: Your points about banks is utterly incredible. Scottish in Name only..................RBS is scotlands largest employer! Our largest comapany! financialservices makes up 6% of our GDP! Only oil makes mroe and they both ake in a similar amount of tax!
And THe UK bailed out Uk banks/........The US did liekwise with American banks. Do you remember a UK bailout for Citibank or Goldman Saachs? No me neither. Nor do I remember a US fgovt bailout for RBS or Northern ROCK!
6: Centralisation. Get a map, and a grip. Please. Britian has the central belt, west midlands, lancashire & cheshire conurbations, North Yorkshire and Tyneside, all areas of several million people to counterbalance the south east. Scotland has.........Aberdeen. Thats it. We are one of the worlds most centralised nations and again you either aim to mislead of didnt know.
7: The tories havent carried a majority of English voters since god knows when. 29 years ago and before I was even born they got 48%. Thats their best. England isnt the US.
8: The SNP have already admitted they cant match govt investment in scotland. Can you clarify how exactly you have arrived at the conclusion they are "interfering" when it is their job to govern and invest??
9: We live on the same bit of Rock as the rest of the UK, not the US or Oz. Doesnt that count for something?
And before you answer any of that, double check it please.
Ok, so many points to rebut (I would investigate before hand if your going to use figures as these cant be manipulated)......
1: UK government is the master of UK economic data. Including Scotland. No one is better qualified to say what figures are accurate or not. So yes, their figures carry more weight than the SNP/forum posters who cant get basic facts right like.......
Statistics can and are manipulated and viewed differently according to which side of the political divide you stand on. This is not a peculiarly SNP or Scottish issue - it happens between Labour and Tories and trades unions and employers and charities and funders. Your figures are no more right or wrong than anyone elses. I have looked at this issue in some detail - long into many nights and there is only one true FACT one absolute fact, one thats all. I have said it before - the only truth is that in an independent Scotland money raised here will be spent by a Scottish Government on Scottish priorites. That doesnt happen now.
2: Our apparent lack of a common culture. Either you live in Altnaharra and have never left or your ignoring the country and peope around you. Take 100 scotsmen and woman, and 100 Englishmen and women of similar age. Barring some eccentricities you will find a similar diet, taste in the arts, music, sports, clothes...you name it! Any aspect of culture. To say otherwise is complete and utter lunacy! ever wtch Corrie? eastenders? What about listen to the beatles or ate hotpot? Hordes of english people do this every day. I can only surmise you didnt understand what culture really meant and Im not exactly the most cultured myself!
Of course we have a common culture and a shared history - Independence wont change that. Scotland is a country in its own right and shares its culture with others now - why would independence make a difference. We dont however have the SAME culture as MAny parts of England. Wales or Northern Ireland and I am sure you are not suggesting we do. If you are then you cant ever have moved very far yourself..... I grew up in Lancashire - I dont have the SAME culture as London or Edinburgh - there are commonalities but it isnt the SAME. Its worth remembering that we have shared culture and history with other countries too - Celtic culture is shared with Brittainy, nordic culture is celebrated too, many Scots have irish ancestry and celebrate that part of their culture. We remember not only UK nationals who died fighting for freedom but other nationalities - ANZACS who died at Gallipoli and other terrible wartime tragedies. Sharing of culture will continue and grow and develop with an Independent Scotland in the same way as it would with a Scotland remaining within the UK.
3: The budget was last in surplus in he mid 90s So unless your 15 your either deliberately misleading people or didnt know. Im not sure which is worth in the context of the claim.
(Easiest accesable link here: http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm) Once again we have a he said she said argument about economics. You have experts and evidence to support this and there is evidence and experts to support the view that Scotland would have had a surplus - these what if arguments are endless circular boring treadmills. You pays your money and you takes your choice about which view you beleive.
4: Scottish voice is a moot point. You have a voice as the government elected tends to command a fair proportion of the scottish electorate. Let me ask you....did Scotland have a voice when it backed labour overwhelmingly (a party who promised the same in Scotland as they did in England) in 1997, 2001, 2005? Your in an awful bind if you answer yes.
The Scottish voice is lost within the voice of the Westminster government. If you have a minister representing the Uk he has to represent the whole of the UK- England, northern Ireland Wales and Scotland and so you have 25% of that ministers priorities - if you are lucky. If you have A Scottish government minister representing Scotland As a whole.... then you have 100% of that ministers priorities. It is no more complicated that that. Government ministers in and Independent Scotland would only have Scottish priorities to represent.
5: Your points about banks is utterly incredible. Scottish in Name only..................RBS is scotlands largest employer! Our largest comapany! financialservices makes up 6% of our GDP! Only oil makes mroe and they both ake in a similar amount of tax!And THe UK bailed out Uk banks/........The US did liekwise with American banks. Do you remember a UK bailout for Citibank or Goldman Saachs? No me neither. Nor do I remember a US fgovt bailout for RBS or Northern ROCK!
We have heard this argument time and again - an Independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the banks and it has been largely discredited. I don’t like these ‘what if’ arguments because they go nowhere. If we use the same ‘What if’ approach then IF Scotland had been Independent we could argue that the banks wouldn’t have failed in the first place because an Independent Scotland would have proper scrutiny in place to ensure that the problems besetting the banks wouldn’t arise. However, if we answer their point seriously then as RBS has 90% of its operations in England we would have been required to fund around 10% which we would have been able to afford. Again there are those who argue both ways and both have experts which support their arguments. http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/transcript-of-newsweek-scotland-yes-we-could-afford-the-baking-bailout.html
6: Centralisation. Get a map, and a grip. Please. Britian has the central belt, west midlands, lancashire & cheshire conurbations, North Yorkshire and Tyneside, all areas of several million people to counterbalance the south east. Scotland has.........Aberdeen. Thats it. We are one of the worlds most centralised nations and again you either aim to mislead of didnt know. I dont really understand your point here. You talk about independence increasing centralisation and yet the local government offices in Wick and Thurso were closed - not at the instigation of the Scottish government but Westminster- Jobcentres, Tax offices, Ag and fish offices, all closed and centralised and none of them down to the SNP. No DVLA offices in the higlands any more..... I could go on. Centralisation worries me too Weezer and I am asking questions and pushing for answers all the time it does however strike me that rural Scotland makes up about 8% of the UK Electorate but 20% of the Scottish electorate and so will be harder to ignore in an Independent Scotland.
7: The tories havent carried a majority of English voters since god knows when. 29 years ago and before I was even born they got 48%. Thats their best. England isnt the US. You are right and your earlier point about labour was well made = however there is no denying the fact that the Westminster government wants to go one way and the Scottish Government wants to go another. The differences between the parties today are nowhere near as clear as they were in 1997 they have diminished to the point that they are almost the same and yet Scotland has voted in a majority in its own parliamenst who ARE different. The allignment of the three main Uk parties leaves Scotland disconnected and without a government which represents the priorities of the Scottish voter and as we look to the FUTURE which after all, is what the referendum is about, then you have to wonder how we who live here in Scotland can have any faith that we can influence what happens in our communities by voting for a Westminster government made up of the any of the main three parties. At least an independant Scotland will get the government that its voters vote for, and which will have Scottish priorities at its heart.
8: The SNP have already admitted they cant match govt investment in scotland. Can you clarify how exactly you have arrived at the conclusion they are "interfering" when it is their job to govern and invest?? I cant find any references to this at all so I am not going to comment - if you have a link I will try to come back to it after I know what you are talking about.
9: We live on the same bit of Rock as the rest of the UK, not the US or Oz. Doesnt that count for something? It counts in the same way as portugal and spain share the same bit of rock or Norway and sweden. This argument only holds water if you do not believe that Scotland is a seperate country from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I was taught that it was at school, I drive past a sign which says Welcome to Scotland as I come north from my various trips. Scotland is a country in its own right and it always has been. Given that this is the case, why would it not want to run its own affairs.
And before you answer any of that, double check it please.
Ok..........yup that'll do I think - but it is late and I have been working for some time so I might have missed something. Time to go home though I think.
weezer 316
03-Oct-12, 13:50
Oh please! Are you religious? Your argument for the first point is almost almonst laughable. The UK government has a legal obligation to have accurate economic data. Its is also imperative that this is presented impartially by the executive as it is used in all manner of calculation, both Public and private. Papers like <a href "http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%20and%20Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf">this one here</a> which outlines the fiscal position of Scotland are not on a par with any party produced data, unless they cite such reputable sources. Thats a fact. You can challenge the data all you want, but you cant challenge the suppostion that their data is as accurate as hey can make it, as it is. And unless you have evidence to show the that Scottish office deliberately set out to mislead then I suggest a quick acceptance that you are wrong on the point you made.
I wont hold my breath.....
Anyway. As for culture I think you haev went off on a tangent. Culture will cross over and mix as we are geographcially close. That much is obvious and you make the point 3 times. My point is this is a reason to keep one country. There are virtually no moden cultural differences. If there are i challenge you to name but 1 unique to Lancashire.
Your vioce lost in Westminister simply stinks of a wee boy not getting his sweeties. When our case ned to be argued internationally we have the UK to do it with us at present. Thast a Much louder voice than scotland could ever hope to acheive. Do you have any examples post poll tax of scotlands voice being "lost" in westminster? and in what way?
Further more the banks are scottish. You can grind till the cows come home about them no being, but they are. Do you suppose port independence Alex will let the several billion due in coroprtation tax get paid to london by a company whos majority of 700 branches and workforce is in Scotland???
Again, centralisation.......forget westminister. maybe my point isnt clear or perhaps your are not understadning it. Do you agree Scotland is a more centralised country than England/UK at present? No isnt an answer....
Im on my lunch, ill finish this later.
Oh I am sorry Weezer, was I rude to you? What has the question of whether I am religious got to with anything..... oh of course I remember - you save a special kind of derision for those who beleive in God dont you - well, no I am not - does that mean that you are expanding this derision to include those of us who disagree with you on other things? You know what these are the final points I will make on this matter - if you want to discuss them further then give me a shout - Im making a trip north heading up to Caithness in a couple of weeks and I am also down in the central belt in the next week or two. If you want to talk about it face to face and you can be the charming smart and intelligent person you surely are out from behind your keyboard then I would be delighted to discuss this further over coffee, a beer or lunch. Just let me know. We could ask Rheghead, oddquine corrie and Secrets and anyone else who fancies a real life discussion to come along - it might be fun.
I did not say figures were not accurate - I said that figures and statistics can be represented in many different ways and you choose who you want to believe and that is up to you
As for a tangent - you said that our shared culture is a good reason to remain as part of the union - I said that it will continue if we are or are not independent and therefore is a bit of a non issue.
The bank issue is the same as the the first point - different views and different opinions - RBS and Nat West - global companies - you choose who you want to believe Weezer but you have to accept that there are experts who disagree on the same information.
I think Scotland is a more centralised country in many ways but there is plenty of evidence that Westminster has a big hand in this as well.
weezer 316
03-Oct-12, 18:53
The religion reference was rhetorical. It was meant o show your using a similar argument that religous people use, whihc is denigrating well established and reputable information (Evolution for example) down to he level of their superstitious beliefs. You did exactly the same with the UK govt economic data.
There is no spinning. This is the data available, prevented as such. Its pretty clear. Here is it is again as the link last time displayed wrong, see what you make of it. Assuming you believe its impartially presented, what are your conclusions?
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%20and%20Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf
As for the cetralisation, how on earth is westminster responsible for this? hast where the people live largely because that's where our industry was based in bygone years. The result of such centralization will be a a centralized government in an independent Scotland, much more so than exists in he UK. If you disagree then please cite the reasons why the factors that led to perceived centralization in the UK around the south east doenst apply in Scotland.
Ill do that over coffee Weezer
weezer 316
03-Oct-12, 22:00
Have a couple of cups......and then give me your thoughts on it
Actually weezer, The Southeast, and I mean London, was always the Financial and Administrative hub. The Manufacturing was done in the Midlands, the North and Scotland. Where it was cheaper and the polution wouldn't bother them so much. :lol:
weezer 316
04-Oct-12, 22:22
This is one looong coffee. Could you pick me up a piece of that unique lancashire culture wherever you are squidge?
Actually weezer, The Southeast, and I mean London, was always the Financial and Administrative hub. The Manufacturing was done in the Midlands, the North and Scotland. Where it was cheaper and the polution wouldn't bother them so much. :lol:
Edinburgh was once the Finacial Hub of Scotland, Edinburgh was built on Banking, Insurance and Law, but sadly no more in this financial climate.
This is one looong coffee. Could you pick me up a piece of that unique lancashire culture wherever you are squidge?
You can come share it with us on the 3rd November if you like Weezer - we are having a proper lancashire bonfire night party - tater pie supper, black peas, bonfire toffee and parkin. Even going to teach the wee ones the CobCoaling song - Do you know the words???? Do you like black peas? and no they arent black eyes peas they are proper bought in lancashire black peas in fact they are so particular as to be confined to a very specific area of four or five towns - Rochdale, Oldham, Bury Wigan and Bolton. Might even throw in some Bury Black Pudding. Quite different from the ones you get here.
We might have some Lancashire dialect poems recited - even written one masel.
The coffee is likely to last until the house is spring cleaned and painted and even the oven cleaned as my parents are visiting next week and I need to be organised
weezer 316
05-Oct-12, 14:20
Sounds delicious......but you didnt just rip that form Wikipedia did you by any chance? I figured black peas would come up and took the liberrty of lookig it up before you posted. I also looked up the lancashire independence movement I know you are heavily backing.........
Now, what are our thoughts on that PDF? I am curious as to why you (and others) have avoided it.
I looked up black peas a couple of weeks ago when I asked on facebook for someone amongst my friends to buy me some because my 17 year old wanted to know what they were and I didnt really know the details. They were always so common at Bonfire time and when I worked in Middleton just before moving up to Caithness I could buy them from the wee caravanny thing that usually sold baked potatoes. I didnt realise that they were confined to such a small geographical area though. That DID surprise me. I loev them with loads of vinegar mmmmmmmmm but thy are a bit of an acquired taste. When I made them for a bonfire party I had whilst living in Caithness i was left with a big pan. The tater pie goes down a treat though - with red cabbage and beetroot - yummers. I even have proper tater pie tins to cook it in lol.
I promise I will look at the pdf and reply in some detail but I honestly havent much time just now to do it justice. I am only doing lightsome posts like this cos IM on a coffee break. - AGAIN lol.
You do rather have to bear in mind when reading weezer's linked PDF, squidge, that our deficits in Scotland (if they exist at the levels maintained at all) are produced by the fact that the bulk of our most expensive policies.... welfare, defence, immigration, etc are set out by Westminster and we have no input as a country to those decisions, while Westminster gets to quantify them. The policy decisions made by Westminster are a result of the combinations of other decisions they have had to make to accommodate a total population of 62/3 million plus, while predominantly schmoozing their core supporters as voting fodder ......big business, the rich and upper middle classes in the UK, those which Scotland would not have to do as an independent country. So the UK has to set the level of welfare benefits against the level of private Company profits and the incomes of the more affluent members of society...and have decided to prefer the affluent. Why would they assume we would do the same?
And you kinda have to remember that the UK expropriated 6000 square miles of oil producing Scottish waters in much the same way as England acquired the Union, by asserting the right of dominance....and base their figures on holding onto that 6000 square miles.
The report cited by weezer seems to be written on the assumption that Scotland would have spent its income on the same things, in the same way as Westminster has obliged us to do for the last 305 years, and in the way that they likely would have in our position....but the logical and unbiased would view that as just so much self-serving crap in the interpretation of the circumstances pertaining over the last centuries/decades.
The UKCS, which appears to be the fount of all oil intelligence in the report, has said elsewhere lately that, the extraction of oil from the North Sea could still be going in the mid 2040s at a lesser rate if the UK tax system didn't take the p1ss and make it uneconomic to drill new wells/ fund more exploration.....and , for the benefit of the really thick...less oil production would usually equate to higher prices (otherwise why would OPEC in the past have been cutting their production to increase prices?) Why would anyone assume that a Scottish government would play silly b's and cut the udders of the cash cow to the extent that they considered stopped producing milk?
An extract from the McCrone report which illustrates the mindset of UK Governments as to holding on to benefits for themselves while trashing the aspirations of the Scots.
"It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or by taxation to secure the Government 'take'. Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so now would the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds. "
McCrone said in his covering letter on resubmitting the report in 1975 I was anxious to see whether a credible economic strategy could be put together which would appear to be more convincing in terms of solving Scotland’s traditional economic problems than the regional policies of the Unionist Governments have been up until now. I think the conclusion is that the most convincing way of taking the windout of the SNP’s sails is by demonstrating that we now have policies which can make major in-roads into these problems.
Afraid if that was the intention there has been a monumental fail....otherwise we would not be here in 2012.....would we?
weezer 316
05-Oct-12, 22:42
Right thats a ramble. Let me summarize a few points to see if this is what your saying:
Scotland could balance its budget if OPEC play hardball? thats the Governments of Saudi Arabia who have more oil than sand almost, sanctioned-to-death and almost on their last Rial Iran, venezuala where Chavez's policies mean locals get petrol for 9p a litre and is the basis of his support and Iraq who should hit pre-2003 production levels next year thanks to the chinese? Thats what you basing your hopes on with hopes being the operative word?
Secondly, you are absolutely correct the Scottish government could focus its budget away from some things. We do however have input as we voted labour for years running and they were in power and in the last labour government the Prime minister and Chancellor were Scottish, so Im not sure how you you arrive at that conclusion.
Anyway, back to your point.......What would the scottish govenment cut, by how much and what effect would this have on the budget? I must warn you I am armed with a huge big graph laying out where he UK governement spends its money and any attempt to massage the figures will be spotted......
Right thats a ramble. Let me summarize a few points to see if this is what your saying:
Scotland could balance its budget if OPEC play hardball? thats the Governments of Saudi Arabia who have more oil than sand almost, sanctioned-to-death and almost on their last Rial Iran, venezuala where Chavez's policies mean locals get petrol for 9p a litre and is the basis of his support and Iraq who should hit pre-2003 production levels next year thanks to the chinese? Thats what you basing your hopes on with hopes being the operative word?
Secondly, you are absolutely correct the Scottish government could focus its budget away from some things. We do however have input as we voted labour for years running and they were in power and in the last labour government the Prime minister and Chancellor were Scottish, so Im not sure how you you arrive at that conclusion.
Anyway, back to your point.......What would the scottish govenment cut, by how much and what effect would this have on the budget? I must warn you I am armed with a huge big graph laying out where he UK governement spends its money and any attempt to massage the figures will be spotted......
Interesting interpretation of my post, Weezer.....and equally interesting interpretation of just what level of useful input Scotland has had to the UK Parliament during its existence.
Where did I say that Scotland could balance its budget if OPEC play hardball? What I actually said, and I thought reasonably clearly, was less oil production would usually equate to higher prices and illustrated that by citing the actions of OPEC which regularly adjusted the volumes of oil they offered to the market to manipulate price by cutting volumes to raise price and increasing volumes to lower it. How you managed to interpret it as you did puzzles me more than a little.
It really doesn't matter if every MP elected by Scotland was Labour, and if that representation made up the whole of the UK Cabinet....influence would still be dwarfed by the preponderance of non-Scottish Labour members in a Parliament voting on policies at the UK level. Do you have difficulty understanding that, in the last Labour Government you cite, there were 39 Scottish Labour MPs out of a total of 354 Labour MPs? If you are so convinced that it makes one whit of a difference to Scotland's economy and the wellbeing of the Scottish people that the PM and Chancellor were Scottish, I am sure you can cite instances during that Parliament when policies were introduced to specifically or even tangentially benefit Scotland.
What point do you think I was making....other than it is at the least extremely unintelligent to continually assume and reiterate at every opportunity that what has been will always be.....and that a Scottish government would therefore spend our money on the same things as the UK one does? And I suppose I was also making the point that, going by past performance, the UK Government lies through their teeth and is not to be trusted. Neither of which points you have actually addressed.
I don't really care if you can produce graphs out of your ear like a magician producing a coin...but I can't help wondering why all the figures/graphs the nay-sayers on here tend to claim to have at their fingertips never seem to get onto a post, so they can be discussed. I'm more than happy to study your graph and comment upon it, btw...but I don't expect that it will be anything other than an extrapolation of the past into the future on the assumption that Scotland will follow UK spending plans, though I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is.
Given the UK has control of the purse strings and of the production of economic statistics, the only Government which can currently tell us which cuts will happen and how they think they will affect the budget is the UK Government. So far we have had the cuts...with more to come..but their forecasts on the budget, their u-turns from implementing parts of it and debt repayment levels anticipated are pretty inaccurate, haven't you found...more an exercise in wishful thinking than certainty, given the borrowing is still increasing and they haven't hit a growth target yet? So why do you accept UK wishful thinking as "fact" and maintain anything produced by Scottish governments based on the same figures is not?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.