View Full Version : Scotlands share
peter macdonald
07-Oct-07, 09:36
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1600982007
With oil prices going through the roof Westminster still manages to cut the budget Oh well they have to pay for the London Olympics and the 16 Billion shortfall for crossrail
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7024935.stm
DM
There goes Peter on one of his antiEnglish-westminister crusades again. *yawns*
j4bberw0ck
07-Oct-07, 13:13
cut the budget
You can bet that if the SNP weren't in (sort of) control the budget wouldn't have been cut. Just as Wee Ech doesn't want to make life easy for Broon, so it is vice versa. Politics. Who'll prepare the lamp-posts while I fetch some rope?
And what's the oil price got to do with it? ;) It's UK oil. Incidentally,I haven't noticed Scotland refusing to accept any money that might have come from the £20 - 24 billion p.a. net contribution to the UK economy that London makes.
Scotland recieves more cash from the UK than it provides. Fact.
peter macdonald
07-Oct-07, 13:50
Scotland recieves more cash from the UK than it provides. Fact.
Fact ??? please provide the figures including oil revenue If you can do this please tell the Westminster government how you arrived at them as they have never provided them
There goes Peter on one of his antiEnglish-westminister crusades again. *yawns*
Two points one when I cut and paste your comment it-- not me--- removed the strokes through the "English" part Im not anti English ..if you think I am please let the mods know and they can if they agree expell me from the Org What I am is anti Westminsters attitude toward any thing north of the Watford gap Its funny JWok keeps saying its the UKs oil yet tells us that its the economic powerhouse that is London who has given us "properity" Now lets see every time the power house has a major project it cant pay for it runs to the rest of the UK for money ie Olympics Crossrail etc Oh its for the good of the counrty they cry Aye right !
Now its these wealth creators in the city that with their lax supervision in the FSA that led to a run on the Northern Rock whose depts had to be paid for by the UK tax payer Sorry guys you cant have it both ways its either the UKS oil and the UKs prosperity or its the SE of Englands "economic powerhouse" and Scotlands oil
PM
Scotland recieves more cash from the UK than it provides. Fact.
Fact ??? please provide the figures including oil revenue If you can do this please tell the Westminster government how you arrived at them as they have never provided them
There goes Peter on one of his antiEnglish-westminister crusades again. *yawns*
Two points one when I cut and paste your comment it-- not me--- removed the strokes through the "English" part Im not anti English ..if you think I am please let the mods know and they can if they agree expell me from the Org What I am is anti Westminsters attitude toward any thing north of the Watford gap Its funny JWok keeps saying its the UKs oil yet tells us that its the economic powerhouse that is London who has given us "properity" Now lets see every time the power house has a major project it cant pay for it runs to the rest of the UK for money ie Olympics Crossrail etc Oh its for the good of the counrty they cry Aye right !
Now its these wealth creators in the city that with their lax supervision in the FSA that led to a run on the Northern Rock whose depts had to be paid for by the UK tax payer Sorry guys you cant have it both ways its either the UKS oil and the UKs prosperity or its the SE of Englands "economic powerhouse" and Scotlands oil
PM
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20411/48779
j4bberw0ck
07-Oct-07, 15:06
Now its these wealth creators in the city that with their lax supervision in the FSA that led to a run on the Northern Rock whose depts had to be paid for by the UK tax payer Sorry guys you cant have it both ways its either the UKS oil and the UKs prosperity or its the SE of Englands "economic powerhouse" and Scotlands oil
PM
Arrgghh..... that bit about Northern Rock is just soooo wrong, Peter. Unfortunately I have to go out just now - reports abound of the Greater Spotted Golach having been seen locally and I must go see if I can buy him a beer. But as they say in all the very best movies - I'll be back..... :lol::lol:
peter macdonald
07-Oct-07, 17:20
I notice the link you have given was for 2002-3 It also says "It highlighted that these shares are variable over the period examined, depending on a number of factors, such as oil and gas prices. The research suggests that approximately 74 per cent of tax revenues would be attributable to Scotland" It is variable to price which is a wee bittie different to the situation today in fact the revenue in 2005 was 12 billion not the 4 billion "guesstimate" (by its own criterion in the reports conclusion)
PM
I notice the link you have given was for 2002-3 It also says "It highlighted that these shares are variable over the period examined, depending on a number of factors, such as oil and gas prices. The research suggests that approximately 74 per cent of tax revenues would be attributable to Scotland" It is variable to price which is a wee bittie different to the situation today in fact the revenue in 2005 was 12 billion not the 4 billion "guesstimate" (by its own criterion in the reports conclusion)
PM
http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/appendices/UKCS_Tax_Table.pdf
2005 £5.25 billion. Where did you make up that £12 billion figure????
Now with Scotlands £11.2 billion net borrowing from the UK (before oil revenue) that means Scotland recieves approximately £6 billion FROM the UK.
peter macdonald
07-Oct-07, 22:30
I did not make up the figure ..it came from Gordon Brown actually Sorry I underestimated his figures by a billion
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20070325/ai_n18758796
"Although the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, told the Commons in his Budget speech last week that North Sea oil tax revenues fell to GBP8 billion from GBP13bn last year,"
these are tax revenues by the way ... and the value of the oil????
PM
ps l "where did I make up the figures" please if you want to argue about them you can E mail Gordon brown and ask him about his last budget speech
PPS Im away for a few weeks Ill look forward to your reply when I come back
I did not make up the figure ..it came from Gordon Brown actually Sorry I underestimated his figures by a billion
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20070325/ai_n18758796
"Although the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, told the Commons in his Budget speech last week that North Sea oil tax revenues fell to GBP8 billion from GBP13bn last year,"
these are tax revenues by the way ... and the value of the oil????
PM
ps l "where did I make up the figures" please if you want to argue about them you can E mail Gordon brown and ask him about his last budget speech
PPS Im away for a few weeks Ill look forward to your reply when I come back
Ok, well even with the £8 billion figure you can see that Scotland still gets spends more money from the UK than it provides, which was my original post.
The tax revenue is the only way the government get money from the oil. The rest goes to the oil companies, the vast majority of which are not Scottish.
Ok, well even with the £8 billion figure you can see that Scotland still gets spends more money from the UK than it provides, which was my original post.
Well, of course we do, though not nearly as much as the Government would have us believe, by any stretch of the imagination.
But that is because there are no economies of scale in Scotland to compare with those in England as the areas outwith the Central belt are more sparsely populated. You are, after all looking at an English population of around 350 per sq km and a Scottish one of 65 per sq km.
So a hospital outside the Central Belt, for example, will cost more per head than in England because it costs as much to build and staff, but doesn't service the same number of patients..........but does that mean we don't need hospitals?
Trunk roads have to be maintained.........but as the length of the country is just 140 kms shorter than England, and the population is so much smaller, the roads cost more per head of population.....but does that mean we don't need roads?
I'd guess that the cost of infrastructure etc in the Central Belt wouldn't be too different from much of England........but the sparse population in the Borders, Highlands and Islands skew the figures per head............does that mean we should still be using drover's roads, living in but and bens and dying because there is no hospital within a few hundred miles?
To quote Marcus Linklater, not known for his SNP credentials............
When it comes to what is known as identifiable spending, Scotland is not the most generously funded part of the UK – that is Northern Ireland, which spends £8,216 per head on public services, or about 25 per cent more than the UK average. Scotland comes next, at £7,597, just ahead of Wales, and 16 per cent above the UK average. English regions vary widely. If you took London, at £8,404 per head, it would outstrip Scotland. Regions like the North East or South West fare worst.
see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1991123.ece
Well, of course we do, though not nearly as much as the Government would have us believe, by any stretch of the imagination.
But that is because there are no economies of scale in Scotland to compare with those in England as the areas outwith the Central belt are more sparsely populated. You are, after all looking at an English population of around 350 per sq km and a Scottish one of 65 per sq km.
So a hospital outside the Central Belt, for example, will cost more per head than in England because it costs as much to build and staff, but doesn't service the same number of patients..........but does that mean we don't need hospitals?
Trunk roads have to be maintained.........but as the length of the country is just 140 kms shorter than England, and the population is so much smaller, the roads cost more per head of population.....but does that mean we don't need roads?
I'd guess that the cost of infrastructure etc in the Central Belt wouldn't be too different from much of England........but the sparse population in the Borders, Highlands and Islands skew the figures per head............does that mean we should still be using drover's roads, living in but and bens and dying because there is no hospital within a few hundred miles?
To quote Marcus Linklater, not known for his SNP credentials............
When it comes to what is known as identifiable spending, Scotland is not the most generously funded part of the UK – that is Northern Ireland, which spends £8,216 per head on public services, or about 25 per cent more than the UK average. Scotland comes next, at £7,597, just ahead of Wales, and 16 per cent above the UK average. English regions vary widely. If you took London, at £8,404 per head, it would outstrip Scotland. Regions like the North East or South West fare worst.
see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1991123.ece
So if Scotland's infrastructure costs more to maintain than the equivalent in England, what will be change in the tax burden to the average Scot in an independent Scotland given that we are a 12th of the UK population?
Well, of course we do, though not nearly as much as the Government would have us believe, by any stretch of the imagination.
But that is because there are no economies of scale in Scotland to compare with those in England as the areas outwith the Central belt are more sparsely populated. You are, after all looking at an English population of around 350 per sq km and a Scottish one of 65 per sq km.
So a hospital outside the Central Belt, for example, will cost more per head than in England because it costs as much to build and staff, but doesn't service the same number of patients..........but does that mean we don't need hospitals?
Trunk roads have to be maintained.........but as the length of the country is just 140 kms shorter than England, and the population is so much smaller, the roads cost more per head of population.....but does that mean we don't need roads?
I'd guess that the cost of infrastructure etc in the Central Belt wouldn't be too different from much of England........but the sparse population in the Borders, Highlands and Islands skew the figures per head............does that mean we should still be using drover's roads, living in but and bens and dying because there is no hospital within a few hundred miles?
To quote Marcus Linklater, not known for his SNP credentials............
When it comes to what is known as identifiable spending, Scotland is not the most generously funded part of the UK – that is Northern Ireland, which spends £8,216 per head on public services, or about 25 per cent more than the UK average. Scotland comes next, at £7,597, just ahead of Wales, and 16 per cent above the UK average. English regions vary widely. If you took London, at £8,404 per head, it would outstrip Scotland. Regions like the North East or South West fare worst.
see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1991123.ece
I never said anything in relation to population, people per square metre, or anything elese.
The fact is Scotland gets more money from the UK than it provides. I'm not proud of that but it's true.
I never said anything in relation to population, people per square metre, or anything elese.
The fact is Scotland gets more money from the UK than it provides. I'm not proud of that but it's true.
And do you understand what I mean about economies of scale?
It is the fact of area to cover and less population which makes it necessary for Scotland to get more input per head than the North of England and Wales...........we have a large area to service and fewer people to service it.
Do you hear English people whining because London and NI get subsidised at a higher rate than any other part of the UK.......including Scotland?
No, you don't because they seem to think that Scotland is the only country or area being subsidised.............and it is not an issue which has only been raised since devolution!
But I'm quite happy for them to carry on, because it is all grist to the SNP mill! :D
So if Scotland's infrastructure costs more to maintain than the equivalent in England, what will be change in the tax burden to the average Scot in an independent Scotland given that we are a 12th of the UK population?
I don't know.............maybe if Westminster had been as keen to improve Scotland's road and rail infrastructure in the past as they have been to motorway and rail up England, it might not be something we would have to worry about now.......but the Barnett formula was introduced partly to correct previous imbalances.
No point anyway in asking me about increased costs, because I'm one of those who thinks that any extra cost would be worth it.
I guess, given that we would get what is left of our share of the oil and gas, our share of the divorce settlement and England would be a market for electricity and water (and whisky), not a lot more, if any..but maybe we'll have longer to drive over potholes. But as I don't drive, that doesn't worry me. :roll:
Oddquine I have no argument with you, what you say is true.
My original point, and it remains, is that Scotland, financially, is better off in the UK than out of it.
Fact.
Oddquine I have no argument with you, what you say is true.
My original point, and it remains, is that Scotland, financially, is better off in the UK than out of it.
Fact.
How do you know? The only way anyone will ever know is if we try.
Methinks the scaremongering, and frankly insulting, remarks by the Unionist parties since 1975 about the inability of the people of Scotland to make a kirk or a mill of their own lives has weakened the backbone of too many Scots.
I'm ashamed of any population too feart to put their toe in the water just in case it is colder than it looks.
Would there ever have been any of the global businesses in the world today if the person who set them up in the first place had said "I'm better off working for this employer than trying it on my own and taking the consequences"?
Scotsmen have always been open to taking a chance...........you only have to look at their impact on the rest of the world to see that.
I'm only sorry that the 21st century Scotsman has retreated behind the barricades to avoid taking responsibility for his own country and its future.
I "know" because the maths add up. We (Scotish) earn less as a nation than we spend.
If Scotland "went independent" we'd be worse off financially. There is no true argument against that.
Going off on a tangent, as I've done before,
Not that I'd support it, I think an independent highlands would be far more appropriate than an independent Scotland.
No point anyway in asking me about increased costs, because I'm one of those who thinks that any extra cost would be worth it.
So let me get this right. Even if we faced a heavier tax burden in order to pay for all the infrastructure (that we've become accustomed to btw)in an independent Scotland and the UK would still be having a lion's share of the oil revenue from the discovered reserves, you would still think it would be worth having our independence?
The only way that the Scottish treasury could balance the books would be to increase taxation and/or cut public spending. Which essential service should we start by cutting with first? Will my daughter understand that she can't go on holiday because Mummy and Daddy are paying too much tax? Unless it will be crystal clear (and not a gamble into the unknown) that an independent Scotland will be good for her citizens, do you think it is wise to push Scotland prematurely towards independence? Every Scotsperson in their heart would want a prosperous independent country for themselves but the reality is that rational decisions are taken by the brain, and would we want to vote for poverty?
I "know" because the maths add up. We (Scotish) earn less as a nation than we spend.
If Scotland "went independent" we'd be worse off financially. There is no true argument against that.
Going off on a tangent, as I've done before,
Not that I'd support it, I think an independent highlands would be far more appropriate than an independent Scotland.
Independent Highlands? Now then you would be talking about swingeing taxes.......the Highlands needs the Central Belt in the same way as Scotland currently 'needs' Westminster.
Have you never noticed the tendency for "needs" to expand to fill the available income?
I'm quite sure that Scotland could manage fine on less until they can encourage immigration to fill the available jobs and up the taxpayer levels...............after all, it is only England which is too full.
We might be worse off financially in the short term.................although until there is a divorce settlement we won't know, will we........but once we can organize our economy without the influence of the overheated South of England..............who knows how things will go?
So let me get this right. Even if we faced a heavier tax burden in order to pay for all the infrastructure (that we've become accustomed to btw)in an independent Scotland and the UK would still be having a lion's share of the oil revenue from the discovered reserves, you would still think it would be worth having our independence?
And how do you come to the conclusion that the rest of the UK would have the lion's share of any oil/gas in the internationally accepted Scottish waters...unless Scotland thought it a bargaining tool to get other concessions from Westminster?
In any divorce/separation, assets are divided...........sometimes by imposition from outside.....sometimes by agreement ............and a Scotland/UK separation would be no different.
As someone who has spent he last two years going up a cart track to my abode, the roads would have to get pretty bad before it would bother me, btw! :lol:
And how do you come to the conclusion that the rest of the UK would have the lion's share of any oil/gas in the internationally accepted Scottish waters
I guess that with the oil being in British waters and has been discovered and extracted with British tax revenue, the lion's share being paid for by mostly non Scottish sources, any divorce separation treaty would have to take this into consideration, like with any divorce.
Obviously, any new discoveries would be Scottish, but that is a gamble.
I guess that with the oil being in British waters and has been discovered and extracted with British tax revenue, the lion's share being paid for by mostly non Scottish sources, any divorce separation treaty would have to take this into consideration, like with any divorce.
Obviously, any new discoveries would be Scottish, but that is a gamble.
Erm.....no! The oil was extracted by private firms and the revenue went TO the British exchequer..................and Scotland pays into that exchequer anyway.
All oil/gas fields in Scottish waters would be Scottish under international law...........there are only British waters because there is a Britain.................and what share, if any, that the rest of the UK got would be down to negotiation and a bit of give and take.
The origins of the private firms has nothing to do with anything............there are a lot of non-British firms spending and making money in the UK. They pay their taxes and spend their money where their business is .
Why would you think that they would ship out because Scotland was independent......especially as they may well be taxed less.
Erm.....no! The oil was extracted by private firms and the revenue went TO the British exchequer..................and Scotland pays into that exchequer anyway.
Wasn't BP a British firm set up by British taxpayers money? Hasn't British tax payers money paid for the education of the lions share of the people who work on British rigs?
Of course, given the chance of a vote of allegiance(sp), Shetlanders would allign themselves to Norway tomorrow, which would mean that any British or Scottish claim to the best North Sea oil revenues would be dead in the water.
If you can see anything wrong with Shetland going it alone then you can imagine what the UK would be like if Scotland got all the oil.
Wasn't BP a British firm set up by British taxpayers money? Hasn't British tax payers money paid for the education of the lions share of the people who work on British rigs?
True......but the Government in their infinite wisdom decided to make it private...........so the point is moot.
The British(which includes the Scottish) taxpayer has paid for the education of most people who work in any British business.............does that give them any rights over them other than apply taxes?
So your argument is? :roll:
Of course, given the chance of a vote of allegiance(sp), Shetlanders would allign themselves to Norway tomorrow, which would mean that any British or Scottish claim to the best North Sea oil revenues would be dead in the water.
If you can see anything wrong with Shetland going it alone then you can imagine what the UK would be like if Scotland got all the oil.
If Shetland want to go it alone after independence(which being part of Norway would preclude, btw), there would be the same negotiations over assets as there would be with Westminster.............and good luck to them.
All oil/gas fields in Scottish waters would be Scottish under international law...........there are only British waters because there is a Britain.................and what share, if any, that the rest of the UK got would be down to negotiation and a bit of give and take.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Anything more than 12 miles from the shore is international, that said the oil fields are British by international agreement. Therefore any 'give and take' will be proportional to ratios of population, ie, Scotland would be entitled to about 8.5% of the oil in the North Sea. If you have any solid evidence to say otherwise then please enlighten me. If you think that Scotland could garner greater proportions by bleating to the European Union, then I would imagine given the UK's greater diplomatic influence then Scotland would be sold down the river in a legal fight. The UK went to war over oil so I'd imagine she wouldn't give up oil that she already has direct control over without a fight of sorts, to think otherwise would be folly.
And if you think that Scotland could have a European mandate to gain greater control over 'its' oil, then I am afraid that Scots on the whole are more anti-European than the English, so either the SNP will force through EU membership without a vote or we will be out in the European wilderness.
The SNP play this European card and then play the Norway model on the next breath, you just couldn't make it up.
Unless we know for sure what will happen to the oil and which way we will go in regards to Europe before an independence vote is taken then I would say it would be too much of a gamble with the welfare of Scots to take.
We can cry 'Freedom' all we like but freedom doesn't put food on the table.
If Shetland want to go it alone after independence(which being part of Norway would preclude, btw), there would be the same negotiations over assets as there would be with Westminster.............and good luck to them.
If Shetland alligned itself to Norway using the geographical model for ownership then Norway would have a rightful claim to oilfields west of Shetland. Then it would be good luck to Norway, but this is all hypothetical using the SNP's arguement, but the priciple is the same as Scotland going independent. Sole ownership to oil fields wouldn't be based on geographical grounds. Let us remind ourselves that it will be Scotland getting independence from Britain not the other way around. lol
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Anything more than 12 miles from the shore is international, that said the oil fields are British by international agreement.
Only because Britain exists. On Independence I would guess that at the very least the waters will be divided according to the boundaries agreed by Westminster on devolution...even though Westminster nicked some for England.
Therefore any 'give and take' will be proportional to ratios of population, ie, Scotland would be entitled to about 8.5% of the oil in the North Sea. If you have any solid evidence to say otherwise then please enlighten me. If you think that Scotland could garner greater proportions by bleating to the European Union, then I would imagine given the UK's greater diplomatic influence then Scotland would be sold down the river in a legal fight. The UK went to war over oil so I'd imagine she wouldn't give up oil that she already has direct control over without a fight of sorts, to think otherwise would be folly.
Nothing to do with population. The UK is made up of four different countries, which if there was to be a complete dissolving of all the Unions, would leave each one with its own coastal waters and the continental shelf according to international convention.........which was exactly the (slightly rearranged) convention) used to apportion the Waters which legally came under Scottish jurisdiction on devolution.
Do you really think if it was done on population, we'd have got more than 8.5%?
And we wouldn't be bleating to the EU, we'd be bleating to the International Courts..............but then, I don't think, if push comes to shove, that Westminster would be anything but sensible.
And if you think that Scotland could have a European mandate to gain greater control over 'its' oil, then I am afraid that Scots on the whole are more anti-European than the English, so either the SNP will force through EU membership without a vote or we will be out in the European wilderness.
The SNP play this European card and then play the Norway model on the next breath, you just couldn't make it up.
Unless we know for sure what will happen to the oil and which way we will go in regards to Europe before an independence vote is taken then I would say it would be too much of a gamble with the welfare of Scots to take.
We can cry 'Freedom' all we like but freedom doesn't put food on the table.
What on earth does Europe have to do with "allowing" any country to control its own oil?
The bulk of the oil would go with Scotland............fact.............and Scotland may or may not join the EU..........fact............but the EU has nothing to do with ownership of the oil in either event.............fact.
Personally, I'd be happier out of the EU.
There will be a referendum on it though.........because there will be an election on independence, once negotiations have been done......and the SNP's purpose in life will have disappeared, so they will too............and then whichever party standing offers a referendum on EU membership will get in!
Only because Britain exists. On Independence I would guess that at the very least the waters will be divided according to the boundaries agreed by Westminster on devolution...even though Westminster nicked some for England.
Nothing to do with population. The UK is made up of four different countries, which if there was to be a complete dissolving of all the Unions, would leave each one with its own coastal waters and the continental shelf according to international convention.........which was exactly the (slightly rearranged) convention) used to apportion the Waters which legally came under Scottish jurisdiction on devolution.
Do you really think if it was done on population, we'd have got more than 8.5%?
And we wouldn't be bleating to the EU, we'd be bleating to the International Courts..............but then, I don't think, if push comes to shove, that Westminster would be anything but sensible.
What on earth does Europe have to do with "allowing" any country to control its own oil?
The bulk of the oil would go with Scotland............fact.............and Scotland may or may not join the EU..........fact............but the EU has nothing to do with ownership of the oil in either event.............fact.
Personally, I'd be happier out of the EU.
There will be a referendum on it though.........because there will be an election on independence, once negotiations have been done......and the SNP's purpose in life will have disappeared, so they will too............and then whichever party standing offers a referendum on EU membership will get in!
I think you have just proven the futility of discussing Scottish independence in terms of economic benefit when you admit yourself that independence will be worth it at any price. You would rather kids go without clothes on their back and no food on the table than be a part of the UK. Thankfully, Scots are known for more rational thought.
Britain will exist as a union of 3 nations even if Scotland goes independent, so there is still a valid claim on the oil in the name of Britain.
Britain isn't a federal Union, it is an inclusive union where representation is based upon broadly demographic proportions, so any division of oil will be dependent on population.
Non of what you have said will come to pass.
Sole ownership to oil fields wouldn't be based on geographical grounds. Let us remind ourselves that it will be Scotland getting independence from Britain not the other way around. lol
Yes it will............what on earth do you think the criteria is?
And we wouldn't be "getting independence".............we have always been an "independent" member of the union, never having been conquered and made part of England ............whatever those south of the border think.............we would be reasserting our independence.
We would negotiate our way out of the Treaty of Union because it is no longer fit for the purpose, and if we have to make concessions over the oil to get concessions elsewhere, then I assume we would.
We "chose" to enter into the Union.............we can choose to leave it.................just as so many other countries in the world have left Unions in the past..........and not such a distant past at that.
Yes it will............what on earth do you think the criteria is?.
The 'sea-grab' has already been made and decided upon whether you or I like it or not, it is British not Scottish. The legality has been sewn up by Britain.
I think you have just proven the futility of discussing Scottish independence in terms of economic benefit when you admit yourself that independence will be worth it at any price. You would rather kids go without clothes on their back and no food on the table than be a part of the UK.
Britain will exist as a union of 3 nations even if Scotland goes independent, so there is still a valid claim on the oil in the name of Britain.
Britain isn't a federal Union, it is an inclusive union where representation is based upon broadly demographic proportions, so any division of oil will be dependent on population.
Non of what you have said will come to pass.
For the love of Pete, how's about the odd bit of accurate rebuttal instead of stupid remarks like
You would rather kids go without clothes on their back and no food on the table than be a part of the UK.
Show me a website which says that Scotland would only get 8.5% of Scotland's waters on independence.....that might be a bit more convincing! Read my lips.........no there isn't a valid claim on the oil in the name of Britain............Scotland is entitled under International Law to the mineral deposits in the waters delineated as belonging to Scotland under International Law and Convention.........which won't be changed to suit England after all this time.
And a Union which does not contain Scotland has no entitlement to Scotland's waters.............so continuing to use the name Britain means nothing at all.
They can hardly call themselves Great Britain, not being a union of all parts of the island...........and Britain for the purposes of apportioning the waters to the UK is The Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland....which would not exist if we had independence.....would it? :roll:
Believe me......population has NOTHING to do with it
For the love of Pete, how's about the odd bit of accurate rebuttal instead of stupid remarks like
You would rather kids go without clothes on their back and no food on the table than be a part of the UK.
Show me a website which says that Scotland would only get 8.5% of Scotland's waters on independence.....that might be a bit more convincing! Read my lips.........no there isn't a valid claim on the oil in the name of Britain............Scotland is entitled under International Law to the mineral deposits in the waters delineated as belonging to Scotland under International Law and Convention.........which won't be changed to suit England after all this time.
And a Union which does not contain Scotland has no entitlement to Scotland's waters.............so continuing to use the name Britain means nothing at all.
They can hardly call themselves Great Britain, not being a union of all parts of the island...........and Britain for the purposes of apportioning the waters to the UK is The Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland....which would not exist if we had independence.....would it? :roll:
Believe me......population has NOTHING to do with it
I admire your passion, but your nationalism is clouding your better judgement. And you did say that independence would be worth any cost.
The 'sea-grab' has already been made and decided upon whether you or I like it or not, it is British not Scottish. The legality has been sewn up by Britain.
What sea-grab? The whole of the waters round the British Isles? :confused
Link to proof, please.........:lol:
Do you really not understand that when Great Britain doesn't exist in its present form as a legal entity, all bets are off.
What sea-grab? The whole of the waters round the British Isles? :confused
Link to proof, please.........:lol:
Do you really not understand that when Great Britain doesn't exist in its present form as a legal entity, all bets are off.
The proof is that the mineral rights are British, whether you like it or not because the last time i checked, Britain does actually exist lol
I admire your passion, but your nationalism is clouding your better judgement. And you did say that independence would be worth any cost.
Excuse me..but that is my personal opinion and not one I expect anyone else to agree with.
However I am presently not giving the case for independence, I am simply responding to the erroneous, misguided and scare-mongering statements you are making because you do not appear to understand the difference between a country and a legal entity.
The proof is that the mineral rights are British, whether you like it or not because the last time i checked, Britain does actually exist lol
Of course it does...and will until independence....when it won't.
Now is that simple enough for you..................on independence the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist...........so no more British waters .
I am simply responding to the erroneous, misguided and scare-mongering statements you are making because you do not appear to understand the difference between a country and a legal entity.
Then the majority of British citizens must be erroneous and misguided then, including the major political leaders except the SNP's ones, I am happy with that. The UK has the legal entitlement to exploit the oil within its prescribed areas, I am sorry if that is a bitter pill for you but it is the truth. By the time that Alex Salmond's national conversation with independence has ended into a whimper, by all the evidence I've seen, there will be little oil left. Then there will be little appetite for independence and oil.
on independence the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist...........so no more British waters .
Do you really think that Scotland will end up keeping all the oil in the Shetland areas? This has been a bank roller for the UK since it was discovered. No International court would see the UK go without a good share of existing discoveries, least have the break up of the UK harm its economy. I am sorry if you really think otherwise.
Then the majority of British citizens must be erroneous and misguided then, including the major political leaders except the SNP's ones, I am happy with that. The UK has the legal entitlement to exploit the oil within its prescribed areas, I am sorry if that is a bitter pill for you but it is the truth. By the time that Alex Salmond's national conversation with independence has ended into a whimper, by all the evidence I've seen, there will be little oil left. Then there will be little appetite for independence and oil.
Surely there can't be many like you who think that contracts can't be broken...and that is all the Union is...a contract. In fact, if you think how many of the clauses in it have been broken by Westminster over the centuries, it should just be a formality to get out of it!
It has a legal entitlement as long as there is a Union......how often do you have to be told that before it gets through to you.
You have, in every post, gone on as if on independence for Scotland England keeps the rights which would go with Scotland.
Maybe so, maybe not.......but I was a nationalist before oil, and I'll be one after it.
Do you really think that Scotland will end up keeping all the oil in the Shetland areas? This has been a bank roller for the UK since it was discovered. No International court would see the UK go without a good share of future discoveries, least go have the break up of the UK harm its economy. I am sorry if you really think otherwise.
I don't think otherwise, I know otherwise..........the International Court is not run for the benefit of "Britain". The criteria are laid out clearly.
There is absolutely nothing the International Court can do but apply the Law and Conventions as they have in every other situation where a country has removed itself from a Union or Federation. There are three options as how to go about it...........but none of them would take the bulk of the Oil out of Scotland's jurisdiction.
As for the oil off the Shetlands, I have no idea......that would be down to them.
Surely there can't be many like you who think that contracts can't be broken...and that is all the Union is...a contract. In fact, if you think how many of the clauses in it have been broken by Westminster over the centuries, it should just be a formality to get out of it!
It has a legal entitlement as long as there is a Union......how often do you have to be told that before it gets through to you.
You have, in every post, gone on as if on independence for Scotland England keeps the rights which would go with Scotland.
Maybe so, maybe not.......but I was a nationalist before oil, and I'll be one after it.
I don't think otherwise, I know otherwise..........the International Court is not run for the benefit of "Britain". The criteria are laid out clearly.
There is absolutely nothing the International Court can do but apply the Law and Conventions as they have in every other situation where a country has removed itself from a Union or Federation. There are three options as how to go about it...........but none of them would take the bulk of the Oil out of Scotland's jurisdiction.
As for the oil off the Shetlands, I have no idea......that would be down to them.
The Union of Gt Britain has been a contract that has largely benefitted the whole better than the sum of its equal parts, so yes it is a contract worth staying in, and one that hasn't been broken. And the Union will remain after if Scotland goes, obviously not in its present form but with the entitlement to exploit the north sea oil intact. Remember international waters only go to 12 miles and it is Scotland that will be bowing out of the contract, that is what the International court will take into consideration if asked to arbitrate the juridiction over the oil. As I said, Britain has it sewn up legally, I don't have to like it, I just accept it.
If you were a nationalist before oil then you really are in the minority, once the last few drips go, little nationalist fervour will remain in the rest of us.
It was Alex Salmond who said that Scotland was a country under illegal occupation, if it was illegal, why hasn't the International court or the UN done anything about it?
The Union of Gt Britain has been a contract that has largely benefitted the whole better than the sum of its equal parts, so yes it is a contract worth staying in, and one that hasn't been broken. And the Union will remain after if Scotland goes, obviously not in its present form but with the entitlement to exploit the north sea oil intact. Remember international waters only go to 12 miles and it is Scotland that will be bowing out of the contract, that is what the International court will take into consideration if asked to arbitrate the juridiction over the oil. As I said, Britain has it sewn up legally, I don't have to like it, I just accept it.
I really can't think of words of few syllables to get it through to you that
And the Union will remain after if Scotland goes, obviously not in its present form but with the entitlement to exploit the north sea oil intact is simply not correct.
You are talking from the level of wishful thinking.
If you were a nationalist before oil then you really are in the minority, once the last few drips go, little nationalist fervour will remain in the rest of us.
Am I bothered? :roll:
It was Alex Salmond who said that Scotland was a country under illegal occupation, if it was illegal, why hasn't the International court or the UN done anything about it?
Because the UN only bothers about illegal occupations if there is killing? And the International Court has to be asked?
I think I'm wasting my time here............it is clear you have your own agenda, and facts are an inconvenience to you in expounding it.
Bye, Raonaid!
I really can't think of words of few syllables to get it through to you that
And the Union will remain after if Scotland goes, obviously not in its present form but with the entitlement to exploit the north sea oil intact is simply not correct.
You are talking from the level of wishful thinking.
Why would it be wishful thinking? Northern Irish, Welsh and English MPs will still sit in Westminister, unless you know different, that will still be a Union. Are you so sure that the Union depends on Scottish membership for its survival? As with any break up, be it a domicile one or otherwise, the spoils will be split dependent on the contribution of each party of that contract. The partition of the UK if it will ever happen will be no different and the remaining parties will have their proportionate plunder.
Am I bothered? :roll:
You should be if you want independence because you will need a majority in a referendum.
it is clear you have your own agenda,
And you don't? lol
Why would it be wishful thinking? Northern Irish, Welsh and English MPs will still sit in Westminister, unless you know different, that will still be a Union. Are you so sure that the Union depends on Scottish membership for its survival? As with any break up, be it a domicile one or otherwise, the spoils will be split dependent on the contribution of each party of that contract. The partition of the UK if it will ever happen will be no different and the remaining parties will have their proportionate plunder.
I have never said that the Union can't exist without Scotland..........what I have been trying to get through to you is that without Scotland in the Union, there is no access to Scottish Waters without negotiation........and Scotland's agreement.
It has nothing to do with proportionality,it has everything to do with sovereignty!
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
what I have been trying to get through to you is that without Scotland in the Union, there is no access to Scottish Waters without negotiation........and Scotland's agreement.
It has nothing to do with proportionality,it has everything to do with sovereignty!
I am sorry Oddquine, I disagree, if, and thats a big IF, Scotland ever does become fully independent, (and I hope I never live to see that). Most of the so called "Scottish Oil" as the Nats call it, are out with Scottish so called Territorial waters, Scotland would have to go the the International Courts to get that sorted out, to define the limits of waters that could possibly be called Scottish.
The Waters around the UK are, IMO UK waters, and have been defended and policed by the UK Government for many years now, and should stay that way.
Do you really not understand that when Great Britain doesn't exist in its present form as a legal entity, all bets are off.In that case you can say goodbye to "Scotland's Oil".
The EU have already indicated they have their eye on getting their hands on control of it and once "all bets are off" the Big Bookmakers in Brussels will make sure they are the one setting the odds, you can be certain of that.
Oil production will disappear far faster than the fishing fleet ever did.
It has nothing to do with proportionality,it has everything to do with sovereignty
And the UK has sovereignty over the North Sea oil which is more than 12 miles from the Scottish shore. I have searched the internet and have only found UK claims relating to sovereignty to north sea oil, nothing which says it is Scottish and extracted under licence to UK companies. lol
I am sorry Oddquine, I disagree, if, and thats a big IF, Scotland ever does become fully independent, (and I hope I never live to see that). Most of the so called "Scottish Oil" as the Nats call it, are out with Scottish so called Territorial waters, Scotland would have to go the the International Courts to get that sorted out, to define the limits of waters that could possibly be called Scottish.
The Waters around the UK are, IMO UK waters, and have been defended and policed by the UK Government for many years now, and should stay that way.
From the UN website..........
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA 10 December 1982
Part II Section 2 Article 3
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
Part VI Article 76
The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.
Scottish Waters as defined by the UK Government with reference to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea...........
(a) in the North Sea, a line—
(i) joining the following co-ordinates—
(1) 55° 48` 45"N; 2° 01` 54"W
(2) 55° 49` 50"N; 1° 59` 58"W
(3) 55° 50` 43"N; 1° 58` 09"W
(4) 55° 50` 47"N; 1° 57` 55"W
(5) 55° 53` 20"N; 1° 48` 28"W
(6) 55° 53` 29"N; 1° 47` 54"W
(7) 55° 55` 04"N; 1° 43` 32"W,
(ii) then following, in a south easterly direction, the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters until the position 55° 50` 00"N; 1° 27` 31"W, and
(iii) then following, in an easterly direction, the parallel of latitude 55° 50` 00"N until its intersection with the Dividing Line;
(b) in the Irish Sea, a line joining the following co-ordinates—
(1) 54° 37` 54"N; 3° 50` 46"W
(2) 54° 37` 37"N; 3° 51` 04"W
(3) 54° 37` 00"N; 3° 52` 04"W
(4) 54° 36` 11"N; 3° 53` 51"W
(5) 54° 33` 17"N; 4° 00` 10"W
(6) 54° 32` 51"N; 4° 01` 06"W
(7) 54° 31` 55"N; 4° 03` 08"W
(8) 54° 30` 03"N; 4° 04` 24"W, then following the seaward limit of United Kingdom territorial waters to
(9) 54° 30` 22"N; 4° 04` 50"W
(10) 54° 30` 00"N; 4° 05` 29"W
(11) 54° 30` 00"N; 5° 00` 00"W;
So I reckon, as the UK Parliament has already divided the UK waters into four parts according to the Laws and Conventions of the Seas for jurisdiction purposes, pretty much the same co-ordinates would be applicable on the independence of any one of the four.
And I think that reply would also apply to Raonaid's and Jaws posts as well.
From the UN website..........
As you corrected me before, what has the UN got to do with it? lol Since the UN is a toothless beaurocracy, I wouldn't take heed to anything they say, the UK didn't when they they went into Iraq for oil so why would they adhere to any resolutions in Scotland's favor? lol Do you think Russia will adhere to what the UN says about their claim to the arctic sea bed?
If the U.K government doesn't need scotland then why are they so desperate to avoid a referendum on independance?
As you corrected me before, what has the UN got to do with it? lol Since the UN is a toothless beaurocracy, I wouldn't take heed to anything they say, the UK didn't when they they went into Iraq for oil so why would they adhere to any resolutions in Scotland's favor? lol Do you think Russia will adhere to what the UN says about their claim to the arctic sea bed?
Actually, I was talking about the EU when I said that.............and with regard to the UN, I was replying to your post about Alex Salmond's illegal occupation remark when I said they'd not do anything.......not about the International Convention of the Sea to which the UK (which you seem to think will still exist after Scottish independence just as it was before independence) has signed up.
There are many taxes raised in Scotland which go direct to the UK Treasury and are not accounted for in Scotland's national account. North Sea oil is just one example of such a tax. Scotland also has a proportional share of the UK fiscal or borrowed deficit which also needs to be taken into account, but seldom is. Hence the reason why Scotland may appear in be in deficit by anything up to £12 billion. Have you ever noticed how the figure quoted as the Scottish fiscal deficit varies? For example Blair quoted it as being £6 billion and a week later Brown quoted it as being £3.5 billion. If Scotland were to grant England independance, the benefits to scottish taxpayer would be enormous.
So I reckon, as the UK Parliament has already divided the UK waters into four parts according to the Laws and Conventions of the Seas for jurisdiction purposes, pretty much the same co-ordinates would be applicable on the independence of any one of the four.
And I think that reply would also apply to Raonaid's and Jaws posts as well.I take it in that case we can fish in the Territorial Waters in any way we wish. I wonder what happened to the Fishing Fleets that Britain was famous for?
Does Britain set it's own quotas for fishing in it's own Territorial Waters?
The same set-up could soon be applied to Oil and with very little problem once it's decided to carve it up.
I take it in that case we can fish in the Territorial Waters in any way we wish. I wonder what happened to the Fishing Fleets that Britain was famous for?
Does Britain set it's own quotas for fishing in it's own Territorial Waters?
The same set-up could soon be applied to Oil and with very little problem once it's decided to carve it up.
Tell you what...you point me to something which says The EU have already indicated they have their eye on getting their hands on control of it...and I'll discuss it.
As for fishing...........the decimation of the UK fishing fleets is purely down to a UK Government which sacrificed them...........after all, they didn't have to agree to join the EU!
As for fishing...........the decimation of the UK fishing fleets is purely down to a UK Government which sacrificed them...........after all, they didn't have to agree to join the EU!
The decimation of the fishing fleet was down to a lack of fish.:lol:
As for the oil, the meridian lines were drawn up in the 1960s as a local agreement between interested nation states, the UK being just one nation in the negotiations. If independence went ahead then the agreement would be local again, between Scotland and the rest of the UK, there would be little need for external arbitration. Whether it would go along the meridian basis again is very uncertain, it would be good for Scotland if it did as the oil north of Berwick would be Scotland's.
Until I know for sure, whether we will join the EU or how the oil will be carved up then I won't be voting for independence. My nightmare scenario will be getting scraps from the oil and being out of the EU umberella, a bit like Albania.
Currrently, we are in a good position, the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, we have a permanent seat on the UN security council, and little ol' Scotland can send MPs right to the heart of Westminster to hold the balance of political power and yield that power and influence to the world on behalf of the English.
Welcomefamily
10-Oct-07, 14:10
Perhaps we should have was Europe a good thing thread? coming from the South West and a firm believer in its liberation and independence away from Westminister (South West = the boundaries of the accient kingdom of Avalon which run from Cornwall to just north of the levels of Glastonbury where Arthur was burried).
I think we should give Scotland independence, however such a move would create such a wave of negative feeling down South that Scotland would find it very difficult. People down South do believe very strongly in the Union and we saw recently just how easy the public distroyed Northern Rock, it lost 80% of its value. Dont forget money markets can play a major role. Lots of people would like to see it fail to the point that many major corporation may pull out of Scotland, I asked a fund manager friend in London about what he thought the reaction would be? he said he would instant pull out all funds that he controls out of companies based in Scotland if the unions breaks up.
peter macdonald
11-Oct-07, 09:05
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1622722007
Why dont i like new Labour and Westminster (and its "open government" ???)
PM
j4bberw0ck
11-Oct-07, 14:36
Peter, I know you know what my opinion of politicians is, because we've discussed it, so the rights and wrongs of the Son of The Manse taking back £8 million isn't something I'm going to get involved in. But listening to the news coverage, and the ravings of Mr Lochhead on Radio 4 this morning, desperately trying to work this up into some kind of a story, I thought it would be interesting to put a bit of perspective on it:
Value of pension funds for MSPs (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/anrep-accts/accounts/accounts-06/sp-pf06-01.htm), accumulated since 1 April 1999, at 31 March 2006, £15.67 million. (And look at the generosity of the scheme!)
In the last five years, Scotland has had a 28.7 per cent rise in the funds coming to it from the Treasury (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1596762007), taking the Scottish Government's total budget to over £30 billion. It was roughly half that when the Scottish parliament was established.
Budget: £30,000,000,000. Problem: £8,000,000 goes walkies.
If you deposited £30 billion in your Bank at 5.5% interest per annum, £8 million is 4 days' interest.
As a percentage of £30,000 million, £8 million is 0.0267% - in other words, it's not even a rounding error! I have serious doubt as to whether it's significantly larger than the entertaining bill for Members' guests but can't find a figure, unfortunately. They're maybe too canny to publish one in case we the poor old taxpayer rumble them.
Under-16's in Scotland spent over £30 million a year on alcohol, illegally, in 2002. (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020421/ai_n12575466)Perhaps they should have some pocket money diverted to the farmers?
Cost, 2003-4, of providing the Scottish Parliament with staff, services and property "necessary for its purposes" (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/anrep-accts/accounts/accounts-04/schedule5.pdf)(and this figure does not include the costs of the Scottish Parliament): £62.939 million
So, there may indeed be dirty tricks going on between fellow Scotsmen but let's not exaggerate the sums of money involved, eh? And spare a thought for poor old Alastair Darling, Scottish gentleman lawyer, who is to Gordon Brown what Orville was to Keith Harris....... let's hope one of them at least has access to industrial quantities of lube and those long-sleeved gloves vets use, eh? :lol::lol:
Not sure that it is the amount that is the problem, J4bberw0ck, but the fact that all things to do with Animal Health etc is a reserved issue, so Westminster should be recompensing all areas affected by the foot and mouth restrictions...........which included Scotland and Wales.
If issues are reserved, it is a Westminster responsibility to fund.
j4bberw0ck
11-Oct-07, 22:39
Yep, I know. That's why I was showing how trivial the number is. I was just struck by the frantic efforts of all the politicians to talk it up into a life-and-death-for-farmers issue. Lochhead, on R4, was trying so hard but even he didn't sound as though he really believed it was anything important; it's just a token that's in play. The sorry fact is we're all doomed to years of this backbiting, niggling, posturing and downright misrepresentation now, until the Nats are voted out.
I'd like to add "or until Brown is" but it won't make any difference at all who's in power in Westminster.
peter macdonald
11-Oct-07, 22:55
Mercy me Jwok can you forsee an end to the New Labour at Westminster?? A lurch to the left perhaps with David Camerons Tories ??? Maybe thats why the son of the Manse didna fancy an election !! or was Alister Darling and himself too busy pilfering ideas from the Tory conference to keep middle England happy to call one
All best
PM
Yep, I know. That's why I was showing how trivial the number is. I was just struck by the frantic efforts of all the politicians to talk it up into a life-and-death-for-farmers issue. Lochhead, on R4, was trying so hard but even he didn't sound as though he really believed it was anything important; it's just a token that's in play. The sorry fact is we're all doomed to years of this backbiting, niggling, posturing and downright misrepresentation now, until the Nats are voted out.
I'd like to add "or until Brown is" but it won't make any difference at all who's in power in Westminster.
If you are to go by the farmers, it has hit many of them very hard. Can't say I thought Richard Lochhead sounded as you seem to have heard him, though.
Imo, if Westminster plays by the rules with Scotland, the SNP will play by the rules with them. It's not rocket science, just common sense.
Though the more Westminster plays silly beggars, the more grist to the independence mill. :D
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 09:37
I think one of those ghosties or ghoulies has got in here; I replied to this before I left the house this morning, and it's gorn..... must have hit the wrong button ....
Mercy me Jwok can you forsee an end to the New Labour at Westminster?? A lurch to the left perhaps with David Camerons Tories ???
An unpredictable lurch anywhere, and then back again, with the Cameroons, sure enough. (I won't say "right enough" as I think you may be right correct.....)
too busy pilfering ideas from the Tory conference
It was a bit shamelessly naked, wasn't it? Especially since what they did was say well they might do it but only if they'd already raised the same amount of money from other taxes first. Gordon Brown has made anyone else unelectable by making sure that 43% of voters rely on the public sector either for employment or benefits (including tax credits which are bennies by another name) so that anyone who even hints about tax cuts will be seen like the man coming for the turkeys at Christmas.....
So that's why the Tories were careful to say they'd put taxes in elsewhere to balance it; what's interesting there is that no one seems to have picked up on the tax balancing thing - they just went overboard for what sounded like a tax cut. Who knows? Maybe the Tories will discover they have a pair of cojones after all, even if Baroness Thatcher is no longer amongst them :lol::lol: .
If you are to go by the farmers, it has hit many of them very hard.
Yes; industries which depend on farming, too. I have a good many friends (yes! Really!) involved in those sectors. What'll be interesting is to see how long the Scot Exec leaves farming dangling before digging into the fluff in their back pocket and finding 0.02% of their total budget; or will it be the Palestine Solution? Let them rot because "it wasn't our fault".
Imo, if Westminster plays by the rules with Scotland, the SNP will play by the rules with them. It's not rocket science, just common sense.Unfortunately, I don't share your confidence. The SNP is a minority administration and can only make ground amongst voters, quickly, by appealing to the Braveheart Tendency - "Look! Those bloody English are doing us down again!!" To make ground by demonstrating they can do something differently will take the one thing they don't control - time. The SNP are, after all, politicians and prey to the same snidey backbiting, cheating, lying and manipulating that afflicts all politicians.
Though the more Westminster plays silly beggars, the more grist to the independence millYes indeed; but it's all in Westminster being seen to play silly beggars. And the way for that to happen is for the Nats to bellyache about trivia, making Westminster look unreasonable. If it weren't a Nat administration, this £8 mio thing wouldn't have been a story at all; there'd have been an exchange of memos and the thing would get sorted. But it's in the Nats' interests to make sure this gets publicity. And so it'll go on..... and on..... and on..... <yawn> zzzzzzzz......
j4bberw0ck
17-Oct-07, 18:29
What'll be interesting is to see how long the Scot Exec leaves farming dangling before digging into the fluff in their back pocket and finding 0.02% of their total budget; or will it be the Palestine Solution? Let them rot because "it wasn't our fault".
Well, not a word from the Exec, while farmers representatives shuttle up and down to and from meetings with Tony Benn's wee boy, who reiterates that he hasn't any money for them.
The answer, my friends, is dangling in the wind; the answer is dangling in the wind.
(Sorry Bob Dylan)
Great Britain will exist even if Scotland is politically independent. Great Britain refers to the landmass that is England, Scotland and Wales (without the wee Island bitties) - always a good one to stir an Irishman up is to tell him he lives on the British Isles;) He may not like it - but he does. Rule Britannia!
peter macdonald
18-Oct-07, 13:04
"Well, not a word from the Exec, while farmers representatives shuttle up and down to and from meetings with Tony Benn's wee boy, who reiterates that he hasn't any money for them."
Jwok where do you get this from its the Exec + Lib Dems and Tories who are/were fighting for this
"The National Farmers Union Scotland, backed by MPs including Angus MacNeil of the SNP, and Conservative David Mundell, had asked for a package of £59 million."
Farmers are facing financial losses because of movement restrictions imposed after the recent outbreak in England. But Mr Benn said it was for the Scottish Government to cover the costs of the ban, lifted last night.
Alistair Carmichael, the Orkney and Shetland Liberal Democrat MP who organised the meeting, said: "There is no difference in principle between the situation faced by farmers today and that for which they were compensated in 2001."
There was a debate last night in Westminster and not one Scottish MP was called to speak Mind you with reactions such as this from a Scottish New Labour MP its a good job "Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow South West, told MPs that Scots farmers unions should be asking the "Scottish Executive" for compensation cash.
And he asked: "Does it not seem either astonishingly naive or deliberately misleading [for] [SNP] members opposite to be saying it is all Westminster's responsibility, when the Scottish Executive has only recently been given £1 billion of unspent money for previous years?"
Wow thats fair sticking up for Scotland that is !!!
In regard to the underspend a part of that was not spending on crofting infrastucture !!!!!
It looks as if any money given in compensation will come from Edinburgh for a leak from a government establishment in Surrey about 500 miles from here which initiated a ban on lamb exports by the EU in Brussels
Very strange that when Gordon Brown declined to call an election the offer to Welsh and Scottish farmers just seemed to disappear Nu labour spin or just forgetfulness You can make up your mind
PM
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=251&id=1662072007
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.