View Full Version : Devolution
After watching a couple of political programmes tonight, can I ask the question as to whether or not the far north east would be happy to see Scotland as a devolved country and why you would agree or not with the idea?
I would also be interested as to whether or not with the limited population north of Hadrian's wall as to whether it would be ecomically viable for Scotland to seek indepenence.
Can of worms here.
Personally I don't want an independent Scotland.
There's too many "bravehearters" that do.
I really don't understand most of them, it is far more an anti-English sentiment than a pro Scottish one. If you're not proud to be a Scot as a Brit, you're not a proud Scot.
Scotland (even with the oil) gets more, financially, from the UK/EU than it provides. Therefore an independent Scotland would have less to spend than we do now, therefore public services would be worse off.
These nationalists quote history, culture etc etc, but the reality is, if Caithness really wanted to "find our past" we would be voting to join Norway, not for an independent Scotland.
Where do we stop? An independent Caithness? An independent Thurso?
Be under no illusion, if the people of Shetland voted to go independent, with their oil assets they would be one of the richest "countries" in the world.
Welcomefamily
09-May-08, 07:50
At least if Caithness was independant we would not have a street sign issue, I think people should be given a vote so it can be settled once and for all.
porshiepoo
09-May-08, 08:33
IMO Scotland is part of Great Britain, as is England, Wales and Ireland, and should stay that way. There is no real justification for a devolved Scotland and I believe that the main reason for wanting it is, as Theone has already pointed out, more Anti-English sentiment than what is best for Scotland.
Could Scotland support itself financially? IMO no! Scotland overspends by millions each year and I don't think it could rely on any revenue from the North Sea oils. Should Scotland become devolved there would be a major shift about with regards to the oil and gas ownership, The Continental Shelf Act 1964 split the UK North Sea (although before the maritime boundary was changed most of the oil were in English waters) which may suggest that Scotland would get the majority of the oil and England the majority of the gas.
As far as I am aware one of the main problems with North Sea Oil is the huge costs of producing it and last I read the revenues from it were falling and predicted to carry on doing so. Things may well have changed though!
I'm not suggesting that oil is Scotlands only resource though.
The facts are that at the moment Scotland is subsidised by English taxes to the tune of around £1500 per head (last I read) under the Barnett Formula and the taxes raised in Scotland each year don't cover state expenditure, so where does the rest come from? English taxpayers!
A devolved Scotland will result in a poorer standard of living, extortionate taxes and then some.
The facts are that at the moment Scotland is subsidised by English taxes to the tune of around £1500 per head (last I read) under the Barnett Formula and the taxes raised in Scotland each year don't cover state expenditure, so where does the rest come from? English taxpayers!
It is exactly this kind of thinking, that divides people into us and them, be it from the Scottish or English "side" that creates division and rancor.
OK, so there aren't that many people here, so money needs to be "brought in". From where, considering it is the same country and considering the neglect that resulted in Scotland having less economic potencial that England? Developement was/is concentrated down South, in detriment to the north of the UK. That should be corrected. When a body is ill, it does not direct it's resources to the healthy bits, but those that need extra help fighting whatever is ailing the BODY, whose survival depends on the flourishing of the whole, not just parts. Economic resources have to be directed to developement of those areas that are not doing well, to guarantee a strong country. It's not a case of them down south paying to keep us up north. It's a case of making sure that as a body ( the UK), there are improvements, care and developement for all.
When exactly did wanting independence become racist?http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/images/newsmilies/biglaugh.gif
concerned resident
09-May-08, 14:53
I believe the people of Scotland have been mislead for years, by different governments in Westminster, and unfortunatley now, they can not let go of the apron strings, they lack the confidence to go it alone. I hope that one day the MP's in Westminster, will cut the purse strings, and the Scottish people will realize that the westminster propagander, was just a cover story, while they were plundering Scotland of her assets.
There have been so many arguments over the years about this emotive subject that I don't know who to believe. I'm sure I read once that back in the 70's,(when I was still a kid), Ted Heath was seriously looking at giving Scotland either independence or devolution until they found oil in the North Sea! Also, consider that the Thatcher Government inherited £3000 million pounds in oil reserve's, would you want to give that up?
I don't honestly know which way I would vote if given the choice of independence-both sides would have their spin doctor's in overdrive just to confuse us. I didn't vote for devolution because I didn't believe in it, it just seemed to me to be a sort of half-hearted gesture-we can make some decision's but they held the real power.
Scotland may one day be independant, probably when the oil has run out, but I pray to God it isn't under Salmond's control.
There have been so many arguments over the years about this emotive subject that I don't know who to believe. I'm sure I read once that back in the 70's,(when I was still a kid), Ted Heath was seriously looking at giving Scotland either independence or devolution until they found oil in the North Sea! Also, consider that the Thatcher Government inherited £3000 million pounds in oil reserve's, would you want to give that up?
I don't honestly know which way I would vote if given the choice of independence-both sides would have their spin doctor's in overdrive just to confuse us. I didn't vote for devolution because I didn't believe in it, it just seemed to me to be a sort of half-hearted gesture-we can make some decision's but they held the real power.
Scotland may one day be independant, probably when the oil has run out, but I pray to God it isn't under Salmond's control.Will you get a vote in Hampshire?
why do you hope Alex Salmond is not in charge, Would you rather have Wendy Alexander?[lol]
Will you get a vote in Hampshire?
why do you hope Alex Salmond is not in charge, Would you rather have Wendy Alexander?[lol]
I hope to move back to Scotland someday. I'd rather have neither if it's all the same to you-it's like asking which do I want-TB or Dysentry?
Lord Flasheart
09-May-08, 15:51
Why not ??
Look at all the inventions Scots have given the world and the contributions the people we have exported to places such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand have made. Having been to Canada there are phone books there that read like a Culloden roll call. How ironic that we now seem crippled by a lack of self confidence when Oil producing countries like Norway and Denmark seem perfectly capable of going it alone.
Just think how funny it would be to see the English at the Olympics dressed as Morris Dancers in their "National Costume", heck I would do it just to see that !!
Why not ??
Look at all the inventions Scots have given the world and the contributions the people we have exported to places such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand have made. Having been to Canada there are phone books there that read like a Culloden roll call. How ironic that we now seem crippled by a lack of self confidence when Oil producing countries like Norway and Denmark seem perfectly capable of going it alone.
Just think how funny it would be to see the English at the Olympics dressed as Morris Dancers in their "National Costume", heck I would do it just to see that !!
The English would certainly win gold in the Lager Lout categories.
The English would certainly win gold in the Lager Lout categories.
And before anyone get's up in arm's over that statement, I know Scotland has it's share of lout's. But it was a joke. And it's Friday and I feel good and I don't really care anyway. So there,*tongue sticking out*:D
Lord Flasheart
09-May-08, 16:42
And before anyone get's up in arm's over that statement, I know Scotland has it's share of lout's. But it was a joke. And it's Friday and I feel good and I don't really care anyway. So there,*tongue sticking out*:D
Arent the louts in Scotland called Glaswegians ??
Disclaimer : My comment is sarcastic and is in no way to be interpreted as a racial or ethnic slur on the population of Stratclyde .. Even if I personally feel that we would be better off without the place.
There .. that should keep me from being sued (or chivved).
Arent the louts in Scotland called Glaswegians ??
Disclaimer : My comment is sarcastic and is in no way to be interpreted as a racial or ethnic slur on the population of Stratclyde .. Even if I personally feel that we would be better off without the place.
There .. that should keep me from being sued (or chivved).
"Even if I personally feel that we would be better of without the place"
I take it you mean Glasgow and not Strathclyde? I'm from Strathclyde and I'm one of the better one's
Lord Flasheart
09-May-08, 17:39
"Even if I personally feel that we would be better of without the place"
I take it you mean Glasgow and not Strathclyde? I'm from Strathclyde and I'm one of the better one's
Yup. Not got a soft spot for Glasgow after being quite severly beaten up there by three big brave lads. I must have posed quite a challenge as I stood there hammered and trying to out stare a kebab.
And because of River City.
Yup. Not got a soft spot for Glasgow after being quite severly beaten up there by three big brave lads. I must have posed quite a challenge as I stood there hammered and trying to out stare a kebab.
And because of River City.
True, I've probably had more hassle in Glasgow from 'superlager superheroes' than I've had anywhere else I've lived in UK.
Definitely with you on River City too. And for Lulu, cant stand her-she makes me want to shout!
percy toboggan
09-May-08, 20:17
Why not ??
Just think how funny it would be to see the English at the Olympics dressed as Morris Dancers in their "National Costume", heck I would do it just to see that !!
Cheap shot: at least the men don't wear skirts.
Hve you ever watched 'proper' Morris Dancing ?It's rather more violent than many might assume.
The people of these islands have more that unites , than divides.
Each nation greater within the sum of their parts than standing alone.
Lord Flasheart perhaps you could tell me when Denmark left The European Union?
This question was asked about whether or not Scotland would be economically viable and as to what folk thought on the matter and their views on devolution so I am some what surprised to read the glib remarks about other Scots.
I fully appreciate that as one poster said this subject opens up a "Can of worms." But honest opinions and sensible posts would be appreciated.
DeHaviLand
09-May-08, 22:55
After watching a couple of political programmes tonight, can I ask the question as to whether or not the far north east would be happy to see Scotland as a devolved country and why you would agree or not with the idea?
I would also be interested as to whether or not with the limited population north of Hadrian's wall as to whether it would be ecomically viable for Scotland to seek indepenence.
I dont understand your questioning Lizz. Scotland is a devolved country, and has been for the last 9 years or so! Maybe you missed it?
I dont understand your questioning Lizz. Scotland is a devolved country, and has been for the last 9 years or so! Maybe you missed it?
Lizz asked a genuine question, and every other poster has understood her intent, the independence question. Did you not understand her question or do you just like belittling?
DeHaviLand
09-May-08, 23:29
Lizz asked a genuine question, and every other poster has understood her intent, the independence question. Did you not understand her question or do you just like belittling?
What do you think? Read through the posts again, then read my post again. Especially the bit where it says " I dont understand your questioning", then answer your own question.
Good of you to speak for everyone else though, I'm sure they appreciate it.
What do you think? Read through the posts again, then read my post again. Especially the bit where it says " I dont understand your questioning", then answer your own question.
Good of you to speak for everyone else though, I'm sure they appreciate it.
She used the word "devolved", shame on her as you obviously see it.
What she meant was independence.
It is obvious because of the context she used it in.
Sorry I got my wires crossed as DeHaviland pointed out I should have said independant and NOT devolved.
It isn't a matter of opinion whether Scotland could 'go it alone' as an independent country, it's a matter of money. IIRC most economists and lawyers agree that in most scenarios revenues from North Sea Oil passing through Aberdeen in an independent Scotland would provide roughly the same 'extra' money that our current highly favourable Barnett deal provides. This is independent of their political hue and of which side of the independence/nationalist fence they live on. The SNP claim we'd be a bit better off at present, Labour claim we'd be a bit worse off. My best guess is that not much would change.
The real question is what happens in the longer term. A small country on the periphery of Europe is more prone to fluctuations in just about anything than a large one. Whether this effect could be counterbalanced by either local decision making or closer integration in the EU is a difficult question to answer.
Moi x
Boozeburglar
10-May-08, 12:35
Denmark has a thriving economy driven by diverse industry. There is low unemployment and a high standard of living; with a negligible number of people living beneath the ‘poverty’ line.
Denmark is in the black, to the tune of >4 billion. The UK is in the red >110 billion.
Denmark’s oil reserves are estimated to be around one third of Scotland’s.
Unlike Denmark, Scotland is one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations; recently revealed as a world class venue for all types of outdoor events. This is an area of our economy that seems set to grow exponentially.
We have world leading expertise in almost every area of life, (especially science and industry), having led the world in most things at some point. There is massive potential for expansion and diversification of industry in Scotland.
(At the very least we should be making all the wind turbines we are erecting here at home.)
Talking about Scotland as a ‘small country on the periphery of Europe’ is anachronistic in light of today’s global economy.
Edinburgh and Glasgow sit at 18th and 22nd on the Global Financial Centres Index respectively. Hardly small beer for a country of five million people, and definitely an indication we are in there mixing it with the big boys.
Is there any compelling argument that we do not have the tools and resources to make our own future a good one?
If you're not proud to be a Scot as a Brit, you're not a proud Scot.
You seem to suggest that you need to identify as a Brit to be a proud Scot. Utter tosh.
As far as I am aware one of the main problems with North Sea Oil is the huge costs of producing it and last I read the revenues from it were falling and predicted to carry on doing so. Things may well have changed though!
You have obviously forgotten the last time you debated this issue on the Org. Scotland has the largest identified viable reserves of oil in the EU; and there is plenty reason to suggest there is more to come. This is why Westminster won't give it up without a fight.
The facts are that at the moment Scotland is subsidised by English taxes to the tune of around £1500 per head (last I read) under the Barnett Formula and the taxes raised in Scotland each year don't cover state expenditure, so where does the rest come from? English taxpayers!
Who subsidises who? It depends who you believe when it comes to adding up the sums. The 'rest', if there were a deficit, is more than covered by Scottish oil.
A devolved Scotland will result in a poorer standard of living, extortionate taxes and then some.
That is pure speculation, we have every reason to believe it is not the case.
Just a thought, if and only if, Scotland does head down the road to Independence. Do we still stay in the EU? Or would we have to re-negotiate membership?
Another Can of Worms to contend with.
Lord Flasheart
10-May-08, 12:57
Just a thought, if and only if, Scotland does head down the road to Independence. Do we still stay in the EU? Or would we have to re-negotiate membership?
Another Can of Worms to contend with.
How about renewing the "Auld Alliance" instead ??
For me the benefits of being in the EU are outweighed by the drawbacks.
Just a thought, if and only if, Scotland does head down the road to Independence. Do we still stay in the EU? Or would we have to re-negotiate membership?
Another Can of Worms to contend with.Norway manages just fine without having membership.
Norway manages just fine without having membership.
Norway has got the highest cost of living in Europe.
I was in Sweden last year and some people were telling me that the Swedes are not very happy with the Norwegians at all, cos lots of the Norwegians are popping across to Sweden to buy retirement homes. They are doing this because they cannot afford to retire in Norway. In the process they are driving up the price of housing in Sweden.
Norway is slowly pricing itself out of a future and I would not be surprised to see Norway turning to the EU shortly for help.
I see no problem with an independent Scotland, but we should not be looking to Norway for inspiration. I would look more to Ireland. This is an independent country on the periphery of Europe that is doing very well for itself thank you very much (and that without oil). But Ireland has only managed this because it embraced the Euro and has the full weight of Europe behind it.
Scotland can manage independence, but only if it has the full backing of the EU.
Denmark has a thriving economy driven by diverse industry. There is low unemployment and a high standard of living; with a negligible number of people living beneath the ‘poverty’ line.
Denmark is in the black, to the tune of >4 billion. The UK is in the red >110 billion.
Denmark’s oil reserves are estimated to be around one third of Scotland’s.It's not difficult to find a small country and extol its virtues. You need to argue that small is better. I could similarly argue that big is better, the USA is a prime example and Germany and France aren't too bad. :cool:
Unlike Denmark, Scotland is one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations; recently revealed as a world class venue for all types of outdoor events. This is an area of our economy that seems set to grow exponentially.All economies grow exponentially. I'm not convinced you know what 'exponentially' means.
Can you provide figures on the respective tourist industries?
We have world leading expertise in almost every area of life, (especially science and industry), having led the world in most things at some point. There is massive potential for expansion and diversification of industry in Scotland.May I remind you that we led the world as part of the United Kingdom and that the Scottish enlightenment might not have taken place if we had been independent at the time? It certainly wouldn't have done if the battle of Culloden had gone the other way.
I would hesitate before claiming we are world leading in industry. Which industry? We don't have much industry and we haven't had since the 70s. I would dearly love to agree with you but I don't see any world leading industry here. (That's not quite true, but do you know it too?)
We are proving to be better at science than 'industry' in the 21st century, but science is expensive and the big countries tend to be way out in front there.
(At the very least we should be making all the wind turbines we are erecting here at home.)I knew we'd agree on something eventually.
Talking about Scotland as a ‘small country on the periphery of Europe’ is anachronistic in light of today’s global economy.I'll admit to adding that as an afterthought but on reflection it's still a consideration, especially if we want to make things and sell them abroad. We are further away from our markets than Denmark is.
Does Ireland make lots of things and sell them abroad, and is that what made them successful? I honestly don't know.
Edinburgh and Glasgow sit at 18th and 22nd on the Global Financial Centres Index respectively. Hardly small beer for a country of five million people, and definitely an indication we are in there mixing it with the big boys.Now you're talking real sense. We have the expertise, we have the infrastructure, we speak the international language of finance (namely English), and our geographical position is irrelevant in a global industry that's largely electronic.
Is there any compelling argument that we do not have the tools and resources to make our own future a good one?Maybe. Maybe not. Let's keep discussing it. I'm not an immutable unionist but I'm not convinced by the separatist case either.
Moi x
I'm even more confused now.
Ireland has only managed this because it embraced the Euro and has the full weight of Europe behind it.Ireland's miraculous economic recovery predates the Euro's birth in 2002 by at least 10 years. Arguably, it suffered from the deflationary policies of the ECB for the 5 years following the Euro's launch and during the last few years of the ERM before that. Britain avoided Euroland's dark years by keeping out of it. Since you live in Germany you will know all about your adopted country's high unemployment rate and its sluggish economic growth for most of the last 20 years. Germany is rich because it did outstandingly well between 1950 and 1990. It will do well in the future because it has a very efficient industrial base, despite the dark early years of budget restrictions in Euroland.
Scotland can manage independence, but only if it has the full backing of the EU.Yes, I think you're right there, but is it better than a future within the UK?
Moi x
I'm even more confused now.Good. Making the right choice always involves a good deal of confusion along the way.
Moi x
Boozeburglar
11-May-08, 13:32
It's not difficult to find a small country and extol its virtues. You need to argue that small is better. I could similarly argue that big is better, the USA is a prime example and Germany and France aren't too bad.I need to argue that small is better? You set the terms of this debate? I rather thought it was a public message board on which I had posted.
I have not set out to argue that small is better, nor have I stated such. I have merely given an example of a country that has much in common with Scotland in terms of population, (and many other things), that is doing fine on its own.
If you wish to argue that 'big is better' carry on; but I would suggest you cross France and the US off your list of good examples.
The US trade deficit; and the fact that growth and GDP per capita in France and Germany is behind the UK does not inspire me. Germany was of course impressive up until reunification but how would the UK ever replicate the circumstances in which that impressive run occurred? It is neither a model that can be followed nor a set of circumstances that can be replicated.
Do we really want to model ourselves on the USA? A country where a larger number of people live in poverty than here; a country that is wilfully wreaking havoc on the environment?
All economies grow exponentially. I'm not convinced you know what 'exponentially' means.Suggesting my grasp of the English language is wanting because you do not understand the context in which I have used a word is very poor, and rather lazy. I should not be surprised; you appear to have very selective reading ability. You repeatedly attribute meaning to my words that only imagination could lend them.
Can you provide figures on the respective tourist industries?Do I really need to? “It seems”, clearly indicates conjecture.
May I remind you that we led the world as part of the United Kingdom and that the Scottish enlightenment might not have taken place if we had been independent at the time? It certainly wouldn't have done if the battle of Culloden had gone the other way.I am referring to areas of endeavour Scots have led. Scotland, the Scots and the future of such is what I am here discussing.
Why exactly would the battle of Culloden going the ‘other’ way have prevented the continuation of the Scottish Enlightenment? That movement's main protagonists may have had a unionist bent but was the purpose of those defeated at Culloden a Scotland from which all non-Catholic intellectuals would flee, enforced closure of the Scottish Universities and an end to all philosophical debate and work towards any noble end?
I'm not convinced you know what the Jacobites were all about.
University of St. Andrews 1413, Glasgow 1451, Aberdeen 1495, Edinburgh 1583.
The real grounding for the Scottish Enlightenment was there long before the continuation of the troubles in the mid 18th Century. It could be argued that political unrest is a necessary catalyst for intellectual revolution.
Besides, are we not discussing what is good for Scotland today and tomorrow?
I would hesitate before claiming we are world leading in industry.I merely stated that we have world leading expertise, having led in most things in the past. Amongst ‘most things’ we have led at some point are Science, Medicine, Philosophy and Economics. We currently have experts in all fields of human endeavour; many of them leading large organisations worldwide. Plenty evidence that we are still producing Scots that could take Scotland further given the tight focus and dynamism independence would bring.
science is expensive and the big countries tend to be way out in front there.Big countries like Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Finland and Denmark? We only have to do well relatively to thrive. Our ancestors demonstrated the ability to compete with the greatest civilisations in history. Surviving economically should be small beer in comparison.
We are further away from our markets than Denmark is.We are? US 14%, Germany 11%, France 10%, Ireland 7%, Netherlands 6%, Belgium 5%, Spain 4%, (UK Exports by country, all approximate based on various sources, Google it).
Scotland is closer to the US, France, Ireland and Spain, that is 35% v 22% of our export market. Once we have figures based on an independent Scotland, we can also assume that England, (a net importer by some margin), will become our major ‘market’ and trading partner. Is that not right next door?
We may also fully trade on Scotland's popularity, no longer hamstrung by the indifference to outright hatred felt towards the English in many countries.
Does Ireland make lots of things and sell them abroad, and is that what made them successful?Ireland exports over 120 billion of goods every year, relative to imports of little over 90. The UK currently imports near 600 billion but exports only around 400. You could say that Ireland is doing pretty well out of its relationship with the US, an example Scotland could follow.
I am certain that their strong trade with the US is bound up with something more personal than economic convenience, I feel it is much to do with a feeling of family that is shared equally between Scotland and the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
porshiepoo
11-May-08, 14:03
You have obviously forgotten the last time you debated this issue on the Org. Scotland has the largest identified viable reserves of oil in the EU; and there is plenty reason to suggest there is more to come. This is why Westminster won't give it up without a fight.
But Scotland does not own the oil. When the oil was discovered the oil field deeds state that Great Britain own the rights and the resources. An independent Scotland would not be part of the Union and so would have no claim to the resources. Great Britain owns North Sea Oil.
Besides which, until the territorial waters were adjusted in the 70's, England owned alot more of the oil fields now in Scottish waters. These boundaries will probably be called to be readjusted if Scotland became independent.
Since you live in Germany you will know all about your adopted country's high unemployment rate and its sluggish economic growth for most of the last 20 years.
Yes, I think you're right there, but is it better than a future within the UK?
Moi x
Germany has had its problems recently the same as many other countries in Europe. The unemployment rate has dropped sharply under Angie’s management (though whether she and her mates had much to do with this I don’t know), it is now into single figures I believe. We are also told that the economy is on the up and up.
What I find sad is that the trouble Germany has just been through and what it is experiencing now are very similar to the problems the UK faced in the 80’s. Germany has just been through a period of high unemployment and a rocky economy. During this time, many workers over 45 were forced out and a lot of young, dynamic no-nothings were bought in to replace them. Now Germany has discovered that it has a huge shortage of skilled workers and engineers.
Ring a bell?
You would think the politicians and business chiefs were learn from each other wouldn’t you?
I honestly don’t know whether Scotland would have a better future going it alone or by staying within the UK and I don’t think anyone can answer that question with any certainty.
I do know that the smaller, less well off countries tend to attract the EU subsidies and grants, while the more affluent countries are expected to pay more in to finance these subsidies and grants. This is after all one of the main aims of the EU – the well off help the less well off.
The UK is classed as one of the well off. What would an independent Scotland be classed as?
The present UK government seems to have stagnated. I feel that under this present government and if the UK keeps to its present course, Scotland would be better off going it alone.
Ask me again two years after the UK has voted in a new government.
I need to argue that small is better? You set the terms of this debate? I rather thought it was a public message board on which I had posted.
I have not set out to argue that small is better, nor have I stated such. I have merely given an example of a country that has much in common with Scotland in terms of population, (and many other things), that is doing fine on its own.
If you wish to argue that 'big is better' carry on; but I would suggest you cross France and the US off your list of good examples.
The US trade deficit; and the fact that growth and GDP per capita in France and Germany is behind the UK does not inspire me. Germany was of course impressive up until reunification but how would the UK ever replicate the circumstances in which that impressive run occurred? It is neither a model that can be followed nor a set of circumstances that can be replicated.
Do we really want to model ourselves on the USA? A country where a larger number of people live in poverty than here; a country that is wilfully wreaking havoc on the environment?
Suggesting my grasp of the English language is wanting because you do not understand the context in which I have used a word is very poor, and rather lazy. I should not be surprised; you appear to have very selective reading ability. You repeatedly attribute meaning to my words that only imagination could lend them.
Do I really need to? “It seems”, clearly indicates conjecture.
I am referring to areas of endeavour Scots have led. Scotland, the Scots and the future of such is what I am here discussing.
Why exactly would the battle of Culloden going the ‘other’ way have prevented the continuation of the Scottish Enlightenment? That movement's main protagonists may have had a unionist bent but was the purpose of those defeated at Culloden a Scotland from which all non-Catholic intellectuals would flee, enforced closure of the Scottish Universities and an end to all philosophical debate and work towards any noble end?
I'm not convinced you know what the Jacobites were all about.
University of St. Andrews 1413, Glasgow 1451, Aberdeen 1495, Edinburgh 1583.
The real grounding for the Scottish Enlightenment was there long before the continuation of the troubles in the mid 18th Century. It could be argued that political unrest is a necessary catalyst for intellectual revolution.
Besides, are we not discussing what is good for Scotland today and tomorrow?
I merely stated that we have world leading expertise, having led in most things in the past. Amongst ‘most things’ we have led at some point are Science, Medicine, Philosophy and Economics. We currently have experts in all fields of human endeavour; many of them leading large organisations worldwide. Plenty evidence that we are still producing Scots that could take Scotland further given the tight focus and dynamism independence would bring.
Big countries like Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Finland and Denmark? We only have to do well relatively to thrive. Our ancestors demonstrated the ability to compete with the greatest civilisations in history. Surviving economically should be small beer in comparison.
We are? US 14%, Germany 11%, France 10%, Ireland 7%, Netherlands 6%, Belgium 5%, Spain 4%, (UK Exports by country, all approximate based on various sources, Google it).
Scotland is closer to the US, France, Ireland and Spain, that is 35% v 22% of our export market. Once we have figures based on an independent Scotland, we can also assume that England, (a net importer by some margin), will become our major ‘market’ and trading partner. Is that not right next door?
We may also fully trade on Scotland's popularity, no longer hamstrung by the indifference to outright hatred felt towards the English in many countries.
Ireland exports over 120 billion of goods every year, relative to imports of little over 90. The UK currently imports near 600 billion but exports only around 400. You could say that Ireland is doing pretty well out of its relationship with the US, an example Scotland could follow.
I am certain that their strong trade with the US is bound up with something more personal than economic convenience, I feel it is much to do with a feeling of family that is shared equally between Scotland and the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
I was going to stick my oar in-but after that -I aint' even goin' the water:(;):D
To all those that have posted on this thread, I would like to say thank you for the views expressed and the various pertenent points raised.
I am a little bit wiser and a little bit older but still confused by the whole issue.
I'm even more confused now.
LOL yeah am just glancing through this thread and will be sniffing some rosemary oil before I tackle all that [lol][lol][lol]
Sometimes ignorance is bliss-this is one of those times lol
Denmark has a thriving economy driven by diverse industry. There is low unemployment and a high standard of living; with a negligible number of people living beneath the ‘poverty’ line.
Denmark is in the black, to the tune of >4 billion. The UK is in the red >110 billion.
Denmark’s oil reserves are estimated to be around one third of Scotland’s.
Unlike Denmark, Scotland is one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations; recently revealed as a world class venue for all types of outdoor events. This is an area of our economy that seems set to grow exponentially.
We have world leading expertise in almost every area of life, (especially science and industry), having led the world in most things at some point. There is massive potential for expansion and diversification of industry in Scotland.
(At the very least we should be making all the wind turbines we are erecting here at home.)
Talking about Scotland as a ‘small country on the periphery of Europe’ is anachronistic in light of today’s global economy.
Edinburgh and Glasgow sit at 18th and 22nd on the Global Financial Centres Index respectively. Hardly small beer for a country of five million people, and definitely an indication we are in there mixing it with the big boys.
Is there any compelling argument that we do not have the tools and resources to make our own future a good one?
You seem to suggest that you need to identify as a Brit to be a proud Scot. Utter tosh.
You have obviously forgotten the last time you debated this issue on the Org. Scotland has the largest identified viable reserves of oil in the EU; and there is plenty reason to suggest there is more to come. This is why Westminster won't give it up without a fight.
Who subsidises who? It depends who you believe when it comes to adding up the sums. The 'rest', if there were a deficit, is more than covered by Scottish oil.
That is pure speculation, we have every reason to believe it is not the case.
Goodness me, boozeburglar, I seem to have stirred your pot with my late night drunken ramblings. I've been in Paris for the last three weeks and I didn't see your post until now. I'll have to think a bit before replying.
But Scotland does not own the oil. When the oil was discovered the oil field deeds state that Great Britain own the rights and the resources. An independent Scotland would not be part of the Union and so would have no claim to the resources. Great Britain owns North Sea Oil.
Besides which, until the territorial waters were adjusted in the 70's, England owned alot more of the oil fields now in Scottish waters. These boundaries will probably be called to be readjusted if Scotland became independent.
The UK Government in the 70's accepted that the bulk of the oil was Scotland's............or do you think there was another reason for them to hide the McCrone report?
Dickering done by the UK re boundaries would be invalid on Independence, and the boundaries would revert to those under international convention.
peter macdonald
01-Jun-08, 15:13
The line has aready been drawn if you work in the British waters in the North Sea and something happens ie an accident or illegal fishing you come under English law if you are south of a line drawn due east from the border just above Berwick on Tweed If the incident happens above that line you come under Scots law To be more exact The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law It had been the case for years before that ,just ask any fisherman from the border area
PM
Boozeburglar
01-Jun-08, 20:13
Good info Peter, thanks!
:)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.