View Full Version : Mr Salmonds Scotland
Tom Cornwall
19-Aug-08, 20:55
If, as Alex Salmond hopes, Scotland becomes an independent country, will they still get money from the UK purse? If not, where will the money come from to pay for the free elderly health care and free university places and anything else they have given. Surely the Scottish people wouldn't want to be taxed any more than they are just now. Tourism and any oil revenue won't cover the costs. Surely the Scottish people will have more sense than to go down that road.:(
The oil revenue will cover it. It is in "Britains" best interests to keep Scotland. If we had our own country and got to keep our own oil we would be the sixth wealthiest country in the world. I know where my vote is going in 2010.
If, as Alex Salmond hopes, Scotland becomes an independent country, will they still get money from the UK purse? If not, where will the money come from to pay for the free elderly health care and free university places and anything else they have given. Surely the Scottish people wouldn't want to be taxed any more than they are just now. Tourism and any oil revenue won't cover the costs. Surely the Scottish people will have more sense than to go down that road.:(Scotland will survive on it's own and the Scottish voter will surely have more sense than to believe all the scare tactics used by the unionists.
northener
19-Aug-08, 22:03
The oil revenue will cover it. It is in "Britains" best interests to keep Scotland. If we had our own country and got to keep our own oil we would be the sixth wealthiest country in the world. I know where my vote is going in 2010.
Isn't it rather short-sighted to base Scotlands future on a singular finite resource?
I would like to know where each side of the argument can substantiate their claims whether or not we can survive?? I am not into politics and find it quite boring in fact, but my brother got a first class degree in politics and intenational relations and his claim, through hard facts, was that Scotland could not survive on it's own. We are talking about 15 or so years ago, but surely things couldn't have changed so much?
There are so many unanswered questions such as: -
1) Would we have our own army? If so, how large and how would it be funded? Would we be automatic members of NATO by default?
2) Where would we get our electricity from seeing as salmond is so anti-nuclear and building coal-fired stations is a no-no. If we were to survive with windmills, we would need the whole country covered from top-to-toe in them. Tidal power is still in it's infancy.
3) What about gas supplies?
4) What about having ambassadors and their residences that go along with that? All a costly business.
I'm sure there will be plenty others with questions to add.
I don't believe for one minute that Scotland would be the 6th richest country in the world through oil revenue. It is fine saying the amount of oil that there is in the North Sea, but it ain't so easy to extract like it is in the Arab states.
The Loafer
Bad Manners
19-Aug-08, 22:31
I'm a highlander first and foremost but it says a lot as to the state of the country(UK). That a great deal of Scotlands population of all nationalities would like independance. When a significate people have a will to suceed they make a formidable force. A great deal is made of whether scotland would survive on it's own. a similar question should be raised how would england survive without scotland and wales. as it stands both sides would find it difficult for different reasons. We would all be better off if we were equals but as long as the current goverment thinks anything outside the M25 is not worth anything we will always have asperations to be the proud country we all want to be.
rob murray
20-Aug-08, 12:17
Never mind so called westminster isolation...what about central belt isolation....how do you define "Scotland"...or how do you think traditional central belt parties view the Highlands...if the recent inept carve up of Highlands and Islands Enterprise is anything to go on central belt nats are as removed from understanding the Highlands and Islands as any westminster based politician / party !! Salmons Scotland will follow a central belt determined agenda.
porshiepoo
20-Aug-08, 12:34
As time goes by there'll be more and more non Scottish people living in Scotland anyway, so by the time any real chance of independence comes about, nobody will want it. :lol:
As for the oil: if an independent Scotland based it's wealth and ability to thrive on its north sea production then it's doomed from the start. Scotland needs to start looking at its many other assets in order to move forward with its independence.
Besides, if Scotland did become independent then the Maritime borders may well be shufted back to where they were originally (before Scotland changed them in 74ish) and then there won't be the oil resource anyway.
If, as Alex Salmond hopes, Scotland becomes an independent country, will they still get money from the UK purse? If not, where will the money come from to pay for the free elderly health care and free university places and anything else they have given. Surely the Scottish people wouldn't want to be taxed any more than they are just now. Tourism and any oil revenue won't cover the costs. Surely the Scottish people will have more sense than to go down that road.:(
I think the debate on total independence for scotland is something that needs to be addressed and debated and voted on and settle this topic once and for all one way or the other.
Scotland is a land under occupation by an oppressive regime. I know where my vote will be going next time.
Scotland is a land under occupation by an oppressive regime. I know where my vote will be going next time.Have we been invaded lately?
The oil revenue will cover it. It is in "Britains" best interests to keep Scotland. If we had our own country and got to keep our own oil we would be the sixth wealthiest country in the world. I know where my vote is going in 2010.
This argument has been done to death many times on here.
Here is a link from the Scottish Government.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/18170334/9
It's for 2006-2007, but is the most recently available. To summarise:
Scotland "spends" £10.2 billion more than it brings in to the UK (before Oil).
Oil and gas revenue from the Scottish sector of the north sea £7.5 billion.
Therefore Scotland would be £2.7 billion worse off outside of the UK.
Melancholy Man
20-Aug-08, 15:05
The oil revenue will cover it. It is in "Britains" best interests to keep Scotland. If we had our own country and got to keep our own oil we would be the sixth wealthiest country in the world. I know where my vote is going in 2010.
Do we really have to have this discussion again? It ain't "our" oil. It is oil which rests under Scottish waters, which I would have thought was an elementary concept for a political party which claims to be non-racist. Nor did it ooze forth unbidden, but required massive investment of infrastructure and intellectual currency.
The idea that North Sea oil has been used to build social housing in Newcastle or finance Truro hospitals or build London schools is too ridiculous for words. In the absense of a notable mistreatment of a population/national group (e.g. Scots) and disparity in treatment with other groups (e.g. English), any nationalism movement is reactionary and divisive.
For anyone else who continues to adopts this chauvenistic demand for "our oil", I hope you have a business plan for repaying the post-WWII regeneration and foundation of the NHS in Scotland and the set-up costs for "our oil" and wattknot. Two can play at this game of mercurial, avaricious sniping, you know.
Anyone starting a new life is required to pay off their overdraught, credit cards and other bills.
Scotland is a land under occupation by an oppressive regime. I know where my vote will be going next time.
Replace Scotland with Westminster, and you get the codswallop from the English Democrats.
would we as independant scots be still stuck with the eec? if not ,would this not also help with farming and fishery and every other business they have strangled with their regulations
I would never vote for Independence as I cant see us surviving without the rest of Britain.
I am a Unionist and like it the way it is. The great myth of "the oil, the oil" will save us is utter nonsense. Westmininster through alot of money our way and we put alot back with oil and gas, so it suits everyone.Quid pro quo
If we ever did(god help us) get independence we wouldnt be the 6th richest we would become a small unimportant country that used to be good but would be run to the ground by the fish mannie and his band of numpties :)
Melancholy Man
20-Aug-08, 18:45
The main flaw in "our oil" argument is that it implies that, without oil revenues, many of the floating voters would opt for the Union. Let Westminster and the general kudos of the Union carry on funding any shortfalls in financing the state which they have become accustomed to.
Fair enough, let them hold that view. But don't let them delude themselves that they're in any way progressive and leftist, as opposed to cynical opportunists.
I'm warming to Jeremy Paxman more and more every day.
If we ever did(god help us) get independence we wouldnt be the 6th richest we would become a small unimportant country that used to be good
And then the griping would start that "England" had rail-roaded us into independence and asset-stripped, and left us high and dry.
but would be run to the ground by the fish mannie and his band of numptiesSuch as McMoonface's petitioning of Zimbabwe or Iran or (this was at the time of protesting monks) Burma for sponsoring Scotland as observer status on the UN (why?); which, diddums for him, has been met with resounding uninterest. Or his bluster and kak-handedness with Trump. But there is a fair sprinkling of something more sinister. I'm referring to the likes of prospective SNP candidate for Glasgow Central and activist in the reactionary and racist Muslim Brotherhood, jacobite jihadi Osama Saeed.
And most certainly his inviting the Iranian foreign minister to Holyrood, with the claim Scotland and Westminster have different foreign policies. Quite apart from the matter that Scotland doesn't have a foreign policy (well, nothing she would have to stump up the money for), this told the disproportionate level of Scots in the armed forces just how much the he thinks of them.
Someone asked above whether we'd get automatic admission to Nato. Maybe Salmond wouldn't mind, as he opposed the liberation of Kosova as Serbian forces limbered up for tens of thousands more racist murders of Muslim and other non-Serb Kosovars. Now he presents himself as a friend of Muslims.
Creep.
would we as independant scots be still stuck with the eec? if not ,would this not also help with farming and fishery and every other business they have strangled with their regulations
I quite agree. Let's ditch that and the EU, and achieve the greatness we deserve... just like Leichtenstein.
I think that Scotland has everything it needs to survive on its own as an independent entity, however I think we have missed the boat (on a couple of occasions) and are less well equipped currently than we would have been say in the 1970s and early at the period of the Scottish Enlightenment………but that does not mean that it still would not work. Personally I can’t get excited about it, and see it more of a saber rattling bravado than a thirst for self-determination.
It should also be noted that the Scottish Parliament, something I was also against, and Alex Salmond (who I don’t like) appear to be doing a pretty good job.
At heart I am a Unionist, and have no great wish for the end of the United Kingdom.
Welcomefamily
20-Aug-08, 18:58
I agree ditch the EEC, and at least have a vote and stop the arguement, a lot of English people would like to see Scotland independent.
percy toboggan
20-Aug-08, 19:02
building coal-fired stations is a no-no.
The Loafer
No it's not, one has just opened in England.
Neither will it be so in the future - coal is a very important part of our energy mix going forrad.
The general thrust of your post is correct though. Please...try not to find politics 'boring' because 'boredom' is for the dim, only.
percy toboggan
20-Aug-08, 19:05
If, as Alex Salmond hopes, Scotland becomes an independent country, will they still get money from the UK purse? If not, where will the money come from to pay for the free elderly health care and free university places and anything else they have given. Surely the Scottish people wouldn't want to be taxed any more than they are just now. Tourism and any oil revenue won't cover the costs. Surely the Scottish people will have more sense than to go down that road.:(
You are absolutely right in your conclusion Mr.Cornwall.
Mr.Toboggan
percy toboggan
20-Aug-08, 19:09
I agree ditch the EEC, and at least have a vote and stop the arguement, a lot of English people would like to see Scotland independent.
It's an E.U, now WF...a wholly different kettle of fish...speaking of which haven't the Spanish and Portuguese nicked most of 'em.
You are right...there is growing anitpathy towards Scotland south of the Gretna/Carter Bar border. This has been whipped up by inept politicians and dumb journalists, and finds fertile grounds in the minds of fed up, and exasperated Englanders who have never ventured north of said border....more fool them.
What about the Tory think-tank which recently published a study in which they say that cities in northern England (I’m not even sure if they included Scotland, which says a lot) are struggling and will never be able to regenerate and should be given up!! Residents of these northern under-achieving areas should up-sticks and move to the more prosperous south-east………..what a load of absolute balls.
northener
20-Aug-08, 19:42
Do we really have to have this discussion again? It ain't "our" oil. It is oil which rests under Scottish waters, which I would have thought was an elementary concept for a political party which claims to be non-racist. Nor did it ooze forth unbidden, but required massive investment of infrastructure and intellectual currency.
The idea that North Sea oil has been used to build social housing in Newcastle or finance Truro hospitals or build London schools is too ridiculous for words. In the absense of a notable mistreatment of a population/national group (e.g. Scots) and disparity in treatment with other groups (e.g. English), any nationalism movement is reactionary and divisive.
For anyone else who continues to adopts this chauvenistic demand for "our oil", I hope you have a business plan for repaying the post-WWII regeneration and foundation of the NHS in Scotland and the set-up costs for "our oil" and wattknot. Two can play at this game of mercurial, avaricious sniping, you know.
Anyone starting a new life is required to pay off their overdraught, credit cards and other bills.
Replace Scotland with Westminster, and you get the codswallop from the English Democrats.
MM, very well put.
Scottish independance (if it is to ever happen) needs to be based on something a little more solid than fantasising about untold wealth from under the sea that is being 'stolen' by those pesky English.
There needs to be a complete seperation between 'Hearts' and 'Minds' on this issue if Scotland is to move towards (or away from) Independance. I've not yet seen a convincing argument from anyone stating that Scotland has a long term financial future if it were to gain independance.
Everything appears to be based around the myth of Scottish oil and..dare I say it... maybe an unstated intention to live on handouts from the EU?
How proud a nation we would be then! A collection of 'little Scotlanders', proud in our Independance - and with the whole of the Scottish economy crashing around our ears.
I'm not saying true independance is a bad thing - I'm undecided on that - what I am saying is that true independance will bring a whole range of financial obligations that don't appear to hav been adressed in public by the 'pro' lobby.
If we became independent what would happen to:
Your phone supplier?
your Broadband supplier?
Your Tv Channels?(no more BBC)
Your satelite(British sky broadcasting no more)
Your Tax offices?
Your Jobcentres?
Your passport?
Thats just a few of the things that would have to change and you couldnt do it overnight, it would take years to get it right because after all if we dont we will blame "the english" for leaving it in a shabby state!!! ;)
Phone suppliers would still be available (we invented the thing after all)
Broadband suppliers would still be avaialble, why not?
No BBC - no you would still be able to pick it up but not have to pay the license!
Sky will still take your subscription from you - they also broadcast in Eire
Tax offices and all other infrastructure would still be there.
If we became independent what would happen to:
Your phone supplier?
your Broadband supplier?
Your Tv Channels?(no more BBC)
Your satelite(British sky broadcasting no more)
Your Tax offices?
Your Jobcentres?
Your passport?
Thats just a few of the things that would have to change and you couldnt do it overnight, it would take years to get it right because after all if we dont we will blame "the english" for leaving it in a shabby state!!! ;)
but we as a nation would get there
probably why a lot are afraid of independance,too afraid of what they might lose and for how long
we could be independant but we need solidarity first.
As time goes by there'll be more and more non Scottish people living in Scotland anyway, so by the time any real chance of independence comes about, nobody will want it. :lol:
You'd be surprised at the numbers of English incomers to Scotland who see Scotland from the other side of the border......and become rabid SNP activists, porshiepoo.
As for the oil: if an independent Scotland based it's wealth and ability to thrive on its north sea production then it's doomed from the start. Scotland needs to start looking at its many other assets in order to move forward with its independence.
Besides, if Scotland did become independent then the Maritime borders may well be shufted back to where they were originally (before Scotland changed them in 74ish) and then there won't be the oil resource anyway.
Excuse me, porshiepoo.....but how on earth did Scotland manage to move its maritime borders off its own back? Or do you know something we Scots don't about getting independence before 1974?
Let's be honest, here...it wasn't the Scots dickering with maritime borders in 1974.........in fact, there was no legislation whatsoever regarding maritime boundaries in the 1970s.....it was Westminster in 1999 ........Restoring the old line of the Border, which follows the River Tweed, would not only bring back the 6,000sq miles lost in 1999, but also an extra 4,000sq miles of sea presently under Westminster control.”
At the time, numerous experts in international maritime law attacked the decision by British ministers, but the UK Government stood firm. Critics described the annexation of Scottish waters as a smash and grab raid condoned by then First Minister Donald Dewar.
Seems to me if you are going to open your mouth and let your belly rumble.....you could always google first! :roll:
This argument has been done to death many times on here.
Here is a link from the Scottish Government.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/18170334/9
It's for 2006-2007, but is the most recently available. To summarise:
Scotland "spends" £10.2 billion more than it brings in to the UK (before Oil).
Oil and gas revenue from the Scottish sector of the north sea £7.5 billion.
Therefore Scotland would be £2.7 billion worse off outside of the UK.
But would it.......given the UK borrowing is a lot more than £27 billion....which is what it should be if you assumed Scotland got a proportionate 10% share (though it would actually be less by population) of £2.7 billion.....so who subsidises whom?
Scotland is as responsible for repaying debt incurred by the Westminster government as any other part of the UK.....but gets a smaller proportion of that debt spent here.
I have to say, I'd as soon live in a country where the national debt is less than 3 billion than in one where it is £38 billion and rising. :confused
Never mind so called westminster isolation...what about central belt isolation....how do you define "Scotland"...or how do you think traditional central belt parties view the Highlands...if the recent inept carve up of Highlands and Islands Enterprise is anything to go on central belt nats are as removed from understanding the Highlands and Islands as any westminster based politician / party !! Salmons Scotland will follow a central belt determined agenda.
Well said, Rob! I discovered that 40 years ago when first attending a conference in Edinburgh. The delegates from the central belt were not at all interested in anything/anyone north of Perth.
But would it.......given the UK borrowing is a lot more than £27 billion....which is what it should be if you assumed Scotland got a proportionate 10% share (though it would actually be less by population) of £2.7 billion.....so who subsidises whom?
Scotland is as responsible for repaying debt incurred by the Westminster government as any other part of the UK.....but gets a smaller proportion of that debt spent here.
I have to say, I'd as soon live in a country where the national debt is less than 3 billion than in one where it is £38 billion and rising. :confused
I honestly don't know enough about economics to add more.
My point is, at the moment, we're spending more than we're earning, so any belief that we'd suddenly be oil rich or the "6th richest country" is utter rubbish.
Do we really have to have this discussion again? It ain't "our" oil. It is oil which rests under Scottish waters, which I would have thought was an elementary concept for a political party which claims to be non-racist. Nor did it ooze forth unbidden, but required massive investment of infrastructure and intellectual currency.
The fact that it rests under Scottish waters makes it Scottish oil under international law..whether you like it or not.
The investment came from private companies, not the UK government.
The idea that North Sea oil has been used to build social housing in Newcastle or finance Truro hospitals or build London schools is too ridiculous for words. In the absense of a notable mistreatment of a population/national group (e.g. Scots) and disparity in treatment with other groups (e.g. English), any nationalism movement is reactionary and divisive.
Can't see the logic there....membership of the Union is reactionary and divisive in a UK which legislates for London and the South.
I'd not be that bothered if the oil money had been used to build social housing in Newcastle or finance Truro hospitals or build London schools .......I've always been a bit p'd off that it went to pay for the results of Maggie Thatcher's decimation of industry in the UK..particularly Scotland.
For anyone else who continues to adopts this chauvenistic demand for "our oil", I hope you have a business plan for repaying the post-WWII regeneration and foundation of the NHS in Scotland and the set-up costs for "our oil" and wattknot. Two can play at this game of mercurial, avaricious sniping, you know.
Anyone starting a new life is required to pay off their overdraught, credit cards and other bills.
Replace Scotland with Westminster, and you get the codswallop from the English Democrats.
Erm, MM........but isn't that what a separation negotiation is all about........divvying up the joint property with regard to the contributions made? You seem to assume that Scotland made no contribution to the war effort and its aftermath........and what set up costs for "our oil"? :confused
I honestly don't know enough about economics to add more.
My point is, at the moment, we're spending more than we're earning, so any belief that we'd suddenly be oil rich or the "6th richest country" is utter rubbish.
Can you tell me any country which does NOT run a budget deficit......and can you tell me how many of them are at the £3billion level?
Budget deficits don't really equate to richness, as deficits wax and wane......but generally exist......or else why have the World Bank?
Can you tell me any country which does NOT run a budget deficit......and can you tell me how many of them are at the £3billion level?
Budget deficits don't really equate to richness, as deficits wax and wane......but generally exist......or else why have the World Bank?
No I can't, I honestly have no idea of such matters.
Do we both agree however that this myth of oil richness is just that, a myth?
teenybash
20-Aug-08, 23:48
I don't know enough about the economics in relation to Scotland becoming independant but, I do know Scotland as a nation of people is changing giving way to a feeling of optimism and hope.
Scotland is a country of riches that are yet to be developed to full potential and some industries of the past may well be restored.
Yes, there is the oil that lies waiting deep in our waters and were revenue from this used wisely to help build Scotland into the Independant Nation that is our right, we will all have a bright future working together so that our children and grandchildren will stand proud to say 'We are Scots.'
This is a country reknowned for its warmth and friendship and I believe this would be part of the new independant relationship with England. :)
but we as a nation would get there
probably why a lot are afraid of independance,too afraid of what they might lose and for how long
we could be independant but we need solidarity first.
That's the problem......too many aren't prepared to take short term pain for long term gain.
The oil would be a bonus and not used, as Westminster does, to pay for day to day living............it would be savings to build up a fund for the future of our country.
Too many people seem to forget that the Scottish economy is heavily influenced by any problems in the UK economy.......which may not necessarily be applicable in an independent Scotland.
As time goes by there'll be more and more non Scottish people living in Scotland anyway, so by the time any real chance of independence comes about, nobody will want it.That's so funny you should be on stage, perhaps the same can be said for cities in England.
No I can't, I honestly have no idea of such matters.
Do we both agree however that this myth of oil richness is just that, a myth?
No it isn't............you are toeing the unionist line!
I am looking out of my window at an oil rig slant drilling from the shore to the sea.
Now this tells me......however much I'd rather not see the rig......that there is still a lot of oil out there in Scottish waters ....and new technology is making it possible and more cost effective to get at it now where it wasn't possible at one time.
I don't pretend that the oil will last forever........but frankly, I'm not prepared to accept the forecasts of a Westminster Government which lied through its teeth in 1979 .
Personally, I'd much rather see the income from oil taxes going into a fund for Scotland's future than paying for the UK dole money.......if you don't, then that is your prerogative.
No it isn't............you are toeing the unionist line!
I am looking out of my window at an oil rig slant drilling from the shore to the sea.
Now this tells me......however much I'd rather not see the rig......that there is still a lot of oil out there in Scottish waters ....and new technology is making it possible and more cost effective to get at it now where it wasn't possible at one time.
I don't pretend that the oil will last forever........but frankly, I'm not prepared to accept the forecasts of a Westminster Government which lied through its teeth in 1979 .
Personally, I'd much rather see the income from oil taxes going into a fund for Scotland's future than paying for the UK dole money.......if you don't, then that is your prerogative.
Yes there is a lot of oil out there still.
But even with new extraction methods, north sea production is going to fall, and continue to fall in future years.
I'm not saying Westminster hasn't lied in the past, I'm looking to the future.
What oil income is funding the "UK dole money" as you put it?
How can you "put money into a fund" if you're spending more on public services etc than you're earning?
My "prerogative" as you put it, is being sensible. An independent Scotland tomorrrow would be poorer than we are today.
scotland would do very well as a independent country,,:)
oil revenues from the north sea is only the tip of the iceberg
no one has mentioned the 100s billions the uk government makes from taxing petrol and diesel, once it is refined, and sold on to us suckers
at the highest prices in the western world,, even though were oil rich [evil]
have a friend who works with shell , who have just opened a massive new field in the scottish sector,, he advises me that there is still tons of the stuff down there, he says shell will be in the north sea for a least another 40 years,, and with new technoligies the deeper waters off the west of scotland.
the westminster government will still and always have deliberately underestimated what oil resources we have for obvious reasons,
it was meant to run out by the early 90s according to maggie thatcher and her cohorts ,,
anybody that believes that scotland cant stand on its own 2 feet
does not deserve to be called scottish.
scotland would do very well as a independent country,,:)
oil revenues from the north sea is only the tip of the iceberg.
The "tip of the iceberg" is approximately 10% of an iceberg. That being the case, if oil revenue is £7.5 billion, where do we get £75 billion from???
no one has mentined the 100s billions the uk government makes from taxing petrol and diesel, once it is refined, and sold on to us suckers
at the highest prices in the western world,, even though were oil rich [evil]
You're right, we do pay high taxes on refined petrol and diesel. But whether we are "oil rich" or not, what difference does it make?
have a friend who works with shell , who have just opened a massive new field in the scottish sector,, he advises me that there is still tons of the stuff down there, he says shell will be in the north sea for a least another 40 years,, and with new technoligies the deeper waters off the west of scotland.
What "massive" field is this? I work in the north sea and from what I know BP and Shell are downsizing considerably. The only significant field opened up in that last 5 years was Buzzard, operated by Nexen. Foreigners.
the westminster government will still and always have deliberately underestimated what oil resources we have for obvious reasons,
it was meant to run out by the early 90s according to maggie thatcher and her cohorts ,,
Modern estimates of north sea wealth are available from many independent sources, not just the government.
anybody that believes that scotland cant stand on its own 2 feet
does not deserve to be called scottish.
Anyone who can't be be a proud Scot in Britain will never be a proud Scot alone.
how much money is made from taxing fuel once it has been refined,
how much money is made from all the by products of oil ,, ie plastics fertilizers,, etc etc etc,, almost everything we use today has a oil by product associated with it.
no mention of these massive profits when north sea oil is on the debate
it is about more than crude oil,, much more:D
how much money is made from taxing fuel once it has been refined,
how much money is made from all the by products of oil ,, ie plastics fertilizers,, etc etc etc,, almost everything we use today has a oil by product associated with it.
no mention of these massive profits when north sea oil is on the debate
it is about more than crude oil,, much more:D
I don't get your point.
Yes, the government taxes petrol, it has VAT on plastics etc.
If you, as a scot, were buying your tupperware from aberdeen or Bejing, would the tax make a difference?
No.
£1 of Aberdeen's finest would cost you £1.18 because of VAT.
£1 of China's tupperware would cost you £1.18 also.
So how, exactly, is Scotland's "wealth" going to benefit me, a working Scotsman in the 21st century?
my point is all fuel taxes from refined north sea oil would go to a scottish government , not westminster
and i have no doubt we would be suppling the englanders with their fuel
and taxing it too, more money for scottish government
Recent evidence
Evidence unearthed in late 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act) has shown significant UK government concerns over the rising tide of Scottish Nationalism during the early part of the 1970s and the consequences that this may have had upon ownership and control over the UK's North Sea resources. A report written by the Scottish Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Office) economist Gavin McCrone for ministers in the mid-1970s indicated that with ownership of North Sea oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil), an independent Scotland would have "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.The report also stated that the economy of an independent Scotland, with control over the majority of UK North Sea oil revenue, would have one of the "hardest" currencies in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) and that "for the first time since the Act Of Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal:D
Secret oil finds dossier released
A secret report written 30 years ago has been released, stating Scotland's oil revenues could have made a case for repealing the Act of Union.
The advice from economist Gavin McCrone was prepared for ministers and is now available for the public to view.
He said the significance of North Sea oil finds remained in large measure disguised from the public.
But in a covering letter he said he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.
The paper, which is now available for the public to view at the National Archives in Kew, London, was obtained last month by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
In the previously confidential advice to ministers, Professor McCrone said that an independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe.
His report, The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined, said that estimates from the SNP that oil could yield £800m by 1980 were far too low.
He conceded that he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts but said he wanted to explore whether a credible economic strategy was possible.
'Chronic surplus'
Professor McCrone argued that the economy of an independent Scotland, properly managed, would "tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".
"Its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner," he wrote.
"Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security... the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.
"Thus for the first time since the Act Of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal."
'Years of betrayal'
Kenny MacAskill, of the Scottish National Party, said the report was proof of 30 years of official lies, cover-ups and betrayal.
In the 30 years since the research, Scotland had suffered low economic growth and manufacturing decline while at the same time oil wealth had "transformed" Canadian provinces and Arabian sheikdoms. :Razz
my point is all fuel taxes from refined north sea oil would go to a scottish government , not westminster
and i have no doubt we would be suppling the englanders with their fuel
and taxing it too, more money for scottish government
You can't tax "Englanders" for fuel if they're not in your country! You can't tax "foreigners" they'll just buy their fuel from the middle east!
i dont mean it as a tax as such i mean we would supply them theyre petrol
with a profit which would be less than the chancellor takes now and less than the saudis charge
the surpluss oil and its derivitives which a scottish government, would have, seeing as were such a small nation,, would make us a rich country
trying my best to hit a 100 posts tonight :D
i dont mean it as a tax as such i mean we would supply them theyre petrol
with a profit which would be less than the chancellor takes now
You can't do that!
Why don't you just buy your cigarettes from Thialand then sell them here? That'd be much cheaper wouldn't it..........
Oil is sold by the barrel, no matter where it comes from. Refined petrol the same. What you pay at the pumps is the oil companies price + the governments tax + the garage owners slice. Simple.
yes i understand that,, but it would be a scottish governments tax take not westminsters
the surpluss oil and its derivitives which a scottish government, would have, seeing as were such a small nation,, would make us a rich country
There is no "Surpluss".........
We spend more than we earn, I go back to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/18170334/9
This is from the SCOTTISH Government. We spend more than we make. Plain and simple. GinaJade, look at the facts.
have you any idea how much the uk government makes each year in taxing fuel,, i bet its a lot more than they make from taxing the crude oil
yes we spend more than we make, at the moment
but what about if we controlled the crude oil,, tax take there
then we produce petrol,, big tax take there all going to scotland:D
have you any idea how much the uk government makes each year in taxing fuel,, i bet its a lot more than they make from taxing the crude oil
Have you? No? I'm not surprised.
I'll also put £10 saying it's not.
So Gina, when we become independent are we Scots suddenly going to pay for tax free petrol???
If not, what is the benefit?
no it will be taxed just at a much lower rate
and the benefit is we will be a free country:D
thanks for the banter sleep time me thinks:D
oh i read that the 2p fuel tax rise,, which has now been postponed
would have brought in another £500 million for the uk government in a year,, fuel is say £1.25 a litre , which about 60% is tax for uk government,, so if only 2p on that £1.25 is generating 500 million in a year,
the mind boggles and im to tired to roughly work out :D
no it will be taxed just at a much lower rate
and the benefit is we will be a free country:D
Oh dear.
If only the Australian was here for a rendition of " you will never take our freedom" your fantasy would be complete.
Shame on you.
oh i read that the 2p fuel tax rise,, which has now been postponed
would have brought in another £500 million for the uk government in a year,, fuel is say £1.25 a litre , which about 60% is tax for uk government,, so if only 2p on that £1.25 is generating 500 million in a year,
the mind boggles and im to tired to roughly work out :D
What has the 2p fuel rise have to do with Scottish wealth?
The UK is currently IMPORTING oil, that means we're using more than we make.
im more interested in you will never take our oil at least not all of it:)
without fair recompense,,
the south of england and london have had it too good for to long
at our expense,, hell why not let northern england join scotland too they are always getting shafted too:Razz
would an independent scotland need to import oil,, i think not :D
ohh and by the way that movie was crap and william wallace was a welsh man,, with lots of holdings in england and scotland,, doesnt figure does it:D
here is wee Fat Eck at his best saying we Scots agreed with Maggie Thatcher. Aye Right!!! The SNP true colours are now coming to the fore, showing us that they are just Tartan Tories [lol]
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-Scotland-39didn39t-mind39.4411586.jp
teenybash
22-Aug-08, 16:05
ohh and by the way that movie was crap and william wallace was a welsh man,, with lots of holdings in england and scotland,, doesnt figure does it:D
William Wallace was born in Elderslie near Glasgow !!!!!
whitechina
22-Aug-08, 19:06
Scotland is a land under occupation by an oppressive regime. I know where my vote will be going next time.
As the current regime in Scotland is a nationalist one I can only agree with you!:lol:
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 19:15
im more interested in you will never take our oil at least not all of it:)
without fair recompense,,
the south of england and london have had it too good for to long
at our expense,, hell why not let northern england join scotland too they are always getting shafted too:Razz
This thread is becoming surreal. A shelf-staker earning £5.60 p/h in Hackney is better off and more undeserving than Scots who had "their" oil located and then extracted by others?
Another attitude of nats which causes me to laugh a very dry laugh is that many in their party promote the infantile nonsense that Iraq and Afghanistan are all about oil, and then are utterly indecent in their haste to lay claim to oil-reserves which have fallen into their hands with no personal effort.
There's a term for this attitude. What is it? Oh, yes. Rank hypocrisy.
anybody that believes that scotland cant stand on its own 2 feet does not deserve to be called scottish.
Gads, you get some weird right-wing bigots who think they're progressive these days.
There is no "Surpluss".........
We spend more than we earn, I go back to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/18170334/9
This is from the SCOTTISH Government. We spend more than we make. Plain and simple. GinaJade, look at the facts.
Also from the Scottish Government...the bit you missed out........ In 2006-07, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £6.7 billion (6.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £6.0 billion (5.5 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a surplus of £0.8 billion (0.7 per cent of GDP) including an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue.
And that was before the oil price hike....and not including the stuff we contribute towards which can't be allocated!
What has the 2p fuel rise have to do with Scottish wealth?
The UK is currently IMPORTING oil, that means we're using more than we make.
Erm.......it means that England is using more than Scotland produces.
Though the North Sea oil isn't the right kind for petrol, I don't think, so we'd still be importing in Scotland in the end, but we'd not need nearly as much. :Razz
This thread is becoming surreal. A shelf-staker earning £5.60 p/h in Hackney is better off and more undeserving than Scots who had "their" oil located and then extracted by others?
Another attitude of nats which causes me to laugh a very dry laugh is that many in their party promote the infantile nonsense that Iraq and Afghanistan are all about oil, and then are utterly indecent in their haste to lay claim to oil-reserves which have fallen into their hands with no personal effort.
There's a term for this attitude. What is it? Oh, yes. Rank hypocrisy.
Gads, you get some weird right-wing bigots who think they're progressive these days.
So you point me at any personal effort expended by a UK Government to entitle them to the oil receipts, MM?
And then explain to me why you think the Scots are incapable of charging for exploration licences.......which was all the UK Government did, as far as I can see.:confused
Erm.......it means that England is using more than Scotland produces.
Do you really think that would change under an independent Scottish administration?:confused
here is wee Fat Eck at his best saying we Scots agreed with Maggie Thatcher. Aye Right!!! The SNP true colours are now coming to the fore, showing us that they are just Tartan Tories [lol]
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-Scotland-39didn39t-mind39.4411586.jp
Aw, come on.........the full interview, which, surprise, surprise, the Scotsman didn't print was cited by aAex Salmond on a Radio phone-In....where he said
I was commenting on why Scots in particular were so deeply resentful of Margaret Thatcher, and I strongly believe that her social message of 'no such thing as society' and the poll tax cut against the grain of Scotland's social conscience.
"That doesn't mean that the nation liked her economic policies – just that we liked her social policies even less.
"I have never approved of either Margaret Thatcher's economic or social policies, as is clear from the very next passage of the full interview, where I say that if Scottish economic founder Adam Smith could sue for the misuse of his thoughts by Thatcherites, they would be in real trouble."
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 20:23
So you point me at any personal effort expended by a UK Government to entitle them to the oil receipts, MM?This is a circular argument, and indicates an automatic assumption against the Chartist tint my spectacles have. I am not suggesting Westminster "deserved" the oil resources: instead of "oil residing under Scottish waters", read "oil residing under UK waters" for my attitude on ownership.
The British people deserve the resources. Above I have stated that it has *not* been used to benefit the ordinary people in England. Instead it has been used firstly to finance tax cuts and feather the nests of the ruling classes. Anyone who claims to be remotely Leftist in nature should not counternance jettisoning one group of workers simply to hand resources to another ruling class or benefit their chosen group.
Same goes for the Orger who suggested that the Brown stay until the next GE so the Tories win, and then Scotland depart leaving the whole of England and Wales Tory for ever more.
I have no doubt that Scotland could function tolerably well outwith the UK, but there is no pressing reason for it and no obvious discrimination compared to the rest of the UK and in general. Furthermore, it would not be the shining Camelot which the sense of entitlement which Salmond taps into believes.
I'd have hoped you'd have commented on the aggressive nationalsim which de-Scotified those of us who remain Unionists.
Whilst in recent years, North Sea oil production has been in decline, it is estimated that there are reserves of two billion tonnes in the North Sea - as much as has been produced in the last 25 years, with most oil fields being expected to remain economically viable until at least 2020 [9].
Just another 12 years of oil profitability? It will take 20 years to gain independence then where will we be?:confused
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 20:31
Just another 12 years of oil profitability? It will take 20 years to gain independence then where will we be?:confused
Come on now, Rheghead, this is a point of principle and the only way in which Scot can flower economically and socially and spiritually! It ain't about petty money-grabbing avarice!
Do you really think that would change under an independent Scottish administration?:confused
Likely not.....but then we wouldn't have to let England have the income from taxes.
I can't say I'm bothered if England uses more than Scotland produces.........as long as Scotland doesn't use as much as England......thus hiking up our oil imports.............and given the difference in population and requirements of industry.............I think that is unlikely....small is sometimes beautiful............and can even be cheaper.
Likely not.....but then we wouldn't have to let England have the income from taxes.
I beg to differ, the UK Government levies taxes on fuel irrespective of the source of origin of the oil for its own coffers, so England would do the same with Scottish oil. And the oil companies get profit from their operations, mostly BP and Shell owned which are UK based I think. So what would be in it for Scotland anyway post independence? Not a lot really, except that Scotland will tax its own citizens even more fiercely to make up for the trading deficit that she will experience. Bad news for rural areas which is the greater part of Scotland. Only if Scotland put the oil companies into public ownership could i see any real benefit and we all know where that will lead given the models to go by in the past.
This is a circular argument, and indicates an automatic assumption against the Chartist tint my spectacles have. I am not suggesting Westminster "deserved" the oil resources: instead of "oil residing under Scottish waters", read "oil residing under UK waters" for my attitude on ownership.
The British people deserve the resources. Above I have stated that it has *not* been used to benefit the ordinary people in England. Instead it has been used firstly to finance tax cuts and feather the nests of the ruling classes. Anyone who claims to be remotely Leftist in nature should not counternance jettisoning one group of workers simply to hand resources to another ruling class or benefit their chosen group.
Same goes for the Orger who suggested that the Brown stay until the next GE so the Tories win, and then Scotland depart leaving the whole of England and Wales Tory for ever more.
I have no doubt that Scotland could function tolerably well outwith the UK, but there is no pressing reason for it and no obvious discrimination compared to the rest of the UK and in general. Furthermore, it would not be the shining Camelot which the sense of entitlement which Salmond taps into believes.
I'd have hoped you'd have commented on the aggressive nationalsim which de-Scotified those of us who remain Unionists.
but there are aggressive nationalists, MM...just as there are aggressive unionists.............you just have to read the Scotsman's comments section to see both!
I think there would be less aggression on the part of Nationalists if there was some effort to tell us WHY we would want to stay within the Union...........just what is the benefit to Scotland NOW.
Since 1979, we have been deaved to death with the scaremongering and lies........and, frankly, there has been no good reason put forward yet, imo, as to why Scotland should remain within a Union which uses it for nuclear weapon storage. The South of England mindset is so different from that of the Scots (and the North of England, I think) that policies which favour them do not benefit us.
You give one good reason why Scotland would be better hanging on to England's coat-tails rather than plowing its own furrow...I'd be interested to hear it.
In its time, the circumstances forced a Union of Parliaments.......which was being queried within a few years of its inception because of the attitude of the English MPs.....and which has now outlived its usefulness.....and the attitudes of the English MPs have hardly changed.
I beg to differ, the UK Government levies taxes on fuel irrespective of the source of origin of the oil for its own coffers, so England would do the same with Scottish oil. And the oil companies get profit from their operations, mostly BP and Shell owned which are UK based I think. So what would be in it for Scotland anyway post independence? Not a lot really, except that Scotland will tax its own citizens even more fiercely to make up for the trading deficit that she will experience. Bad news for rural areas which is the greater part of Scotland. Only if Scotland put the oil companies into public ownership could i see any real benefit and we all know where that will lead given the models to go by in the past.
I don't have a problem with England levying taxes on oil bought from Scotland when selling it to the English consumer...............but Scotland will get the taxes which Westminster presently levies on oil.......all revenues raised from oil and gas, about £1bn a month, go directly to the UK Treasury.
However, both the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland had previously received some funds from oil profits..........so maybe that would be a way to fob off independence for a while.:confused
Given that over a long period of time a share of revenue from royalties was conceded to the Manx and Northern Irish government from Scottish oil revenues, is it so incredible that that precedent wouldn't argue that something similar could be done for the Scottish Parliament?
Let's be honest here.........the UK would be running a permanent budget deficit, rather than an occasional one if not for the oil.
How much are you prepared to bet that when the oil and gas reserves are of no value.....the English objection to Scottish independence will disappear like snow off a dyke?
What has the 2p fuel rise have to do with Scottish wealth?
The UK is currently IMPORTING oil, that means we're using more than we make.And with an independent Scotland we would be able to sustain ourselves and still have enough to export to poorer countries Like England.
here is wee Fat Eck at his best saying we Scots agreed with Maggie Thatcher. Aye Right!!! The SNP true colours are now coming to the fore, showing us that they are just Tartan Tories [lol]
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-Scotland-39didn39t-mind39.4411586.jpComeon Golach, much as I admire you never wavering in your strong dislike of Salmond you cannot deny that life in Scotland has not degenerated since the SNP took power from an Ineffectual Labour Party. You will recieve free presciptions by 2011, would that have come to pass under a labour Gov't?
I don't have a problem with England levying taxes on oil bought from Scotland when selling it to the English consumer...............but Scotland will get the taxes which Westminster presently levies on oil.......[SIZE=2]all revenues raised from oil and gas, about £1bn a month, go directly to the UK Treasury.
So do you think a Scottish Treasury can get a better deal from the taxes that it will levy on its own citizens than it currently gets from Westminster?
I don't know about you but if yes, that sounds like a hike in taxation to every Scottish citizen, post independence.
This thread is becoming surreal. A shelf-staker earning £5.60 p/h in Hackney is better off and more undeserving than Scots who had "their" oil located and then extracted by others?A shelf stacker earning £5.60 is a matter for their union to fight, nothing to do with Scottish independence.
Another attitude of nats which causes me to laugh a very dry laugh is that many in their party promote the infantile nonsense that Iraq and Afghanistan are all about oil, and then are utterly indecent in their haste to lay claim to oil-reserves which have fallen into their hands with no personal effort.
There's a term for this attitude. What is it? Oh, yes. Rank hypocrisy.You must be very naive if you think Iraq, Afghanistan or even the American posturing over Georgia is about anything other than oil and the securing of it's supply by any means nessessary. If they find vast reserves of oil in Zimbabwe then watch out for the full works.
Gads, you get some weird right-wing bigots who think they're progressive these days.Bigots exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
You must be very naive if you think Iraq, Afghanistan or even the American posturing over Georgia is about anything other than oil and the securing of it's supply by any means nessessary. If they find vast reserves of oil in Zimbabwe then watch out for the full works.
Seeing that all of the western economies depend on oil (which includes all our daily livelihoods in Caithness), is there anything else worth posturing about other than oil?:confused
How much are you prepared to bet that when the oil and gas reserves are of no value.....the English objection to Scottish independence will disappear like snow off a dyke?
They'll be falling over themselves to ditch us.[lol]
So do you think a Scottish Treasury can get a better deal from the taxes that it will levy on its own citizens than it currently gets from Westminster?
I don't know about you but if yes, that sounds like a hike in taxation to every Scottish citizen, post independence.
I don't know, Rheghead.......does anyone?
But if you allow that the difference between Scottish contribution in taxes to the UK economy plus the North Sea Oil taxes in 2006/2007 left Scotland in surplus according to government figures.........and if you factor in the loss of Trident, the reduction in military spending to that of a defence force, no need to pay for all the Government spending in London and the South...much reduced Government public services proportionate to the population.....no need to contribute to the National Trust/Monarch's abodes in England.
No need to contribute to the Olympics and any other project to boost the English Capital......like the Dome, the Underground etc....all those projects which mean that London gets more government monetary input than anywhere else in the UK.
Can't say I see a problem with that.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 21:53
A shelf stacker earning £5.60 is a matter for their union to fight, nothing to do with Scottish independence.I agree. Now go back and read what I wrote.
You must be very naive if you think Iraq, Afghanistan [...] about anything other than oil and the securing of it's supply by any means nessessary.Which is why the US, with forces already situated in Saudi, didn't stage a coup. As for Afghanistan, I hope you have something more than a link to the BBC News site from 1997!
Do you think Kosova was about oil? Tony Benn does. And he's a pipe-smoking idiot.
or even the American posturing over GeorgiaWell, it was really, really badly done. I have explained in the WW3 thread why the actual facts of the Caspian reserves are at odds with this animist reading. America hasn't failed to invade a country since the last time she tried it on with the Canadians. She and Israel could at least have supplied, you know, weapons, and not left the Georgians to make-do with Soviet-era cast-offs. Or invaded Mexico and Venezuala.
This argument wins every time. When America does something, it's about oil. When America doesn't do something, it's about oil.
Others will note I said "all", and you said "anything other than".
Bigots exist on all sides of the political spectrum.I know! There's a bank robber going free somewhere! I'm off to carry out a few of my own, and don't you dare complain!
Seeing that all of the western economies depend on oil (which includes all our daily livelihoods in Caithness), is there anything else worth posturing about other than oil?:confusedYou are 100% correct my friend but why do people try and deny that this is the real reason for American intervention in other countries affairs? It's all about saving the women and the baybees if you are prone to fall for their propoganda.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 21:58
Why have we not had a vote on independance yet? the SNP have been in for a while.
Seeing that all of the western economies depend on oil (which includes all our daily livelihoods in Caithness), is there anything else worth posturing about other than oil?:confused
Well...yes..independence.
Because I am more than happy to put up with short/medium term pain for long term gain.
So to an extent, there is no real point arguing with me.......because I'd rather be poor in an independent Scotland than rich in the UK.......though I don't think that Scottish independence will make me poorer than I am..........but I don't really expect it to make me rich.
But I don't care either way..........independence is the aim and removing the shackles of 533 English MPs. .
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 21:59
Russia committed scorched-earth acts in Chechyna. Why has she now assumed the position of moral superiority?
Why have we not had a vote on independance yet? the SNP have been in for a while.
Because the SNP manifesto set out St Andrew's Day 2010 as the date........giving them a chance to show what they can do even without Westminster approval, and an idea of what life could be like without Westminster overview/veto.
Why would they hold a referendum early to suit the Nulabour party?
Well...yes..independence.
Because I am more than happy to put up with short/medium term pain for long term gain.
So to an extent, there is no real point arguing with me.......because I'd rather be poor in an independent Scotland than rich in the UK.......though I don't think that Scottish independence will make me poorer than I am..........but I don't really expect it to make me rich.
But I don't care either way..........independence is the aim and removing the shackles of 533 English MPs. .
Ideological independence is one thing, every Scot wants to be independent in his/her heart, but a long term gain for Scotland based on a short term oil life expectancy is another.
And referring to itemised examples that Scots will no longer be responsible for funding, can a Scottish admin be trusted to get a good deal with their aspirations for a World Cup etc based on their financial acumen in getting a cheap Parliament building?
Russia committed scorched-earth acts in Chechyna. Why has she now assumed the position of moral superiority?
Because the US of A hasn't yet worked out how to organise their oil imports to allow them to act all hypocritical?
Russia committed scorched-earth acts in Chechyna. Why has she now assumed the position of moral superiority?Is RF the Antichrist or something, the United States have commited far more atrocities in their own interests.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:12
Because I am more than happy to put up with short/medium term pain
That's an honest answer and a matter or principle, but may I ask where in the affluency scale d'you come? The dirt poor in wherever may be less concerned with the years distant prospect of Camelot than paying their bills day-to-day.
This is similar to why New Labour's support is falling through the floor, and why specifically-named socialist parties in Scotland went from a serious promise of power-sharing to political oblivion (not that I'd ever vote socialist).
for long term gain.
Which sort of omlette d'you have in mind? How does it compare to the eggs on offer?
Ideological independence is one thing, every Scot wants to be independent in his/her heart, but a long term gain for Scotland based on a short term oil life expectancy is another.
And referring to itemised examples that Scots will no longer be responsible for funding, can a Scottish admin be trusted to get a good deal with their aspirations for a World Cup etc based on their financial acumen in getting a cheap Parliament building?
Stuff the oil Rheghead, we just want our independence, why is England so keen to hold on to a country that supposedly drains them of money disproportionaly?
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:20
Is RF the Antichrist or something, the United States have commited far more atrocities in their own interests.
It's pretty rich for you to demand that I either vouchsafe for every facet of American foreign policy or cast the infant human out with the abulation fluid when you cannot even express a concrete view on said aggressive nationalism displayed on this thread. I'll give you a clue: one is a geopolitical entity which is far beyond the ken of you or me; the other is an individual thought expressed by an individual living alongside us in fair Caithness.
Now I come to think about, this tactic and that of Ginajade's are much the same. In fact, a certain Bolshevik big cheese made similar quixotic demands.
But, if you insist. There is virtually nothing which the RF can assume moral superiority on. The American system, for all its faults, has much to offer (and which you and I both benefit from).
why is England so keen to hold on to a country that supposedly drains them of money disproportionaly?
For loyalty, something that isn't shared by Scotland so disproportionately. England doesn't see it as holding onto any country. It sees it as being a part of a Union that is bigger and more nobler than the sum of any of its individual parts.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:26
For loyalty, something that isn't shared by Scotland so disproportionately.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
:) nice debate,,, and im far from right wing,, lol ,,,
bottom line is scotland will never be an independent country , westminster will never ever let that happen,,they would be knackered without scottish oil,and will do anything to make us look poorer with independence,,bottom line is salmond has got to take them all on,and he aint got a chance,, this country/uk would have been bankrupt long ago if it was not for north sea oil,look at the lies they told us for years,,see previous posts
most people have no real idea what north sea oil has done for this country,
and could do,,,if it was only us scots,
and if anyone thinks the yanks aint in iraq and afghanistan for oil,, only time will prove you wrong,,, they are only in afghanistan cause they need a secure oil pipeline,,which may take a while but its all good money to US corporations and US jobs,,
why do you think the russians are stomping about in georgia,,has scared the pants of the yanks
disrupt their oil supply,,check the news peeps,,yanks are only interested in the georgian pipeline,, , just check out how many US bases there is in last major OIL RESERVE countrys of the world,, loads in the middle east over last 10 years,, saddam got invaded because he stopped selling oil in dollars and was encouraging others in the region to do same,,
lo and behold he was invaded shortly after,, if the yanks were so interested in human rights why aint they in zimbabwe,etc etc etc
its the same old story,,the dollar means more than a human life at least a non american life.
there is a war going on but it aint got much to do with terrorism,, more like control of the last of the earths natural resources,, and the US will make sure that it its american corporations that win that war,
oh just my opinion so dont go taking the hump,, lol
and stuff the oil , nice comment just let us govern ourselves for richer or poorer:Razz
Ideological independence is one thing, but a long term gain for Scotland based on a short term oil life expectancy is another.
Scottish Independence doesn't rely on oil...the oil is a bonus and a hedge fund for the future.
Independence will rely on a fiscal set up to benefit our economy, rather than that of London and the South. Scotland's growth rate in the last 30 years has been substantially below that of the UK as a whole. The likes of
Ben Thomson, chairman of Scotland's leading investment bank Noble Group and a declared supporter of fiscal autonomy, said Ireland's example showed that Scotland suffered from being "shackled to the UK tax system".
A recent survey by the Scotsman newspaper found 39% of business people more likely to support Independence than they were prior to the SNP's election win.
We don't NEED oil to be an independent country...........does Ireland have any?.........but the oil is useful in giving the undecided a bit more confidence to give them the courage to go for independence.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 22:31
And also possibly influenced by the great numbers of scots down south.
It's pretty rich for you to demand that I either vouchsafe for every facet of American foreign policy or cast the infant human out with the abulation fluid when you cannot even express a concrete view on said aggressive nationalism displayed on this thread. I'll give you a clue: one is a geopolitical entity which is far beyond the ken of you or me; the other is an individual thought expressed by an individual living alongside us in fair Caithness.
Now I come to think about, this tactic and that of Ginajade's are much the same. In fact, a certain Bolshevik big cheese made similar quixotic demands.
But, if you insist. There is virtually nothing which the RF can assume moral superiority on. The American system, for all its faults, has much to offer (and which you and I both benefit from).I am not demanding that you vouchsafe for any facet of American foreign policy, you couldn't anyway.
Aggressive nationalism doesn't seem to bother you when there is a pipeline involved, not that you would vouchsafe for American Foreign policy though, not your style.
I must remember to remove those rose tinted specs, thay chaffe my eyeballs.
Bottom line is, an independent Scotland back before 1707 was nationally paranoid about and blamed English interference in its lack of success of its affairs, so do you think anything will be any different after independence? Given that Scotland has prospered in relation to England during the Union, why all the calls for independence?:confused
teenybash
22-Aug-08, 22:36
:) nice debate,,, and im far from right wing,, lol ,,,
bottom line is scotland will never be an independent country , westminster will never ever let that happen,,they would be knackered without scottish oil,and will do anything to make us look poorer with independence,,bottom line is salmond has got to take them all on,and he aint got a chance,, this country/uk would have been bankrupt long ago if it was not for north sea oil,look at the lies they told us for years,,see previous posts
most people have no real idea what north sea oil has done for this country,
and could do,,,if it was only us scots,
and if anyone thinks the yanks aint in iraq and afghanistan for oil,, only time will prove you wrong,,, they are only in afghanistan cause they need a secure oil pipeline,,which may take a while but its all good money to US corporations and US jobs,,
why do you think the russians are stomping about in georgia,,has scared the pants of the yanks
disrupt their oil supply,,check the news peeps,,yanks are only interested in the georgian pipeline,, , just check out how many US bases there is in last major OIL RESERVE countrys of the world,, loads in the middle east over last 10 years,, saddam got invaded because he stopped selling oil in dollars and was encouraging others in the region to do same,,
lo and behold he was invaded shortly after,, if the yanks were so interested in human rights why aint they in zimbabwe,etc etc etc
its the same old story,,the dollar means more than a human life at least a non american life.
there is a war going on but it aint got much to do with terrorism,, more like control of the last of the earths natural resources,, and the US will make sure that it its american corporations that win that war,
oh just my opinion so dont go taking the hump,, lol
and stuff the oil , nice comment just let us govern ourselves for richer or poorer:Razz
Well said, straight to the point and hits the nail clean on the head.
Ginajade speaks with genuine passion...and if push comes to shove that is what it is all about....and the Passions in Scotland are rising to be rulers of their own heart and minds...to be free, to face whatever struggles there may or may not be..........To be a Nation again.
For loyalty, something that isn't shared by Scotland so disproportionately. England doesn't see it as holding onto any country. It sees it as being a part of a Union that is bigger and more nobler than the sum of any of its individual parts.You old romantic you.
Bottom line is, an independent Scotland back before 1707 was nationally paranoid about and blamed English interference in its lack of success of its affairs, so do you think anything will be any different after independence? Given that Scotland has prospered in relation to England during the Union, why all the calls for independence?:confused
Because we want to sever all ties with England, they don't need us and we dont need them.
:) nice debate,,, and im far from right wing,, lol ,,,
bottom line is scotland will never be an independent country , westminster will never ever let that happen,,they would be knackered without scottish oil,and will do anything to make us look poorer with independence,,bottom line is salmond has got to take them all on,and he aint got a chance,, this country/uk would have been bankrupt long ago if it was not for north sea oil,look at the lies they told us for years,,see previous posts
most people have no real idea what north sea oil has done for this country,
and could do,,,if it was only us scots,
and if anyone thinks the yanks aint in iraq and afghanistan for oil,, only time will prove you wrong,,, they are only in afghanistan cause they need a secure oil pipeline,,which may take a while but its all good money to US corporations and US jobs,,
why do you think the russians are stomping about in georgia,,has scared the pants of the yanks
disrupt their oil supply,,check the news peeps,,yanks are only interested in the georgian pipeline,, , just check out how many US bases there is in last major OIL RESERVE countrys of the world,, loads in the middle east over last 10 years,, saddam got invaded because he stopped selling oil in dollars and was encouraging others in the region to do same,,
lo and behold he was invaded shortly after,, if the yanks were so interested in human rights why aint they in zimbabwe,etc etc etc
its the same old story,,the dollar means more than a human life at least a non american life.
there is a war going on but it aint got much to do with terrorism,, more like control of the last of the earths natural resources,, and the US will make sure that it its american corporations that win that war,
oh just my opinion so dont go taking the hump,, lol
and stuff the oil , nice comment just let us govern ourselves for richer or poorer:RazzAnd westminster will be able to stop the Scots gaining their freedom hw exactly, this is a democratic society appparently?
For loyalty, something that isn't shared by Scotland so disproportionately. England doesn't see it as holding onto any country. It sees it as being a part of a Union that is bigger and more nobler than the sum of any of its individual parts.
But that has been the whole problem with the Union from its inception, Rheghead..............England has never seen it as bigger and nobler than the sum of its English part.
Scottish Independence doesn't rely on oil...the oil is a bonus and a hedge fund for the future.
Independence will rely on a fiscal set up to benefit our economy, rather than that of London and the South.
I beg to differ again, centralisation will only shift from the South of the UK to the central belt of Scotland. Just that when/if that time comes, the public spending shortfall will be felt even starker in the Scottish rural areas. More centralisation with even less money to go around means more poverty outwith the centralised areas.
I beg to differ again, centralisation will only shift from the South of the UK to the central belt of Scotland. Just that when/if that time comes, the public spending shortfall will be felt even starker in the Scottish rural areas. More centralisation with even less money to go around means more poverty outwith the centralised areas.Woo we will be governed on the needs of the Central belt, scarey thought, are you not going to mention the dreaded tartan tax, that should get us all quivering with fear
But that has been the whole problem with the Union from its inception, Rheghead..............England has never seen it as bigger and nobler than the sum of its English part.
Wrong. The proof of the pudding to the contrary there is that most English feel British first than English.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 22:48
We could always split scotland in half
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:49
Rheghead, can you just confirm that we're fighting in the same trench?
nice debate,,, and im far from right wing,, lol ,,,
Except for the bit where you demand a loyalty test on national identity, and cast beyond the pale all of those who fail to meet the standards you have laid down as un-Scottish. If not actually right-wing, you definitely have issues with control.
Aggressive nationalism doesn't seem to bother you when there is a pipeline involved,
Ah, this will be the bit where I described that ghastly spiv in charge of Georgia as a wholely unpleasant autocrat. Silly me, must remember that expressions of support for poor sods caught in the cross-fire and outright condemnation of one state actor's actions is, in fact, gushing approval for t'other state actor.
Not that ethno-nationalism is Saashkavili's craic. You're thinking of Azerbijan and Amermia and, to a large extent, Russia.
Binary support of or opposition to one nation's policy is the only permitted paradigm or national identity is to be claimed only by those who meet the speaker's approval, and devil take the hindmost. Have I taken a wrong turn on the Tardis and found myself in a British Empire smoking room, c. 1904?
not that you would vouchsafe for American Foreign policy though, not your style.I have no idea what that means. Well, I can guess what it's intended to mean, but I don't know what the words mean.
i would rather the Central belt than london and the m25 any day,,
why should scots people have to move down their to get a decent wage/ life
etc ,, i beleive in a democracy we all get treated the same,, and paid the same for same work,,
the class system has never been more rife,, thanks new labour , saved the tories a lot of work:D
We could always split scotland in half
Good idea, all the best oil is in the northern Scottish waters anyway, and since Caithness councillors feel more akin to Norse then why not go the full hog?:p
Bottom line is, an independent Scotland back before 1707 was nationally paranoid about and blamed English interference in its lack of success of its affairs, so do you think anything will be any different after independence? Given that Scotland has prospered in relation to England during the Union, why all the calls for independence?:confused
And are you going to tell us that England didn't deliberately sabotage the Darien Adventure in order to pacify Spain?
And are you going to tell us that the Scots shouldn't have expected support from a country( which had already decimated our trading position) because they were partners under the same crown?
Or are you going to tell us that England has always, and still does, look after England and to hell with the minority countries. Because if that isn't the case........why does England have such a problem with being in the same position as the minorities were for hundreds of years...........and why are they having a problem with it, when they have never understood the problem WE had with it? The West Lothian Question of today could have been termed the Barking question of the last 300 years.:confused
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:55
And are you going to tell us that England didn't deliberately sabotage the Darien Adventure in order to pacify Spain?
Pip pip, lads, I thought this posting to Rorkes Drift was going to be spiffing fun! Now there's ten thousand straw man and they're heading straight for me!
Tally-ho, God save the Que...
{gets arrow in throat}
Rheghead, can you just confirm that we're fighting in the same trench?.
I can't, you threw me with your multiple negative and I am on my 6th tinny...:o
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 22:56
Good idea, all the best oil is in the northern Scottish waters anyway, and since Caithness councillors feel more akin to Norse then why not go the full hog?
What if Shetland decides to remain in the Union? Serious question.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 22:59
Then they should have at least 50% of oil revenues.
Wrong. The proof of the pudding to the contrary there is that most English feel British first than English.
Let's not talk crap, Rheghead.........I know a lot of English people, both on the net and in real life (heck I have English relations...and even they slip up, ............wo I am ALWAYS picking them up when they say England when they mean the UK....and I don't mean the odd one or two............I mean every one of them in my age group........and their children and grandchildren.
They don't feel British...they feel English and assume that British is interchangeable..because there are more of them than of us......and they don't appear to have learned anything different at school.
:) good point about shetland im glad you brought that up
they have beniffited greatly,, they sorted their own deal with the oil companies,, shame rest of scotland never got that option:)
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:01
By jove, we paid the dowry to Norway fair and square! There ain't no way we'll let them leave us, send in the troops!
What's that, we have to find to money to raise an army first? Oh, well, get the long-ships out of mothballs, to Thurso beach!
shame rest of scotland never got that option
Even if you don't give a hoot for the lower classes in England, you cannot deny that technically English maritime zones with oil were passed to Scotland and much of gas reserves remain there. Remind me how they've enjoyed a Shetland-style egalitarianism.
Wrong. The proof of the pudding to the contrary there is that most English feel British first than English.That feeling of Britishness is being strained with ever immigrant that enters England.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 23:07
I think it depends where you go, many people in the SW would view them selves as British first and then Cornish or what ever and then may be English.
What if Shetland decides to remain in the Union? Serious question.
Then they remain in the Union.........though I'd guess that it would take another referendum....and maybe we could do the 40% of the electoral roll regardless of the breathing ability of those on it, as in the 1979 one.
You know..if the same criteria had been applied to the EU referendum.....we'd never have joined!
But I'm inclined to think that an independent Scotland would negotiate stronger ties with Norway..........because it is closer to us than London......so maybe Shetlanders could live with that.
lets get this straight i aint anti english,their only human,
its not their fault,,lol.// nothing much would change in a independent scotland,, apart from all fuel taxes and oil revinues would be flowing into edinburgh instead of london,,:)
this new century has shown all the smaller countries depart from thier old masters,, unless they have large oil reserves ,,:)
Rheghead, can you just confirm that we're fighting in the same trench?
Except for the bit where you demand a loyalty test on national identity, and cast beyond the pale all of those who fail to meet the standards you have laid down as un-Scottish. If not actually right-wing, you definitely have issues with control.
Ah, this will be the bit where I described that ghastly spiv in charge of Georgia as a wholely unpleasant autocrat. Silly me, must remember that expressions of support for poor sods caught in the cross-fire and outright condemnation of one state actor's actions is, in fact, gushing approval for t'other state actor.
Not that ethno-nationalism is Saashkavili's craic. You're thinking of Azerbijan and Amermia and, to a large extent, Russia.
Binary support of or opposition to one nation's policy is the only permitted paradigm or national identity is to be claimed only by those who meet the speaker's approval, and devil take the hindmost. Have I taken a wrong turn on the Tardis and found myself in a British Empire smoking room, c. 1904?
I have no idea what that means. Well, I can guess what it's intended to mean, but I don't know what the words mean.The people in the crossfire actually mean more to you than the politics?
wo I am ALWAYS picking them up when they say England when they mean the UK....and I don't mean the odd one or two............I mean every one of them in my age group........and their children and grandchildren.
It is not just the English, it is a wider foreign way of referring to Britain to call it England, I for one don't condone it but it smacks of laziness rather than bigotry or whatever you want to call it. It isn't anything to my undies in a twist over, a highlander is interchangeable with a Scotsman except with a Highlander, lol. I rather suspect it is a throw over from the days when the colonialists were referred to as English as well. Hellfire Kate, the Armish call their fellow countrymen the English if we want to get down to it.:lol:
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:16
That feeling of Britishness is being strained with ever immigrant that enters England.Like Johnson Beharry (http://www.historytalking.com/Sports.htm">Santinder Kehar[/url] or [url=http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/04/28/hero.shtml) or those Sikhs during the Ashes who incorporated their symbol into the St George flag?
Not that Scotland has this problem, being a naturally non-racist nation which absorbs immigrants without rancour. Unlike the English.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 23:21
Sorry do you mean it does not absorb the English or the English arent non racists.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:24
The people in the crossfire actually mean more to you than the politics?
And it doesn't to you???????????? Now, I am going to ask this more out of hope than expectation, but can you please tell me where I have said anything which could remotely be viewed as support for Saashkavili?
lets get this straight i aint anti english,their only human,
its not their fault,,lol.
I have referred to your attitude as aggressively nationalistic. Maybe I should simply have said you don't seem to have the emotional intelligence for this discussion; instead responding, as standard, with txtspk and a playful tone.
this new century has shown all the smaller countries depart from thier old masters,, unless they have large oil reservesSim (http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/).
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:27
Sorry do you mean it does absorb the English or the English arent non racists.
Neither. I was speaking in the voice of one who believes multiculturalism in England (that was a fun thread!) is like deadly nightshade on a notion of Britishishness. I can only assume TBH meant that immigration to Scotland works spiffingly, as suggesting there has been none would be too weird.
Like <a href="http://www.historytalking.com/Sports.htm">Santinder Kehar</a> or <a href="http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/04/28/hero.shtml">Johnson Beharry</a> or those Sikhs during the Ashes who incorporated their symbol into the St George flag?
Not that Scotland has this problem, being a naturally non-racist nation which absorbs immigrants without rancour. Unlike the English.We all know that isn't true as Scotland are believed to be, by racist elments, to be the most genetically pure Aryan race left on earth.
We have our racists believe it or not, sarcasm wont change that assumption nor address it.
And it doesn't to you???????????? Now, I am going to ask this more out of hope than expectation, but can you please tell me where I have said anything which could remotely be viewed as support for Saashkavili?
Maybe your View that RF is the great satan, U.S being the Savour, it is all bollocks. Saashkavilli is a war-mongering lady of the night with George W as it's role model.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:31
That feeling of Britishness is being strained with ever immigrant that enters England.Like Santinder Kehar (http://www.historytalking.com/Sports.htm) or Johnson Beharry (http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/04/28/hero.shtml) or those Sikhs during the Ashes who incorporated their symbol into the St George flag?
Not that Scotland has this problem, being a naturally non-racist nation which absorbs immigrants without rancour. Unlike the English.
Welcomefamily
22-Aug-08, 23:33
I understand........:lol: just making sure the point was not missed
Neither. I was speaking in the voice of one who believes multiculturalism in England (that was a fun thread!) is like deadly nightshade on a notion of Britishishness. I can only assume TBH meant that immigration to Scotland works spiffingly, as suggesting there has been none would be too weird.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:34
I forgive you, Welcome.
It is not just the English, it is a wider foreign way of referring to Britain to call it England, I for one don't condone it but it smacks of laziness rather than bigotry or whatever you want to call it. It isn't anything to my undies in a twist over. I rather suspect it is a throw over from the days when the colonialists were referred to as English as well. Hellfire Kate, the Armish call their fellow countrymen the English if we want to get down to it.:lol:
Sorry,Rheghead..........but I know Yanks, Australians, Canadians etc who CAN tell the difference.
Think about it.........an English ex-partner who, after a couple of years had been trained to say Britain when he meant Britain, English when he meant English and Scottish when he meant Scottish......and hard work it was as well.
And his kids come up from Yorkshire....16 and 18 years old..............21st century education.........and Britain =England=Britain.
Luckily he corrected them in no uncertain terms......or the relationship would have ended long before it did!
Though I must admit..........other countries' citizens have an excuse if they do not have Scots ancestry.........but can you produce an excuse for the ignorance of the English?
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:35
Maybe your View that RF is the great satan, U.S being the Savour, it is all bollocks. Saashkavilli is a war-mongering lady of the night with George W as it's role model.
Can someone please lean over to TBH and hit the reset button?
Like Santinder Kehar (http://www.historytalking.com/Sports.htm) or Johnson Beharry (http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/04/28/hero.shtml) or those Sikhs during the Ashes who incorporated their symbol into the St George flag?
Not that Scotland has this problem, being a naturally non-racist nation which absorbs immigrants without rancour. Unlike the English.I know all about members of the Sass from other countries, The Ghurkas, Sikhs. warrior nations with a similar Psyche to the Scots, I have nothing but respect for them all.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:40
Oddquine, I apologize for years of conflation of English for British, and vice versa, by the ruling classes, and for that book by the pet Scot, Thomas Babington Macaulay.
I believe we Unionists are also responsible for entropy.
Can someone please lean over to TBH and hit the reset button?
The same could be said of yourself my friend.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:41
I know all about members of the Sass from other countries, The Ghurkas, Sikhs. warrior nations with a similar Psyche to the Scots, I have nothing but respect for them all.
Please, someone hurry! He's getting wee-wee all over the floor!
Can someone please lean over to TBH and hit the reset button?
And why would we want to do that? :confused
A reset button for your posts might be a good idea, though..........because you never produce facts....even when asked......just opinions.....and the opinions of everyone on the org carry just as much weight as yours sans links to proof..
I think it depends where you go, many people in the SW would view them selves as British first and then Cornish or what ever and then may be English.
Good for them, let them fight for their own independence.
Sorry,Rheghead..........but I know Yanks, Australians, Canadians etc who CAN tell the difference.
So do I, so what is your point?:confused Angels on needles? And I bet they would say the E word now and again, not out of ignorance but out of laziness, lack of thought, lack of courtesy, whatever, this sideline issue is no justification to rip a Glorious Union into 2, it is truely trivial.
Please, someone hurry! He's getting wee-wee all over the floor!
Why do I get the impression you have no argument as you appear to have descended to ignorant, stupid off topic comments. :roll:
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:49
A reset button for your posts might be a good idea, though..........because you never produce facts....even when asked......just opinions.....and the opinions of everyone on the org carry just as much weight as yours sans links to proof..We've had this discussion before. A URL does not carry weight all of its own, with the interweb thingie being awash with pages which can prove whatever the claimant wishes them to.
I gave you the title and date of publication for Salmond's claim, and also asked how you believed assetions to have been referenced pace 2001. You will also observe the referenced statements I have made when claiming fact, and my distinguishing them from *comment* or my *opinion*.
This is not cricket. It is not cricket to demand unassailable levels of verification from others whilst treating yer own statements as copper-plated truth.
At least you know what I'm saying. The comment you quote was to say I don't know what the smeg TBH is talking about. And, again, do you have anything to say about the aggressive nationalism displayed on this thread, or are you in the grip of a sense of fabulous disconnect in which you consider an off-the-cuff and deliberately absurd remark against an internet nickname to be far worse?
Failing that, a pointer to anything I have said in support of Saashkavili. It'll be nice.
Admiral Horatio Nelson said "England expects that everyman shall do his duty".
Hang on a mo, England?, wasn't Trafalgar in 1805, some 98 years after Union? Hang on a mo, HMS Victory was populated by lots of women and wasn't Equal pay for women a lot later than 1805?
And yet those immortal words inspired a Nation...:Razz
Please, someone hurry! He's getting wee-wee all over the floor!I thought most of that was running from your mouth to your fingertips?
So do I, so what is your point?:confused Angels on needles? And I bet they would say the E word now and again, not out of ignorance but out of laziness, lack of thought, lack of courtesy, whatever, this sideline issue is no justification to rip a Glorious Union into 2, it is truely trivial.
No, Rheghead...it is not trivial. Are you English by any chance?
When you are in the position of having no say in the matter of the legislation of your country, then the acknowledgment of the fact that you are not a part of England IS important.
I don't think laziness, lack of thought, lack of courtesy, whatever is any excuse for not acknowledging the Union after 300 years. We never call the UK "England".
It isn't perhaps a reason in itself for breaking up the Union..........but it is a symptom of the attitude of the English which has fostered the wish for independence.
Just think...if the English had not been lazy, thoughtless, discourteous, whatever......we'd maybe never got to where we are.
Melancholy Man
22-Aug-08, 23:57
Admiral Horatio Nelson said "England expects that everyman shall do his duty".
Hang on a mo, England?, wasn't Trafalgar in 1805, some 98 years after Union? Hang on a mo, HMS Victory was populated by lots of women and wasn't Equal pay for women a lot later than 1805?
And yet those immortal words inspired a Nation...:Razz
But God is an Englishman.
Admiral Horatio Nelson said "England expects that everyman shall do his duty".
Hang on a mo, England?, wasn't Trafalgar in 1805, some 98 years after Union? Hang on a mo, HMS Victory was populated by lots of women and wasn't Equal pay for women a lot later than 1805?
And yet those immortal words inspired a Nation...:Razz
Maybe so..........but in the days before the Scots decided they were worth more than the English allowed them to have.
We've had this discussion before. A URL does not carry weight all of its own, with the interweb thingie being awash with pages which can prove whatever the claimant wishes them to.
I gave you the title and date of publication for Salmond's claim, and also asked how you believed assetions to have been referenced pace 2001. You will also observe the referenced statements I have made when claiming fact, and my distinguishing them from *comment* or my *opinion*.
This is not cricket. It is not cricket to demand unassailable levels of verification from others whilst treating yer own statements as copper-plated truth.
At least you know what I'm saying. The comment you quote was to say I don't know what the smeg TBH is talking about. And, again, do you have anything to say about the aggressive nationalism displayed on this thread, or are you in the grip of a sense of fabulous disconnect in which you consider an off-the-cuff and deliberately absurd remark against an internet nickname to be far worse?
Failing that, a pointer to anything I have said in support of Saashkavili. It'll be nice.
Please interpret into understandable English, MM.
I'm afraid my A grade Higher English of 42 years ago can't cope with the convolutions of your mind.
Please interpret into understandable English, MM.
I'm afraid my A grade Higher English of 42 years ago can't cope with the convolutions of your mind.
Are you positive it isn't convulsions?
Just think...if the English had not been lazy, thoughtless, discourteous, whatever......we'd maybe never got to where we are.
I don't think that 'just the English' has been the problem. Put young men who were looking for adventure who were from the most impoverished areas of the UK into the most available and biggest employer at the time (Scots into the 19th century British army). And you get a recipe for whatever your hearts desire in terms of success or humanitarian and political disaster. Sad thing is that the whole world now blames it on the English. How convenient for us. But then that has always been the case. English when we are bad, British when we do good.
Welcomefamily
23-Aug-08, 00:07
The power to communicate, a benefit of the union
But God is an Englishman.
On his mother's side perhaps!:lol:
Welcomefamily
23-Aug-08, 00:11
Whats the SNP policy for energy, does it mean we can have more windmills?
Melancholy Man
23-Aug-08, 00:11
Please interpret into understandable English, MM.
I'm afraid my A grade Higher English of 42 years ago can't cope with the convolutions of your mind.
It was perfectly clear, and no more convoluted than your prose. Please don't present yourself as a thickie at the mercy of another's arrogance - I've seen this tactic far too often.
I don't think that 'just the English' has been the problem. Put young men who were looking for adventure who were from the most impoverished areas of the UK into the most available and biggest employer at the time (Scots into the 19th century British army). And you get a recipe for whatever your hearts desire in terms of success or humanitarian and political disaster. Sad thing is that the whole world now blames it on the English. How convenient for us.
Let's not talk crap, Rheghead...........you are talking about my ancestors..........and they were not looking for adventure......they were looking for a method of making a living..because the Clearances had removed the obvious method.
Those who weren't cleared to elsewhere or overseas joined the army because their options were limited.
I'm not saying that all those involved in initiating the Highland Clearances were English................but sure as hell they were English educated and influenced.
Rheghead...........if you consider that the English by population outnumbered the rest of the UK by a vast proportion.....and the Parliament reflected that...........why would you assume that the English were not to blame for every single thing imposed on NI, Wales and Scotland for hundreds of years....because, even together, the non-English couldn't outvote the English MPs?
It was perfectly clear, and no more convoluted than your prose. Please don't present yourself as a thickie at the mercy of another's arrogance - I've seen this tactic far too often.
Honestly, MM....it isn't perfectly clear.................but I'll have a look at it in the cold light of day tomorrow and see if it makes more sense.
Whats the SNP policy for energy, does it mean we can have more windmills?
I hope not up here..........but your guess is as good as mine!
Melancholy Man
23-Aug-08, 00:31
Yes, I'll take a step back from remarks against the person, Oddquine.
The claims of abandonement and sense of intense aggrievement being expressed in this thread are entirely self contained - particular instances of 'English' policy towards Scotland are the pits only because *it* *is* *said* *so* - and the, isolated by all-the-same toxic sentiments expressed are forgiveable because the speakers offers themselves absolution. Thus, the mafia could claim to to be honest businessmen because they say so. A shop could sell cigarettes to 16 year olds because it has decided it's justified to do so.
I recently received an infraction for expressing racist views (and several replies to the Moderator appear to have been duly ignored), despite, in all honesty, having consistently argued against racist against different groups. The reason? I wrote an epiphet which, again frankly, most readers here would have had to check the eminently reliable Urban Dictionary for one meaning of; and one which has been *appropriated* as a racist epithet. That is, it's racist because someone says it is.
And, note this, a simple reading of my sentance would have made it abundantly clear that I was not, against the Code of Conduct, expressing these views myself, but opposing them.
Maybe the moderators think it's family entertainment when the dogs of aggressive nationalism are being let slip against the English and disloyal Scots. Or cannot see the inconsistency in my infraction and allowing a self-confessed BNP voter to repeat policy of an avowedly racist political party.
It was perfectly clear, and no more convoluted than your prose. Please don't present yourself as a thickie at the mercy of another's arrogance - I've seen this tactic far too often.You talk of arrogance and go around in circles offering much but providing very little.
Melancholy Man
23-Aug-08, 00:37
As I said TBH, please read what I wrote.
English when we are bad, British when we do good.Sounds like the Brown's approach to credit for the economy.
you are talking about my ancestors
Aw c'mon, you just brought into the discussion about historical references to Darien which happened a 100 years beforehand and tried to cast doubts on English intentions towards its success etc. :roll:
As I said TBH, please read what I wrote.
Sounds like the Brown's approach to credit for the economy.Or Scottish when Scotland does bad, British when Scotland does good, deny that and you are a very misguided individual.
Scotland has always done good,, for godsake we won the british empire for them,,,:)
and practillay invented everything worth inventing..
Also from the Scottish Government...the bit you missed out........ In 2006-07, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £6.7 billion (6.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £6.0 billion (5.5 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a surplus of £0.8 billion (0.7 per cent of GDP) including an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue.
And that was before the oil price hike....and not including the stuff we contribute towards which can't be allocated!
No, I never missed that out at all. That was for the "public sector" only, not the complete "fiscal balance". Read the link again.
As for "oil prce hikes" I've mentioned this before on previous threads. The 60p a litre or whatever the government takes hasn't changed over the last few years. Whether it's £1 a litre for petrol or £1.30, the government takes 60p. It's not a percentage they take.
i would rather the Central belt than london and the m25 any day,,
why should scots people have to move down their to get a decent wage/ life
etc ,, i beleive in a democracy we all get treated the same,, and paid the same for same work,,
the class system has never been more rife,, thanks new labour , saved the tories a lot of work:D
Sorry, but what do you work as?
I'm pretty sure the minimum wage in London is the same as in Wick, and I'm also pretty sure that a Tesco, as an axample, pay the same wages nationwide.
There are exceptions to the rule, teachers for example get an extra few thousand a year to attract them to work in London where the living standards are lower and cost of living higher.
I've got no problem with a class system. The Doctor who has spent 7 years in university being educated to a high level in a hih stress job deserves more money than I do in my work. If he wasn't paid well. why would he do it?
You can blame the Tories and Labour all you want, you're not a nationalist, you're a Communist.
Well said, straight to the point and hits the nail clean on the head.
Ginajade speaks with genuine passion...and if push comes to shove that is what it is all about....and the Passions in Scotland are rising to be rulers of their own heart and minds...to be free, to face whatever struggles there may or may not be..........To be a Nation again.
You've hit the nail on the head there for me too.
"To be Free"???????????????? Are you really oppressed?
To "be a nation again"??????? We are a proud Nation, I'm a proud Scottish Brit. Taking away the "Brit" doesn't improve anything.
Why are so many keen to be "independent scots" again, lets go back a few hundred years more and make Caithness and "Southernland" part of Norway again? I honestly don't feel anymore affiliation with someone from Glasgow than with someone from Newcastle.
What if Shetland decides to remain in the Union? Serious question.
Then, a huge percentage of the oil reserves in "Scottish" waters would remain in the UK.
If Shetland became an independent country on it's own, it would easily be one of the richest countries in the world.
Welcomefamily
23-Aug-08, 09:22
GAME, SET and MATCH maybe????? :confused:lol:
Then, a huge percentage of the oil reserves in "Scottish" waters would remain in the UK.
If Shetland became an independent country on it's own, it would easily be one of the richest countries in the world.
Melancholy Man
23-Aug-08, 10:45
you are talking about my ancestors.
You're a descendant of William Patterson {*} et al.? Unless you're a Shinto or terminally insecure, I don't see how negative comments against them could count as a personal attack.
Does this mean that all we have to do is find two descendants of those Indians whom they intended to forcibably incorporate into the Scottish Empire, and you'd have to be quiet? Likewise, when you quote a government minister who said something or other, would quotes of two government ministers who said the contrary win the day?
Scotland has always done good,, for godsake we won the british empire for them,,,:o)
Ah, back to the Darien argument as special pleading. It's a valid wish for self-determination to have your nose put out of joint that, in the 1690s, Scotland wasn't able to establish a colonial empire and deny self-determination to indigenous inhabitants? And what ken would Ayrshire farmers or Gaelic peasants or Edinburgh guttersnipes have had of Darien? No more than Yorkshire weavers or Avon farmers or denizens of Cheapside. (I know "self-determination" is a modern concept, but we're dealing with the attitude of Scottish Exceptionalism in which any denial of any Scot, of any class, any when is, sui generis, an affront to nature and the fault of the English.)
Never mind, Edinburgh bankers and Glasgow merchants and Highland land-owners got their chance to evict a population en masse and make a profit from the land 100 years later with the Clearances.
Or Scottish when Scotland does bad, British when Scotland does good, deny that and you are a very misguided individual.
Grow up.
You can blame the Tories and Labour all you want, you're not a nationalist, you're a Communist.
And we all know what happens when they get in charge, boys and girls.
lets go back a few hundred years more and make Caithness and "Southernland" part of Norway again?I have fond memories of hearing German tourists ask the way to ze Sudenland. Oh, ja, we have a few froinds joining us. Fifty thousand heading up the A9 in Panzers.
* Like Salmond, an Edinburgh banker who made himself rich with London's aid, and then claimed special-needs for create a Scottish colony.
teenybash
23-Aug-08, 22:14
Are you real MM.....?:roll:
DeHaviLand
23-Aug-08, 22:59
Are you real MM.....?:roll:
Unfortunately!
Whats the SNP policy for energy, does it mean we can have more windmills?
You've mentioned the dreaded "W" word, I would start running now or THEY might get you for mentioning that word ;) I am too scared to even type that word, you should know the consequence of mentioning THAT word!
And that mouse keeps looking at me, make it stop I cant get to sleep ;)
northener
24-Aug-08, 19:28
Whats the SNP policy for energy, does it mean we can have more windmills?
Well, the SNP state they are comitted to renewable energy source generation and that Mr Salmond is anti-nuclear power.
Sounds fine, doesn't it? Until you remember that this SNP is the same SNP that turned down the Lewis Windmill project (one of the biggest in Scotland) yet has allowed a windmill planning free-for-all in Caithness!
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that there a lot of people on here who are convinced that there is untold wealth under the seas for Scotland, and as soon as the SNP achieve the Nirvana of Independance - then all Scotlands' problems will disappear.
So, we have a political party that promotes renewables - yet rejects anything 'big and nasty' on the Western isles at the expense of Caithness, refuses to acknowledge a possible role for Nuclear but will be more than happy to strip out every last drop of Hydrocarbon fuel in the North Sea as long as Scotland gets the exclusive revenue.[disgust]
SNP hypocrisy?
BTW, they've not met their pledge to supply more police officers either. Another example of buttering up the masses with 'popular' decision making?
SNP latest - bigger pints and longer fags when we get Independance! Hooray![lol]
Welcomefamily
24-Aug-08, 20:13
I suppose we could have some new oil fired power stations built, one in Caithness and one in Sutherland as they will not want them in the central belt.
Melancholy Man
24-Aug-08, 22:07
Well, the SNP state they are comitted to renewable energy source generation and that Mr Salmond is anti-nuclear power.
Presumably Salmond raised this issue of the Iranian nuclear programme with Rasoul Movahedian when the pair met (http://news.scotsman.com/leadercomment/Iran-mischiefmaking-is-a-threat.3878277.jp) in March. Presumably. Or is not one of those "similar views" Iran and Scotland hold (just let's assume the Fish-heid speaks for Scotland, inclusive)?
Like execution of homosexuals.
Of course.
Are you real MM.....?:roll:
The ruling classes tried to get rid of me after Kennington Common in 1848, but I'm back!
Presumably Salmond raised this issue of the Iranian nuclear programme with Rasoul Movahedian when the pair met (http://news.scotsman.com/leadercomment/Iran-mischiefmaking-is-a-threat.3878277.jp) in March. Presumably. Or is not one of those "similar views" Iran and Scotland hold (just let's assume the Fish-heid speaks for Scotland, inclusive)?
Like execution of homosexuals.
Of course.
The ruling classes tried to get rid of me after Kennington Common in 1848, but I'm back!Did Salmond steal your sweety money or something, Grow up.:roll:
Welcomefamily
25-Aug-08, 09:16
You've mentioned the dreaded "W" word, I would start running now or THEY might get you for mentioning that word ;) I am too scared to even type that word, you should know the consequence of mentioning THAT word!
And that mouse keeps looking at me, make it stop I cant get to sleep ;)
flaiche/gaothe muileann? I think there are so many variations of wind.
I have now hit rock bottom.
As for the mouse, "Just imagine he saying ssssh" it was him or a little yapping puppy or an old sea dog pirate at the wheel.
On the news today I didn't quite catch what the topic was but Mr Salmond ended his arguement with " It''ll make Mr Brown go home tae think again" - Anyone else despair at the level our polititians debating skills? When the SNP stop using chip on the shoulder politics then maybe I'd respect them more.
northener
25-Aug-08, 09:29
On the news today I didn't quite catch what the topic was but Mr Salmond ended his arguement with " It''ll make Mr Brown go home tae think again" - Anyone else despair at the level our polititians debating skills? When the SNP stop using chip on the shoulder politics then maybe I'd respect them more.
Crikey, and there's me thinking I was the only one who thought that this was rather a pathetic rabble-rouser of a soundbite. I nearly choked on my porridge with laughter when he said it![lol]
I have a sneaking suspicion it was said with a certain amount of humour - but it didn't come across as well as it could.
BTW it was about 'Team GB' football, I'm sure you can work out what Mr Salmonds' stance was....
Melancholy Man
25-Aug-08, 09:44
Did Salmond steal your sweety money or something,
Richness all-round. Your 'concern' for abuse of power and human rights apparently expressed in your whimsical asides against American foreign policy suddenly becomes fluid Salmond hob-nobbs with the Khomenists. I have little doubt you'd be the first to revile Tony Blair or the current PM for relations with the House of Saud, but here you are unable to muster interest at our belovéd leader's fascination with totalitarianism when it ain't Western and he doesn't have to live under it.
Human rights should be respected by human beings, not self-selecting sub-groups of the species. I know lots of Nats, and they're lovely people. Shame about the sentiment their leader engenders.
Grow up.:roll:I said that in respond to your persistent attempts to pervert the nature of discussion and bizarrely accusational retorts to me - "it's not your style" - and childish refusals to provide substance for your claims. Still waiting. Still waiting for a single shard of evidence that I have expressed support for Sashkaavili or sought to exculpate him.
Your response? The post-modern gag of turning a remark back on the questioner without explanation - the school-yard taunt "he steal your sweetie" does not count as grown-up talk - as if it suddenly carries meaning because you utter it.
Compared to you, the Fish-Heid is Oscar Wilde.
Tom Cornwall
27-Aug-08, 16:06
Whats the SNP policy for energy, does it mean we can have more windmills?
Has the SNP got an energy policy??
Welcomefamily
27-Aug-08, 19:15
Has the SNP got an energy policy??
I dont know what their policy except anti nuc and they are keen on renewables, if at some time in the next few days I can find nothing else I could be doing instead such as watching paint dry. I will have a look at their site. :)
Has the SNP got an energy policy??
SNP=Several New Policies. A shame they won't tell us what they are.
As for Salmond, methinks he should take a long walk off of a short plank.
Melancholy Man
27-Aug-08, 23:04
I dont know what their policy except anti nuc and they are keen on renewables,
Such as oil. This will be renewed by impressing on the Shetlanders that sharing is the name of the game (doesn't apply to the rest of the UK, of course), especially when it's realized just how much will not pass from standard English waters and money has to be found for university fees or nursing home care. Then, when that runs out, our own little oil war with the Faroese and seagulls of Rockall.
"Scottish Nationalist Party", from an ancient Sanskrit word for, "I have my head up my rear end and am looking for my spectacles".
peter macdonald
27-Aug-08, 23:55
Oh well Now lets get to policies and have a look at new Labour and what it did for Scotland in the years it ran the parliament in Edinburgh ????? Other than its leader (Henry Macleish) getting chased for a problem with declaring income not a lot Oh yes we have a problem with the free care for the elderly policy that was introduced ...except it wasnt free (thats why WW2 veterans in Wick who worked all their days and paid tax as the law demanded had their houses repossesed to pay for the "free care") great eh
Now lets see how they have done in opposition ?? Opposition to doing away with prescription charges ......must be a first for a "Socialist party that one" Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave .... I did see in the Scotsman that NHS targets in Scotland were being met ...unlike before and when challenged on this policy George Foulkes held his hands in horror and said that the SNP were deliberatly trying to improve life in Scotland!!!! Cant have that then!!! Oh then we had inflicted on the low paid the loss of the 10 % tax band..Oh well wont hurt the Bernie Ecclestones of the this world but go ask a hospital cleaner about whats happened to the amount of tax they are paying recently
There is also a wee story about Wendy Alexander and her election expenses....except the election never took place did it?? and then there was the episode in Monklands and the strange tale of the reluctance of New Labour candidates in Glasgow East (dodgy land deal over Paddys market???) but that would take me on to New labour sleaze and I think there is a limit to how much you can type in one post .. so wont go there sorry cant go there
The SNP are not doing well in all things but at least they seem to be trying to stand up for the people of Scotland ...something a heck of a lot of New Labour politicians in Scotland forgot how to do... Glasgow East ..in some parts a life expectancy less than Gambia.. a standard of living akin to Lithuania .. and that after 50 years of voting Labour No wonder they wanted a change
A couple of final points ...I see that a lot of the anti SNP posters on this forum dont either live or pay taxes in Scotland ... Sorry guys but to me your opinions are like that of pro SNP exiles ie they matter little .... If you are here and contributing then great Arch Unionist Orangeman SSP Celt Quaker etc etc etc Go for it ..have your say ...its your right you live here and its your future !!
Also why is it that the attacks on the first minister have to be personal ??? Very childish
PM
ps I see a few comments on energy policy If New Labour are committed to a British Nuclear programme then why are they trying to sell the programme to a French Government owned company ??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7536479.stm
PM
Melancholy Man
28-Aug-08, 00:17
Here, Peter, d'you want a comma? I've got lots
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh well Now lets get to policies and have a look at new Labour and what it did for Scotland in the years it ran the parliament in Edinburgh ?????No we won't. We will concentrate on the SNP. Unionism and Labour are not interchangeable. I have never been a member of the Labour party and, even if I were, would not feel the need to defend them when they did bad. I have been and remain critical of a lot of what has been enacted, but this could be addressed by clearing the decks of mediocre ministers, administers and hacks with little experience beyond party politics, not to mention "human rights lawyers". In my experience answering a question with a question is a sign you cannot answer the original question.
A couple of final points ...I see that a lot of the anti SNP posters on this forum dont either live or pay taxes in ScotlandI do. I suspect that if you count the rest, you'll find that at least 4:5 also do. Off to top of my head, I can think only of Scotsboy. By the way, I'm including those living elsewhere in the UK because their taxes go to the same source, and it's not for you or me to define who's Scottish and who's un-Scottish. I will also observe that the logical conclusion of this is that all those Scots who "made the modern world" ceased to deserve our respect/admiration when they emigrated.
must be a first for a "Socialist party that one" Nye Bevan must be turning in his graveMany in the British Labour Party were, indeed, socialists, but it was never a dedicated socialist party. Thank goodness. It was based on trade unionism and workers rights.
The SNP are not doing well in all things but at least they seem to be trying to stand up for the people of Scotland ...something a heck of a lot of New Labour politicians in Scotland forgot how to do... Glasgow East ..in some parts a life expectancy less than Gambia.. a standard of living akin to Lithuania .. and that after 50 years of voting Labour No wonder they wanted a changeThat's reasonable, but could rebound back on the Nats who thought Glasgow East was a vote for them. No, it was a vote for the standard opposition party in Scotland. As happens everywhere.
Such as those socially deprived areas of England and Wales. I hope this ain't going to degenerate into another Scottish exceptionalism tirade.
peter macdonald
28-Aug-08, 07:09
Quote:Oh well Now lets get to policies and have a look at new Labour and what it did for Scotland in the years it ran the parliament in Edinburgh ?????
No we won't. We will concentrate on the SNP. Unionism and Labour are not interchangeable. I have never been a member of the Labour party and, even if I were, would not feel the need to defend them when they did bad. I have been and remain critical of a lot of what has been enacted, but this could be addressed by clearing the decks of mediocre ministers, administers and hacks with little experience beyond party politics, not to mention "human rights lawyers". In my experience answering a question with a question is a sign you cannot answer the original question.
Dont care if you have been a member of the Labour Party .. Not my business
Clearing the decks etc would leave the Scottish Labour party would leave only a small rump thats why they could not get enough MSPs to afford a challenge to Wendy Alexander,hence she was elected without an election ,an event that led to her resignation ...The question marks were there as a meant "what did the Scottish Labour party do in their years in power in Edinburgh ???? Not too much and when Jack MacConnel did try to implement their own ideas he was hauled up by Blair etc in Westminster
Quote:A couple of final points ...I see that a lot of the anti SNP posters on this forum dont either live or pay taxes in Scotland
I do. I suspect that if you count the rest, you'll find that at least 4:5 also do. Off to top of my head, I can think only of Scotsboy. By the way, I'm including those living elsewhere in the UK because their taxes go to the same source, and it's not for you or me to define who's Scottish and who's un-Scottish. I will also observe that the logical conclusion of this is that all those Scots who "made the modern world" ceased to deserve our respect/admiration when they emigrated.
Please yourself but my comments are about Scotland and the people who pay tax there and those who dont
Quote:must be a first for a "Socialist party that one" Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave
Many in the British Labour Party were, indeed, socialists, but it was never a dedicated socialist party. Thank goodness. It was based on trade unionism and workers rights.
The ILP (which became the Labour party ) also were in favour of a Scottish parliament (It supportted the Home Rule Bill introduced by the Liberals in 1914 A bill that was lost because of the outbreak of WW1)....which just like its protection of trade union and workers rights ..it seems to have forgotten about
Quote:The SNP are not doing well in all things but at least they seem to be trying to stand up for the people of Scotland ...something a heck of a lot of New Labour politicians in Scotland forgot how to do... Glasgow East ..in some parts a life expectancy less than Gambia.. a standard of living akin to Lithuania .. and that after 50 years of voting Labour No wonder they wanted a change
That's reasonable, but could rebound back on the Nats who thought Glasgow East was a vote for them. No, it was a vote for the standard opposition party in Scotland. As happens everywhere.
Such as those socially deprived areas of England and Wales. I hope this ain't going to degenerate into another Scottish exceptionalism tirade.
Not by me If you want to debate the state of English and Welsh politics you need to find someone else
PM
peter macdonald
28-Aug-08, 07:15
MM
""Here, Peter, d'you want a comma? I've got lots""
If I had seen this before Id written my last post I certainly would not have bothered ....
Good Day to you all and no further comment
PM
Welcomefamily
28-Aug-08, 07:36
Its a shame you feel that way PM as some of us do read your views as well, there are some areas the SNP are exceptional at and the rest of Britain should learn from them. A recent example would be there policy on Medication which allowed a very important medication to come to the market 14 months quicker than in England, their presciption charges and a number of other issues. However I do feel that breaking up the union will be a grave mistake.
Oh well Now lets get to policies and have a look at new Labour and what it did for Scotland in the years it ran the parliament in Edinburgh ????? Other than its leader (Henry Macleish) getting chased for a problem with declaring income not a lot Oh yes we have a problem with the free care for the elderly policy that was introduced ...except it wasnt free (thats why WW2 veterans in Wick who worked all their days and paid tax as the law demanded had their houses repossesed to pay for the "free care") great eh
Now lets see how they have done in opposition ?? Opposition to doing away with prescription charges ......must be a first for a "Socialist party that one" Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave .... I did see in the Scotsman that NHS targets in Scotland were being met ...unlike before and when challenged on this policy George Foulkes held his hands in horror and said that the SNP were deliberatly trying to improve life in Scotland!!!! Cant have that then!!! Oh then we had inflicted on the low paid the loss of the 10 % tax band..Oh well wont hurt the Bernie Ecclestones of the this world but go ask a hospital cleaner about whats happened to the amount of tax they are paying recently
There is also a wee story about Wendy Alexander and her election expenses....except the election never took place did it?? and then there was the episode in Monklands and the strange tale of the reluctance of New Labour candidates in Glasgow East (dodgy land deal over Paddys market???) but that would take me on to New labour sleaze and I think there is a limit to how much you can type in one post .. so wont go there sorry cant go there
The SNP are not doing well in all things but at least they seem to be trying to stand up for the people of Scotland ...something a heck of a lot of New Labour politicians in Scotland forgot how to do... Glasgow East ..in some parts a life expectancy less than Gambia.. a standard of living akin to Lithuania .. and that after 50 years of voting Labour No wonder they wanted a change
A couple of final points ...I see that a lot of the anti SNP posters on this forum dont either live or pay taxes in Scotland ... Sorry guys but to me your opinions are like that of pro SNP exiles ie they matter little .... If you are here and contributing then great Arch Unionist Orangeman SSP Celt Quaker etc etc etc Go for it ..have your say ...its your right you live here and its your future !!
Also why is it that the attacks on the first minister have to be personal ??? Very childish
PM
ps I see a few comments on energy policy If New Labour are committed to a British Nuclear programme then why are they trying to sell the programme to a French Government owned company ??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7536479.stm
PM
As someone who lives and works outside the UK I agree that I should have less of a say than those who permanently reside there, however the Government does not, and I get the same voting rights as residents. I don’t pay income tax, but am required to make tax returns for property etc and also make voluntary National Insurance contributions.
Obviously it is your choice to listen to or ignore someone else’s view, but I would suggest that many people have valid opinions even though they may not be directly affected by events. In my own case I am an unashamed Unionist, however if you check back through this post you will see that I have said that it appears that Alex Salmond and the SNP are doing a good job.
You make some excellent points in your post Peter.
I see that a lot of the anti SNP posters on this forum dont either live or pay taxes in Scotland ...
A wee question PM, does Sean Connery live and pay taxes in Scotland? I think not, he is Scotlands biggest tax exile [lol]
AfternoonDelight
28-Aug-08, 11:09
Well said, Rob! I discovered that 40 years ago when first attending a conference in Edinburgh. The delegates from the central belt were not at all interested in anything/anyone north of Perth.
And are you interested in anything south of Caithness?
Melancholy Man
28-Aug-08, 11:10
Golach, you probably missed it in the wall of text, but Peter did indeed declare excommunicated Scots living abroad. I ain't about to do the same with Nats, but this attitude is depressingly familiar. With one of two exceptions on this forum (Catabh springs to mind), the Nats easily segue into the politics of reaction and implicit assumption they are gatekeepers for the term Scottish.
Although a Unionist, I support some degree of devolution, which I hope will instil a sense of self-reliance and not the self-entitlement encouraged by Salmond. If there's one group which has a great notion of exceptionalism and self-entitlement, it's Islamists; which may be why the Fish-heid finds such common ground with Osama Saeed et al..
MM
If I had seen this before Id written my last post I certainly would not have bothered ....
Good Day to you all and no further comment
PM
Oh, diddums, did the nasty man say something howwid to you? In all honesty, if you cannot cope with a minor retort like that, you should not be entering into this fray, but engaging in less stressful conversation. Like cross-stitching.
But, your post was confrontational and vituperative. In itself, this ain't a problem - this is the Interweb after all - but following by such whining self-pity, is pretty silly. There is no excuse for not following correct grammar, punctuation and syntax in the age of high speed connexions. I can't sing, but don't boast about it.
Please yourself but my comments are about Scotland and the people who pay tax there and those who dont Which, I am willing to bet a few pence, is what most of the Unionists on this forum do. Also, taking an Internet forum, with readership in double-figures, as a representative sample of opinion is, well, fraught with difficulties.
Clearing the decks etc would leave the Scottish Labour party would leave only a small rumpLets go back to what I said. It wasn't about those who've worked with constituency politics for years, even decades, and got their hands dirty in genuine Leftist initiatives. It was about English lit or business graduates or middle management who went from university or successive state/quango funded posts into the party machine, or appointed themselves protectors of our civil liberties. Say what you like about David Davis, but at least he has some experience of the real world.
I do think the SNP are doing tolerably well, but this is as much a reflection on the complacency Scottish Labour fell into. All is vanity, though, and the SNP already have a plush seat on the gravy train with their leader.
Dont care if you have been a member of the Labour PartyIndeed you do. What was a discussion about Salmond and Unionism was turned into a condemnation of New Labour. You clearly think that opponents of the SNP are supportive of New Labour.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.